PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

May 10, 2016                    HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVIII No. 25


 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

 

Admit strangers.

 

I'd like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today Mr. Robert Gosse and former Premier Beaton Tulk.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Statements by Members

 

MR. SPEAKER: For Members' statements today we have the Members for Conception Bay South, St. George's – Humber, St. John's Centre, Baie Verte – Green Bay and Fogo Island – Cape Freels. 

 

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues about an exceptional individual from my district who was named Conception Bay South 2015 Citizen of the Year. Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the Conception Bay South Lions Club 45th anniversary Charter Night where the award was presented to Mr. Robert T. Dawe.

 

Robert is a former teacher of Queen Elizabeth Regional High school and also served as the English department head from 1971 to 1977. He mentored many students in public speaking and debating in regional, provincial and national levels. He coached students for a provincial heritage award, composed plays, poems and songs for celebrations and official openings.

 

Robert authored the Prentice Hall publisher's school textbook Resourcelines used in Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada to assist in improving students' reading, writing, speaking, listening and viewing skills. He is a member of the Vestry, People's Warden and presently serves as the Eucharistic assistant at St. John the Evangelist Church, Topsail. Robert, along with the committee, helped raise funds to install and dedicate 17 stained-glass church windows; each window being unique and telling a Biblical story.

 

I congratulate Robert for his commitment and achievements and ask all hon. Members to join with me in recognizing his contribution to our community and this province.

 

Thank you. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. George's – Humber. 

 

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

I rise today to pay tribute to Patricia Farrell who has been Canada's number one women's dart player for the last two years. Patricia Farrell now has her eyes set on the World Masters tournament in London, England, where she will participate against the best in the world this fall. No woman from Canada has earned the World Masters title before. She is thrilled about the opportunity to represent Canada and to play amongst the best in the world.

 

Patricia has been playing darts for a long time, and 2016 marks her 30th year at national-level competition. She knows playing against the world's best will be intimidating. In fact, it isn't her first shot at it. She attended the World Masters several times in the past and has placed in the top 16.

 

This invitation to the World Masters is really exciting for Patricia. This has been a good year for her. She has attended a lot of tournaments and had much practice. So this year will be her best chance to be the best in the world in her field.

 

I ask all Members to join with me in wishing Patricia Farrell all the best in her quest to be the best women's dart player in the world.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

This weekend saw the annual Atlantic Journalism Awards ceremony in Halifax and as usual, Newfoundland and Labrador newsrooms came away with well-deserved gold and silver awards for all our major media outlets.

 

I would like to give particular recognition to a journalist who is a long-time resident of St. John's Centre. Barb Sweet won gold in feature writing for print for her intriguingly titled story “Down the maggot hole.”

 

And a well-deserved award it was. The suspenseful story of a man saving himself from what looked certain death enthralled readers from the across the country and sparked interest in the safety issues surrounding abandoned septic tanks.

 

Barb Sweet is no stranger to recognition for her work. In her more than 20 years at The Telegram, she has won many Atlantic Journalism Awards and several national awards, including a National Newspaper Award in 2013 for her series on the ongoing fallout of the Mount Cashel sex abuse scandal.

 

Her work is compassionate yet hard hitting. She cares a lot and asks tough questions. Her stories have caused investigations, changes to policy and discussion in this House.

 

Bravo to Barb and to all other local winners at this year's Atlantic Journalism Awards.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay.

 

MR. WARR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise in this hon. House to recap a thrilling championship tournament recently hosted in my district.

 

The 2A Boys Ball Hockey championship was hosted at Valmont Academy in King's Point between May 5 and May 7. Nine teams participated in this tournament, hailing from every corner of our province. It was an amazing event from start to finish.

 

The host team, the Valmont Academy Vikings, came away with the championship after an undefeated record of 5 wins, no losses. The championship came down to the final seconds as the Vikings staved off the Main River Academy Warriors in the all Central West final to a score of 7-6.

 

The Vikings were victorious and celebrated with a motorcade that ran through town. Coaches Adam Matthews and Stephen Earle credit the win to the hard work and determination of the platers. The team, Brenden Keats, Matthew Burt, Skyler Budgell, Brandon Burt, Douglas Squires, Jordan Janes, Kobe Welshman, Nicholas Warr, Riley Burt, Colten Warford and Kaelan Rideout are to be commended for their fine play and sportsmanship. Great job as always, Valmont Academy!

 

I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating them on their win.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo Island – Cape Freels.

 

MR. BRAGG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It is with great sadness that I rise in this hon. House to pay my final respects to a constituent of mine who passed far too soon.

 

Suzanne Brown of Badger's Quay died on Saturday, April 30, in a car accident at the age of 37. She was a courageous and well-loved young woman who overcame countless medical obstacles that challenged her from birth onwards.

 

Her family describes her as a young woman who loved local music and puzzles, dollar stores and board games. But, they say, her real love was bingo. Suzanne helped her mom and dad with Beothic Arena bingo over a number of summers. More recently, she was very fond of Monday night bingo in Centreville.

 

She loved Special Olympics bowling, which took place at the Badger's Quay Lions Club. She loved her fellow Special Olympians and their families even more. Her community is deeply saddened by her tragic passing.

 

I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in celebrating the life of Suzanne Brown.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

The Commemoration of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

 

MR. SPEAKER: Today for Honour 100 we have the Member for the District of Harbour Main.

 

MS. PARSLEY: I will now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve or the Newfoundland Forestry Corps. This will be followed by a moment of silence.

 

Lest we forget: William Robert McNiven, Hugh Walter McWhirter, William Mead, Robert Meadus, Dennis F. Mealey, John A. Meaney, Bernard Meehan, Thomas Melee, Frederick Courtney Mellor, Allan Mercer, Chesley Mercer, Jasper Mercer, John B. Mercer, Maxwell James Mercer, Nathan Mercer, Percy Mercer, Robert Mercer, William Mercer, Joseph Mesh, Charles A. Mesher, William Messervey, William Mews, Chesley James Mifflin, Augustus Miles, Heber John Miles, Thomas William Miles, Victor William Miles, Benjamin Miller, Fred Miller,

George Miller, George H. Miller, Harold Miller, William Patrick Miller, Joseph Mills, George Mitchelmore, Isaac Mitchelmore, Samuel Mitchelmore, William Molloy, Edward Joseph Monahan, James Raymond Mooney.

 

(Moment of silence.)

 

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated.

 

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker, today, May 10, is Census Day in this province and across the country.

 

Early in May, households in Newfoundland and Labrador received yellow census packages delivered to their homes. These packages provided residents with the information they need to complete the census online or on paper. Once completed and returned, the data collected from the questionnaires will provide invaluable information to all levels of government for decisions concerning our province and our communities.

 

Mr. Speaker, the census collects information about every person in our country and the results are important to Canada, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. Funding formulas for major federal transfer payments to provinces, like the health and social transfers this province receives, are based, in part, on population counts. The federal government uses this information for the allocation of funding, and in turn that allows us to plan for essential programs.

 

Furthermore, our province uses census information in planning and monitoring programs in such areas as health care, education and social assistance. We also depend on census information when planning roads, waterworks, public transit and police and fire services. Town planners use census data on households and families to plan current and future housing needs and municipal infrastructure.

 

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that our community is changing and census data helps us understand the demographic, social and economic information we need to address those changes. The importance of the census to our province cannot be overemphasized that's why we urge every resident of Newfoundland and Labrador to participate this May in the 2016 Census.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I, too, would like to encourage residents of the province to go online and fill out the Canadian Census. The information provided in the census will be publicly available and will guide important decisions in industry, government and private lives.

 

The minister in her statement recognized that our community is changing. Indeed, it is. I would also like to point out the minister's own budget predicts and is responsible for job losses here in the province. The decrease in employment will lead to population decline in our province.

 

Budget 2016 does nothing to encourage our young residents to stay here and start families. The budget does nothing to bring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are working elsewhere home.

 

Our province needs to grow its population in order to succeed in today's world. Instead, this budget, with its increased fees and programming cuts, has cleared the runway for out-migration.

 

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 minister for the advance copy of her statement. Canadians really are glad to see the return of the long-form census which is essential to governments across Canada in their social and economic planning. They are showing they are doing the census fairly well, really early on.

 

It's too bad this government, when in Opposition, didn't see what they see now and didn't see the need to wait for the latest census before supporting electoral boundary changes. It's unacceptable that they are now closing schools, relying on outdated census figures.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

 

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize Innovation Week in our province. With the theme being “Accelerating Innovation,” Innovation Week brings together start-ups, youth, business and public partners in a creative forum to connect and exchange ideas to contribute to the growth of the provincial economy.

 

Over five days this week, a total of 16 partner organizations will roll out 17 events to kick-start creative thinking and collaboration in key sectors. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of kicking off Innovation Week along with key innovation stakeholders in our province at the launch event at Common Ground. The complete event schedule is available at www.innovationweek.ca.

 

Innovation has a remarkable influence on our province's social and economic development and there is unlimited potential we have yet to develop. That's why our government is excited to work with various levels of government, industry and our academic partners, to align our efforts in support of a new Provincial Innovation Strategy – all with the goal of making our economy more competitive.

 

Mr. Speaker, according to statistics from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries (Nati), the province's technology sector alone includes over 170 companies, over 4,000 employees and over $1.6 billion in annual revenues.

 

Working with innovation stakeholders, our Innovation Plan will focus on ways in which we can measurably advance firm-level innovation, productivity, and competitiveness and maximize benefits associated with private and public research and technology investments in all sectors of the economy.

 

Thank you. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. We're pleased to join with government in celebrating Innovation Week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

As the minister said, 170 companies, 4,000 employees, $1.6 billion in annual revenues in just one sector alone. Newfoundland and Labrador has come a long way in the technology sector. I'm proud to state that much of this growth was because government worked with the sector, partnered with the sector, fostered growth and invested statically over the last number of years. We focused on real economic diversification in a number of key sectors, but we recognize there is more to be done in a number of sectors and I know the minister acknowledges that as well.

 

At the launch of Innovation Week yesterday, the minister mentioned the red book commitment to develop a new innovation strategy. It's a shame that commitment wasn't really reflected in the recent budget. There are sectors with so much potential and it's critical that we introduce new strategies to simulate innovation.

 

The new strategy can't simply be about just funding existing programs or moving money around.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. KENT: We need new approaches, Mr. Speaker. Government overall needs to be innovative and government can learn a lot from our province's innovative and passionate entrepreneurs.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

The Member's time for speaking has expired. 

 

MR. KENT: Thank you. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre. 

 

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We are all excited about innovation and creativity. We are all excited about new opportunity, but good ideas require not only hard work but investment to be developed.

 

We have heard lots of rhetoric and platitudes from government on innovation and diversification but where are the real concrete commitments to investments in Budget 2016? Bravo to our daring innovators and creative thinkers. I invite the minister to attend Common Front on Thursday evening for more creative thinking. 

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

 

Oral Questions.

 

Oral Questions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

Mr. Speaker, yesterday here in the House of Assembly the Minister of Justice refused to give an answer right here in the House when he was asked if the proposed pay raise for provincial court judges had been budgeted. Immediately after Question Period when he met with the media, he confirmed the money had been budgeted.

 

I ask the Premier: Will you decline this additional cost of increases for salaries for our judges and use the budgeted funding to eliminate the closure of libraries?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I am certainly happy to speak to this very important matter again. This is the independent report that was done on judicial salaries. That's done every four years. In fact, in this case the tribunal came back and recommended a 14 per cent increase – one that we did budget, as you would, because you cannot prejudge the resolution that will come to this House. However, budgeting any amount doesn't mean that you will be supporting the recommendations or voting for them. That's something that will be done in this House. Cabinet has an opportunity to accept, to alter or to decline the recommendations.

 

Again, I look forward to having a resolution here in the House prior to June 1, so all Members can have their say on it.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Well, the minister refused to answer the question yesterday. He walked out to the media and he did confirm that the funding was budgeted.

 

Now I'll ask, if they won't give an answer on libraries, maybe I'll ask this question: Will you use these funds to offset the new Liberal tax grab known as the Liberal levy?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Official Opposition is prejudging what may come out of this. As he knows, the fact that we're talking about judicial independence and the fact that this was an independent tribunal that came up with recommendations here; recommendations which resulted in their asking for a 14 per cent increase.

 

This resolution will come to the floor of the House of Assembly, and I look forward to the position of the Member opposite, who again, his government's position was to ask for a 5 per cent increase. So I look forward to seeing what he has to say when this matter comes to the floor.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we put 5 per cent in the budget knowing that the report was coming.

 

Mr. Speaker, on seniors, the Premier and his government stated during the campaign that they will be there when they are needed by seniors. They'll be there when they need us. He also stated that they don't ask for much except their dignity. So I know they sometimes have difficult making decisions that will benefit the people.

 

So here's another option for the Premier that I'll offer up: Once you make a decision that will benefit people, will you use the funding to return coverage to seniors who rely on over-the-counter drugs?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The Member opposite doesn't quite understand how this process works, apparently, because he's prejudging the fact that this is a matter that has to come to the floor of the House of Assembly for a debate, it's a resolution. One, in fact, that the Member opposite recommended a 5 per cent increase to judicial salaries, actually, less than one year ago.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. A. PARSONS: So he's here in the House of Assembly asking to decline it, but just last year he was asking to increase their salaries.

 

So I ask the member opposite: Which is it?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The Member should sometimes probably check his facts.

 

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberal government has hired, with taxpayers' money, a crisis management company to help manage the mess created by this budget. When it leaked out a little while ago, the Liberals told the House that up to the end of March they've spent so far about $14,000.

 

I ask the Premier: Can you provide an update on that amount today, and how much has been spent to date for the services of Cathy Dornan Public Affairs?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'm not quite sure what the Member opposite is referring to when he talks about crisis management. In fact, since we've taken over for this government it's been nothing but crisis management from the mess that they left to us.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. A. PARSONS: I will say that obviously as we've discussed in this House –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The fact is as the Members opposite know, we have retained the services of McInnes Cooper that work with us during labour negotiations, a practice that is not uncommon to this province. We look forward to continuing on with that process as we move forward.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The Members opposite should be fully aware that you should never do through the back door what you wouldn't do through the front door.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the Minister of Finance needed help with communications. We recognize they retained the services of a long-time Liberal to assist.

 

I ask the minister: How much government funding has been spent directly or indirectly to assist with external help on issues management, crisis communications and media training?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

As we have discussed in this House when the Member opposite has asked this question in the past, the services of McInnes Cooper have been retained by the Department of Justice to support collective bargaining. In the collective bargaining periods in 2004, and I think back in 2008, the number of government employees and negotiators that were available was considerably higher than it is today.

 

With the number of collective agreements that are going to be in bargaining this year, it was important that we provide those supports to the incredibly talented officials that we have inside government. The person that he references, Ms. Dornan, is a contract of McInnes Cooper.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'll ask again. We know that this contract has been put in place. We know that part of the contract is to provide services and according to Ms. Dornan's own website, issues management, crisis communications, media training and strategic counsel.

 

I'll again ask the minister: Directly or indirectly, how much has government spent for external help on issues management, crisis communications and media training?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, our focus is on the bargaining process. As part of the bargaining process that is where the service contract has been engaged, with McInnes Cooper. As part of that, they chose who they bring in as a subcontractor.

 

Certainly we undertake the activity of collective bargaining quite seriously. It is very important for us to make sure that we steward the available money that the province has to spend on services in the most correct way to respect those employees that are working for us and we do so in a way that ensures that we can keep the most people possible working.

 

I'd ask the Member opposite maybe he can explain why expenses to communications companies doubled in the last year he was in government.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Well, maybe we'll have to wait for the minister to go and do a scrum before we'll know the answer, again.

 

Mr. Speaker, we've heard the Premier say that spending almost a million dollars on a study to build a fixed link was what the people of Labrador wanted. However, an email from the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair to the Premier just in December outlined what she felt was the priorities for the people of Labrador; no mention of a fixed link.

 

I say to the Premier: Why would you spend money now when you haven't delivered on the commitments and requests from your own Members in your own government, or do you just have lots of money to throw around?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. HAWKINS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It is a pleasure to speak on that fixed link. As you know, of course, the fixed link is an important piece of transportation and communication for us as a government. As the former premier would know that last year they cancelled a ferry contract proposal RFP for over a billion dollars, which would have been 20 years. They cancelled that particular RFP.

 

So the timing for us right now is very important because I think the Prime Minister of Canada has already alluded to the fact that there will be national funding and there's national transportation works, and there are billions of dollars that's in that particular project. Right now we're looking at a full transportation strategic plan for nation building, and that's part of it, 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.

 

We certainly respect the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair advocating on behalf of the people of her district; we expect all MHAs, Members of the House, to do the same. There are concerns outlined by the Member in her email that was long before this devastating budget was brought down by Members opposite.

 

I know, and we all know, that she's on the record being very concerned about the $860,000 cut in health care to the people of Labrador.

 

I ask the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs: Have you addressed any of the concerns in the email from your MHA? 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

I think it's very important for us to understand we are looking at Labrador. I know yesterday some of the comments that were coming from there almost would indicate that that's not part of the province. Labrador is very important to us and we really need to have a transportation link, not only for the Labrador portion but also for the province.

 

What we're basically doing, Mr. Speaker, we're making some money available to look at the possibility and the feasibility of that link for both Labrador and the province, for the betterment of a transportation route for all of us, for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to do that. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, for many years we put a lot of focus on the Trans-Labrador Highway, $600 million.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DAVIS: It sounds like what the minister is saying is that their focus has changed. That's what concerns me and I'm sure the people of Labrador will be equally concerned.

 

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: How much will your Liberal budget choices cost municipalities? What will be the impact on towns in our province?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. 

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Once again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to talk about Municipal Affairs and the amount of money and that the cost ratio hasn't changed, the MOG, and the sustainable plan hasn't changed. It is still what they all asked for.

 

When we met with the MNL leader, Karen Oldford, she was so pleased. She was so enthused. She thought there would be a lot of changes. Not counting, Mr. Speaker, there were three to four hundred million dollars that is going to be spent in Newfoundland and Labrador in capital works and municipalities.

 

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government who had three years, $20 million, who took it upon themselves before the election spent –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. JOYCE: – $60 million, Mr. Speaker; no care for the next year in Municipal Affairs. Shame on the previous government! 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

I would ask for order and decorum during Question Period especially.

 

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

We are delighted they are keeping the cost ratios in place; cost ratios that we developed. And we're delighted they're keeping the sustainability plan that municipalities much need. But I can tell you the tone from Karen Oldford is very different on her media release from the weekend than what the Member would suggest opposite.

 

Mr. Speaker, I ask: the Liberal government continues to try and sell this budget as good for municipalities. However, we're hearing something different from our community leaders on the ground. The Town of Conception Bay South has estimated that the changes in this year's budget will result in an additional and unbudgeted cost to them of $350,000 just to maintain current levels.

 

So I'll ask the minister: How do you expect municipalities to shoulder this crippling budget?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

 

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, once again, I hear the Leader of the Opposition fear mongering. It's just constant. I just want to bring something up about the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I hear the Member opposite always complaining nothing is good. If municipalities were so bad off, if municipalities had such a hard time, why didn't this Opposition, when they were in government – $34.9 million they didn't spend, wouldn't even sign the agreement with Ottawa. Now all of a sudden standing up and going to be the big champion of municipal affairs when they had $34.9 million they wouldn't even use in Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. JOYCE: That's what we're dealing with here, Mr. Speaker. We will work with all municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

The Speaker will not tolerate constant interruption during Question Period.

 

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

So there's no answer again from the minister opposite, or advice.

 

So I'll ask him again – under legislation, municipalities are required to submit a balanced budget by the end of December, every year. Now that this government has blindsided them with significant tax increases and downloading of services, municipalities have one of two options. They're either forced to break the law, by running a deficit, which they're not entitled to do under law, or they have to rip the guts out of programs and services in their communities. They're not allowed to increase taxes and revenues.

 

So I'll ask the minister: What do you suggest municipalities do to fight off this significant increase?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I just find it strange that the Leader of the Opposition asked about debt – who happens to be an expert on debt –leaving this province with a $2.7 billion debt. He's an expert on debt.

 

I just want to say – and the Member should know, or he ought to know, which I'm sure he does know, being in Cabinet – if municipalities need more time to balance the budget, they can write the department and ask the department for an extension. That is common.

 

I say, Mr. Speaker, you hear the Members opposite heckling. They know that, and just because they wouldn't sign the $34.9 million for municipalities, it bothers them. Just because they wrote letters in the third year of the capital works asking all municipalities to have a letter in by November 3, knowing there wasn't one penny in the pot, because they spent it all in two years to try to get some of them elected – shameful.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

So the answer is for the municipality to write the minister and he'll approve them to have to raise taxes and release services from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a great answer from the minister, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will not only close 54 libraries in Newfoundland and Labrador, they also introduced a tax on the purchase of books. We learned in the Finance Estimates this morning that this will also apply to our young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in our post-secondary institutions.

 

I ask the Minister of Finance: What is the expected revenue on the tax of books that you introduced in your budget?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

 

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I thank the Member opposite for his question. In terms of budget 2016-2017, it was filled with many difficult decisions and one of those was an HST on books.

 

I want to be very clear that when it comes to our public library system, there is no taxation on the purchase of books there. They would be eligible for an exemption as well as in our public school system libraries, as well as the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University in terms of the library system. They will be exempt.

 

E-books were always taxed at the HST rate. So there isn't a competitive change to that if people were purchasing books on an electronic basis.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: What's the expected revenue on the tax of books that they introduced in the budget?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

 

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I would like to point out that the revenue that would be raised by a tax on books would be estimated at $2.1 million.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: At least we got answers.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, I thank the minister for the answer.

 

I ask the Minister of Finance: Can she table the analysis done on the cost to administer a junk food tax versus the revenue that would be generated from the tax itself on junk food?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the analysis around the tax changes that were made as part of this budget were certainly fulsome as the Member this morning would have heard had he asked the question in Estimates. He would have heard the background information as to how all the taxes and the administration costs were assessed.

 

As I'm sure he is aware from his time in Cabinet, CRA provides a service that we, as a province, can piggyback on, which provides the ability for us to collect taxes; sadly, taxes that we need right now because of a massive deficit left by the former administration, taxes that we can effectively collect efficiently by using CRA as the administrator, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker, in a brief by the Canadian Medical Association dated February 15, 2012, the then association president and now Minister of Health stated regarding taxing junk food that he believes such a measure should become part of a health strategy.

 

I ask the minister today: Does he still feel that such a tax is indeed worthwhile?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

 

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I think the principle behind a junk food tax is a very important one for a discussion. I would suggest, however, it needs to be part of a national picture.

 

I would suggest, at the moment, the last thing we need to do is to create extra bureaucracy to collect a tax for a marginal benefit given the fact – as the minister down the way has pointed out – we have a virtual cost-free mechanism of collecting taxes currently.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Before the budget, the Minister of Finance guaranteed community organizations that their core funding would remain the same for this fiscal year. However, during budget Estimates meetings, we learned the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement is considering cuts to funding to a number of youth organizations. Mr. Speaker, organizations are left wondering where they stand.

 

Will the minister commit today to maintaining funding to youth groups who receive funding from the Office of Public Engagement every year?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

Thank you for the question. Core funding, as the Minister of Finance has said, has been secured for all organizations. There is funding available for project-specific items under the Office of Public Engagement. We have had some reductions in those.

 

I have assured the Member opposite we will do our best to make sure that funding will be carried on, as best we can, to the projects that are important to some of these youth organizations; however, core funding has remained as it was.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is simply not true. If a youth organization receives the same grant from the same department every year, that's core funding. The minister is saying it isn't.

 

The minister made it clear in Estimates that annual funding to organizations like Boys and Girls Clubs, Allied Youth, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award program, YMCA-YWCA, Girl Guides and local community youth centres was not safe and may be reduced.

 

Will the minister guarantee today that groups who receive the same grant every year from OPE, won't be cut?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Thank you, again, for the question. As was discussed in Estimates, as has been discussed since the budget, core funding for organizations will remain. There is project funding under some of the aspects of OPE, project funding that has been reduced somewhat. We are going to do our very best to work with organizations to ensure the projects that are important to these organizations that receive core funding are maintained, as best possible, within this budget envelope.

 

We will continue to offer the core funding as per the Minister of Finance has said. Within the Office of Public Engagement there is some core funding in a certain program. In one program there were some reductions for youth organizations for project-specific items. We will continue to maintain that level of funding as we go forward.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. KENT: So the minister won't guarantee today that core funding to these organizations won't be cut. I'm not talking about the project funding I say, Mr. Speaker; I'm talking about core funding to these organizations.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. KENT: The Finance Minister is saying one thing and the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement is saying another. I say to the minister: Don't hide behind bureaucratic process. Whether a form has to be filled out annually or not, this is core funding that groups count on every year.

 

Will the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement honour the Finance Minister's previous commitment or is this the latest Liberal broken promise?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.

 

MS. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

Again, I will say exactly the same thing; the Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that core funding is remaining. Under a particular program, the youth program, we are continuing to have project funding. The project funding for specific projects will be as the projects come forward.

 

We don't even know what projects are going to come forward this year.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. COADY: I think the Member opposite is confused.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, they're hiding again.

 

The CEO of MNL stated libraries are a provincial responsibility, not a municipal responsibility. This is just one of many things MNL did not ask for, but was provided in this budget. Municipalities are really concerned that this is just the beginning.

 

I ask the minister: How many other services will be downloaded to municipalities or will they have to wait until budget number two?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Once again, there is no municipality in this province told, you have to take a library. What the commitment was, within a year we will work with municipalities. I have spoken to some municipalities. They want to find an option for their libraries. We will help them.

 

For the Member to stand up and say that this is downloading, he knows the difference. We spoke. He's very certain of what I said. We will work with municipalities to keep these libraries in their towns.

 

Of the 24, Mr. Speaker, I ask him to name one that I called personally or anybody in the department said you have to take the library. Here's an opportunity, name a municipality that I called and said you had to take a library. Here's your opportunity.

 

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.

 

At Memorial University, the Heart of Darkness costs $16, Microelectronic Circuits is $250 and Supply Chain Logistics Management is $304. The Minister of Finance told us in Estimates this morning post-secondary students will have to pay taxes on their textbooks.

 

I ask the minister to explain to the young people of this province why she is shamelessly laying another burden on their already debt-heavy shoulders.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

 

MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the core of the government's strategy to ensure post-secondary education is affordable and accessible is a low-tuition strategy. Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest tuition of any jurisdiction in Canada, in fact, by many magnitudes in some respects. In fact, when you look at the other Atlantic provinces we are by far the envy of anywhere, not only here in our own region, but across the entire country.

 

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have the most envious Student Financial Assistance Program of anywhere in the country. Our grants currently exceed the cost of tuition for low-income and middle-income students by over 30 per cent. The program here is about accessibility and affordability. That's how we achieve it.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, do not tax the students. That's all I have to say.

 

In Finance Estimates this morning we also learned details of the $20 million fund government has budgeted to leverage federal infrastructure funding. Government will be focusing on two areas: post-secondary infrastructure and clean waste water initiatives.

 

I ask the minister: Given the crying need we have for new infrastructure, why did she set aside such a pittance?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

 

MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member casts a very jaundice eye on a $20 million fund which appears in very plain sight within our main Estimates and calls $20 million a mere pittance. The funding is neither sinister nor opaque; it's neither small nor ineffectual. The object of the Member's cynicism is around a program to develop infrastructure, especially in the strategic social sphere.

 

Mr. Speaker, $20 million is a significant amount of money. We've actually budgeted that in preparation for the federal government's announcement or in preparation for the full allotment of the federal government's allotment. This is a 20-year program. This is year one of that allocation, and quite frankly, it's going to be very, very effective, and I don't think it should be viewed cynically.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate for Newfoundland and Labrador is 15 per cent. On page 5 of her Budget Speech, the minister actually said their austerity measures will contribute to slowing the economy and reduce jobs by an additional 15 per cent by 2021.

 

I ask the Premier: What does he expect the unemployment rate to be one year from now?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important just to clarify and correct what the Member opposite said.

 

The unemployment numbers that she's referring to in the economic information that was released as part of the budget referred to what will happen at the end of the large-scale projects. Those would include Vale, they would include the end of the Hebron construction, as well as the forecasted conclusion of the Muskrat Falls construction. Those three projects have had a significant impact on the overall employment in Newfoundland and Labrador, and has been known for many years that when those projects clue up that we will unfortunately see an impact on that particular sector. It's important that we continue to look at ways to diversify, and I'd be happy to answer another question from the Member.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Great, Mr. Speaker.

 

In her Budget Speech the minister laid out absolutely no plans for job creation. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to work.

 

I ask the Premier and the minister: Are there concrete plans for job creation, and how many jobs do they plan to create then?

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'd again like to correct the Member opposite. In the budget we were very clear that there are $570 million worth of infrastructure that's going to happen in this province. Some would say that's going to create the equivalent of 1,000 jobs every year for four years.

 

Mr. Speaker, I don't take that very lightly. This budget has a total spending envelope of $8.4 billion, and we are very proud of the fact that we are investing in infrastructure that not only will provide critical services to the people of the province but will also provide employment opportunities.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am standing on a point of order.

 

During Question Period, the Member for Mount Pearl North quite clearly called out that the Minister of Natural Resources was misleading and not telling the truth. Now I understand we can have differences of opinion but such language is clearly unparliamentary, pursuant to Standing Order 49. So I would ask that the Member retract this comment and apologize.

 

Thank you.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

 

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I did say across the House to the hon. Member that the information she presented today was misleading. I did not say that –

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North, are you going to address the point of order?

 

MR. KENT: Yes. To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe my comment was unparliamentary.

 

Thank you.

 

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North to withdraw his comment, please.

 

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, I didn't make the comment that was unparliamentary.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I understand if you need to take some time to review this matter but our position clearly stands that the Member made a comment. He should own up to it and retract the comment because it was clearly unparliamentary pursuant to Standing Order 49.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding – and maybe as the hon. Member said, to review it – if the gentleman made a comment in regard to the statement that was being made and the information being provided, not directly to the hon. Member.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

The Speaker will review the comments made by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl and report back to the House by tomorrow.

 

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

 

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

 

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report they have passed without amendment the Estimates of the Department of Finance, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Public Service Commission, the Human Resource Secretariat, the Women's Policy Office, the Government Purchasing Agency, the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Department of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Further presentations of reports by standing and select committees?

 

Tabling of Documents.

 

Notices of Motion.

 

Notices of Motion

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders and according to the Order Paper, I give notice that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 10.

 

I further give notice pursuant to the Order Paper that this House do not adjourn at 10 o'clock tonight, Tuesday, May 10.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

 

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

 

Petitions.

 

Petitions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East –Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

 

WHEREAS government has once again cut the libraries budget, forcing the closure of 54 libraries; and

 

WHEREAS libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and computer access; and

 

WHEREAS libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

 

WHEREAS already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation and cost of libraries;

 

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

 

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. 

 

I'm very pleased today, Mr. Speaker, to stand and to speak on behalf of the residents, some of them in my own district, all of them from various parts of St. John's; residents who care about what's happening to rural Newfoundland unlike the government, apparently, because they are killing rural Newfoundland by the closing of the 54 libraries and other important and essential services in communities in rural Newfoundland. 

 

I don't know if Members of the government had their radios on this morning, but they would have heard the voices of over 100 people gathered in Fogo last night protesting, begging and pleading that government not close their library. I think it was the mayor that I may have heard saying, the way he put it was: Of all of them, we have the strongest case. I'm sure the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island would probably even agree with the Mayor of Fogo. As bad as it is for Bell Island, it's even worse for Fogo.

 

It's impossible to imagine what the government is thinking and for the people in the communities – yesterday morning people from Bell Island were in the news. Today, it's the people from Fogo. The people from Greenspond have been in the news. All over the province these people are absolutely, totally confused. They cannot understand why government is attacking them through the closure of libraries which are essential to their communities.

 

What's really interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the way in which people all over the province, whether they're affected personally or not, are speaking out. And we are getting petitions in our office from all over the Island and Labrador concerned about what is going on. People are concerned about the literacy issue as the petition talks about. They are concerned about the lack of this community centre in their communities. 

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

I'll be happy to speak to this again. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

 

(Disturbance in the gallery.)

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Visitors to the gallery are welcome to observe the proceedings of the House, but they are not to –

 

(Disturbance in the gallery.)

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Visitors to the gallery are permitted to observe the proceedings of the House but are not to demonstrate or to participate in the proceedings on the floor.

 

I ask visitors to the gallery to be respectful of the proceedings in the House of Assembly.

 

(Disturbance in the gallery.)

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

I would ask the visitors in the gallery who are disrupting the proceedings to leave.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

 

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's an honour for me to rise in this House today and present yet another petition from the very concerned residents of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

 

A petition: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

 

WHEREAS the people of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune need to have access to adequate health care; and

 

WHEREAS the local clinics in rural areas are the main source of medical assistance for our people; and

 

WHEREAS the government has reduced funding and closed the Hermitage clinics and downgraded services such as dialysis and visitation to remote communities;

 

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the services to the health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to rise in this House every day until we see a reversal of this decision that is devastating rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and, in particular, the Coast of Bays region.

 

The clinic in Hermitage serves well over 600 people in the immediate area of Hermitage-Sandyville-Seal Cove, as well as an additional several hundred from Gaultois and McCallum, Mr. Speaker, who can only access Hermitage via ferry. The additional drive now to Hermitage, with no taxi service in place, creates a serious issue not just for the residents of the islands, but for residents of Hermitage themselves, many of whom are seniors.

 

We're also worried about the downloading of services to Harbour Breton where we're going to see the loss of two nurses with the closure of the dialysis unit. People will be forced to leave their homes after 20 years lobbying for dialysis, finally achieving it, and then to have it ripped away so quickly. People now, they do not have the option, these patients, of home dialysis. They will have to uproot and move to St. John's, Mr. Speaker, and in no way, shape or form is that helping rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Again, I ponder – they were mandated by the Liberal government to make $430,000 of cuts at Central Health. With the closure of the dialysis, the closure of the clinics and reduction of visitation to the islands, I think the Coast of Bays region is taking a disproportionate share of that cut from Central Health, and I truly believe there are other expenditures within the board that can be looked at before front-line services are cut, Mr. Speaker. People's lives are at stake. Seniors, who have taken hit after hit after hit in this budget are getting hit yet again, perhaps in the most vulnerable area where health care is, Mr. Speaker.

 

This can mean the difference between life or death in some cases, I have no doubt, because of the geography of the area, the treacherous roads of the area and the dangerous weather conditions we have at times – be it fog in the summer or blizzards in the winter. The train is not safe at the best of times, Mr. Speaker, and so we will continue to raise our voices until we see this decision reversed.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

 

WHEREAS a Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax placing a higher tax burden on low- and middle-income tax payers; and

 

WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other countries; and

 

WHEREAS government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

 

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

 

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of the thousands of people who have actually signed this petition. The petition continues to circulate throughout the province. People are wanting this government to listen to them. Although government keeps saying that we have listened, although the Minister of Finance has said that she has listened to hundreds of people, there were thousands of people outside this House on Saturday, Mr. Speaker. There have been thousands of people across the province who have demonstrated in smaller locations across the province. There are going to be more coming up.

 

The people of the province know this levy is a regressive tax. The MHAs in this House know this levy is a regressive tax and that it's not just the levy in and of itself, although that is one that is really burning in the craw of people. They know how unfair it is and how incredibly unexpected it was.

 

When this government talks about how much time and how much money they spent going around the province to consult with people, it's disingenuous. I would love this Minister of Finance to show us where people suggested this is what they should do. I am sure no one suggested that this levy is exactly what this government should do.

 

We know we need a thorough review of our taxation system. It needs to be progressive. We need reform. Everybody in this House knows that. We know that people are willing to pay taxes if the taxes are fair, are progressive and that they can clearly see how their money is being spent.

 

This government is talking about transparency. I believe they want to be transparent and accountable, but we also know that budgets are based on decisions. This levy decision is probably one of the worst decisions that have been made in this House in a long time, except for Bill 29 and perhaps Muskrat Falls.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

 

(Disturbance in the gallery.)

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

This is the second time the Speaker has had to rise. Visitors are more than welcome in our galleries to observe the proceedings of the House of Assembly, but they are not to participate in any sort of demonstration or to participate in anything that's happening in the House, not to show approval nor disapproval.

 

I would ask our visitors in the gallery to respect the traditions of the House of Assembly. You're welcome here to observe.

 

The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

 

MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

 

WHEREAS we, the undersigned residents of St. Brendan's, wish to protest the increase to passenger and vehicle fares on the St. Brendan's to Burnside ferry service; and

 

WHEREAS it is our highway to the main land; and

 

WHEREAS it unfairly taxes our transportation costs for all our living expenses; and

 

WHEREAS we also feel the income levy tax on people will cause unnecessary hardship;

 

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reverse the decision to increase ferry rates; and

 

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reconsider the levy placed on low- and middle-income families. 

 

Mr. Speaker, as an MHA for the districts in this province, it is our role to bring forward the concerns of constituents including petitions.

 

I recall a Member of the Opposition in this House yesterday talked about when they were presented with petitions they would say no, they wouldn't bring those petitions forward. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, our government has been committed to openness and being transparent. Certainly, I'm able to table this petition that was given to me just one week ago while I was on St. Brendan's meeting with the people at a public meeting.

 

One of the things that you must do when you bring forward a petition is to understand the issues surrounding a petition. Mr. Speaker, this petition speaks to the increased cost to passengers who are travelling from St. Brendan's island to Burnside. It's an 18 kilometre run. It provides 27 round trips per year in the summer and 20 trips per week in the winter.

 

The ferry has been in operation since 1966. The provincial government took over the responsibility in 1979, but over the last 10 years, Mr. Speaker, the cost to run this ferry service has been $17.8 million. There was a capital investment within the last five years of $28.5 million for the Grace Sparkes.

 

It is estimated that it will cost $3 million this year to operate this service. The ferry itself generates about $75,000 in revenue and the current fare is $3.03 per adult one way. That equates to a 98 per cent subsidization of the annual operating cost.

 

The role of government, Mr. Speaker, is to assist the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador where the cost to provide the service can be financially prohibitive. The role of a Member is to, and my role is to work with –

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. HOLLOWAY: – the Department of Transportation to advocate for these issues.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

 

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North. 

 

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

 

WHEREAS the seniors of our province deserve the greatest level of respect and care; and

 

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a responsibility to act in the best interest of our seniors; and

 

WHEREAS the government has decided to shut down Masonic Park Nursing Home and reduce long-term care beds in this region;

 

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reverse its decision and not bring undue hardship upon the residents of Masonic Park and find alternative measures that will allow them to continue to stay at the place they call home.

 

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

 

Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to bring a petition to the House of Assembly on behalf of your constituents, it's another thing to stand and be counted when it really matters. I can assure you that in light of how devastating this budget will be for many families in my district I will be voting against the budget.

 

I've raised these concerns time and time again and I will continue to do so.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. KENT: When it comes time to take a stand and vote against this budget because of issues like this, I will be prepared to do so, unlike Members opposite.

 

The issues at Masonic Park have been exaggerated and misrepresented. The fundamental issue here is that we have a shortage of long-term care beds in this region. It's impacting health care for all of us. We have people tying up acute care hospital beds at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a month that shouldn't be there. They should be in long-term care beds.

 

We need to address this. It's resulting in cancelled surgeries. It means people are lying on stretchers in hallways. It means that people are sitting in emergency rooms for longer.

 

Through this budget the Liberal Government is reducing the number of long-term care beds in the region. That's a fact. Another fact is that the facility at Masonic Park, the long-term care facility, is in good shape. I would argue it's in better shape than some of the other long-term care homes in the region.

 

For the minister to suggest that the place is in a state of disrepair, it's not true. He also said that all residents will be able to move to the Veterans Pavilion down at the Miller Centre, also not true. There aren't enough beds to accommodate all of them if they choose to go there.

 

The minister said he is not cutting or reducing beds in this region, also not true. We have great needs in every region of this province when it comes to long-term care. Despite the financial challenges the province faces, this is not a time to be reducing the number of long-term care beds. I will continue to take a stand and oppose this on behalf of the constituents that I represent and constituents across the province as well.

 

Thank you.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St, John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 

 

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

 

WHEREAS government has once again cut the libraries budget, forcing the closure of 54 libraries; and

 

WHEREAS libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with little access to government services where they are offering learning opportunities and computer access; and

 

WHEREAS libraries and librarians are critical in their efforts to improve the province's literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

 

WHEREAS already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation and cost of libraries;

 

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

 

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will pray.

 

Mr. Speaker, once again, these petitions are coming in from all over the province and it's very interesting. One of our most celebrated writers, Kevin Major – as I've mentioned in the House here before and I'm sure many of the folks here in this House and at home have heard – the day he heard these libraries were being closed, he wrote and said, “Today I have been humiliated by my government.” That's a pretty strong statement from someone who loves Newfoundland and Labrador so much, as we all do in this House.

 

It's an odd thing, Mr. Speaker, the closure of libraries. When does that happen? We kind of see that in times of war. We see that in absolute times of desolation and destitution – but the closure of libraries. One must ask, when we look at this budget, when we see such incredible cuts to services, the imposition of regressive and unfair taxes, the lack of a plan to really stimulate the economy, the lack of a plan for real diversification, I mean commitment of money and resources to real diversification – the only question I can ask is to what end? What is the end goal here besides cutting, cutting, cutting? How is this government going to pull us out of this?

 

We know the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not foolish. Everybody knows we're in a tough situation. Everybody knows the bottom has fallen out of oil for a while. We all know that. Everyone's willing to roll up their sleeves, but what government is doing is no plan to pull us out of this. The plan is only to squeeze the life out of the province, and we're seeing that. People are feeling that. Then we have to wait for six more months for another hit.

 

I can only ask, to what end, Mr. Speaker – to what end? What is this government actually planning for? Except this line-by-line cutting, cutting, with no vision, no plan to revitalize the province, to harness the energy of the people of the province to really pull us out of this hole and to go forward. That's what governments are supposed to do.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I call Orders of the Day.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Before the hon. the Government House Leader calls Orders of the Day, the Member for Mount Pearl North, in presenting his petition just a few moments ago, had used language that, in the opinion of the Speaker, is unparliamentary. It is unparliamentary to say that what another Member in the House has said is untrue.

 

I would ask the Member to withdraw his comments.

 

MR. KENT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

 

Orders of the Day

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 12.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 12)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise in this hon. House today to debate amending sections of the Highway Traffic Act. The Highway Traffic Act regulates drivers and the use of motor vehicles on highways, and is updated on a regular basis to ensure our roads are safe for the people of the province.

 

The proposed amendments will allow law enforcement officials to bring a charge against a registered owner of a vehicle that is observed illegally passing a school bus or speeding in a school zone or a construction zone. These amendments will enhance enforcement measures to ensure offenders are ticketed. This in turn will promote the safety of children, protect people working in the road construction industry and deter illegal driving activities throughout our province.

 

A key part of our government's five-point plan is to support safe and sustainable communities. Putting the proposed amendments in place will help advance that plan. For those who are charged with illegally passing a school bus, the proposed amendments also include increased fines. Fines for passing a school bus that is stopped with its red lights flashing will be increased to a minimum of $500 with a maximum of $1,200. Previous fines were in the range of $100 to $400.

 

Those illegally speeding in school zones or construction zones will continue to face fines that range from $100 to $1,500. Mr. Speaker, this is double the regular speeding fines. Having significant fines likes these in place speaks to the seriousness of driving dangerously in those specific areas.

 

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to each situation these proposed amendments are attempting to address.

 

With respect to the illegal passing of school buses, our proposed amendments support work taking place across the departments. The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development is currently piloting the use of external cameras on school buses to record and identify vehicles passing a school bus, including the plate number of the vehicle.

 

Right now there are 10 board-owned school buses and one privately contracted bus that are equipped with camera systems. These buses are in use throughout the province. Our proposed amendments will support the pilot project and potentially assist with getting more convictions against those passing school buses illegally.

 

With respect to speeding in school zones, the fines for these kinds of infractions were increased in 2010 to double the amount of a regular speeding fine. This focused the public's attention on the importance of observing speed limits around schools. Mr. Speaker, our government hopes that the amendments we are proposing will once again remind motorists of their responsibilities when driving in areas that have reduced speed limits.

 

School zones present a number of higher-than-normal traffic risk. Children may not always recognize the risk that car traffic imposes. In particular, young children may be more prone to straying in the road while playing. As well, motorists travelling through these zones must always appreciate that they are in a busy area.

 

School zones involve high levels of pedestrian activity, crosswalks and vehicle congestion whether school buses and/or parents are dropping off or picking up children at the school. Drivers must show extra caution in these areas, but we know that this does not always happen. It is our hope that our proposed amendments will bring greater attention to this issue and enhance enforcement so that speeding is reduced in these areas.

 

With respect to reducing speeds in construction zones, a great deal of work continues in this area. Mr. Speaker, these areas present higher-than-normal risks for construction workers who are working near our roadways while traffic is passing.

 

The Department of Transportation and Works and Service NL has undertaken a safety initiative to bring together stakeholders from government, industry and safety organizations with an interest in construction zone safety. This initiative is focused on balancing the safety needs of the travelling public with those working to maintain provincial roads and highways.

 

The three pillars of safety have been identified: engineering which refers to safe work practices, enforcement and education. Service NL, in consultation with the Department of Transportation and Works and the Department of Justice and Public Safety, was tasked with identifying penalties and other regulatory means to help deter poor driving within and near construction sites.

 

Charging the registered owner with an offence that is committed in a construction zone will further this work as a measure that should support the three pillars I mentioned previously.

 

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the benefits we hope realized from these proposed amendments are: preventing illegal driving practices, raising awareness and protecting vulnerable people in higher-than-normal risk areas.

 

Mr. Speaker, currently the Highway Traffic Act only charges the driver with moving violations. As there is often difficulty in catching a driver who ignores the flashing red lights of a school bus or speeds through school or construction zones, some violators have gone unpunished. This is a serious safety concern, Mr. Speaker.

 

In order to address this issue we are seeking approval to amend the act in a way that will open the door for increased enforcement efforts. Charging a registered owner for a moving violation is a departure from the current highway traffic legislation but will serve to better protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Other jurisdictions including British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island all have provisions in place for charging the registered owner of a vehicle with various moving offenses involving that vehicle to better protect the people of their provinces.

 

Further action must be taken here in our province as well. Mr. Speaker, the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is a top priority of our government. We continue strengthening penalties and increasing school bus safety and these amendments will do just that. The proposed amendments are proactive steps that are designed to increase highway safety, especially for our vulnerable road users such as children and construction workers.

 

Road safety is everybody's responsibility, Mr. Speaker. This amendment will make vulnerable pedestrians safe through stronger enforcement measures.

 

Mr. Speaker, at the press conference today we had the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Construction Safety Association, we had the RCMP and we had the school board all supporting this legislation. I know the Member opposite, the Member for Cape St. Francis, was also at it and I look forward to his support because I know all Members in this House are concerned about safety in construction zones and school zones.

 

I welcome everybody to have a few words on this. I welcome any comments on this here because we know, as legislators, that our job is to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see it on a regular basis, speeding through construction zones. We see some people ignoring the red lights and we have to try to deter it. We also have to educate people. We have to find a way to inform people that if you break the law, put people's lives and safety at risk in a construction zone or school zone, you will be caught, you will be fined and you will be penalized for that.

 

So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments in the House of Assembly. I look forward to comments from Members on this side, because this is not an issue in the House for either one of us parties, this is a common issue for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I welcome all comments from all Members in the House of Assembly. I welcome their support to change this legislation.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is a pleasure to get up here this afternoon and talk about this bill. I had the pleasure this morning to go to the news conference and it was great to see, as the minister just mentioned, most of the stakeholders that are involved were there, whether it was construction. It was nice to see the school board representatives, so education was represented, Service NL, and then to see both of our law enforcement groups, the RCMP and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary also there.

 

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a no-doubter – we will definitely be supporting it because anytime when it comes to children's safety and people's safety that go to work every day this is an important bill and people do realize that these are serious incidents.

 

I can remember – I'm not sure how many years ago, but there was an accident down in Torbay and it was related to somebody going around a bus while the bus was stopped and somebody lost their life. So when we have young children that are on buses in the daytime and moms and dads and family members, you just hope that those children get home safely, and it's so important.

 

This is legislation that needs to be brought in and it's great to see this legislation. It's going to be interesting how it's going to work in the courts and stuff like that and to see – but again, as the minister already stated, that it's been done in a lot of provinces right across Canada, so I'm sure it will work.

 

The thing I want to emphasize today is as we look at this bill that we're bringing in, it's the registered driver who's responsible. The registered driver of a vehicle who owns that vehicle may not be the person who's driving it, but that person should be the person that should be responsible for their vehicle.

 

Now, there are some stipulations in the act where it shows that if the vehicle was reported stolen or even if the vehicle is registered to, say, a rental company or something like that, that obviously those things will be looked at. If the vehicle is registered to you, then you're the one that's responsible for the person who is driving. No matter whether you can pick up who's driving or whatever. So that's important to know. That's it; you should be responsible for your vehicle.

 

I look at the fines that are getting increased here and, again, I support it 100 per cent because when you look at fines that are going up from $100 to $400, what they presently are today, to $500 to $1,200. Now it's a deterrent for anyone when they know they have to pay a fine of that much, but in some cases, I guess, they really don't care and a fine doesn't mean anything to them.

 

Hopefully, this will be a deterrent that people will look at and say – I don't know how many points or whatever, minister. That's a question I want to ask you later on about anyway. We'll be looking at the point system and what that's going to do. The courts have a right to look at it. They'll be the ones that will decide how much the fine is.

 

Mr. Speaker, I just look at different zones. I look at school buses. I know in my area, and it's a problem in a lot of areas where there are a couple of lanes. Where you have four lanes and the bus is stopping on four lanes. A lot of times people don't stop because they think they're on a highway and they don't need to stop, but they do need to stop. Once that red flag goes out, you have to stop. You cannot pass a bus, no matter where you are.

 

The Minister of Education gets up and he talks about how expensive it is to run buses today. There were a lot of changes brought in over the years for safety, flashing lights and different reflectors and everything else, to bring the buses standards up to where they should be today so people can make sure they're as safe as possible, people can see them and everything else. I know a couple of speakers will get up and talk about that a little later now. It's important that once our children get on a bus that they're safe. It's so important.

 

I'm going to talk a little bit about school zones. I know in school zones, one thing I'd like to see – the Minister of Transportation could probably address it if he gets up and speaks on this. I know municipalities do it but we don't do it on provincial roads. In municipalities they put up speed bumps.

 

Down in Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove they have two speed pumps before the school. I know it slows down the traffic because people are not going to fly over it. Even in other areas in my district where it's not a provincial road, they do have speed bumps. I really do suggest to the minister, where there's a concern, perhaps there's something we can look at. Putting speed bumps there, that's another deterrent to slow it down.

 

While you can have all the signage and flashing lights and crosswalks, people still speed through school zones because they're in the middle of the area. So I really believe that would help, but this today is a good thing because it's another deterrent.

 

When it comes to construction zones, Mr. Speaker, you look at construction zones today and I look at the highways and stuff like that. People are travelling 100 kilometres an hour and all of a sudden they come upon a construction zone. If you look today, there are not a lot of people who are slowing down. We have workers who are out there.

 

I know there have been accidents over the last number of years where people did lose their lives in construction zones. It's not only on the highway, it could be in the communities. People have to be aware that the reason these culverts are up, these pylons are up, and the reason why there is signage up is because there are people working. It's so important that we make sure people realize that this is a very serious thing. People are out there, they're taking their lives in their own hands.

 

Again, there are some things we talked about in the bill. In the briefing we had the Department of Education talked about they're going to try to bring in some programs. They're going to try to educate young drivers on the changes to the legislation. They're going to do it through social media and they're going to do it through press releases.

 

The Eastern School District, the school board district, also said they are going to try to educate the younger people who are getting their driver's licence to ensure that they understand the rules in places like school zones and what the rules are when you do come upon a school bus. That is very important. Again, we need to make sure that anyone who is out there that is not doing this properly, just passing by a school bus, that they will get fined because it's too late when someone gets hurt. 

 

The other question I have for the minister while we talked about cameras on the buses, that there is also a cost to the operator for this. I know this year – actually, there was a pilot project that he just mentioned where there were 16 charges laid and five convictions so far this year. So any conviction is – it's a good thing.

 

I know the operators are looking at the expenses when it comes to this budget with extra costs on insurance and cost on gas and everything else. This is a safety issue for having these cameras on buses. So I'm wondering if government is planning on helping them pay for the cost of the cameras because there is no cost that's too much for the safety of our children.

 

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good move. I think anytime we help with safety in our province and help with safety to our children and our workers, this is a great bill and we'll be supporting it.

 

Thank you. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West. 

 

MR. LETTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

It's a great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to continue debate on amending sections of the Highway Traffic Act and we certainly welcome the comments from my colleague across the way, the Member for Cape St. Francis. It's great to see he's in full support of that. I didn't have any doubt that he would.

 

My colleague, the Minister of Service NL, has already spoken to many of the specifics of the proposed amendments, so I'll begin my remarks by speaking about the importance of bringing the province's Highway Traffic Act in line with other jurisdictions in Canada.

 

Madam Speaker, traffic laws can vary significantly around the world and throughout Canada. As noted previously by the Minister of Service NL, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have all established ways to charge the registered owner of a vehicle that is seen committing different kinds of traffic violations. This was done to better protect the people of their provinces.

 

Many of these provinces adopted stronger legislation or stronger enforcement activities in response to tragedies. The Province of Manitoba made amendments to its legislation after a 21-year-old was struck and killed while working on a provincial highway in 2010. In the fall of 2012, people in Saskatchewan were shocked to learn an 18-year-old flag person was warning drivers to slow down in a construction zone was killed by a passing SUV. This too led to legislative changes.

 

In our own province, we have lost road workers in incidents that have taken place in recent years and now we are taking action to help prevent such incidents in the future.

 

The Minister of Service NL also noted the pilot program involving the use of video cameras on buses to record vehicles illegally passing those buses. The minister also noted how the proposed amendments would support the pilot project and potentially increase convictions against offenders.

 

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that this kind of pilot project has been pursued in other jurisdictions as well. For example, in the fall of 2013, a Northern Alberta school division adopted similar technology on its buses and recorded 15 instances of illegal driving. With respect to our own province's pilot project, we anticipate adding cameras will also support a higher conviction rate. This is a valuable project which deserves to be supported by legislation, Madam Speaker. 

 

Promoting safe and sustainable communities is a key part of our government's five-point plan for achieving a stronger tomorrow. In order to do that, it is important that our laws reflect the best practices being used across Canada.

 

The Highway Traffic Act is updated regularly to ensure best practices are used. The proposed amendments are valuable, practical and defensible. In practice, police would lay charges on the basis of a witness giving a statement about a vehicle illegally passing a stopped school bus. We have heard from parents and school bus drivers that failure to stop for a school bus is too common an offence. I'm sure everybody in this House, on both sides of the House, has seen this happen in their lifetime. They see people passing school buses that have their lights flashing. It puts our children at great, great risk. The proposed amendments open the door for increased use of technology, and make it possible for law enforcement to positively identify a vehicle and bring a charge without having to pursue the vehicle to identify the driver.

 

In order to address potential court challenges in cases where the driver has not been identified and the registered owner is charged with a moving violation, the proposed legislation permits two defences: one, that the registered owner was not the owner at the time of the offence, as would be the case with car rental companies; and two, that the vehicle was driven without the registered owner's express or implied permission.

 

Madam Speaker, there will be no term of imprisonment for a conviction or for a default of payment of the fine for a conviction against the registered owner. As well, if during an investigation the registered owner identifies the driver of the vehicle to the police before a charge is laid, the decision to lay a charge against the driver would be up to the police.

 

The decision as to whether to proceed with a charge would be with the Crown prosecutor's office. Regardless, the registered owner cannot be convicted of the offence if the driver is convicted of the same offence. Clearly, Madam Speaker, we are discussing legislative amendments that have been carefully considered and are based on work that has already taken place in other provinces.

 

The amendments open the door to pursue stronger enforcement while simultaneously leaving protections in place so that parties can defend themselves should the charge be brought against them. We have discussed these amendments across government departments and with representatives from law enforcement. Many of them are in attendance today. The amendments reflect the input and expertise of all those consulted.

 

We now ask Members opposite to support these amendments and join with us in efforts to make the province's roads safer, especially for school children and construction workers in vulnerable situations. Working together we can make the province's Highway Traffic Act even stronger and reduce the chance of tragic incidents in the future.

 

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster): The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

It's a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill today. It's always a pleasure to speak to a bill that involves safety, especially the safety of our children and our students, who we know travel throughout the province in sometimes very long bus rides and sometimes over rough terrain, especially in the wintertime.

 

We know that through changes that are coming as well in the Department of Education, we can expect students to be on buses earlier in the morning and later in the evening, meaning during dark times as well. Anything we can do to increase the safety of our students we would support.

 

This bill is to change primarily one section of the Highway Traffic Act under section 210, which deals with liability, enforcement and fines associated with it. Under section 210, the legislation currently says now the owner of a motor vehicle shall not incur a penalty for movement or operation of a vehicle if it's in someone else's possession without their consent. The new legislation, or what's proposed here, is a slight change to that which I will discuss later, maybe, when we get to Committee stage.

 

It's really interesting, especially to hear from the Member for Labrador West. I appreciate his comments. Yes, any time we do safety it's good thing. At least twice during his comments, he made reference to national standards and bringing in line with the rest of Canada. We support looking at other jurisdictions to see what other jurisdictions do.

 

It's an interesting comment he makes because we know in busing – the Minister of Education has been on his feet here in the House during budget discussion talking about how the cost of buses have gone up, and the cost of busing contracts have gone up because of action we took as a government. He blamed us for that.

 

What he is talking about is what's known as a D250 standard of school buses. This is about safety and related to the bill, I say to the Speaker. D250 CSA standard is a national standard. When the Member opposite said, bring it in line with the rest of Canada, we agree with that.

 

D250 standard is exactly what we did. D250 is not new. It goes back to 1971. It was renewed in '75, '79 and '85. 2012 was the ninth edition of the D250 standard. The purpose of those standards – it's a CSA standard – is to ensure that buses are the safest as possible for students who have to ride on them and use them for going back to school.

 

The D250 deals with certain things like bumpers, batteries, exhaust systems, horns to make sure a horn functions properly and is loud enough and so on, steering gear and linkages, even the turning radius of a bus it goes into, frame structure, tires and rims and reflective material. We notice these days, Madam Speaker, that buses today have more reflectors on them than they did before. They have escape hatches that they never had in years gone by, standard fire extinguishers and first aid kits, certain markings and interior lighting. The pedestrian-student safety arm – I think they call it – the crossing arm that goes out in front of a bus is part of the D250 standards.

 

What we did as a government, Madam Speaker, is we moved with the rest of the country, similar to what the Member for Labrador West said, bringing in line the rest of the country in increasing the standard of safety for the students. We recognize when you add safety and those levels of safety, there is an additional cost.

 

It's not much different than when vehicles first started being installed with seatbelts. There was an additional cost for that. When you changed bumpers – absorption of bumpers and crumple zones and crashing in vehicles, there's a cost that comes with that. When the evolution of airbags came, and the advancement of airbags, we know there's a cost for that too. We know, Madam Speaker, that there is a cost of safety. The chance in this legislation as well – as the Member opposite referenced, there was a pilot project for cameras. There's a cost to that too, but we also know there is the possibility and the likelihood of increased safety.

 

When the motoring public, people travelling on a regular basis who disregard school buses – it happens far too often, there's no two ways about it. It happens far too often. I know police officers quite often struggle with the ability in having enough evidence to charge the person responsible. Under current legislation you just can't go and say: Well, here's the plate number and I've issued a ticket because the bus driver said that plate number passed through a bus that was stopped with its arm extended, its lights flashing or through a construction zone.

 

You have to have evidence to support that because witnesses – as we know through history, in cases throughout the country at all levels – sometimes are wrong. Not intentionally wrong, they don't mean to be wrong. They are mistaken and quite often known as an honest but mistaken belief. That happens. We know that relying 100 per cent solely on witness testimony is dangerous to do. In the courts they'll always look for other indicators, look at what other witnesses have to say or look for other evidence.

 

That's why cameras are very important, especially when you can photograph a licence plate number. If a bus driver is driving a bus and has to memorize a licence plate number, or a car speeds through a construction zone and a worker memorizes a licence plate number, that's much less reliable than actually having a visual image, a video or camera photograph or still of the particular licence plate number; the same with the person driving because there are technologies that allow for an image of the driver to be captured as well.

 

As the Member for Labrador West said, these are some of the things that happen across the country, that are happening in other places and should be brought into line. While the Minister of Education has chastised us for bringing these new D250 standards forward on buses, I have no regret in doing so knowing that, yes, while the cost is higher – and we realize and understand that the tough fiscal circumstances that exist for the government today; however, the government if they don't believe that was the right thing to do, they always have the choice to lower that safety standard. I hope they don't do that and I don't think they will.

 

But when the minister criticized previous government, which they always like to talk about, for going along with the rest of the country and I would even say and my recollection is even back to 2007 standard, prior to 2012 coming out, we were one of the last provinces in Canada to move towards it. If I remember from briefings from officials back in 2011 when we talked about this, when I first learned about it, was that Ontario gave a week's notice or a month's notice – it was a really short period of time for the busing industry – for any new buses you buy and bring in, had to meet that new standard effective immediately.

 

We were several years after trying to implement and move into this new standard. At one point in time bus operators could take the buses and do modifications themselves to meet the standard. The new standard, as I recollect, doesn't allow for that and buses have to be manufactured. The D250 CSA standard is essentially a manufacturing standard for safety.

 

Madam Speaker, when the Members opposite, when government brings forward a bill that is about safety, it's about safety of workers, construction workers, it's about safety of school children and operation of school children, it's a good thing to do. I know in my time in government as a minister I dealt first-hand with a terrible fatality on the West Coast of a construction worker who tragically lost his life while engaged in his duties for government, for the Department of Transportation, and no one ever wants to see that ever happen. I didn't want to see it happen then; we never want to see it happen in the future.

 

If there is something that can be done to better protect workers, then I believe it's a valuable investment, it's a wise investment and it is certainly worth our time to come here to the House of Assembly to debate it and discuss it and also for government to go through the work and bring that legislation forward.

 

There has been talk in the past that charging a person for a hazardous moving violation, as they're referred to by the courts, when you can't prove who the person was driving, there are people in the law community who have expressed concern in the past that it would be a dangerous precedent to set. I would expect that if the legislation is enforced and utilized from time to time that, at some point in time, there may very well be a challenge to the legislation. I'm sure Members opposite have done their work; they have looked at other jurisdictions to see what challenges have been raised when you charge somebody for an offence when you can't identify the person who actually did the offence.

 

I am sure maybe the minister when he closes debate can refer to that this afternoon. There have been challenges in other jurisdictions in the past. Maybe the courts have now said that it's allowable and okay and it's accepted by the courts – a new precedent had been set on it. I'd be delighted to hear if that is the case.

 

As my colleague mentioned earlier, we like safety legislation. We like requiring people to operate themselves, operate vehicles in a safer manner. We like it when we're trying to cause people to be respectful on highways.

 

Remember when we brought in the Move Over law a couple of years back, which was about a very similar type of circumstance, about creating safety when utility workers, highway maintenance workers, police or emergency, firefighters, emergency medical people, it could be forest firefighters, any other emergency service that could be on the highway. It requires the motorists to slow down and move over.

 

I think people may have forgotten about it in recent years. Maybe it's time to remind them again of the existence of that piece of legislation, especially with summertime coming and a much higher frequency of having workers and first responders on our highways. Maybe it's time for the government to remind people again of the Move Over law and the requirement to slow down and yield the right-of-way to people on the highway, and to take a motion so that you can move away and give them a safe working space.

 

Madam Speaker, we'll be supporting this piece of legislation. I certainly expect my colleagues on this side of the House will be supporting it. We look forward to having further discussion in Committee.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin – Grand Bank.

 

MS. HALEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to continue debate on amending sections of the Highway Traffic Act. My colleagues have already spoken to specifics of the proposed amendments and to developments in other jurisdictions. I will now speak to the significance of collaboration and the importance of making progressive updates to the Highway Traffic Act.

 

Madam Speaker, the province's Highway Traffic Act was updated in 2014 to clarify the rules of the road related to roundabouts. The act was also updated that year to make the use of bicycle helmets mandatory on all provincial roads. Further amendments were made in 2014 to require motorists to move over when approaching emergency vehicles.

 

Madam Speaker, every Member in this hon. House has likely seen school buses bringing children to and from schools in their districts. Every Member has likely seen men and women carry out vital roadwork in construction zones where speed must be reduced to protect these vulnerable workers.

 

We are talking about positive changes that will bring our legislation in line with laws in other provinces for multi-use of best practices and prevent tragedies like those that have occurred in the past.

 

At present, Madam Speaker, the fines charged in this province for the offence are lower than many other jurisdictions. With the proposed amendments, fines for illegally passing a school bus will increase so that they range between $500 and $1,200. Previous fines were in the $100 to $400 range.

 

Madam Speaker, promoting safety is a high priority for our government, and I am sure that all Members share the priority we place on mitigating danger and minimizing risks. As my hon. colleagues have mentioned in their previous remarks on this bill, there are special efforts underway to curtail poor driving practices and make sure everyone honours their responsibility to drive safely.

 

We now have a great opportunity to support all of this good work by continuing to make important updates and amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. Working together we can improve our legislation to ensure the safety and well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now and into the future. I hope to see the co-operation of all Members opposite as we undertake these amendments, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the merits of this bill.

 

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

 

I'm very happy to stand today and to speak to Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, and I would like to commend the minister and his department for bringing forth this bill. It's a very important bill, because this can be a life-saving bill. Hopefully it's not so much about punitive measures, but more so about precautionary measures and preventative measures.

 

The bill, as we know, contains two types of changes to the Highway Traffic Act. The first one is changing the rules of the road, and that's Part V of the act. That allows the registered owner of the vehicle to be held responsible for three specific moving violations.

 

The second change is raising the minimum and maximum fines for passing a school bus and for school zone speeding. It's so important. So many of us work in a much more fast-paced environment than we did years ago.

 

We know there are more cars; there are more vehicles on the road than years ago. There are more people driving faster than there were years ago (a) because many of our roads are in good condition so it allows for that. Also, so many of us are rushing. We're rushing, rushing all the time.

 

Many families have, perhaps, two-income earners and people are rushing back and forth to take kids to school or to go to work or to pick up kids from school or to take kids to soccer. It's really tough so people are rushing and rushing and rushing.

 

I can remember in '70s when we saw the great introduction of more and more personal computers and we thought, ah, we are going to have more of a paperless society and we will have more leisure. We were promised we were moving towards a four-day workweek. It didn't happen.

 

Now, with the introduction of more and more technology, we have more paper. Not only that, the boundaries between work and home life have completely blurred because we can be reached all the time through social media mechanisms.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

I ask Members to take their side conversations outside or keep the noise level down a bit.

 

Thank you.

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

So many of us are rushing, rushing and rushing. These kinds of measures, I believe, are really important. Again, they can be lifesaving.

 

The second change is raising the maximum fees for passing a school bus and for school zone speeding. Officials confirm both, but only one fee schedule for school bus passing showed up in the copy of the bill we received.

 

The three specific moving violations we are looking at today, that we are looking at as a change in this act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, are speeding in a construction zone which I'm sure many people – perhaps even many people here in this House – have done. I think through the work that folks working on our highways, through the work the police have done, through increased signage, we are becoming more and more aware of it.

 

I tell you, I'm deterred when I know – I halt when I know – I slow down because I can be somewhat heavy on the pedal there.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame. 

 

MS. ROGERS: I know. I am ashamed. I am. 

 

But I am so grateful – I have to tell you –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: – I am so grateful for the signs on our highways that remind us. I'm sure I'm not alone in this House. I'm sure I'm not alone in this province. I tell you I have learned. I am so grateful for the signage, for the cautions and for the warnings that are put out to us to make sure we don't drive in an irresponsible manner. Again, so many of us are really rushing around trying to accomplish much.

 

The speeding in a school zone, how is important is that. We all know, particularly in unexpected places, kids can pop out on the road. I'm sure all of us have had children in our community or children in our lives who have been hit on the road, sometimes with really drastic consequences.

 

I think the speeding in a school zone is really, really important. I'm glad to see this change here. I would like to see a school zone, the hours – and I spoke to this in the House about two years ago when we were looking at speeding zones in school zones. I would like to see that those rules are in place 24 hours a day (a) because it keeps reminding us; and (b) because children are at school after hours. Sometimes it's just up until 6 o'clock. Sometimes it's on weekends. Sometimes if there's a play going on or a basketball game, we have our kids at the schools until 10 o'clock at night.

 

I think to extend those hours to 24 hours, seven days a week is not going to really hamper our lives, but it might save a life. I think I would like to see that policy enacted.

 

The third moving violation is passing a school bus stopped with red lights flashing. When I was a young girl my Cousin Debbie, six years old, was killed by a driver. When the school bus was stopped, the red flag was out. She walked in front of the school bus to cross the road and she was hit by a car. She was killed at six years old.

 

Our family knows that devastation. Not only did we lose Debbie – and every time I see a school bus stopped with the red flag out, I think of Debbie. Thank God for those red flags. Thank God that we have those to remind us. Every time I see one of those school buses I think of her, but I also think of Uncle Tom and Aunt Bette who never fully recovered from that accident. They never fully recovered.

 

I'm so happy we are looking at more measures to slow us down, more measures to make us more cautious. Not that I'm happy about the punishments, although I think that they become a deterrent, but the responsibility to take the caution to everyone. I'm so very happy for a number of reasons to stand in this House today to support this bill.

 

Currently, in section 210 of the act holds the owner of the vehicle responsible for traffic violations except in the cases of moving violations. Only the actual driver can be charged except in cases of moving violations. Sometimes the driver can be held responsible but sometimes the driver is not caught or sometimes it's really hard to identify the driver. So that becomes a whole grey area.

 

What this is doing is enabling our enforcement officers to hold responsible the owner of the vehicle. Sometimes the owner of the vehicle is not the driver. So then I believe we have a pretty fair justice system that can then deal with the ramifications of that.

 

What the changes in this bill allow for will allow the owner to be charged for these three moving violations when the identity of the car can be determined. More often than not, the identity of the car can be determined, but often the driver can't, if something is moving quickly. 

 

I remember once driving near a daycare area and there wasn't a sign that said I should slow down. I was preoccupied and I was rushing to go to a meeting because I'm always rushing. A parent waved me down and said to me: Do you know you're near a child care centre? I thought, you know what, yah. I was so happy that parent slowed me down.

 

This is another way to slow us down. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. It's a responsible thing. The elements in this bill, the suggested changes in this bill, are about lifesaving measures, are about making our community safer, not only for kids, but for all of us.

 

Where I live, and in my District of St. John's Centre, there are so many children who walk to Holy Cross Junior High, who walk to Bishop Abraham Elementary school, who walk to St. Teresa's School. As our schools gets bigger, as this government closes more of our schools and then the traffic gets more congested because there are more kids packed into schools and the population is denser, then we see more children spilling out onto the street or more children walking to school.

 

For instance, in my District of St. John's Centre, oftentimes in the winter the sidewalks are filled with snow or there are snowbanks and these kids are walking on the street. It's very interesting, in my district, particularly on Penneywell Road, when the snow is piled up, when there's snow on the sidewalks, what happens is there's also parking on both sides of the street. There are more cars in this area now then there were even 10 years ago. The traffic is dense. The foot traffic of the children walking to school is dense, and they're walking on the road.

 

This kind of legislation is so important because things have changed. More cars on the road, more people in a hurry, more people scrambling, more children also being bused to school now because some of the schools have closed. So I think this legislation is very timely. Again, because of what's happening in our community. Whether it be denser populations in our schools than the kids are out on the streets, there are more kids out around the streets than in schools, or whether we have more kids being bused to schools because their schools have been closed and so they're being bused to schools by school buses.

 

In the last year or so, the English School District has a pilot project that placed 10 cameras on its buses. They were able to take a photo of the vehicle and the plate number. I guess that's how the police also can identify offending vehicles and eventually offending drivers. I am sure that for any of us who have been caught speeding and have been ticketed or lost demerit points, it really makes you think twice.

 

Since the pilot project started there have been 16 charges and five convictions. Officials were not sure how many changes there were before the pilot project started because records are only kept for 18 months, but this sounds like progress. Again, it's not only about punishment, it's about prevention.

 

The bus driver cannot usually identify the driver of the car which needs to be done for moving violations but now with this, currently for speeding to catch the driver the police have to use radar with two cars. Now they will only need a camera. They will determine if charges are laid in cases where a bus driver or someone says the car was speeding or passing a bus and they provide a licence number. It may not be enough evidence, but it may be. So, this is great. The cameras will solve this.

 

With these amendments, the bus driver can report the licence number to the police with proof from the camera and the police will decide whether or not to lay a charge. People will try to use the defence that the car was being driven without their consent. So it will be up to the police to determine if the proof provided by the owner is sufficient. Then I imagine it goes further in our justice system. So this is great.

 

Penalties, most fines are minimum or maximum – and I like this approach. This is an approach that is being used in our courts, in a number of specialty courts. If you accept responsibility, you get a minimum fine. If you say: yes, officer, that was me; yes, I agree, I was going too fast; or I passed a school bus, yes. Well, your fine may be more on the minimum side. If you go to court and contest and lose, the judge can impose a higher fine. In some cases, the police may request a higher fine.

 

I think this is a good thing, but that will happen only if you lose. So it's not a deterrent to actually go to court if you feel that you are innocent. I believe one taking responsibility for their actions is the best that you can do. I hope that in fact the proposed changes in this legislation will encourage people to not speed during school zones. Again, I would like to see that 24-7, because our schools are used by children outside of the regular school hours, and it's a good thing. It reinforces that this is a zone where reduced speed is necessary. It wouldn't take away from us; it wouldn't cost us any money. I think it would be a good thing to do. It's almost like training us.

 

Also, the whole issue of passing a school bus – we know how important that is, and we know how quickly little ones can dart out because that's what little ones do. They get off and they've been pent up in school all day. God knows how long they've been on the bus, because some of our kids are going to be bused for a long time with some of the school closures. So once they get off that bus, particularly if the weather's nice, they're going to dart. They're going to dart across the road.

 

MR. KENT: Doubling up bus routes, too.

 

MS. ROGERS: Yes, and all of that. So we're going to see more congestion, more school buses, more kids scrambling, more kids pouring out of their schools. So this is really important.

 

Then, the whole area of construction; if there is more highway construction and repair – and boy, we sure need it in some parts of our province.

 

I've been to Labrador a few times and have seen the construction on the roads and how desperately it was needed in different parts of Labrador. To see those folks out – and in the summertime when it's so dry and there's so much dust and speeding cars kicking up that dust and kicking up the gravel, when we have workers out there working on the road and improving the road conditions. It's so very important that this is also protecting the people who are fixing our roads, who are improving our transportation system in the province.

 

I'm very happy again to be able to stand and support this bill, as is my colleague here for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi. We will both be supporting this. I would like to thank the minister and his staff for the excellent briefing they gave. This is a good thing. We can celebrate this kind of work.

 

I think each time I see a school bus now with that red flag sticking out, I won't think just of my Cousin Debbie who was hit by a car and killed. I also will think about the great work that was done here today because I think it is great work.

 

I also remind all the people who may be watching at home to spread the good news about this, how important it is. I'm happy there will be a bit of an education and a rollout of public information around these changes because that's a good thing as well. I do believe that this will improve the situation on our roads for our workers, for our children and for parents who can feel a little more comfortable about the safety of their children.

 

I would ask the minister to consider the possibility of extending that reduction time for school zones to 24-7. It won't hurt us. It costs us no money. We will always know that a school zone – because if there's a school recital or if someone is playing basketball that we just slow down during school zones. Why not do 24-7? We'd get used to it. We'd always know when you're coming up to that school zone you slow down. I think that would be a good thing.

 

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm happy to have the chance to speak to this bill. Again, I think it's timely because of what's happening with the busing of children in our province and the fact that we are condensing more and more kids into schools by the closures of our schools, that it will be denser, that there will be more children around, and hopefully we'll have more road construction happening and we need to keep our workers safe.

 

Thank you very much. 

 

MR. SPEAKER (Lane): The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Green Bay. 

 

MR. WARR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It is certainly an honour and a privilege for me to stand here in the House today to speak to Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act. I'd certainly like to thank the minister who asked me to speak to the amendment today. I appreciate him giving me the opportunity to do so.

 

Before I do that, I'd like to commend the Members opposite and the Members on this side who spoke to the amendment who are clearly supporting the initiatives of this amendment. Again, this comes back to my personal involvement. Like my good friend, the former premier and MHA for Topsail – Paradise, we shared many times in a patrol car as we spent some time in the RNC.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you go through the tunnel? 

 

MR. WARR: We haven't gone through the tunnel yet, but we may.

 

This is of a personal nature to me as well, given some experience that I have had. I guess the summary of this, Mr. Speaker, the legislative amendments to the Highway Traffic Act are aimed at reducing traffic infractions around school buses and in school and construction zones. We, as a provincial government, are bringing forward legislative amendments to help prevent the illegal passing of school buses and prevent speeding infractions in school and/or construction zones.

 

Specifically, the amendments allow a charge to be brought against the registered owners of a vehicle identified as breaking these laws, even if the driver cannot be clearly identified. This practice is consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada and is certainly aimed at preventing injuries and deaths associated with these dangerous offences.

 

Just a note on the fines for passing a school bus that is stopped with its red lights flashing, it will be increased to a minimum of $500 with a $1,200 maximum. In the past, previous fines were $100 to $400. In doing that, Mr. Speaker, in increasing those fines to a $1,200 maximum, hopefully, is a deterrent to persons who continually break that law governed by the Highway Traffic Act.

 

We all hear every day in the news talking about drivers who drive with no insurance, drive with no licence, no registration and are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of fines levied against him by the courts, with no care or any concern for the well-being of the travelling public.

 

I'd like to see this taken a little further, Mr. Speaker, like someone who's actually driving a vehicle while under the influence. There are deterrents put in place by the courts. If these people are continually drinking and driving, well their licence is suspended. Obviously, in that case, they're receiving possible jail time.

 

I'd like to see persons who are charged under the Highway Traffic Act for numerous offences of passing school buses that these people be given the stiff arm of the law. Obviously, we need to take control of what happens on our highways and protect not only the youth, but the travelling and walking public as well.

 

I had the opportunity during my lunch break today to actually call a couple of my friends at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary just to ask for some stats with regard to what's happening with their strategic enforcement, especially here on the Northeast Avalon where you have a greater population.

 

Mr. Speaker, it was alarming for me to hear today that in the last six speeding through school zones and driver inattention and driver distractions on cellphones, in school zones over the last six weeks here on the Northeast Avalon, the RNC have issued 300 summary offence tickets. That is an alarming figure from where I sit. I don't know the percentages of those persons who are ticketed compared to those persons who are actually breaking the law and getting off with it, but 300 tickets, I would say to this hon. House that's an alarming figure.

 

Mr. Speaker, the change in the fines from $500 to a $1,200 maximum is certainly not about revenue. These changes are about the safety of our children who walk through these school zones day in and day out.

 

I was glad to hear today from members of the RNC that there are start-up meetings now as we get into our busy construction zone. There are start-up meetings with Occupational Health and Safety and the construction associations whereby they'll sit down with the RNC to come up with a strategic plan about the enforcement through school zones and through construction zones.

 

While I'm talking about construction zones, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up something that we – I travel back to my District of beautiful Baie Verte – Green Bay every Thursday night. How many times have we been driving on the Trans-Canada Highway when we come by a construction zone and the signs are still up? You're slowing from a hundred – and most of us who are driving a hundred are actually probably at 110 or 115, just trying to sneak under the radar.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you of all people.

 

MR. WARR: No, no, I never said me. I said we, and I don't include me in we.

 

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, how many times have we gone through construction zones when there's nobody there? So we're slowing down. Especially in Terra Nova Park where there are no passing lanes, we're slowing down to construction. I might add we just went through a brush cutting through the federal government, through the federal initiatives – a brush cutting area in Terra Nova Park. There were probably three or four different opportunities to slow from 90 in the park to 50 and nobody adhered.

 

You're driving at night or you're driving on a weekend and there are no construction workers there. It's frustrating. It's frustrating for the general public and it's frustrating for me as a driver, Mr. Speaker. Lots of times if you go through the first one, you go through the second one and all of a sudden there's a third one, you're sailing on through and there are actually people in that.

 

I put the onus, Mr. Speaker, on the construction companies. I did check that. The onus is on the construction companies to make sure if there's no construction taking place that these signs are taken down or blanketed over to allow the information to the general public, or the travelling public, that there is no construction going on today.

 

I will remind Members that even if there's no construction on the highways or the byways, you're still responsible to the signs. If you're caught – there's no construction, but you're still caught speeding through those slow up periods, slow up areas – you're still responsible as a driver to pay attention to the signs. We must make sure that we certainly pay attention.

 

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back. I go back to my time in school which wasn't that long ago. I think it might have been the local Lions Club of Springdale, where I grew up, that provided a service of crossing guards. Again, I don't know if it was just safety – they either lost interest in it or didn't have enough volunteers or it was the safety of these people – but when I crossed the road going to my school as a young boy we had crossing guards. Unlike today, there may be some schools here in St. John's and area that still use crossing guards, but out in my area we don't. I guess the people are taken up with their busy days and are just not able to provide the time.

 

I look again at how well our buses are equipped today for safety. With swinging arms, the stop signs and the extra lights the buses are equipped with today, there's no reason, Mr. Speaker. The only reason is driver inattention and there's no excuse for that.

 

Items that affect driver attention today and things that we need to pay attention to, Mr. Speaker, are cellphone use, being the number one culprit of driver inattention. We all lead busy lives. We're always eating on the run. In most households there's a father and mother, husband and wife who are working in the households. Everybody is leading a busy life and everybody finds themselves running out of time and speeding to get to work, or to get to the place that they are going to that day.

 

I want to talk about weather, Mr. Speaker, especially sun. I had an opportunity actually – and it was in Terra Nova Park, as I was coming east one morning early and had forgotten my sunglasses. I had the visor lowered. I had the visor lowered so much because the sun wasn't high, it was still coming up. The visor certainly permitted me from a longer distance of vision. Before I knew it, I was on top of a gentleman with a stop sign. The only reason I slowed down is because I was really blinded by the sun. I saw him at the last minute. I can tell you that I got the shakes when I think of what could have happened. The gentleman was smart enough to get out of way and I certainly got out of my vehicle and apologized to him profusely for my mistake.

 

Like the Member opposite, I had an experience, Mr. Speaker. It was either 1990 or 1991. I want to go back to weather, about black ice, snow and slush in the wintertime. I witnessed an accident in my hometown whereby a bus had stopped and children were crossing the streets. I guess the driver didn't feel the highways or roads that day were as slippery as what they were. He applied his brakes and slid into a young child on the road. That child suffered multiple breaks and was laid up for – actually, she was a real good friend of my oldest daughter. She received some injuries that laid her up for a couple of months, Mr. Speaker. I remember sitting with her until the ambulance came. I remember what went through my mind that day. We all put ourselves in this position and we all are so overprotective of our children.

 

Mr. Speaker, when the ambulance took her, the only thing left on the highway that day, besides a gentleman who was absolutely in shock, was the young girl's schoolbag. I picked up the schoolbag and I brought it home with me. I remember wondering what to do with the schoolbag. So I held on to the schoolbag, it was never asked for, and when that girl graduated Grade 12, I went down and told the story and presented her with her schoolbag when she graduated high school.

 

Mr. Speaker, it was an emotional moment for me, and again, I put myself in that position every day and certainly would never want to see a repeat of it. It was certainly an emotional time.

 

I look at parts of the district that I represent and we have a community in Sheppardville, again, on the Trans-Canada Highway near the Baie Verte Junction. This community had been asking for, and I would certainly ask the Minister of TW if he would keep it his mind – they are a community that are closely associated to the Trans-Canada Highway, and they are very concerned about children who use part of the highway to get to a recreation facility that actually in the summertime that's their swimming hole that's across that highway. They're looking for a reduction in the speed zone in that particular area, I say to the minister. I certainly would be more than happy to sit down and have that discussion with you.

 

I want to talk about the schools, Mr. Speaker. I look at Copper Ridge Academy in Baie Verte. I look at Valmont Academy in King's Point. I look at Indian River Primary in Springdale. I look at Dorset Collegiate in Triton. These schools are associated or directly perpendicular to the highways. Especially Dorset Collegiate on the road from Pilley's Island to Triton, it's on the main highway. We just need to be paying more attention to what we do as drivers.

 

I applaud students today who are taking Young Drivers of Canada courses. Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody today should be allowed to get a licence without a driver education program. When we were all 16 and 17 years old, young bucks and couldn't wait to get our licence, as soon as we got our licence we all forgot about the rules of the road. It was all about the new kid on the block with the car. We threw the traffic laws out the window. So I encourage young people to make sure they do some sort of driver education because I think it's key to actually what we're doing here today.

 

Mr. Speaker, that would be my comments to Bill 12. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to stand here. Before I sit down today – and I know it's not part of the bill – I'd like to take the opportunity to note that this is National Nurses Week. As a husband of a retired RN, I certainly wish all the registered nurses and any nurses associated with health care a happy nurses' week. They're certainly important people in the lives we lead today.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

 

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's a pleasure to rise, as well, to speak on Bill 12. I've heard a lot of Members on both sides make some valid points. We support this bill, obviously, but I wanted the opportunity to get up and pass along my opinion or my few comments on it.

 

As has been stated this afternoon, we know what the bill entails. Passing a school bus – you draw into question why we need to tighten up regulations on passing school buses, just the basic fact of when you say that, our current laws need to be tightened to stop people from passing school buses. I guess it is sad but realistic comment in today's society, Mr. Speaker.

 

Some parts of the bill that my colleagues and the Members opposite have mentioned as well, not being able to identify the driver, the owner of the vehicle if it can be proven that that was the registered owner to be charged, I guess that is, in one way, form or another, if you're the registered owner of the vehicle you'll know who was driving. It should be a self-correcting exercise.

 

A lot of times you hear tell or people will say they'll report this vehicle passing, or they'll see a vehicle pass a school bus with the lights flashing. Very seldom there is any follow-up or anything really comes out of it because, again, it happens in a split second. There are kids, there are people around and no one ever really is held accountable.

 

I've witnessed it myself. I also said if you could get close enough to get the licence plate, but I have seen it in a distance and it's pretty scary. I'd said it is a sad statement to have to make.

 

I notice that cameras, we discussed cameras, but in general I commend the minister and the department for bringing this bill forward. Anywhere you can tighten up the regulations to prevent such things like this happening, we all need to embrace it and support it. 

 

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some personal comments actually more than anything. That was my main reason. Increasing the fines is always a deterrent, but it doesn't prevent it unfortunately, and that's the reality we live in. But it's a good step forward, and I do support this bill.

 

I always say it's too late when an accident happens. You hear stories on the news, a young person, school children, accidental deaths or something. And some of these can be avoided, especially in this case. As Members opposite and my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, Member for Topsail – Paradise, mentioned – and if I'm not mistaken he was the Minister of Transportation and Works when we lost a staff person on a construction site. That is pretty sobering. And we've lost others.

 

Mr. Speaker, I guess the reason I wanted to get up here today – and it is very personal. A long time ago I was working – and I know it is not school bus related, but it comes down to our driving. Accidents happen, unfortunately, but sometimes they can be avoided.

 

I was working with a construction company. We were finishing up one evening and it was this guy, he was flagging traffic. The signs weren't appropriate. I was a young worker; I didn't understand the rules of the day. Traffic was going in all directions and this man was trying his best to keep everything flowing. I actually went up to him; I had to pass him his paycheque. As I handed him his paycheque and I turned around his helmet landed by my feet. When I turned back he was literally under the dump truck.

 

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it was very personal. I knew this man quite well. I knew his family. I'm still in touch with his family. It took me years to get over it. I had recurring nightmares. You talk about – as my colleague brings up – the PTSD stuff of our first responders. I wasn't a first responder but it had a serious impact on me.

 

Any time I see, when the minister is bringing in legislation like this, tightening up the rules, I commend him. If the rules would have been tighter on that given day, that tragedy wouldn't have happened and it wouldn't have been a lifelong experience to this day that I – there don't be a day go by it doesn't flash to me because it was quite traumatic. So, again, I commend the minister for that.

 

Pertinent to the bill and this new regulation, back in the day, before we had the flashing stop signs on the buses, which have worked great, I had – again it was unfortunate, but it was a schoolmate of mine. We were in junior high school. The bus just stopped on Route 60 which is a very busy highway, it's a provincial road. Also in my district I have the Foxtrap Access Road, and presently the Legion Road as well that connect to the CBS Bypass.

 

This happened on Route 60. This young girl was getting off at the stop after my stop. The lights were on, she jumped out of the bus, she darted across the front of the bus and that ended in tragedy. When I saw this bill – and I know it's a good bill – I wanted to speak on it because some of those stories kind of goes on. It's a long time back and people move on with their lives, but you always – it don't be a time I don't see a school bus or I don't see a road sign that I don't think of those instances.

 

Our staff person for Transportation and Works there, a couple of years back when that happened, it just brings it all back. We had another one on the Outer Ring Road, it was unfortunate. Any time we can save a life, increase the chances of saving someone's life or protecting people, we should never do too much. You can never overdo that. I think that's something we all should be mindful of everyday of our lives.

 

There is one thing in closing. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take up much more time. As the minister was presenting the bill – and I don't know, this is a hard one I guess and maybe it's education on some of the operators of the buses. In my district, it's pretty hectic in the evening. I don't know, I have five, maybe, schools. I should know offhand. I have about six schools in my district. From 3 to 4 o'clock in the evening it's a pretty hectic time for the traffic of school buses.

 

If you come along a four-lane highway, which Route 60 is, a bus will stop and you have traffic flowing along. I've noticed this, and hopefully – I don't think anything has happened yet but they'll stop and whip the door open. The sign comes out and the traffic – there is that little interval. Now I don't know if that's an educational thing, but on one hand I can't believe we have to tighten up the regulations to get people to stop at a school bus but on the flipside, is there a little bit of responsibility on the driver of the buses sometimes to give that little hesitation, a little pre-warning that the sign is coming out. Because children, as we all know, are innocent. They are free spirits. They are out of school and they can't wait to get out.

 

I had two little girls. They're grown into young women now, but they were the same way. They would dart off the bus or they would dart across the road. When they see that, they instantly take that false sense of security.

 

Buses stopping, especially on our busy roads – I know my hon. colleague from Baie Verte – Green Bay mentioned he has school bus stops on the Trans-Canada which I mean – again, that's steps it up even a level higher. So that draws some concern. I know we can't police everything but I know in the bill there is some reference that the school district will provide some education. So I think that's good.

 

That's basically where I stand. Mr. Speaker, we do support this legislation. Like I said, on a personal note I felt that I – it's unfortunate we need it, but I'm glad they're bringing it in. On a personal note, I just wanted to tell my own personal story about it and commend the government for bringing in this legislation.

 

Thank you very much.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I certainly find it a pleasure to stand this afternoon and speak on behalf of Bill 12. I don't intend to take the full amount of time to speak on this bill because my hon. colleague from St. John's Centre, Conception Bay South and Baie Verte – Green Bay have so eloquently talked about situations in their lives that certainly has had a profound effect upon them as individuals. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that safety has to be number one for all of us.

 

I will just relate, Mr. Speaker, I count it a real privilege to be appointed to Cabinet by the Premier. My first day in office and my very first briefing I received, I made it abundantly clear to my staff and to my department that safety was going to be priority number one.

 

I think it's very important for us to make sure that, as an employer, every one of our employees who leave to go to work in the morning should be expected to come back to their families safely every day. I think that's important for us to make sure that we have the protective legislation in place to make sure this happens. I think it's important for us as an employer – and we are a large employer. We have a lot of people in this province working for us. So I think it's important for us to make sure that we enact the proper legislation to protect our employees. I think this particular legislation does indeed improve the working conditions.

 

One of the other things I made clear to my staff when I took over the responsibility as Minister of Transportation and Works was that every piece of correspondence that would come from my office will have a safety tag line attached. So anybody in the province who will receive a letter from me will see at the bottom of that a tag line with a safety item there, because I think safety for us is very, very important. I think we have to make sure every measure is taken for us to be able to do that.

 

Mr. Speaker, I spent 28 years working with young people. I think young people, the youth, are our most important resource. I know being involved in Allied Youth and Boy Scouts over the years, and, of course, in the classroom, I know how energetic young people are.

 

Sometimes when our young people leave in the mornings, when they get on the bus and when they get home from school in the afternoon, they are all so excited because they want to go and tell their moms and dads and guardians of all the great things that happened during the day in school. So a lot of times safety is not always number one in their minds. I think, Mr. Speaker, it's incumbent on us, as a government, to make sure we do have protective measures in place.

 

I think the former premier talked about some of the safety issues with the school buses to make sure we do have the proper equipment that will make sure that safety and safety standards are adhered to, and that we follow them. I think that's a very important move. I commend the Members opposite for making sure we do have safety as an important aspect of the buses, and, of course, all the vehicles we have.

 

Mr. Speaker, we just go a little further in this legislation to make sure we put the proper measures in place so that if we have people who are not following the rules and regulations that are set, that there will be appropriate penalties in place that will deter and, hopefully, make people think twice about when they actually get into not following the regulations that we have.

 

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this bill because of the fact that I do think it does improve safety measures. Again, I know historically people have argued that because there's a penalty in place it probably doesn't stop it. Maybe it doesn't totally stop people from breaking the law and the regulations that are sent out there but, I think, if in fact, there are appropriate penalties put in place that people will think twice.

 

I think one of the areas we have really made a big improvement in is when we look at construction zones. We know the fines are tripled and doubled and so on and so forth. I think that's important. I think now people are really getting the message on that. I think if we are actually following through on the legislation we have and following through on the regulations we have there, people who actually break that law, if they are penalized to the full extent of the law, I think the message will get out. I think we will be in a better position to make sure that safety is number one for all of us.

 

So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister in putting this legislation in place because, I think, safety for him is very important. I think he is really taking all this into consideration. He is very passionate about what he's doing. I think this is a very important piece of legislation for us today to make sure we're sending the message to the people that we are not going to be tolerating these types of offences, if they happen. We may, in some way, make sure people are fully understanding that.

 

Mr. Speaker, the fines, I think for us are very important because I think we've all heard horror stories of people who are actually passing busses when lights are flashing. Mr. Speaker, that to me is really not acceptable. I really can't fully understand the impact. I know the Member for St. John's Centre talked about the impact it had on a family who would really have to go through the loss of a child that really could have been prevented. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is so important for us all to understand that.

 

There are consequences. If we actually do something and it's not correct and not right, there are consequences. I think this piece of legislation we have before us today really puts in place the consequences. If, in fact, people are going to be out continually not following the regulations, then these consequences, hopefully, will be a deterrent so we will have better legislation in place that we will prevent these accidents from happening. 

 

Mr. Speaker, again, it was my pleasure to stand today to support this bill because I think it is important for all of us. Certainly, I want to thank the Members opposite for their support as well in making sure this legislation is in place. 

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now he will end the debate.

 

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

I'll just have a few closing remarks. I'll have a few statements on the D250 standard after also.

 

I just want to thank all Members for participating today: the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Topsail – Paradise, the Member for Burin – Grand Bank, the Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay with his very passionate speech and personal meaning to that. It was very emotional. The Member for Conception Bay South also for your very emotional and passionate speech on that and also the Minister of Transportation and Works who is heavily involved with this with a lot of road construction and safety for his workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you for your contribution.

 

Mr. Speaker, before I get into it, it was raised earlier about the D250. I want to elaborate on this because we'll have plenty of time to speak about this.

 

The Leader of the Opposition gave the impression that the Minister of Education – in some statements he made here in Question Period – was trying to scrap the D250 standards. That is absolutely, categorically, not true. Absolutely not true. I don't want to elaborate, but I have to correct the record.

 

As the Leader of the Opposition, the Member was saying that the D250 standard – what was changed in 2012 was never the D250 standard. What your government changed was allowing retrofit; that's what changed. The D250 standard was in since, I think, 1980, 1981. There was never ever any assumption by the Minister of Education that the D250 standard would be eliminated. Just for clarification.

 

What it was I think back in 2012-2013 in consultation – I even have a copy of the email, why it was first initiated. It was that they would bring buses in and they would bring it up to a D250 standard. That standard was never lowered – never ever lowered.

 

Mr. Speaker, I ask the same officials that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was the minister of Service NL: Was there ever pinpointed an accident because of retrofitting? The answer was no. I asked the school board, in Treasury Board I believe it was: Was there ever an accident because of D250 standards in 30-something years? The answer was no.

 

I'm sure the hon. Opposition Leader meant to clarify that we weren't trying to eliminate D250 standards; we were just speaking about when the Minister of Education brought in retrofitting. That was the issue. There is no one in this House wants to lower the standards for D250, Canadian standards for bus safety – no one. I'm sure no one does and no one will. But the question was: How did we get to the D250 standards?


Mr. Speaker, that is the question that was raised, so I just wanted to clarify that. I'm willing to have a discussion with anybody in the House because we are getting a review done on that now for everybody. Safety is all of our concerns.

 

Mr. Speaker –

 

MR. KENT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North on a point of order. I would ask which –

 

MR. KENT: Standing Order 49, Mr. Speaker.

 

I wanted to allow the minister to finish his point before I raised this point of order. Earlier today the Speaker made a ruling during petitions that it is unparliamentary to say that a Member says something that's not true. The hon. minister just clearly stated that the Leader of the Opposition said something that wasn't true. It was ruled unparliamentary earlier today, and I would ask you to once again make a ruling, Mr. Speaker

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

 

MR. JOYCE: I withdraw, and I'll just say it's factually incorrect. It doesn't bother me because the facts are – and I understand the pettiness that's happening here in this House. I had no intention of saying that someone is intentionally misleading. I even said at the end of my statement that I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition would not want to leave that impression, would like to clarify – I even said that at the end of my statement.

 

So I guess if you want to be petty over the safety of school buses, I have no problem with it, but you should realize what you're doing here. This is the safety of our children across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'll get back to the bill itself. I thank everybody for supporting the bill. It is a part that we're bringing in for the protection of our children and our workers across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

I welcome some questions during the Committee stage. I know there were some concerns raised about the cameras on the bus and the jurisdiction, if it would stand up to a challenge. I'm willing to answer any of those questions.

 

Mr. Speaker, this is something that a lot of groups advocated to be brought in the House of Assembly, put forward for the safety of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm very proud our government brought this in. I'm very proud that all Members opposite and the Third Party also support this. We, as parliamentarians, I always said, are here to improve the safety and the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and this is another prime example of we can work together.

 

I thank the critic, the Member for Cape St. Francis, for his remarks and his discussion on it earlier as we were bringing it in. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having this bill passed in the 60 days. I'm looking forward to having this in law so that we can go ahead and protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 12)

 

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

 

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

 

MS. COADY: Now.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

 

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

 

MS. COADY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

 

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.

 

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Dempster): Order, please!

 

We are now considering Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

 

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 12)

 

CLERK: Clause 1.

 

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry? 

 

The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise. 

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. 

 

I shouldn't have too many questions today and I'm sure that the minister is going to be able to help us out with this. But this is going to change the Highway Traffic Act to allow an owner of a motor vehicle to be charged with an offence when the driver of the motor vehicle has not been identified, or when the driver of the vehicle is unknown.

 

I stand to be corrected; I believe other legislation – I believe in Ontario under the Traffic Safety Act it explicitly explains that the owner of a vehicle can't be charged in a case where a driver is identified and charged.

 

I just ask the minister: Is there anything to prevent the police from charging an owner and if they identify a driver, charging the driver as well and charging both? I don't see anything in the legislation that would prevent both from being charged.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: I thank the Member for his question.

 

In the legislation is that if a vehicle is identified, and once the owner of the vehicle is identified that he or she is the owner, if they can identify yes, so and so was driving the vehicle then the driver of the vehicle will be charged only, not the driver and the vehicle. If the driver can't be identified, it will be the vehicle that will be charged.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. 

 

So if I understand the minister correctly, and I just ask for clarification, you're saying that the owner of the vehicle then will be required to identify the driver. In failing to do so, then the owner is charged. Is that what you said?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Yes. If I'm driving your car, for example, and I pass a school bus – if the vehicle can be identified and the police come to your house and say your car passed a red light flashing on the school bus and you say, it wasn't me who was driving, it was the Member for Humber – Bay of Islands who was driving and I say, yes, it was me, I would be charged. Not the owner of the vehicle.

 

That is in the legislation, that the person, if they can be identified, will be charged. If not, in the case that you can't identify who the driver was, the owner of the vehicle is the person that will be charged.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

I know there's a section that says if a person fails to identify who's driving their vehicle, the person can actually be changed. I think the circumstances are if the vehicle is involved in a motor vehicle collision, then the owner has to identify who was driving at the time. I believe that's what the section says, but I'm not sure if it goes beyond that.

 

I don't know it offhand. I don't know if the minister does or not. The Highway Traffic Act is a pretty extensive piece of legislation. I certainly wouldn't expect him or anyone to know all sections in it. So has that changed where the driver has to identify the person who is driving the vehicle? Is there a change in legislation on that?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: No, it's not a change that the owner has to identify who is driving the vehicle. The change in the legislation is that the vehicle will be charged. Once the vehicle is charged, if the owner, through an investigation, says, no, it was not me who was driving; here's who was driving the vehicle and it can be proven, and this person says, yes, I was driving the vehicle, then that person – but the onus is on the owner of the vehicle to say or prove who was driving the car because the owner will be charged.

 

If it can be proven that it was somebody else who was driving, through testimony or someone stepping forward saying, no, it was me, I was driving dad's car. I was driving mom's car. I was driving my wife's car or my wife was driving my car – that's how it would happen now. In the absence of identifying a driver, the owner of the vehicle will be charged.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: I apologize, Madam Chair. The minister just said you'd charge the vehicle. I'm sure he meant the owner of the vehicle. In order for someone to testify, a charge has to be laid. In order for a charge to be laid, there have to be grounds to support the charge.

 

I'm just a little bit confused by what the minister is saying – if someone gives testimony. You can't give testimony unless there is actually a matter before the courts or a charge has been laid. I don't know. I don't know if the minister can clear – it looks like he's eager to get up. Maybe I'll just let him answer that because I'm just a little bit confused by what he's provided.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: As you would know from being an RNC officer, the change is that, before, you could only ticket a driver. What the legislation is changing now is that if someone is speeding past a school bus with its red lights on, arms out, no one can recognize the driver – say, for example, one of these buses has a camera; they can identify the licence plates – then that would be reported to the police. The police then would do an investigation and they would charge the vehicle. Whoever is the owner of the vehicle will be the person who is charged with passing the school bus.

 

I say the vehicle, but when I say the vehicle I mean the owner of the vehicle will be charged. Whatever licence plates are on that vehicle, that is the owner, the onus is on him or her. Even if there is no onus, if they can't show that they weren't driving, the owner will be charged.

 

If someone else steps forward and says, no, I was driving mom's car, dad's car, my husband's car, my wife's car, my neighbour's car, then the police have the option of charging that person who has admitted or found to be driving the vehicle itself. In the absence of that, the owner of the vehicle – and this is what the change is – is the person who would be charged with the offense.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

I appreciate that. Thank you, Minister, for that.

 

There was another layer just added on there. It's the first time I heard it. So are you saying a bus has to have a camera to identify the licence plate?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: What I said is if they have a camera. There could be other ways. If you have four or five witnesses who see the driver, who see a vehicle passing or going through – you, as an investigator, know that if you take four or five witnesses, that's fine, but you don't have to have a camera. I just used that for an example, if there was a camera. You don't have to have a camera.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 

Minister, it is a great piece of legislation. I'm interested in knowing about the pilot project that you had which was on the go last year. There were 16 charges laid but only five convictions. That's with the school bus. All these buses had cameras on them?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: I'm not sure. That was a pilot project with the school board, so I don't know if every one of those buses had cameras on them. I can get the information for you, but I don't have that information of all of them having cameras on them.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

MR. K. PARSONS: According to the information that I had, it was ten buses that were owned by the school board and one other contractor outside that had buses. This was part of the pilot project. I was very interested to know that there were 16 charges laid, but only five convictions. I think the project was part of these 11 buses that were done. Again, I was just wondering why the low rate of convictions compared to the charges that were laid?

 

I'll just ask you a two-part question here now too. As you know, sometimes it's very difficult to lay charges and it's a very serious offence, passing by a school bus. We should be very vigilant of what we're doing. Are there any plans to make this part of school buses down the road, to have cameras on their buses?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Just part of the pilot project was to have cameras on them, but at the time they couldn't lay charges on the vehicle itself. That may be the discrepancy because now this is why the changing of the legislation. I will get back to the answer as to why only six charges. The vehicle couldn't be charged until this legislation was in place; it could be just the driver. So that may be part of it.

 

The second thing is Service NL is not enforcing any cameras on any buses. That is a decision by the Department of Education and the school board. So it is not a requirement under this legislation to have cameras on the bus.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Just another final question, Minister, and it's more or less an inquiry. I'm just wondering – as you know, the speed, it's easy enough to see a vehicle going past a bus because you've got a camera picture of the licence plate. When it comes to speeds, say, in school zones and in construction zones in other provinces, how effective is this when you go to court? Unless you have some kind of radar detection or something like that, I can see that as being a problem down the road. I was just wondering the benefits of what will happen there.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

On the school buses the idea of the cameras is someone passing the bus. In the construction zones there may be – and this would be a policing issue – radar set up at the construction zone. The cameras are for passing the bus, not for speeding. In a construction zone, again, the police do it through radar. They have photo radar detection. However, that is a policing issue that I know Chief Janes addressed today.

 

The speeding is for the zones. The cameras on the bus are for people passing the buses; it's not for the speeding. My understanding is it would be very difficult to detect the speed but it will detect passing.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

Am I right in thinking as well that if the owner of a vehicle is charged versus a person who is actually identified by – if the owner was or was not the driver, it's immaterial to my question, but if a person is charged under this legislation as the owner, would they only be subjected to the fine, or the fine and the demerit points?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: If they cannot identify the owner for certain, it would be just a fine and no demerit points. But if they can identify the driver of the vehicle, the driver will lose demerit points. If they can't identify the driver, only the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle will get the fine but they will not lose any demerit points.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

Thank you, Minister.

 

Do you have any consideration or thought – I just ask this again, I was just thinking about it. I know there are lots of circumstances where people are driving a motor vehicle and they are allowed to have 12 demerit points before a licence is suspended. They might be at 10 or 11, knowing that demerit points for passing a school bus, I think, is six demerit points. Maybe lots of people have seven or eight points gone.

 

They pass a school bus. They think they may get caught but they would make an effort to elude detection just so they not be identified as the driver and end up with the fine. Was there any thought or consideration to that, or is it a concern for you that it may cause people to try and escape being apprehended so that – they'll still pay the fine, be held responsible as the owner, but they would escape the demerit points?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: That's a great question and a great consideration. What we did was we took the other jurisdictions around Canada that were tested and held up, and that's what we followed.

 

That is a great point to make. It was raised, but because of other jurisdictions, we're following other jurisdictions. We decided you can do the vehicle. Unless you can identify the owner, it would be hard to pursue it in court with the demerit points.

 

It is a great issue, and I'm sure it's something I'll be considering and asking officials to look at because it is another deterrent that we can put in there. I agree with what the Member said, that if someone has 10 points gone and they know they're going to get charged, why not just keep going and speed away. It is a good point.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: I appreciate it, Minister, because I know the last thing you want to do is create kind of a greater danger or worry for safety of children or workers. If a person speeds through and says I'm not going to stop, or they might be in a position where police sometimes take a little bit of time to get turned around or get in a position to be able to pursue or catch them, you wouldn't want someone to create a bigger danger by doing that.

 

You mentioned other jurisdictions. My recollection back, because I remember looking at this back when I was Minister of Service NL several years ago. One of the problems that existed at the time with us going forward with this was there were outstanding challenges in courts and that legislation in other provinces was being tested where they said we can't charge someone with a moving violation, which is consciously, wrongfully taking action or being in care and control of a motor vehicle. There were challenges to that in court. 

 

So I think from your comment, maybe you could just comment on it for me, that some of those challenges have been completed by courts. I stand to be corrected. Maybe it even was being raised to the Supreme Court of Canada to say on the legality of charging the owner. By the way you're trying to get up there, maybe you have some information on that you can share with us too.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you very much.

 

You're correct, that some of them were challenged. That is why we brought the legislation as other jurisdictions. To my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, but it has not been challenged in the Supreme Court yet. It hasn't, no. That's from my understanding. It hasn't been challenged. It may be, and then if it does we'll have to change it, but right now we're following other jurisdictions that went through this and are having some success with it.

 

I will commit to the Leader of the Opposition that I will get more information on the demerit points and the rationale. I know we're following other jurisdictions and other jurisdictions came back and said no, the merit points would be more difficult. I will check that out because anything we can do – I have no problem looking into that point of it to ensure that people who don't speed away are losing four to six, eight or 10 points and causing a safety concern. That is a point that I will commit to and bring back to the House. 

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

My last point is, and I believe it is in Saskatchewan where the Safety Traffic Act – I think they call it in Saskatchewan – actually specifies a clause where it prevents that double jeopardy. A double jeopardy is where a person gets charged twice for the same crime type of thing, but a double jeopardy where an owner and someone else who may have been driving, that they both get charged. I don't see in the act here where it specifically outlines that both will not be charged.

 

It is just something you can consider and talk to your officials about maybe. Is there some type of way to prevent that from happening? Because some police officers might come across a circumstance where: Well, I think I have enough evidence to charge the driver, but the section says I can charge owner. I'm not satisfied yet it's the owner. So I'm going to charge the owner, and three hours later they find out they have enough evidence to charge the driver. Now they end up with charges proceeding on both. I'm just wondering if there's legislation or something there to prevent that from happening. If not, you can comment if you like, but I would appreciate if you do, but thanks.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

Yes, in the legislation it is that if the police identify a vehicle and then someone comes forward to say, I was driving the vehicle. It is in the legislation that they can withdraw the charges from – it is only one person, the driver. They can't, in the absence of the driver it will be the vehicle. That is in the legislation that it is only one person – one charge for the offence, and they can withdraw the charge from the vehicle if the driver of the vehicle is identified. So, it is in the legislation.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: I know I said I wasn't going to get up again, but I just made a note on the comment for the minister from second reading when he closed debate on the D250 standard, my recollection was that in 2007 the D250 standard allowed for modifications by garages, but the newer 2012 standard ended that allowance for aftermarket or post-production modifications to it.

 

My comment was that government has a right to determine what standard they want to follow. The newest standard is 2012. Many jurisdictions follow that 2012 standard. Of course, you could always go back to the 2007 standard, but my understanding is the reason why CSA changed the standard from allowing modifications to occur and inspection to make sure it meets the D250 standard, versus in 2012 when they said it has to be manufactured to the D250 standard was that the modifications weren't meeting all the specifications that CSA laid out.

 

Now we know CSA is very technical and they lay out a very high standard and so on. My recollection was at the time information from officials were that we had adopted the D250 standard, and therefore the updates and everything went with that. So we had to follow the standard of the day.

 

Anyway, Minister, maybe you and I can have a chat offline about that, and I'd be more than happy to talk about it further with you.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 

I would just ask the minister, is there any consideration at all about looking at extending the hours for school zones to 24-7? I am often in Conception Bay North and the main road, it's only two lanes, goes right through the school zone, and it would make sense to me to just – because children are at schools for extracurricular activities, why not?

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, and I thank the Member for St. John's Centre for the question.

 

To be honest, it was never raised. This is the first time it was raised. In all of our discussions in the House, it's the first time it was raised. It's something I haven't looked at, something that hasn't been brought to my attention, but it's something I will at least ask the officials to say, can we get a report done. I will have to consult with you on it, and I will consult with the department.

 

In some cases, it does make sense and other cases, where schools are away from any area where there's driving, a lot of kids are being bused.

 

The most I can say is I'll look into it and ask for some information on it. I'll hand you over all the information I can get on it, if it's going to provide a safer environment for the school kids and if it's practical.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 

I'm really glad to hear the minister say he will explore it because I have a memory, and I don't know if it was in this jurisdiction or in Ontario, but a very strong memory of school zones being 24-7. It would be great if you were to get a search done on that one.

 

I thought it was in this province, actually, at one point, because I remember reading the rule and even questioning and being told it's 24-7. I think it was an enforcement officer that I asked about it. I think it was in this province but I could be wrong.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you again.

 

Of course, this is a question that came up today. I thank the Members for their questions. From my understanding, though, if a sign is posted that you're in a school zone, it is 24-7. If a sign is posted that the kilometres is down – that's my understanding.

 

I'll look into it and I'll get back because, from my understanding, if it's a posted sign – for example, if you have a sign posted that it's 50 kilometres, in the nighttime it doesn't go up to 80. If a school zone is 30 –

 

MS. COADY: Unless there are time zones listed.

 

MR. JOYCE: Unless there are time zones.

 

That's something that was raised. I'll get a report and I'll get back to you on it. We'll have the proper information and have a proper discussion here in the House of Assembly.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. MICHAEL: Not to keep it going, but just to give more information.

 

Here in the city right now – I can only speak for the city because I'm so used to it – all the places where they have the signs up showing the school zone, they're ending at 4 or 5 in the afternoon and they're not on, on the weekends. They're only on during a period of the day showing you that it's a school zone. That's why I think there has been a change around the timing.

 

Thank you, Minister, for looking further into it.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

 

Once again, the school zones, most in St. John's are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Some others don't have it posted, so you'll see the discrepancy in it.

 

As I committed, I will get a report done and I'll report back. I will pass on the information. If this is going to improve safety, I'm all for it and if there's something we can do, it is practical sense and it makes sense I'll definitely look at it. I have no problem whatsoever.

 

So I don't think there are any more questions. I would like to thank everybody for their questions, and I thank everybody for the debate. As I said before, this is a House of Assembly act that is going to help all of our children, and help the workers in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I thank all Members for their participation and I thank all Members in the House also for responses in their speeches, and also the very thoughtful questions, Madam Chair.

 

Anything that I committed to get back to people on the few questions – I know the Leader of the Opposition and I know the Third Party did – I will definitely ensure that I get back to you with the information. 

 

Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers to Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, we will now call the motion.

 

Shall clause 1 carry?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

On motion, clause 1 carried.

 

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

 

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. 

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

On motion, clauses 2 through 3 carried. 

 

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

 

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry? 

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

On motion, enacting clause carried.

 

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

 

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry? 

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

On motion, title carried. 

 

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 12 carried without amendment?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. 

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

Motion, the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. 

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: I move, Madam Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 12. 

 

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 12 carried without amendment.

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

 

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Deputy Speaker.

 

MS. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, carried without amendment.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters referred to them and have directed her to report Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, carried without amendment.

 

When shall the report be received?

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Now.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

 

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

 

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to do here is actually move from the Order Paper, Motion 16, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, May 10.

 

Motion 17 on the Order Paper, I would move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10, 2016.

 

Now, what I'd like to do, Mr. Speaker, is I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 4, third reading of Bill 25.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Virginia Waters – Pleasantville, that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act, be now read a third time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act, be now read a third time.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act. (Bill 25)

 

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

 

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 3.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant Act And The Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be now read a third time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant Act And The Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be now read a third time.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant Act And The Parliamentary Secretaries Act. (Bill 3)

 

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

 

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Assistant Act And The Parliamentary Secretaries Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper, I would move Motion 14, to move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 26.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Speaker now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into –

 

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. 

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider certain resolutions and a bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act. 1957, Bill 26.

 

MR. SPEAKER: I'll try it again. 

 

The motion is that the Speaker now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

 

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. 

 

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Dempster): Order, please!

 

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act.

 

Resolution

 

“That is it expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.”

 

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

 

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

As Members of this House would be aware and, certainly, the briefings that would have been provided for the Opposition, what we're looking to do today is to amend Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act. Specifically, we are looking to amend the act as it relates to a loan guarantee provided for the Stephenville Airport Corporation.

 

As Members of the House would know, the finance – except under established programs such as the Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee Initiative or the Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program, the use of loan guarantees to provide financial assistance to the private sector, certainly, are continuing to be reduced in recent years.

 

Amendments to the Schedule to this act are a particular item in the financial administration of the province, with the last amendment having been approved in this hon. House on December 2014.

 

Under the act, and subsequent to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Minister of Finance is authorized to provide guarantees to either private sector or Crown corporations covering a variety of financing arrangements, with the most common being guarantees of operating lines of credit. The act requires that all guarantees that are approved and issued be ratified by this hon. House through an amendment to the Schedule of the act.

 

The current bill, Madam Chair, includes one amendment to the Schedule to extend the existing guarantee. As I mentioned earlier, this bill relates to the Stephenville Airport Corporation for which the province has been providing a guarantee since 2005. My colleague, the Minister of Business, I believe, is going to speak to this, as well as the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port.

 

Conditional approval was recently received from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to increase the guarantee to $900,000. In fact, during the final days of the former administration's government, they extended the loan guarantee –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

CHAIR: Order, please!

 

I ask Members for their co-operation to keep the noise down a little bit in the House.

 

Thank you.

 

MS. C. BENNETT: – for the Stephenville Airport Corporation from $600,000 to $900,000 effective to March 31, 2016.

 

The corporation was required to submit a business plan, a business sustainability plan that would outline how they plan to restructure. However, that plan wasn't received until the end of March 2016.

 

I'm pleased to report to the House that I had the opportunity to meet with officials from the Stephenville Airport Authority in February to discuss the requirement for them to provide the business sustainability plan, and they certainly were able to provide that by the end of March 2016. What we're doing, though, with this amendment is to extend the loan guarantee until June 30 of 2016, and that would allow the time to do the proper due diligence and to review the plan.

 

The act requires that all guarantees that are approved and issued be ratified by this hon. House through the amendment to the Schedule of the act.

 

Madam Chair, I'll take my seat and allow the Members opposite to speak to this.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

I am glad to stand to speak to Bill 26 to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act. This act will amend the Schedule to the act as relates to the loan guarantee in place supporting the Stephenville Airport. This act was ratified by a decision in Cabinet to increase the guarantee by $300,000 to a total of $900,000. The act also ratifies a decision to extend the guarantee to June 30, 2016, as certainly the minister has indicated.

 

As we know, this will allow Stephenville Airport to continue to be operational – the help in regard to operations and the guaranteed loan. Government, I understand, is not loaning money to the airport, but is guaranteeing their loans which they currently have on the books. Should the guarantees be called, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would execute that with the expenditures.

 

We're certainly a supporter of this. While we were in government, we went through this process on a number of occasions as well. In 2005, the administration at that time authorized the original loan of $350,000. At that time the Minister of Finance spoke to it about supporting the operations in Stephenville, and certainly giving them the hand up, and not a handout. In 2010, that guarantee was extended to $600,000 and in November at that time, an increase of $300,000 was guaranteed and extended to March 31, 2016.

 

In March, my understanding was Cabinet extended the guarantee to June 30, 2016. I know in my role previous as minister of IBRD I had experience with this, and looked at various airport authorities, as well as working with Stephenville and recognized the importance of that in regard to the region and overall competiveness of the airport, continued growth and continued to provide that infrastructure in all parts of our province.

 

The Department of BTCRD is currently, I understand, reviewing the business plan received for the airport. The airport as always is looking for ways to increase their revenue. Looking at possibly soliciting more military traffic, something I'm sure our Liberal MPs will lobby for in Ottawa in regard to get greater traffic, greater access and greater support for the airport.

 

My understanding is the review that is underway will hopefully be finished by June 30, 2016. Following this, Cabinet will make a decision, extending the loan guarantee, which we expect will occur. We will have to wait and see for that. That will allow the airport to continue to operate with the support of government through the loan guarantee, which is very important to do. Shortage of flights, a bit of a downturn during the winter season but they will certainly use the loan guarantee to get them through sort of a down period.

 

As part of this bill, I'm certainly supportive of this, recognizing what it does for the Stephenville area and the region in terms of their airport and providing that significant piece of infrastructure that is indeed very important.

 

Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

 

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

As the Minister of Finance has noted, this bill relates to the Stephenville Airport Corporation for which the province has been providing a guarantee since 2005. I will speak more to the specific aspect of the legislation.

 

The purpose of the legislation is to approve the original loan guarantee increase for the Stephenville Airport Corporation of $300,000 and to recommend extension of the loan guarantee to June 30 in the amount of $900,000.

 

Madam Chair, the Official Opposition would be familiar with the loan guarantee extension, as last November they extended the loan guarantee to the Stephenville Airport Corporation from $600,000 to $900,000 effective to March 31, 2016. Conditional approval has been recently received from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to increase the guarantee to $900,000.

 

As the Minister of Finance has indicated, the corporation was required to submit a business sustainability plan that would outline how they plan to restructure. That plan was recently received and we are, through this legislation, extending the loan guarantee until June 30, 2016 to allow the time to do proper due diligence and review the plan.

 

Madam Chair, the Stephenville Airport has been an integral part of the Stephenville-Bay St. George region. After the military base closed in the late 1960s, the airport was established as a civilian operation and is now a non-profit organization with local stakeholder representation.

 

The corporation serves commercial air traffic and also provides technical stop services. It has two runways, a fuel farm, operations terminal, a hangar, and a cargo building. It employs up to 16 staff, including a general manager who reports to the board of directors. Passenger traffic has steadily declined over the past number of years due a variety of reasons. International flights now utilize long-range aircraft which can overfly directly into the North American heartland or Europe.

 

Madam Chair, the purpose of the business plan is to include air traffic related activities as well as strategies to better utilize airport land for other industries which can generate revenue. 

 

Again, we are seeking approval through this legislation to extend the guarantee to June while we undertake a detailed review of the corporation's business plan. 

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

I'm pleased to have a chance to speak to Bill 26 today. This is a loan and guarantee act amendment. Previous speakers have explained why this bill is important and why Members will likely be supporting it.

 

Given that the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development has spoken, I thought I would join in the debate as well – from that perspective, actually.

 

As the critic for Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development, I want to speak in support of the Stephenville Airport and the potential economic growth it could generate for the region. I know that people in the area on the West Coast are very passionate about it. They recognize the potential for the airport to be a real economic driver, even beyond what it has been in the past. I want to make some suggestions that I hope are actually helpful to government, and suggestions that they may be able to pursue to help the region grow and help the airport grow as well.

 

Some of these may be a little farfetched, some of them maybe not, but I think we all talk about the need to diversify the economy. I think when you have an airport with the capability and the potential of Stephenville Airport, strategically located as it is, then there are some opportunities that are worth pursuing. I suspect Members from the area, and I know there are several in the House, will support that line of thinking as well.

 

Given the history, one opportunity would be military use. Perhaps the government could lobby the federal government for some DND use. Maybe there could be some National Defence presence at the airport. Given the size of the airport – I mean we're talking about a site that was at one point an alternate landing site for spaceships. I don't know if it still is or not.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: It is.

 

MR. KENT: It is, one the Members for the area is telling me.

 

So there is significant infrastructure there. Maybe our own National Defence Department could utilize some of the assets at the facility. Maybe it could be used for drone training. Maybe there are opportunities for aerospace. Maybe there are opportunities for other defence training. It's Innovation Week, so let's look at doing something innovative with that resource that exists on the West Coast of our province.

 

Maybe it's not just with the federal government, Madam Chair. Maybe we collaborate with Memorial University's Department of Engineering or the private sector, whatever. Maybe we bring together the right people from the university community and from the business community and from the federal and provincial governments and from the region to explore some of those possibilities for Stephenville Airport.

 

Maybe even we can work with NATO. Beyond the Department of National Defence, maybe there are opportunities for NATO or other governments for training purposes. I know that other governments and NATO have used other airports in our province in the past. There's been military activities and training on the base and at the airport in Goose Bay, for instance. So maybe the same kind of opportunities could be pursued on the West Coast of the Island as well.

 

I also wonder if there's some potential for tourism collaboration. Now that may sound a little strange when we're talking about an airport on the West Coast of the Island, but when you think about the past military users, the Americans, for instance, maybe there is some potential to create an interesting destination that highlights the history around the airport and builds on it. Maybe link in some world flying clubs and create a real destination.

 

So, again, these are big ideas. Maybe some of them are practical, maybe some of them are not but I refuse to acknowledge those who say, well, we don't need two airports on the West Coast. The Stephenville Airport is a real asset. So I think we need to be creative and innovative in identifying ways to enhance the airport's use and make it even more valuable for the region.

 

When you think about tourism on the West Coast of the province, the Southwest Coast in particular –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

CHAIR: Order, please!

 

I ask Members to take their conversations outside.

 

Thank you.

 

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

When you think about the tourism potential that exists on the Southwest Coast, some of the ecotourism opportunities rely on air services. So there may be some opportunities by pursuing those markets as well.

 

I think it's worth noting that the province's largest francophone community is in that region of the province. So maybe the airport and the region should enjoy some type of special federal protection and support and stimulus. Maybe that could tie into the uses for the airport. There may be some opportunities there. Again, if levels of government get together and are creative and innovative then who knows what might be possible.

 

There's also a tremendous arts and cultural community in the area. So I wonder how that sector could potentially tie in as well and build a site that links all communities in the region and really creates a destination. There is a lot of infrastructure there. Again, I think we need to think outside the box.

 

When I think about the land use in the area, there is significant agricultural activity. There is a need for more and maybe there's an opportunity for agrifoods export. Maybe the airport could play a greater role in pursuing that. Because proximity to an airport would be a real asset for the export of food that need to kept very fresh; perhaps high-end food that would have special labelling to identify the source, the date packed, the growing conditions and status of the crops and so on. Again these are big picture ideas. They won't necessarily happen overnight but these are the kinds of things that could be possible if we put our heads together.

 

I think there is also a need to consider the Stephenville Airport as an emergency air transportation hub. There are times when the ferry can't cross. There are times when the Wreckhouse region is impassible. So having an airport that is so close to Port aux Basques and to the Wreckhouse area, I think can be really valuable in times when there are transportation challenges.

 

I also think about the fact that the College of the North Atlantic headquarters is in Stephenville. Imagine if the college could build some kind of centre of excellence around aviation. Maybe there is a tie in for the airport there, or maybe there is some other program that the Stephenville campus can specialize in that would utilize the infrastructure there and make the local airport a real asset in that regard. Maybe there is long-term potential, maybe even some short- or medium-term potential for manufacturing and trade, local industrial development to replace the Abitibi operation.

 

Madam Chair, these are just a few ideas. I feel as the critic responsible for Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development, I just wanted to make the point that we have a good piece of infrastructure that already plays an important role in the region. Let's make it play a truly vital role and let's figure out how we can use that infrastructure at the airport to generate long-term sustainable, innovative economic activity for the people in the region.

 

Those are things we would support and happy to work with the minister and the MHAs and other ministers within the government to help explore those kinds of possibilities because that's exactly what we need to do in various regions of the province.

 

So speaking in support of the airport, speaking in support of the bill and speaking in support of some of the economic potential that I believe exists, I hope others will agree. 

 

Thank you. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi. 

 

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 

I'm happy to stand and speak to this, An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act. Actually, I think it's extremely important that this has come to us, to the floor for us to talk about. I'm not going to take long but to say I am totally in support of what this amendment is doing. I think this is the kind of thing government needs to be doing, looking at what's happening in communities where communities are really trying to make something happen and to support them in doing that. A loan guarantee is an excellent way of showing the support.

 

All of us, at different times, have used the Stephenville Airport. I know I certainly have. It's an excellent facility. I think we really would want something to happen for the good of the people and the economy that the people are a part of on the West Coast to make the Stephenville facility work.

 

We were led to understand through a conversation with an official that in actual fact the report is not quite ready yet, that the corporation is still awaiting the report. So if that can be clarified for me because I think it was said that the report is finished, but we've been told by an official that the corporation is still waiting. I'm sure that part of the reason for having to extend the date for the expiry of a loan is the fact that they have to get the report in their hands to see what they're going to do.

 

I'm not going to pretend that I know what can happen out there, but I'm sure that the people in Stephenville and the Airport Authority and others who are involved have a lot of ideas. I certainly hope that the consultant's report is really going to help them find a way to make this facility work, as I said, for the good of the people and the economy that the people are a part of. So we'll be very happy to vote for this. 

 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. FINN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

It is with great pleasure I rise to speak about the Stephenville Airport, of course, being the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port. Right now, this is essentially just a bill that we're going to guarantee the loan and that's certainly important. But in addition to some of the history of the airport and this sort of nature, I really want to kind of just paint the picture of the actual importance of the airport and what that means. 

 

The airport in Stephenville is not just for Stephenville; it is a provincial asset. The airport in Stephenville supplements all of the air traffic across the province every single day. So when we look at the air traffic that flies into St. John's, the air traffic that flies into Gander, Deer Lake, St. Anthony, Wabush and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, one of the key things that Stephenville Airport serves as is an alternate.

 

Every time a flight leaves, they have to have two alternates. One of the alternatives has to be what's called achievable. Technically speaking, that would mean you need to reach your destination – if you miss your original destination – within a 30-minute requirement of not having enough fuel. So Stephenville is frequently used as an alternate.

 

One of the things that people don't realize but we see it in Stephenville because I've met with the board, I know the staff quite well, is when fog rolls in St. John's which happens – let's be honest – quite often. The second they get a fog forecast in St. John's, the phones in the Stephenville Airport go off the hook. We get calls from West Jet. We get calls from Air Canada. We get calls from every airline. They just want to know what our runway report is. That's what they're looking for because they know they've planned us as an alternate.

 

Stephenville Airport wasn't built in Stephenville by accident. Quite opposite from the city here, it's 97.5 per cent of the time fog-free. Now, isn't that wonderful? I think that why we call the West Coast the best coast.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. FINN: The airport itself did see a decline in passenger traffic. That was a result of Transport Canada kind of decommissioning their role in airports all across Atlantic Canada. That took place during the '90s. So, in fact, the Stephenville Airport Corporation was formed just after Transport Canada kind of devolved itself of the assets, I believe, in 1998.

 

Amid some financial difficulty, the airport is still maintained. It has gone through a number of different measures to do so. There's a great board of directors there now working to promote the airport.

 

The loan guarantee is very important for the ongoing operations. We're looking at maintenance of old assets and old buildings. We just had an all new, brand new lighting system for the runway and the tarmac, just bringing everything up to technological standards of today, Transport Canada regulations right now with respect to security, the ever revolving technology with runway reporting and so on so forth.

 

Again, when we look at Stephenville, we have to look at it as a provincial asset, as I said, with weather alone. In order to be a provincial asset, we need to be a 24-7 operation in Stephenville. Currently, we are, but let me tell you that certainly presents some financial challenges.

 

Last year, Stephenville was on record as the snowiest municipality in the country, with some close to seven to nine feet of snow that fell last year. It was between Stephenville and Deer Lake in terms of the highest snowfalls in the country. So you can imagine clearing a 10,000-foot runway every day for the entire winter, consistently. The cost of such is quite high. When you don't have commercial traffic flying in regularly, it's hard to support your efforts when you're looking at raising revenue.

 

But they still managed to survive, and importantly so. We do have some commercial traffic – and I'll get to that in a moment, and I am cognizant of time as well. What I want to point out is perhaps something that's also not often talked about, and that's medevac. So Stephenville serves the entire Southwest Coast, when we look at medical emergencies and medevac.

 

I'll just give you an idea in terms of some of the numbers – and these are air ambulance to St. John's. In 2012, we had 77 medevacs from Stephenville Airport to St. John's; in 2013, we had 81 medevacs; 2014 saw that number jump to 96 medevacs; 2015 had 132 medical evacuations from Stephenville Airport to St. John's.

 

MR. WARR: Aging population.

 

MR. FINN: So, the numbers – and as the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay just mentioned to me, it could be attributed to an aging population or what have you.

 

In any event, when you look at strategically being positioned on the West Coast, we support anyone that may be involved in a medical emergency in Burgeo, Port aux Basques, Cape St. George – we're talking an hour away. So Stephenville is strategically located for these medical evacuations in the event that anybody else on the Southwest Coast would have to travel an additional 136 kilometres to Deer Lake. So Stephenville is there, so that is not an option, because when you're looking at medical emergencies, let's face it, emergency speaks for itself.

 

What's interesting is I just spoke with the day-to-day operations manager just yesterday, and today is May 10. In the month of May, they've had eight medical evacuations from Stephenville. So in terms of it being important and in terms of the ongoing operation of the airport, it certainly speaks volumes when you're talking about saving lives; there's no doubt about it.

 

Stephenville Airport also serves with the alternate designation and it handles some of the traffic that other airports can't handle. While Stephenville is comparable in size to Gander and when you look at individuals making their flight plans and choosing an alternate site, and Stephenville and Gander are very similar in terms of the size and capacity, but there's often times again where your weather comes into play – and when the weather is bad in St. John's, it can quite frequently be bad in Gander.

 

We just saw some two new runs here this summer; last year, Porter Airlines stepped on. They're now into their third year out at Stephenville. Between Porter Airlines and Sunwing, we're looking at some 200 passengers a week that will travel into Stephenville. A little-known destination for others, but Porter Airlines is certainly playing a significant role there and connecting folks to the mainland.

 

The other assets at the Stephenville Airport – and the Member for Mount Pearl North made some great suggestions. In fact, some of them are actually being done right now. The Marine Institute's SERT team, that's the Safety and Emergency Response Training. That's firefighting training. That happens at Stephenville Airport right now. The Marine Institute is actively involved in that and they certainly play a role.

 

NAV CANADA is there with a contract with respect to the weather. There are other things they're looking at doing in terms of enhancing their operations. We can certainly be achievable in terms of generating our own revenue and try and move away from a loan guarantee situation.

 

The commercial spaces are also used. Emera is using it right now with respect to their efforts with the Maritime Link. They're using commercial office space there. Atlantic Minerals, as well, is using office space there. There are certainly a number of avenues being explored with respect to military traffic as well.

 

The Member for Mount Pearl North also mentioned about the Department of National Defence. Interesting to note, as well, there was a report commissioned in 2011 by the Department of National Defence and it specifically referenced that it was looking at moving two Hercules aircraft from Greenwood, Nova Scotia to Stephenville. The idea being to improve search and rescue response times throughout Atlantic Canada and the North.

 

You can imagine, if you take Stephenville on a map and you drew a circle, it's strategically located. While the operation is now in Greenwood, Nova Scotia, the idea was to supplement their operations by putting aircraft there. I've actively had that conversation with our Member of Parliament, Gudie Hutchings. I'll certainly continue to further that dialogue as we look at expanding potential and opportunities for the Stephenville Airport.

 

With that said, my time is getting is short. I could go on all day, but it is a provincial asset. Again, it certainly supplements all of the other airports across the province. It's there for safety. There are other operations as well, as I said, with respect to our commercial air traffic and our military air traffic, and they're going to explore those avenues.

 

From a safety standpoint and from a standpoint when you're looking at making your flight plans and planning achievable alternates, I don't think it's too far off to suggest, your air traffic in St. John's and Gander and Deer Lake would decline if Stephenville wasn't there as an achievable alternate as well.

 

With that said, Madam Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 26. I will let the Opposition take over.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. George's – Humber.

 

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

 

I'll keep my comments brief, just a few minutes. I want to rise and make a few comments about the importance of the Stephenville Airport and the possibilities that might exist there.

 

Madam Chair, I think the state of the infrastructure there is positive; the size of the airport, the quality of the airport. As some of the other Members have mentioned, it's an alternative site for the landing of the space shuttle. That's a testament I think to the infrastructure that is there, left from the American base that was there. I think that's one reason for optimism about this airport.

 

The other reason is the efforts that are being made to increase fueling stops at this airport. A lot of transatlantic flights stop at this airport to refuel, particularly military flights. So I think that's another reason for optimism about the Stephenville Airport.

 

Also, I think search and rescue is another possibility that should be examined for this airport. In terms of reach and the ability to service a large area in Atlantic Canada, Stephenville is ideally situated as an airport to serve the largest area. I think that's a possibility we have to pursue with the federal government and I think there are a lot of possibilities there.

 

In terms of another possibility for this airport and reason for optimism about this airport is the possibilities that exist for using it as a training facility. Marine Institute's SERT centre is there now, Search and Emergency Rescue Training centre is there now and they provide a great service there. I think there are more possibilities there for partnering with the College of the North Atlantic, maybe other facilities to expand the programs that are offered there because these facilities exist.

 

Also, I think there are many possibilities for use of this great facility in conjunction maybe with Port Harmon as a way of attracting industries to this area.

 

Just in summary, I want to say I support this piece of legislation. I support the airport.

 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers, we'll call.

 

Shall the resolution carry?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

On motion, resolution carried.

 

CLERK: Clause 1.

 

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

On motion, clause 1 carried.

 

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened as follows.

 

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

On motion, enacting clause carried.

 

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

 

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

On motion, title carried.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Madam Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report the resolution to Bill 26 carried without amendment.

 

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report resolution and Bill 26, carried without amendment.

 

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion? 

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

 

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Deputy Speaker. 

 

MS. DEMPSTER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

 

When shall the report be received? 

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Now.

 

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

 

CLERK: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. SPEAKER: It's reported, sorry.

 

On motion, report received and adopted.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read the first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. 

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

CLERK: Be it resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

 

“That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.”

 

On motion, resolution read a first time. 

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the resolution be now read the second time. 

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time. 

 

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried. 

 

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

 

On motion, resolution read a second time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan Guarantee Act, 1957, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 26, and that the said bill shall now be read a first time.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957”, carried. (Bill 26)

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 26).

 

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 26 be now read a second time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26 be now read a second time.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 26).

 

On motion, Bill 26 read a second time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 26 be now read a third time.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26 be now read a third time.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 26).

 

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time, it is ordered the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

 

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, at this point – after talking to my opposite House Leaders – we will take a short recess until 7 o'clock. We will resume debate at that point.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The House now stands recessed until 7 p.m. tonight.

 


May 10, 2016                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVIII No. 25A


 

The House resumed at 7 p.m.

 

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would call the Concurrence Motion for the report of the Government Services Committee.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the report of the Government Services Committed be concurred in.

 

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's an honour to rise today and speak to Concurrence. I Chair the Government Services Committee. Over the last week we've sat on a couple of evening sessions, and again this morning. Earlier today I passed in matters that we were responsible for. They included the Department of Finance, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Public Service Commission, Human Resources Secretariat, the Women's Policy Office, Government Purchasing Agency, Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Transportation and Works.

 

Mr. Speaker, we had the Government Services Committee and the Members are: the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port, the Member for Burin – Grand Bank, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi and the Member for Harbour Main.

 

Mr. Speaker, the good thing about Estimates – and I've had the opportunity of sitting through Estimates on two different sides. What it gives hon. Members is a chance to ask direct questions and get direct answers. You can find the line by lines throughout the proposed budget. You can question discrepancy or variations over the last year, or, in fact, over the last two years, Mr. Speaker. It does give information that is factual. The explanations are professional. I've got to say that during Estimates the ministers responsible for the government departments were very knowledgeable, well advised and they certainly did their homework.

 

The Members from the Official Opposition and from the Third Party asked questions that were certainly relative. As you go through the Estimates process it gives a good insight into the factual information that is there throughout the whole process. So it was a good exercise, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad to see that all the reports were passed without amendment.

 

I'd just like to talk about the budget process, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the people in our great province. We've all come to the conclusion that this year's budget was a very tough budget. It impacted a lot of areas, every district, including my own. In the District of Torngat Mountains, I go through whatever implications are placed on us with the people I represent, for the simple fact that I live there.

 

I can't speak for the other districts, but I can only assume how Members feel because I feel the same way. When it comes to relaying the impacts of the budget, Mr. Speaker, I would submit it's government's job to mitigate the impacts and it's the Opposition's job to magnify the impacts. I've got to give them credit; they're good at what they do.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out, through some of the Estimates, the Department of Service NL and the Department of Transportation and Works are very impacting on the rural areas of this province, as well as within the Avalon Peninsula and surrounding metro districts. Those impacts are out there and people feel them. We've heard back from them.

 

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition had six hours to go through the Estimates for these two departments. I give the Official Opposition credit because they asked good questions, they asked direct questions and they got direct answers.

 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Third Party had six hours to ask questions on the impacts through Service NL and the Department of Transportation and Works. The Third Party did not ask one single question. When you talk about magnifying the impacts of a budget, magnification is one thing, but coming into Estimates and asking direct questions and getting exact feedback is when you should ask questions.

 

When you go out and you take commentary by Members on this side – and I'll take the Member for Stephenville – Port au Port, for example, the twist they made yesterday about the people leaving the province. Mr. Speaker, I took offence to that.

 

I'd like to talk about within our own province. When I leave my district and come down to the House of Assembly I go to a different world, and that's within our own province. I leave every week. I've been to countries like Germany, Belgium and Switzerland. I've been to Alaska, but I'd like to talk about people who left our province, just to put a reality to it.

 

I'd like to go back 100 years and talk about the people who left our province. In 1916, over 700 soldiers left our province to fight for the right for us to come and go as we please. They paid with their lives. They didn't come back.

 

I'd like to talk about infrastructure in New York City in 1930. Who was it who stood beside the Mohawks to build the skyscrapers down there? It was proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They left their homes.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, in the last week we've heard about the fires in Fort McMurray. Fort McMurray is the second largest city in the province, made up of mostly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So when I hear accusations and twists and things taken out of context for magnification of impact, it's shameful. It's disgusting and I think they ought to apologize.

 

That's the comments I'd like to make. With that, I'll take my place and certainly listen to any more commentary on Concurrence.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's indeed a privilege to get up here again tonight and speak. This is part of our Estimates. You might look and say, that guy, he got up and spoke on a committee last night, but I'm the critic for three different departments and I have three different areas that I have to speak on and each one of them are a committee and Concurrence.

 

Tonight, I'm going to do a little bit of talking first – last night I wanted to talk about the fishery, but I didn't have enough time at the end, so tonight I'm going to start off with Service NL and then I'll go on to a little bit of budget stuff afterwards.

 

Mr. Speaker, Service NL is what I'm the critic for. For people out there who just don't understand what Service NL really is – I said to the minister one day, we were talking, Service NL basically have you from the time you are born to the time you die and everything in between. It's one of the largest departments in government. It's probably one of the most important departments in government.

 

If you look at what legislation was passed here today in the House of Assembly, you would see that it is very important because it deals with a lot of safety. It deals with concerns from individuals whether it's through a marriage licence or through birth certificates. It deals with inspections in your homes. It deals with pensions. It deals with all kinds of different things that we deal with. It's everyday stuff, basically, that you will see in Service NL.

 

It was interesting going through a lot of the Estimates because most of it was done on line-to-line things. When I talk about line to line, we look at what was actually spent last year, what was budgeted and what is budgeted this year. Most of the things we did in Service NL – and I did have some questions for the minister. I have to say to the minister you did a good job. He answered all my questions that I had there.

 

I want to talk a little bit to him about the Motor Registration, which is another part of Service NL. Knowing that they brought in some new legislation this year in Motor Registration where your photograph now is good for 10 years – as you know, as most people know when they go to the Motor Registration building – at least I do in this area – it is a long wait. I was hoping that by making things you can do online, to make it more effective for people so they wouldn't have to go in there, there wouldn't be big lineups. I was assured by the minister that there were no massive layoffs or anything in there. The service to people should be a little bit better than what it was.

 

Mr. Speaker, when I look at some of the stuff that's in this budget, some of the increases, while they're minor, there are a lot of them. There are a whole lot of increases. In this budget, there are 50 new fees that are in there, but there are also a lot of increases. They may be small, but it all adds up.

 

If you look, just for an example, a birth certificate – a birth certificate was $20 and now it's $35. There is a little reduction there if you get it online and it's $30. Still, that's an increase. That's a huge increase. A 33 per cent increase if you do it online. Marriage licences are gone up, death certificates, every little thing that could be found in this budget basically increased.

 

It might be a small little thing, but it's huge because it all adds up. It adds up to the person who has to pay the bills, no matter what it is, no matter if it's insurance, whatever it is it's going to be an increase to people. It's unfortunate, but I guess that's the reality of what type of budget they wanted to put out there.

 

I won't go through all of these. I really don't want to do it because I went through them one day before. It came up and I spoke on everything. The effect some of these increases will have, no matter if it's registration or it's your car insurance, it has an effect on everybody.

 

I spoke last week about impacts to seniors and people who are on fixed incomes and they don't have the resources to pay for the increases in a lot of these fees. Again, it's trying to find where the money is. That's the issue I really have with a lot of the things in the budget because what it does is it really takes the money right out of people's pockets. It's difficult for them to be able to find the money.

 

Like I said, these small fees may be small, they may be a $10 increase or a $20 increase; but if you look at people who are on fixed incomes, they basically have their budget set up. Their budgets are set up and this is how much money I have to spend for a month. What's really happening here is if there's a fee or a registration or something that costs a few dollars, then you have to find out where to get that extra money.

 

If it's an increase on the HST, it's a consumption tax and you have to buy something, but most of these fees, whether it's registration for your car, whether it's a birth certificate or anything to do with – like I said, there are over 300 of them that are after being increased. So it's a heavy burden that we're asking people to pay.

 

Again, I say Service NL is a big department. I'm not sure how many different offices are all over Newfoundland and Labrador, but people do use it. It's an area where you go if you need to get a septic system designed for new-home builders, if you need to get electrical inspections, if something happens that a house has to be rewired or anything like that then you have to go to Service NL. We have great people working out there. We have people working in enforcement on our highways that are on the road that are inspecting vehicles. That's very important.

 

I saw last week they were talking about inspections of cars and it should go back to doing the garages – and I don't know if that's a good idea or not. I think that we have enough people out there that are enforcing the rules of the road with the law enforcement that we have there that they are doing a pretty good job. I know that years ago there were a lot of vehicles that were out there – they are doing a great job; you're right. 

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. K. PARSONS: That's true. There are limited resources of what they have. They are doing a fantastic job making sure our highways are safe. Anything we can do to make – again we talked about here today when it came to safety of school busing. We all know how important that is.

 

The bill that the minister brought in today, everybody in this House that spoke on it really spoke in favour of it because it's the right thing to do. Any time we talk about safety, we talk about making sure our workplace is safe. That's important because as we all know we all have – I have children and most of you in here have children, you are moms and dads, and everybody else wants to make sure that we all go home safe in the evenings.

 

The Department of Service NL plays a major role, whether it's highway safety or it's safety on a school bus. The regulations that are in place – there are regulations like taxi regulations and stuff like this, everything you can imagine is covered in that department.

 

That's about it now what I'm going to talk about Service NL. I'd like to say to the minister you're doing a good job over there. I had a couple of inquires so far and I thank you for your promptness on the responses that I've gotten from the department. There are a lot of good people working over in Service NL. The few questions and a few problems and issues that I had, they've come through all the time for me. I want to thank the department for that because it's a good department.

 

Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk a little bit about the levy. I can honestly say, like I said here last night, I understand the backbenchers and I understand people in government over there and I understand how much you're after hearing about this budget. I understand again and I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can is to understand how difficult it is when you go back to your districts and people are talking to you about this budget and wondering if you are going to be able to support it or not support it.

 

I really want you to listen to the people that are in your districts. I really want you to listen to who elected you because it's so important. This levy to me – I don't understand the fairness to it and I don't understand how it even can be justified, really.

 

I heard the Minister of Finance say that the people who are making the most money pay the most taxes and that's the way it is. But when you're talking a person who's making, say, $35,000 or $30,000 a year and that person has to pay $300, which is a lot of money, again, like I said there earlier when I was talking about Service NL, it's money that is coming right out of their pockets. It's not money that you're buying something and then you can say, listen, I'm going to buy a new chesterfield set. That's your choice to go buy a chesterfield set.

 

The extra taxes you have to pay, so be it, that's extra HST, an extra 2 per cent and that's it. But if you have an individual who's on a fixed income and they have everything budgeted out – when you're talking families with $30,000 or $35,000. I know it sounds like they have a lot of money or whatever, but usually with small families and young families, especially people on fixed income, they have their budgets done. The budget is done and they say, okay, this is what I can spend on my groceries this month. This is what I can spend on my heat and light this month.

 

I'm sure most of you over on the other side, you've done it. I've done it. I used to have to do it all the time. I still do it. You do your monthly payments and say, okay, this is what I'm going to have to pay this month. Some people will take their light bill and stretch it out over a year so that they'll know every month how much money they have to pay.

 

I know in the winter months my light bill is going to be a lot higher than what it is in the summer months. So I'll budget myself during the winter months, and that's what people do. People that are making a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, that doesn't affect them as much as it does a person that's making between $25,000 and, say, $50,000 a year. Then it's a bit different when a person is making a little bit more money at $50,000 to $75,000.

 

I really believe the levy itself wasn't well thought out at all because I think it's just so unfair to the people who are out there that are struggling, that are trying to do – like I said, every month they'll sit down and they'll say, okay, this is what I can do. This is how I can spend my money, and this is how – my gas bill.

 

I had a lady call me – I think I told this one before – she was making $36,000 a year. So she asked me to try to figure out how much money she'd have to pay for that year. I just asked her a few questions. She could tell me right to how much gas she spent for each month for the last 12 months, because that's what she did. Like she said, my house insurance is coming up and I pay it in six months. She pays it in six month. She'll get her house done and then she has her car that she pays in six months. She tries to do a lot of it to stay clear of around Christmastime because she said Christmastime is a very difficult time. I have a couple of grandchildren and I want to make sure I have a few extra dollars there for that.

 

She gave me her budget and told me, like I said. She said: okay, Kevin, I drive 22 kilometres to work and 22 kilometres back. I usually go to town on Saturdays. She could tell me every month how much gas was used. So I had no problem telling her. I said, listen, you're gas is going to go up by at least 16.5 cents. That's how much extra gas you're going through. So we could figure that out.

 

She could tell me what her house insurance was. We had no problem doing that because that's an extra 15 per cent on house insurance. She could tell me how much her car insurance was. Again, there was no problem to figure it out. The levy; I could tell her how much she had to pay on the levy. According to her documents she was making $36,000, she would be paying about $300 to $450.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. K. PARSONS: That's what she was making. Okay, it's a little less than that. About $280 or something like that, or $270 she would be paying. Regardless of what it is, they're still paying. They're paying that much more money. Do you know what? She figured out after – she said, Kevin, I'm going to end up paying at least $3,000 more when you add up all the fees. She added in the gas she was paying.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Yes, she is. She has added in the HST that's going to come. She added in the house that's going up in a different tax bracket.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. K. PARSONS: She could tell how much her insurance was. She knew how much extra gas she had to go that month. This is pretty easy stuff to figure out. I didn't see the calculator that was put online today but I think it's a whole lot better than the ones I've seen so far.

 

Mr. Speaker, my whole point here is that people are trying to figure out why they're the ones getting penalized. There are choices to be made here. There are a lot of good – there are choices. This whole budget, you can blame whoever you want. You can blame everybody, but this budget is all about choices you make and where you're going to get your revenues from and how you're going to do things, how you're going to spend your money and everything else. That's the choice you make when you do a budget.

 

I was here for seven years when we did budgets, and they were choices we had to do and choices we had to live with when we did our budgets, too. The choices you're making this time is hard on the common person. It's hard on the low- and middle-income and hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

 

Listen, that is why every weekend when you go back to your district people are talking to you about it. That's why at every event you go to people are bringing it up to you because they're concerned. They want you to listen to their concerns. You really have to start listening to their concerns because people are trying to figure out – I have X number of dollars coming in, where am I going to get the extra money that you're looking for in this budget?

 

That's the question every one of you are being asked. Everyone over there is being asked by people in your community, your next door neighbours. My next door neighbour asked me the same question. Kev, he said, how much is this going to cost me? He said I can't believe I'm paying this much extra. I have to come up with an extra 15 per cent on my car insurance. I have to come up with 15 per cent on my house insurance. I'm going to be charged a levy. I got 16.5 cents extra on my gas. Those are all questions that every one of you have been asked, just like I've been asked. That's where it's to.

 

Now I started off last night, and one of the Members brought up today about small business. He said you weren't going to hurt small business and stuff like that. Just think about small business.

 

Let's talk about a restaurant owner that has about 10 employees or 15 employees. A small restaurant, nothing major, no food chain or no big conglomerate or something like that. He has a small restaurant. You talk to restaurant owners in St. John's and they'll tell you – and anywhere, Corner Brook. It could be anywhere. It could be down in Baie Verte. It could be anywhere. They work on a very small margin. It could be in Bay Roberts. It could be anywhere at all. They really do work on a very small margin.

 

Do you know what? Once you take money out of people's pockets, once you take out the $3,000 or $4,000 that person has to spend, then where are they going to cut back? Where are they not going to spend their money? Where are their priorities going to be? Their priorities are going to be to make sure they have food on their table, make sure their house is insured, make sure they can get back and forth to work.

 

All the small business – remember, we always said in this House of Assembly, and I heard your side say it time and time and time over again, that small business is the key to Newfoundland and Labrador. Small business is what's keeping rural Newfoundland going today. Small business is what's keeping Labrador going today. Small business is what's keeping the Avalon going today. It's what's keeping the West Coast going today.

 

All over Newfoundland and Labrador, small-business owners keep our small communities going, and that's a fact. You know every time – what is happening here, this is the effect it's going to have. This is the effect I believe you really don't realize. Once that small-business owner, that restaurant owner that I just said got 10 or 11, may have eight employees and he can't keep his business going anymore, guess what? This is not a government effect. This is what's going to happen to private industry. What can he do? He's not going to keep his business open. He can't keep his doors open and employ these eight or nine.

 

We're going to kill small business in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will only be the fittest survive. Maybe that's your plan. Maybe the plan is that only the fittest survive and the rest will move away.

 

I don't think that's what we want for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we've come a long way in the last 10, 12 years in this province. I believe we have come a long way. I'm so proud – I went to a function about three years ago and there was a gentleman there from New Brunswick and they were talking about poverty reduction. He wanted to know what the secret was, what was Newfoundland's secret he said – what's your secret to poverty reduction?

 

Here's the reason why. He said back in the early 2000s, the highest amount of poverty in all of Canada was here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We reduced taxes. Yes, we did. There's no doubt about it, we definitely reduced taxes. People could live more. We gave people free school books so that they could go to school and didn't have to pay for the school books.

 

I can remember as a single parent dreading the day that my two came home to find out how much the cost of the books were. A lot of parents in Newfoundland were like that, a lot of parents were like that in Newfoundland and Labrador. That was a real good thing we did and it's still a good thing today, to see our young people be able to go to school and say they are going to school here in Newfoundland and Labrador at the least cost in all of Canada.

 

The cheapest place – I can't say cheap, but the best place to go. It's not cheap. We have great education; there's nothing cheap about our education. Our education is fantastic and our young people are educated like – unbelievable. They are the backbone of our whole society.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

 

MR. K. PARSONS: Hear, hear is right.

 

But I can tell you one thing, what your budget is going to do to the young people. You may say yes, most of them go away anyway. I tell you right now the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not going to stay here when they haven't got a job, when they can't go to work and they have to pay the taxes and everything else they're paying. That is what's happening with this budget. And that's what this budget is going to do to the young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They're going to move away because they got no other choice but to move away.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak again tonight with regard to some of the Estimates that we had done. I must say it was an excellent experience for me. It was my first time doing Estimates and I went in with a degree of fear and trembling because I really didn't know what to expect. And having to face the Members opposite certainly sometimes can be intimidating. I must say, the Member for Conception Bay South who was the questioner from the Opposition side did an absolute, fabulous job in going through the line by line.

 

Certainly, not only did we have a question period, we also had a very good discussion period and certainly talked about a lot of the issues that were applicable to Transportation and Works and how Transportation and Works, our department, really fits in to providing services for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian really on a daily basis.

 

Many of the other departments, Mr. Speaker, they touch certain people on certain days. If you are with the Department of Health, you normally take advantage of those services when you have a sickness or you are faced with some health condition. If it's Education, it's usually when your children are involved in school. But for Transportation and Works, pretty much every Newfoundlander and Labrador every day, on a daily basis, whether it's through the ferries or through the road network that we have.

 

Really it's impacting everybody. We're a large department with a relatively small budget. We have a budget worth around $400 million to provide the services to the people of this province. That's a challenge, Mr. Speaker, for us to do that on a daily basis, but I must say that I do have an absolute tremendous staff and workers that are front-line workers that are clearing the roads and making sure our highways are safe. Whether they're in ferries and making sure the service is provided to people that are living on islands, whether it's the water bombers or the air ambulance service and so on and so forth, and maintaining of buildings.

 

We have a broad spectrum of workers that are out there working on behalf of the province and on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I really appreciate that. Certainly, they are providing exemplary service to all of us to make sure every day that we are able to get to work, get out to where we are in a safe manner.

 

I just wanted to sort of mention that tonight, Mr. Speaker. Before I get into some of the other remarks, I do want to talk a little bit about MNL because I think MNL, for me, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, is very important. I spent I guess six years as either treasurer or past president. I certainly worked very closely with the staff. They have a great staff at MNL. I know that they are doing a lot of work on behalf of the municipalities in the province. I also was fortunate enough as well to be a director with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities where I spent a number of years really working on behalf of municipalities in this province on a national level.

 

I counted that as a privilege to be able to do that. However, Mr. Speaker, I have to say tonight I'm a bit disappointed because I'm sure the Member opposite – I have not read the release when he said that MNL is not pleased or happy, whatever term they put on it, with the consultations or the lack of consultation with us. I think that's unfortunate to make that statement. I think the exercise that we went through probably we've never had that type of interaction with people for a long, long time. I know the previous government struggled the last number of years to even get anyone to show up at their budget consultations.

 

This year, we had a different approach. We gave every Newfoundlander and Labradorian an opportunity to get out, to consult, to engage, to discuss, we had round tables; and not only did we make that available to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, we also made it available to every organization, every municipality, every group that wanted to have an input into the budget.

 

Mr. Speaker, we had roughly about 1,000 – or maybe more than 1,000 people that were engaged. As a matter of fact, I think, at one point, there was sort of a joke made that we should be charging an admission fee, we were having so many people that were attending our consultations.

 

I think it's unfair that the statement would be made that there were no consultations because I believe that there were fair consultations; and if, in fact, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did not have the opportunity to participate in the round-table discussions, there were always opportunities to do it by email, to take advantage of the app that was on our website to get in and have an input.

 

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that we did make that available, and I think that it was important for us to engage in that consultation. Some of the things that we talked about and were discussed are some of the things that were in this budget this year.

 

I think this is probably the third time that I've stood and talked about this is a tough budget. This is a tough budget. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The easiest thing for us to do would have been to say who cares – who cares, really. The easiest thing for us to have done is to continue the path that we were going in.

 

Guess what? If we had done that, that would have been the easiest thing in the world. As a matter of fact, someone made mention to me, or came up to me and said: Well, you're never going to gain any votes by this budget. No, Mr. Speaker, that may be true. The comment I made back to them: This is not about votes; this is about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. HAWKINS: This budget is about our children. This is about our children. It's about our people. I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side of the House is taking and folding back and saying we did the right thing, or this is what we needed to do. This is what we had to do.

 

In 2022-23, if we did nothing we would have had $27 billion in debt, Mr. Speaker – $27 billion in debt. Now, who on that side can tell us that's the right path to take? I invite you to stand up, if that's the right way in which we can do it. We cannot do that. We cannot survive and we cannot move forward the way in which we were going. It's impossible, and we have to look at the future of this province. We have to look at the people who are living in this province to make sure they do have a future. How do you do that, by doing nothing? I don't think so. I think it would be totally irresponsible for us being elected Members to take that attitude, because it just would not work.

 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if we took no action and we wanted to wonder about four years down the road, none of us might be in this position, because if we can't manage what we're doing, someone else will probably come in and manage it for us. Is that what we want as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Not for me, not for my grandchildren. I want a future for them, and I have to make tough decisions in order to do that. Is it going to be easy? No, it's not. It's not going to be easy.

 

I think we made it clear. We said people were going to be impacted. But, Mr. Speaker, did we leave it at that? No, we didn't leave it at that.

 

The numbers that are coming from across the Third Party in particular, with regard to how people in low income are impacted, are not necessarily the right numbers, Mr. Speaker. They're not the right numbers. We have $75 million that was put into this budget to offset the temporary levy, which we all know is a temporary levy. The Minister of Finance and the Premier have already said that if we are able to find some offsetting revenue, it's a temporary levy. If we can't find offsetting revenue, the furthest out it's going to be is 2018. Then it's going to be removed. It's a temporary levy.

 

Now if levy is the right word, I don't know. Is it a levy or a tax? What difference does it make? It's the same thing isn't it? In the end it's the same thing. There's no difference.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. HAWKINS: We could have taken that amount; we could have put it on personal income tax. It would have been there forever and a day. Would that have been happy? No.

 

If we listen to some of the Members of the Third Party, well, we haven't taxed enough. We haven't taxed enough. They said why don't you tax to about $1.3 billion? Isn't that what's been said, $1.3 billion. Imagine if we taxed that rate.

 

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of messages that are coming in that are not in my – as far as I consider, to be correct messages. So I think all of us need to step back. We need to think about what we're talking about. We really need to talk about how serious this particular crisis is that we have. We are in a financial crisis.

 

For the first time in our history that I know, we're spending over $100 million more to service interest on our debt than we can pay for education for our kids. Now, do you have pride in standing on that? I don't. Now I have two grandchildren in Newfoundland and Labrador, unfortunately I have four in Ontario, but I don't stand here as a proud grandparent and say we're spending $100 million more on interest than we are for education for our children. That's shameful. That's totally shameful.

 

Furthermore, if we did not check and we did not put measures in place – just think about this, everyone think about this for a moment. If we did not put the measures in place, try to get your head around the fact, if we did not check it we would be, within the next couple of years, paying $2 billion in interest. Just think about that for a moment, $2 billion in interest before we did anything else. Before we provided any services, before we got out and provided services for our health care, before we provided services for education, before we provided any services to the people of the province we'd have to find $2 billion in interest. Now, how can you run a province like that? How can you do it?

 

AN HON. MEMBER: You're taxing the poor.

 

MR. HAWKINS: Are we taxing the poor? The Member opposite just said we're taxing the poor. He still doesn't have the numbers right. We have been very clear, and it's very clear. You have the numbers. If you don't have the numbers, you can get the numbers.

 

If a senior couple with $26,000 income – a senior couple are provided, under the money that we're providing in the supplement, they will be receiving a cheque for $455 every three months to offset some of the costs they may incur; $455 more than they did before.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. HAWKINS: Mr. Speaker, would I as an individual, would I as a Member for Grand Falls-Windsor – Buchans, would I like to be able to stand here tonight and say we're giving Newfoundland and Labrador the world? Sure I would, but the opposite to that is the position we're in now. We cannot survive with the debt load we have. We cannot survive. So we have to make some tough decisions. They are not popular.

 

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Members opposite, this is not a popularity contest. The Minister of Finance has worked hard. Do you think she wants to run a popularity contest? No, we can't. We have a responsibility as elected Members to represent and to try to chart the best possible course for the future of this province. We have to do it.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. HAWKINS: And, Mr. Speaker, it has to be a sustainable future.

 

We all went through exercises with municipalities the last few years. We went through a sustainability exercise. We had to prove our communities were sustainable. Well, I'm glad municipalities don't have the same flexibility that government has because we would all be in trouble. We just can't spend and spend and spend and spend. There has to be, somewhere, an end to that.

 

We have two lines in our budget: revenue, expenses. Guess what? In Newfoundland and Labrador they're reversed. They're upside down. Expenses are up here, revenue is down there. Now, can any business survive on that path, on that trajectory? No, they can't. They can't do it. It's impossible.

 

So the challenge for us as elected officials is try to narrow that gap. We have to narrow that gap; otherwise, we will have difficulty in borrowing. We will not be able to borrow. And then what kind of a situation will we be in? It is bad enough as it is.

 

So, Mr. Speaker, we need to make some tough decisions. They are not popular decisions.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. HAWKINS: And we'll be the first over here to admit that they are not popular decisions.

 

It is incumbent on us, as elected Members, to protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for tomorrow. We have to look after our children and we cannot just put them aside. We need to make sure that decisions we make reverses the decisions that have been made in the past – the easy decisions that were made in the past.

 

It's easy to make decisions when you can spend, spend, spend. But it comes to a point in time when you really have to look at that and say: Where do we draw the line? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have been faced and placed in that particular situation.

 

Mr. Speaker, my time has quickly gone. I can't believe it. I know the Member opposite is over there saying I can't wait for him to sit down, but anyway that's okay.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. HAWKINS: Well, I have no problem; I can stay all night.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. HAWKINS: One of the other points I want to make before I do sit, Mr. Speaker –

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Each Member of the House has time to speak in this debate and each Member should be able to speak uninterrupted.

 

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

 

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I probably have about another half a dozen items, but I won't get to them. I did want to make reference to one – I know there's been a lot of information on fees. Yes, we have made some changes to fees. I just wanted to point out one thing. I do have a constituent who is very upset with the previous administration because of the fact that they brought in fees as well. One of the problems that they did when they brought fees in, they made it immediate.

 

I have a business that right now is struggling with having to pay somewhere between $40,000 and $45,000 because he was not able to prepare for charging the fees because of the fact that he had no warning of when the fees were going to be changed. Obviously the type of business that he had, he made decisions based on the old fees and the new fees were changed and then he was shortchanged.

 

When we talk about fees in our government, we've made sure that we protected that and in areas where business people have been impacted, there is obviously an implementation period before the actual fee structure takes in effect. So I just wanted to point out that. When we talk about fees, it's not always going to be just straight fees. There is always a story behind every other story. I think as it goes, there are probably about a million stories in the naked city and this is only about one of them.

 

I know that there are all kinds of issues that we want to talk about. I wanted to talk a little bit about the multigrade classrooms. Again, I know that's a concern that people have. I know that the Minister of Education has stated very clearly it's not new to Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not new to Canada either, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I have a granddaughter that is in Brampton, Ontario. My granddaughter in Brampton, Ontario is in a multigrade classroom. It's an urban area. It's not new to the rest of Canada. It may be somewhat new to certain areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

But these are challenges that we have, Mr. Speaker. I know the opposite side and the general public are saying look for efficiencies within government. Well, as soon as you find efficiencies within government or inefficiencies within government, then when you make decisions you always get criticized because you didn't make those right decisions.

 

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker –

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. HAWKINS: – is that we will continue to work with the people with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 

 

It's a pleasure to get up tonight and speak to this Concurrence Motion that is before the House. People have asked recently why you have all these different debates on the budget. It's somewhat of a complex process, but this is where we discuss results from Estimates. And, of course, being a money bill, it gives people very broad latitude to discuss anything that has to do with the budget, which is anything to do with running a government.

 

I listened attentively to the Minister of Transportation and Works and his comments this evening. I enjoyed, as we normally do, listening to what he had to say. The man is generally respectful in his delivery and his conduct here in the House. He has views that are not consistent with ours quite often, but that's what happens in the business that we're in. That is what sometimes happens.

 

He talked a little bit about municipalities and consultation. I have a copy of the release that was just issued this past weekend by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. It was issued on May 7, Saturday. Municipal leaders saying no to downloading is what it says, and it's from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, from the newsroom.

 

I'm just going to read some sections of this. I won't read the whole release, but I think it's important because it speaks to part of what the minister referred to. It indicates that municipal leaders from MNL, which is Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, Municipal Symposium, which happened this past weekend in Gander, are clear and united in their displeasure with the provincial budget – a very clear statement, Mr. Speaker.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Pretty straightforward.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Very straightforward and very clear, not too difficult to understand.

 

It goes on to say: “At the budget debrief session this morning, speaker after speaker” – which are all municipal leaders – “rose to talk about how this budget will impact their hometown.” So they talked about impacts on local communities. Rural and urban community municipal leaders saying they spoke one after another.

 

“While much of the municipal funding in the budget was maintained, speakers …” – which is what the Members opposite said by the way. They talked about, well, they got what they asked for and more was one comment I heard. Municipalities got what they asked for and they got more. We kept the ratio which used to be, under the previous Liberal government, for multi-year works or for capital works 50-50, cost shared. We changed that during our time there.

 

It may have been some of the things that Members opposite talk about: wastage. They keep saying they're going to expose the wastage. We're seeing what the wastage is now because we can tell what they cut in the budget. We would assume that the first place you're going to reduce services or programs would be wastage and we've seen that – and I'm going to get to some of those a bit later.

 

“Speakers were equally concerned that these decisions seem to have been made with little to no direct consultation with those affected by the cuts.” Mr. Speaker, we come to the House here every day and Members opposite like to criticize us for things we have stated here in the House. We get information from a variety of sources. This is a release from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, an organization I'm sure all Members of the House respect. They are politicians in their own right running municipalities. They have to bring in balanced budgets. It is required by legislation and they have to work within their means. They have to do that.

 

They say here: “Speakers were equally concerned that these decisions seem to have been made with little to no direct consultation with those affected by the cuts.” Mr. Speaker, Members opposite can criticize us for raising this and they'll say, oh, the Opposition is up to it again, misinformation. They are fear mongering. We hear those words. They can say all that about us, but these are the municipal leaders who said they weren't consulted. We're just sharing the information. What we're doing, as an Opposition, we're sharing the information.

 

It says: “The downloading of libraries to municipalities galvanized the opinion of the municipal leaders present. Councils across the province are struggling to provide core services like clean, safe drinking water and waste water treatment. It is unreasonable and ill-informed to expect them to take over the funding of a provincial service.”

 

Now, we know if you looked back through the consultation documents that the government put out back in the year when they duplicated what New Brunswick Liberals had done up there for consultation, essentially the same plan, same time period, same format, not really anything new – they saw what the Liberals in New Brunswick did and they decided to share it.

 

If you look at it, one of the aspects of discussion – there were three of them. I don't have the headings in front of me, but one of them was how a service that is being delivered by the province could be delivered elsewhere, was the general gist of what it said. In this case, it's municipalities.

 

Further on down, “Cuts to the valuable public services like AES offices, courts and health care were raised by almost all of the speakers.”

 

So, Mr. Speaker, it's not just us here in the Opposition and the hundreds of emails and people of the public who are sending us emails who have these concerns. These are very municipal leaders, many of the Members opposite, their friends and colleagues and former friends and colleagues, who are talking about AES offices, courts and health care, raised by almost every speaker.

 

It goes on to say a little bit later, “With no consultation, no plan, and no integrated approach these cuts won't lead to effective regionalization – they will lead to chaos.”

 

Now, Mr. Speaker, it sounds like some of the messages and problems and issues and concerns we've been raising. I can assure you that no one on this side of the House had any input whatsoever on this release that came out on Saturday.

 

“Finally, speakers said that municipal operating costs would increase due to higher gas taxes, increased fees across the board, and higher charges for provincially provided snow clearing … municipal budgets were set last year so none of these increased costs are covered in existing budgets.”

 

So all of a sudden we have municipalities who bring in balanced budgets. We know many of them work very, very hard to try and keep their costs low, reduce their operating costs. We know the government in their budget this year increased their cost, but municipalities had to decrease their cost or try and shrink their cost, and they do that. It's very tight and very difficult for them. This references that, Mr. Speaker.

 

Their budgets were set last year as required by legislation, and now they've got all these increased costs put at them. That money will have to be found by cutting municipal services and raising municipal taxes next year. Why they say next year, it's because they can't do it this year.

 

The Minister of Municipal Affairs said today, and he was right when he said it, that a municipality could write the minister and ask to redo their budget and they could increase their taxes this year to offset what the province has downloaded onto them.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to get a lot of letters.

 

MR. P. DAVIS: You're right, they could do that. It's a process that would take some time. We are now in the fifth month of the year. I would suggest it would take several months process to do that. They could do that but I'm sure all of the protests and people who are speaking out against the province in any municipality would quickly shift to the councillors for downloading the problem from the province right to them.

 

Here's the statement, Mr. Speaker, I think that sums it up, short and concise: “The buck has simply been passed to councils.” That's their friends and colleagues who wrote that. I didn't write it. That's their friends, municipal leaders from the province who wrote that. It's not unique to a small number of them. They're all united and they're all consistent.

 

The minister will be in Conception Bay South tomorrow afternoon for Municipal Awareness Day. I'm pleased to say that myself and the Member for Conception Bay South will be joining him for some events and celebrations in Conception Bay South. I hope he gets a chance to talk to them because the deputy mayor, who's the Chair of finance, has said that their estimate of all of the additional costs and fees that they now have to be responsible for, for the Town of Conception Bay South, is about $350,000 by their estimate.

 

Mr. Speaker, that's huge. So they can go through the difficult process of asking the minister to rejig their taxes and so on – I'm sure they don't want to do that, I'm quite sure they don't want to do that – or they're going to have to reduce and gut the services they provide.

 

I'm going to tell you, I lived in the Town of Conception Bay South for many years, been there now for almost 25 years. It's a town that has grown exponentially over that period of time. There have been great investments in the community, great growth, lots of new housing being developed, lots of young families and people coming to the town to start their families and start their lives as adults as they move on from education, post-education, leave their parents homes and so on.

 

The town has really become a growing community that is a beautiful place to live, walking trails and outdoor facilities and recreation. All of the things that young families want. Now they have to find an extra $350,000. It's fairly significant, Mr. Speaker.

 

I bring that up and raise that in response to the Minister of Transportation and Works, and he's right; it's not a popularity contest. His comment was it's not a popularity contest and I fully agree with him, and it's not. Being in politics is not a popularity contest. It's about asking people to give you a job to do.

 

We go out and we knock on their doors and we say to them what we believe is the right thing to say to them to ask them to support us. They decide if they're going to support us or not. Then if you're lucky enough and fortunate enough and honoured, they'll give you the job. It's certainly an honour and with great dignity that Members serve in this hon. House.

 

Mr. Speaker, it's not that. When you go out and say to them here's what I'm going to do, there is an expectation that you're going to do it. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to Members of this hon. House that what this government has done is not what they promised to do. That's a big problem that's raised by people every day. Every single day, seven days a week we get response from people who say, what can I do? This is not what they promised. This is not what they had offered and what can I do about it.

 

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous articles, editorials, opinion pieces, letters to editors and so on being written by many, many people throughout the province. Many for the very first time publicly sharing their views on the budget. I think that speaks for itself and that says something about it as well.

 

Mr. Speaker, I also read with interest the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, Richard Alexander, who's their CEO, has a blog. I read with interest what he posted on their website just a few days ago. I think it was yesterday, or the day before yesterday. I'm just looking for the date on it. He posted a blog and put his beliefs on it.

 

I'm going to share some of what he wrote as well, because he talks about chapter one, the tax increase. He talks about how tax increases are going to increase revenues to the tune of $882 million for taxes this year. It's a fairly significant amount when you think about it. He said it's a magnitude that's unprecedented. His option is that government is essentially trying to attempt to replace oil revenues with tax revenue. That's what he believes.

 

He talks about, he met a minister one day and the minister said, “We are still competitive on Personal Income Tax in Atlantic Canada.” That's what the minister said. He goes on to say in his article here, I'm reading from the article, “According to the Conference Board of Canada, if you take into account the impact of all taxes on households in Newfoundland and Labrador, including personal income tax, social security contributions paid by employees, property taxes, provincial sales taxes including HST and the gas tax, plus the new deficit reduction levy, we now have the largest personal tax burden of any province in Canada.”

 

Now, that's an assessment done by the Employers' Council. He said when you include all of it together, what his assessment is – I haven't done it myself, Mr. Speaker, I'm just reading from what Mr. Alexander wrote – “we now have the largest personal tax burden of any province in Canada.”

 

I'm sure Members opposite will get up and say our income tax is competitive. I've heard people say that income tax for higher-wage earners is lower than it is in other provinces. It's lower than Nova Scotia and lower than New Brunswick for the highest income earners, which are the highest taxpayers.

 

I know Members opposite will make those types of comments, but according to Mr. Alexander, when you include all of the burdens, when you include all of the fees, the taxes, the levy, if you look at all of it – because remember, we were promised a budget calculator from the government. They're going to put out a budget calculator so people can understand how much better off lower-income people are going to be and how much the impact of the budget was going to be. The budget calculator that came out wasn't what, I don't think, anybody expected. It was just targeted to one specific group.

 

Mr. Speaker, according to what Mr. Alexander says we now have the largest personal tax burden of any province in Canada. If he's wrong, don't stand up and say, oh, I'm fear mongering; oh, the Leader of the Opposition over there is fear mongering. He's getting on with his nonsense, misinformation and all that. I'm just quoting what Mr. Alexander said. If he's not right, take it up with him. It's a blog; this is right from their website.

 

He said: Economists – and I'm just skipping over some pieces here and just highlighting some of the comments he made that I found to be interesting, and I think other people and the people watching at home might be interested in. “Economists we have spoken with are stunned at what they did. There is no historic precedence in our country or around the world for a government taxing their way to prosperity.”

 

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a person who represents employers. They have a provincial association, the Employers' Council. He represents employers around the province, he speaks on their behalf, has a board of directors that he represents, and who I would imagine that most everybody in the House knows somebody who's one of the members of the board of directors. I'm sure they do.

 

Mr. Speaker, I'm only quoting what Mr. Alexander said. I can assure you, I read as much information that I can find about the budget. People's opinions who agree – there are not many of them around – who believe that yes, government had tough things to do. I can think of one offhand that had made some supporting comment. But most people have some type of an opinion why it's wrong. Too hard, too fast, too burdensome.

 

As my hon. Member, I heard him mention earlier, my colleague for Cape St. Francis, said, running government is not running a business. Business is not responsible for social services and social assistance and income support to people. They're not responsible for that. Businesses aren't responsible to deliver health care. Huge, significant costs for health care, and they're not responsible for that. So you can't run it like a business. You have to try and grow a population, not decrease a population.

 

The only way an area in our province can grow and sustain itself and provide opportunities in the future is to grow the population. The government has delivered a budget that in their own words is going to shrink our population and drive people out of our province – right in her speech, Mr. Speaker, right in her own comments.

 

So, Mr. Speaker, we have to turn that around. It's not the right approach. When you have tough times, yes, you have to make difficult decisions, but you have to have difficult decisions and do it in a way that people can buy into it.

 

The Minister of Finance took days to say to people before the budget, it's bad, it's bad, it's bad. And now the Members opposite, God love them, have changed their tune, and now they're saying oh, there are a lot of good things in the budget. I even said the first day of the budget, the budget is not all bad because there are things here they haven't cut, which I was worried they were going to cut. That's good news. There are programs there that they haven't cut. Now, they've cut lots, and I can go to lots of them but I won't have time.

 

I do want to go to an area that has been of some debate over the last couple of days. I want to talk about the people of Labrador, and I want to talk about the discussions around the fixed link. Now, the Member opposite rose here in the last day or so and pointed at someone on the other side – actually, I think it was the Third Party – and said, you shouldn't be putting words in people's mouths. True enough.

 

I heard the same Member make a comment, why do I dislike or hate or disrespect – I won't use specific words but I think I probably came pretty close – the people of Labrador. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I say the same thing, don't put words in my mouth. Nothing could be further from the truth from my perspective.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DAVIS: Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I sat in government, I learned a lot about Labrador since 2010 when I was first elected during my time as a Cabinet minister and also premier. I have family who live in Labrador. I have friends in Labrador. I have people who I know have lived there all their lives. I know people who have moved there, won't come back out of it. I know many.

 

I have the utmost respect for them and everyone else that lives in Labrador. I don't want anything bad to come to Labrador. That's nothing further from the truth. But when cuts are being made to Labrador that Members opposite themselves have said to people in conversations, through social media, response to emails or here in the House that they don't favour, they're against, then they have to question why are we doing a study for a piece of infrastructure that we know is going to be way down the list. Is the fixed link now more important than a new psychiatric hospital or a new penitentiary or a new hospital in Corner Brook? All major projects, Mr. Speaker.

 

Why are we going to spend $750,000 on a study that by the time you get to look at it and give it a serious consideration, it's probably going to be out of date anyway? I don't get it. I do not get it. It is obvious from the response we got that many people feel the same way, that it is not a good thing to do. It was a promise made by the government that they'll do it. It was a promise made, but is it one of those promises where they can say, like they did with the HST, things are worse than we ever imagined, b'y, it's some bad, so we have to put the HST back on. We have to put a levy on. You can say, b'y, we don't have the $750,000 this year. Do it next year or the year after or the year after that when things lighten up a little bit.

 

To say that I, in any way, or Members on this side of the House, in any way, lack respect for the people of Labrador is absolutely terrible – absolutely terrible. When Members opposite have got AES offices closing – which I don't get, because when employment opportunities decrease and the economy is in a bad place, you need AES offices more than you ever did before.

 

As a matter of fact, I've said this on other aspects like the Rowan Centre in St. John's which is for teenagers, young men and women who have mental health challenges and they need day programs to go in the system. When programs don't work right, you don't erase them; you should try and fix them, make them better and fit the need of the community.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. P. DAVIS: I can tell you in many of the communities where AES offices are closing, as municipal leaders have commented on, we should be making them better, not shutting them down. It's now that people need services and support more than ever before. And, as unemployment goes up, as the cost to live in Newfoundland and Labrador has gone up, people are worried and people are struggling. They need more support than ever before, they need mental health support as in the case of the Rowan Centre, and they need assistance through AES offices. For so many more reasons, that's why this budget is wrong and we'll stand to speak some more on it.

 

Thank you.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

Certainly, it is always a privilege to stand in this House and represent the people in the District of Windsor Lake that I represent, as it is for all of us to have the opportunity to stand in this House and speak to legislation, the budget, and other opportunities that we have in this House.

 

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that as we continue to discuss the budget that we really have an honest conversation about the reality of the fiscal situation that our province is facing. As Members in this House have heard me say before, our province has come through over a decade of spending that, quite frankly, was unsustainable. Just to put it in perspective, the total consolidated debt that the former administration put on the books for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was almost $6 billion from 2003 to 2015. And that per cent of growth in debt is about a 69 per cent increase in debt. Our province has the highest per capita debt of any province in Canada.

 

As I've listened to the debate over the last number of days and weeks, I've heard Members opposite talk about why we were not able to put a budget in like Alberta. Why could we not be like Alberta? Well, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Alberta went into the period of low oil price with little or no debt. Newfoundland and Labrador has gone into this situation of low oil prices and low oil royalties with the highest debt we have had in our history. We are not like Alberta.

 

This province experienced the highest oil production in 2007. The former administration took a $2 billion cheque related to the Atlantic Accord in 2005 and had to put it in the pension plan, which is important. But what did they do? They then spent 10 years not addressing the pension problem until last year, when oil prices and oil production were at some of their lowest in a decade.

 

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, and for those people listening at home, make no mistake we recognize, I recognize, that this budget is a very difficult budget for the people of our province. Let me be clear that our government is going to do everything we can, over the course of our mandate, to fix the fiscal situation in our province. I'm very grateful that we have been able to avoid the fiscal crisis which was inevitable that when you raise your debt so high, you can no longer borrow.

 

I said in this House already that of anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, I have the unenviable job of signing my name to the loan documents that provide this province with the money to spend on services. So far this year, for those listening at home, if a mortgage was about $200,000, I have signed 9,500 of those on behalf of the people of the province.

 

MR. K. PARSONS: (Inaudible.)

 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cape St. Francis can sit on that side of the House and he can mock this situation, but I can tell you for sure –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. C. BENNETT: – that this is not a laughing matter. The situation that we are facing as a province because of the poor management and the lack of long-term planning and the lack of accountability from the other administration that the people of the province so rightly took out of government last November, I can assure you that this side of the House is making the decisions that are going to bring sustainable services to the people of the province.

 

Different Members of the House have spoken about emails that they're getting. I'm not unlike any other Member of this House. I'm getting phone calls and emails, just like everybody else. I think it's important to also highlight for those people in the House tonight, and those listening at home, that here are some of the things in some of the emails I'm getting: Do not kick our problems down the road. We don't want our children and grandchildren to have to deal with this massive burden, and we want future generations to have quality education, sustainable health care and the services they need. 

 

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, very concerned, that we are now paying more on debt expenses than we do on educating our children. That is not the values of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not what the people of the province want to happen.

 

We are very concerned about our most vulnerable residents, and that's why we implemented the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement to lessen the impact of this budget on those vulnerable people. Mr. Speaker, we are concerned that the increase in debt – and I need to be clear on this – and our inability to borrow would cripple vital services to our residents now and in the future. No one is happy about this budget, but we cannot take downloading unsustainable or, worse yet, non-existent programs and services to our children.

 

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke earlier about spending more than we take in and the former administration increased spending some $600 million in one year, and actually budgeted a phantom number of $150 million they believed they could save through some magical effort that I have yet been able to find. Mr. Speaker, I understand, we understand, that the people of the province are concerned about this budget, and that's why it is important for us to continue to have dialogue with our constituents and provide information that is based on fact.

 

So let's talk about the income tax measures. Budget 2016 announced personal income tax rates and those rates would see the lowest bracket increased by 1 per cent; the second bracket increase by 2; the third bracket increase by 2½; and the fourth and fifth brackets increase by 3. Now, the former administration introduced the fourth and fifth brackets. They did that last year in their budget and actually only increased the tax on those individuals by 1 per cent. This was the same administration that, when they also dropped taxes, forgot to drop the lowest income tax bracket, Mr. Speaker.

 

The temporary Deficit Levy – and make no mistake it is our intention, and in our seven-year plan we have planned for it over the next number of years, to remove the temporary Deficit Levy. It's a levy that is based on taxable income. I think it would be really important for those people listening at home to understand that contrary to the information on the NDP calculator, the levy is on taxable income, not gross income – not gross income as indicated on the NDP calculator.

 

Mr. Speaker, the levy is something that we, on this side of the House, understand that people of the province have concerns with. We are working extremely hard to find every opportunity that we can to eliminate that levy over the next number of years. But this is a spending and a revenue problem. When we remove a tax, we have to be prepared to make the decisions on what those cuts might be.

 

That is something that the Opposition – both the Official Opposition and certainly the Members of the Third Party – continue to forget, that in the absence of tax initiatives like we've brought in, particularly the temporary levy, that there would have to have been significantly more cuts than the $282 million that we cut in this budget, Mr. Speaker.

 

I've also heard Members from both Opposition parties talk about the lack of the progressive nature of the tax. Mr. Speaker, for those listening at home, if they'd like to go on the government website under the budget information, they will find a chart there which is a comparison of personal income tax payable in the 2017 taxation year. It has taxable income, not gross income like is reported on the NDP calculator, but taxable income that moves up the categories between $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and on to $250,000.

 

The actual tax increase as a per cent is there for every single one of those ranges. Mr. Speaker, it moves up from zero, 1.6, 2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8; that sounds progressive to me, Mr. Speaker. I should add that those percentages are based on the rate increases for the personal income tax plus the temporary Deficit Levy.

 

For the Members opposite to say that the tax increases that we put in are not progressive is factually inaccurate. It's factually inaccurate and it's taking a look at a piece of information without taking a look at the entire amount of personal income tax and looking at the progressive nature of it. 

 

Now, the Members opposite have also chosen not to talk about the new and enhanced benefits that we've implemented. The Newfoundland Income Supplement, our government took very seriously the need to implement a program that would lessen the impact for low-income seniors and individuals from this budget. Those people making a net income of $15,000 or higher qualify for the Newfoundland Income Supplement, a basic credit of $220 up to a maximum of $450.

 

The Member for Cape St. Francis likes to use individual examples, and I think it would be important for me to share a couple of examples. As a result of the Newfoundland Income Supplement, a senior couple with a net income of $26,000 would receive an average annual supplement of $510, plus their Seniors' Benefit which has been enhanced as part of this budget as well to $1,313, resulting in quarterly installments of $455.75.

 

Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite have a role to play, obviously, in this House, an important role. It is important that we have democratic discussions based on differing opinions. But I have to tell you, it is disappointing for me, as a Member of this House, when I have such respect for the colleagues in this House that share the seats with us, that they would not take the time to inform themselves about the facts of the budget so they can inform their constituents.

 

The other thing, this budget does include tax increases, but it also includes $8.4 billion worth of spending, spending on things like roads and ferries; $63.7 million for widening and paving the Trans-Labrador Highway; $23 million for the continuation of the Team Gushue Highway; $13.5 million for vessel refits; $9.3 million for the completion of the Placentia lift bridge; $5 million for the heavy equipment replacement program. For post-secondary, it includes $3.25 million to Memorial University for priority infrastructure; $1.9 million to the College of the North Atlantic for priority infrastructure, including a new investment of $350,000 for planning future infrastructure priorities.

 

In health care, $2.5 million to further support the planning and design of a new facility to replace the Waterford Hospital; $8.5 million to support the continued planning and design of the new Western Memorial Regional Hospital; $2.6 million for the completion of the PET scanner at the Health Sciences Complex, expected to be operational in 2016; $2 million in new funding to plan for long-term care in Western and Central regions, and this investment will help determine the right delivery for all aspects of the project.

 

From a community investment perspective, $72.7 million for approved projects under multi-year capital works, municipal capital works, and the former Building Canada Fund; $20.4 million in order to leverage federal funding under the New Building Canada program; $5.5 million to modernize and renovate public rental housing; and $5.4 million for maintenance, repair and upkeep of public rental housing properties.

 

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, we know that the people of the province are finding this budget, as we all are, very difficult; but we cannot put our province, a province that has the highest debt per capita in a situation where we lose control of who makes the decisions about the investments that we have to make in social infrastructure, in municipal infrastructure, in educational infrastructure, we cannot let that happen. And had we not taken decisive action in this budget, I can assure the people of the province that we were on a path that none of us wanted to be on.

 

Now, if Members opposite want to continue to deny the inevitable, that's their cross to bear. Our job as government is to make sure that we make the decisions that are going to provide our province with a future where we determine the investments in our province, we determine our services, and we don't give that over because we have too much debt.

 

I look forward to continuing to hear the Members opposite suggest solutions for the fiscal crisis that our province is avoiding with this budget, and their input on the things that we need to do to continue to bring financial stability to our province, Mr. Speaker. 

 

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'm very glad to be able to stand tonight in Concurrence on the Government Services Committee to talk about what we've heard over the last few weeks, to talk about what we've heard in Estimates, and to share some more thoughts about what we're dealing with in this province and what we're dealing with, with the budget that has been laid on the people of this province.

 

I find it really, really interesting to listen to the ministers who've spoken tonight and I find it fascinating that this government can hear people from every walk of life in this province tell them they've made a mistake in the choice that they've made, and to have the arrogance that they have, the thick skins that they have, the sense of being so sure of who they are that they can say that everybody else is wrong and they're right. The Minister of Transportation and Works stood and he said they're not out to win a popularity contest. Well, that's for bloody sure.

 

But why they would continue when it's not just those people on the other side of the House of Assembly, when they have the St. John's Board of Trade saying the levy is not good. When they have chambers of commerce around the province complaining and talking about what's happening because of cuts that are happening due to this budget, such as the chamber of commerce out in Bonavista talking about the impact of the cuts out in Bonavista, the cuts to the hospital in particular, on the radio this morning talking about that.

 

When the municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador – not just an organization, but the individual municipalities around the province – are talking about how the budget is not working for them. When organizations of many stripes are saying the same thing. When economists of various stripes are saying the same thing. When unions are saying the same thing. When ordinary people, when the hundreds of people – you have them as well, you may not have gotten as many as we did. This is only one of my file folders; this is only one of my binders filled with emails.

 

When individuals, when organizations, when other political people – when everybody is telling them that it's not going to work, they are convinced they are right. Boy, I'm telling you, that's gall. Boy, is that gall. I'm fascinated by it. I really am fascinated by it.

 

It really amazes me, Madam Speaker. It just amazes me how they can continue down this road and can do the kinds of things they're doing like accusing us on this side of the House as not getting facts straight, as not doing our homework. I'm doing 14 and 16 hours a day. We all are. Fourteen and 16 hours a day trying to make sure that I know what's going on, sitting and talking with other people, having meetings to discuss what's going on to try to get a handle on what this government is doing and what the impact of this budget is going to be.

 

Then to be told isn't it a shame that they're not taking any time to get their facts straight – what an insult. I'm not here to be insulted. I'm here to bring the message of the people into this room. When I'm here I know all the people who are saying this is not right. So it shouldn't be me as an individual or any of my colleagues as individuals who are being looked at by those on the opposite side, it should be they're representing their constituents, they're representing people who've been elected. They represent what is happening outside of this room.

 

You've got yourself into a cocoon, Madam Speaker. They have themselves in a cocoon. They're in that little cocoon by themselves to keep themselves strong and convinced that they've done the right thing. I'm absolutely shocked by it.

 

The other thing when the Minister of Transportation and Works was speaking, the Minister of Transportation and Works talked about the future, that this budget is about the future, that it's about the future of our children, it's about the future of the province. It's all about the future and we should be so happy and content that they're concerned about the future.

 

Well, Madam Speaker, let's think about the future that the budget presents. I'm not making this up. This is what is in the budget. Here's the future that this budget of 2016 has presented to the people of this province. In this budget it says that there will be a 15 per cent reduction in employment and 22 per cent reduction in earned income by 2021, and that this budget will contribute 40 to 50 per cent of that weakening of the economy. The budget says it; I'm not making that up. The minister stood on April 14 and read that in her speech.

 

Okay, that's the future up to 2021. What else? They expect – in this budget, and it's written in the budget – between 2,500 to 3,000 job losses in the private and public sector adding to the 650 cuts in the public sector jobs. This budget, in its own words, forecasts employment to decline by 15 per cent by 2021. That's some future. The budget also expects the jobless rate to increase from 13 per cent to 19.8 per cent in 2019. That's only three years away. That's the future of this budget.

 

I don't know how far down the road we have to go to find the future that the Minister of Transportation and Works was talking about. They say we're going to invest in our economy, create jobs and diversify our economy and they did nothing of it. Nothing of that in this budget; it is absolutely shocking.

 

I want to talk about – because we have done it before in the House, and the minister picked up on it when she was speaking. I want to talk about Alberta, because the minister has pointed out that, yes, it's true, Alberta went in a different direction, but Alberta didn't have a debt to deal with. And it's true that in the light of our per capita debt, when the new government was elected a year ago in Alberta they had not the same level of debt, but let's look at the choice they made.

 

First of all, Alberta decided to increase by 2 per cent the overall operating spending. They had stable funding for education and health. They didn't touch their funding in education and health. They increased infrastructure funding by 23 per cent this year and by another 13 per cent next year.

 

Now, the minister led us to believe when she spoke that they were doing that without having to make any other choices. Well, let's look at the choice they made, because they did make other choices, and I want to get that choice. Here's the choice they made.

 

In 2014, Alberta's debt was small. It was $13 billion which was 3.4 per cent of their GDP, so $13 billion in 2014. Then the amount of debt Alberta will carry will increase significantly in the next three years.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster): Order, please!

 

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

The amount of debt Alberta will carry is going to increase significantly over the next three years. In 2016-17, in this year's budget, their debt is now up to $31 billion. That's 9.6 per cent of their GDP, up from 3.4 per cent. In 2018-2019, their debt will be $58 billion, up to 15.5 per cent. The point I'm making, Madam Speaker –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Order, please!

 

MS. MICHAEL: If the people on the other side of the House would stop talking they might hear what I'm saying. They're the ones who are accusing us of not listening and not knowing, but they're afraid of the truth.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that Alberta is not afraid of increasing their debt and making things more difficult that way (inaudible) because they understand that putting money into infrastructure will be an investment and it's the way they have to move forward. Having lost 60,000 jobs, having also suffered from a major decline in revenue, they have not only tripled, not only quadrupled, they have almost multiplied by five the debt they are going to carry. They have actually more than that, the debt they are going to carry.

 

Now I'm not saying we have to multiply our debt by that, but I am saying that a deficit of $1.8 billion isn't a magic number. We keep getting being thrown that number, $1.8 billion. That's not a magic number. If we had a vision, if this government had a vision, we might have seen a lot more money going into infrastructure.

 

Here's a fact for the other side to hear. Finance Canada has a table that if you go look at this table, it's widely used by people. This table is very simple, and according to Finance Canada – not Lorraine Michael, but Finance Canada – every dollar spent on infrastructure increases economic growth by a dollar and a half. The department says infrastructure spending – I'm not saying this, I'm telling what Finance Canada says – is the most effective form of stimulus when compared to other options including more generous Employment Insurance benefits or tax cuts. Now that's Finance Canada.

 

I'd love to know who it is that this government went to in getting the advice where they're going. I have no idea. I do know there were people in St. John's, economists – I know at least one economist, a visitor who was here in St. John's –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster): Order, please!

 

I ask Members for their co-operation so we can hear the Member speaking.

 

The hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

 

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

I know an economist who was in town from British Columbia. A very balanced economist, we sat and met with him. I know he sat and met with this government. I know he certainly didn't say to them, do what they've done. He definitely would have taken the approach of Finance Canada. That putting money into infrastructure is one of the best ways, at a time like the situation we're in, when you help your economy grow.

 

I've read it to them. I've given them the facts. They won't believe it. But if they had, maybe we would have seen more than just $20 million in the budget to go into leveraging money from the federal government's infrastructure plan. If they had done that and we could have put more money in, then we would see a budget that was going to help to grow, not weaken, our economy.

 

So let's look at it, Madam Speaker. Since they think I don't do any homework, since they think I don't know what I'm talking about, let me share some of the information that's out there. The Liberal government in Ottawa, in their Budget 2016, put out a complete plan with regard to infrastructure funding, the infrastructure plan.

 

There are three different parts to their infrastructure plan. You can do social infrastructure, you can have green infrastructure or public transit. Under social infrastructure, you have social infrastructure investments to First Nations, Inuit and Northern communities. You have social infrastructure to cultural and recreational, social infrastructure in early learning and child care, social infrastructure in affordable housing. So that's one set.

 

Then you have social infrastructure, what they call green infrastructure. That includes: climate change, mitigation, supporting municipal capacity building, clean water and waste water fund, and water, waste water and waste management infrastructure for First Nations. Then you have public transit.

 

There's what the federal government is offering to governments in Canada. This is what they're offering as the possibility of leveraging money. And what did we do? We took a measly $20 million, we parked it there and they are going to leverage some money but it is so small in comparison to what they could go after.

 

Let's look at the choices they made. The areas they're going after, one, the clean water and waste water fund. The other is post-secondary education, because that fits into the social infrastructure. We do know that, yes, the government is sitting down with Memorial and with the College of the North Atlantic and they are looking at small projects that they might be able to put forward and leverage money from, but it's such a small bit of what could be done.

 

They obviously don't believe what economists are telling them. They obviously don't believe what Finance Canada is saying, is put your money into infrastructure and you will get back one-and-a-half times every dollar that you put in. Not only will you get back the money, you're going to get back people employed. So instead of a budget that's telling our young people – I've heard people from the government say we're fear mongering and young people aren't going to run away, et cetera. Well, you know, if I were in my 20s and if I heard there's going to be a 15 per cent reduction in employment and 22 per cent reduction in earned income by 2021, why would I stay here? Why would I stay here?

 

If I were in my 20s and I heard the provincial deficit reduction measures are estimated to account for 40 per cent to 50 per cent of predicted declines in those two areas, why would I stay here? Then there are those who have no choice. There are those who are going to have to stay here not just because they love the place, they want to, but they're going to have to stay here even if they wanted to leave because they don't have any choice.

 

Those who are on the edge of poverty, those who are being told that the little bit of money you're going to get which is supposed to make up for your Home Heating Rebate and your HST rebate, that that's going to get you over the hump. Well, that money does not cover for Income Support people and for seniors who get the enhanced benefit. It doesn't cover all the other expenses they are going to have to face; all the other expenses that includes the growth in the HST by 2 per cent.

 

They must think that seniors, for example, don't have cars and they don't have to pay the extra 15 per cent on car insurance. Of course they do. Some don't, a lot do. They may not be new cars but they are cars because we don't have a public transportation system in the province. They have to have them.

 

What's going to happen? They have to stay and they're going to have to try to put up with a loss of, in some cases for those people, up to $1,000. We've done the math. They've done the math across the way too, but they're denying. They're denying that math. They're only showing part of the picture. As I've said before in the House, the people in the province are not stupid. They've done their math. They've counted every cent because that's how they live. I'm not just talking people who are living in poverty. Middle-income families count every cent. They have to. They have no choice.

 

What this government forgot – they have that circle in the budget showing they're going to save and they're going to cut and they have this lovely circle. Missing from that whole diagram is people. They didn't put people in the center and say: How do we build a budget that's going to help the people of our province live in the present and grow for the future?

 

That's all I have to say, Madam Speaker.

 

Thank you.

 

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. LETTO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

I did have some format to what I was going to say here tonight but after listening to the last couple of speakers, I think I've thrown that out the window.

 

Do you know what? I agree with the co-leader of the Third Party. I agree with her. We should invest in infrastructure. That's why we're putting in $570 million.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. LETTO: The Minister of Transportation and Works got up tonight and talked about what we're investing in infrastructure. Then she has the audacity – you talk about us being arrogant. She had the audacity to get up and talk about the $20 million we put away in a slush fund to leverage other funds.

 

Madam Speaker, let me list off just what we're putting in infrastructure. In Transportation, $226 million for priority projects such as $63.7 million for widening and paving of the Trans-Labrador Highway to leverage that much more money again from the feds.

 

Where's the $20 million? You talk about arrogance – $62 million for the Provincial Roads Program and brush clearing, $5 million for heavy equipment replacement, $23 million – as the Minister of Finance said earlier – for construction of the Team Gushue Highway. Does she travel the Team Gushue Highway?

 

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't go that far out.

 

MR. LETTO: Oh, she doesn't go that far out. Okay.

 

There is $8.13 million for renovations to wharves and ferry terminals.

 

Now, let's go to Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has gotten up in this House several times and talked about the investment we're putting into infrastructure; $344.1 million over four years for new and existing municipal infrastructure projects which will leverage $146.4 million in federal funding.

 

Where's the $20 million? What is she talking about? Did she read the same budget that we did? Obviously not; and, $18.4 million for revenue sharing and other adventures as part of the Community Sustainability Partnership. The one that the Minister of Municipal Affairs went to Cabinet with and convinced his Cabinet partners and colleagues that it's important that we have strong, sustainable communities, and that's why we're honouring the Community Sustainability Partnership.

 

I fail to understand where the Third Party is coming from with their numbers when they say all we're doing is putting aside $20 million in a slush fund – they call it – to leverage money from our federal counterparts. Which we're glad to say we've been successful in doing, more than I can say for the previous administration, I might add; but, $570 million in investment in infrastructure in municipal capital works and transportation. So I'm at a loss.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

 

MR. LETTO: Well, maybe if they did ask questions in Estimates, in Transportation and Works – they didn't ask any questions, so how would they expect to know? How would you expect to know if you don't ask any questions? That is what Estimates is all about, Madam Speaker.

 

I've been on this side of the House for a short time. I have attended Estimates for Municipal Affairs and Service NL. I've been on that side of the House, not as an MHA but certainly as a staff member preparing for Estimates, and I know the value of Estimates. It's a place where you learn. You learn what government puts into infrastructure and services around this province.

 

The preparation that goes into preparing for the Estimates by our staff in different departments is to be commended because they can account for every cent that has been expended by government. In order to get that information, though, you have to be able to come to Estimates. Be prepared, ask the right questions, and you will get the answers.

 

For the first time I've seen it ever in Estimates this year, and I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs was probably the first one to lead it off. When he was finished Estimates, he took his Estimates book, walked across the floor and handed a copy to the Member for the Opposition and the Member for the Third Party if they were present. Offered it, so all the information is there. For the co-leader – if I'm calling her the right title – but for the Third Party to come say after getting all that information, to come up and say we're only spending $20 million in infrastructure, it's unbelievable – unbelievable.

 

Now, one thing that I got to say for Estimates – because we are speaking to Concurrence, so I need to be a little bit relevant, I guess. I want to say that because of the fiscal situation we find ourselves in – and our staff recognizes the fiscal situation. They were able to identify a number of savings over the past few months and it has helped us with our bottom line. Even though if we had not done anything, we would be facing a $2.7 billion deficit. The Leader of the Third Party wants us to do what Alberta did, do what Alberta did.

 

We don't have a legacy fund to fall back on. We don't have the resources that Alberta has. Alberta's going to be – and she acknowledged it – $58 billion in debt in the next two to three years. Madam Speaker, I don't want to be part of that. We have to address the $2.7 billion deficit that we have. I don't want to be part of that growing any bigger than it is because it's not us that are going to have to pay for it. It's our children that are going to have to pay for it, our children's children and generations down the road.

 

Now, let me go down to the – I wasn't planning on talking about municipalities tonight, but after the Leader of the Opposition got up and had his few words, I'm compelled to go back there because I did attend the MNL symposium, so I got it first-hand. I was at the sessions. I was at all the sessions, actually. I heard and I saw what happened this weekend. I had many meetings with many mayors, councillors as I represented the minister there – the minister was away on other meetings. I didn't see anybody from the Opposition or the Third Party there. They may have been there, I didn't see them. I'm not saying they weren't there but I just didn't see them, and I attended all the sessions. So you take it from that.

 

I talked to many mayors. Yes, many of them do have concerns. They do have concerns. They have concerns about libraries closing. They have concerns about the increased costs. But there is no other group of individuals or no other sector within governance that know more about budgeting than municipal people, than municipal mayors and councillors. They are legislated by law that they have to have a balanced budget.

 

They have to make the tough decisions so that they can continue to supply services to their residents without overburdening them in taxes. Because there is only one taxpayer – there is only one. Whether you are the federal government, provincial government or municipal, there is only one taxpayer, the same taxpayer.

 

I tell you one thing they did acknowledge, that we were in a tough situation and we had to make some tough decisions. They were very, very pleased, for the most part. They were very pleased and very surprised, I might add, that we did not make any adjustments to the Community Sustainability Partnership; with regard to the Municipal Operating Grants, no change; no change in the cost-sharing ratios, the 90-10, 80-20, 70-30, which many municipalities by the way have taken advantage of over the last few years and have gotten some great capital works done because of it.

 

We've maintained the sharing of the provincial gas tax revenues. We've maintained the partial HST rebate. All this is new revenue for municipalities. It's money in their pockets, and they were surprised but very grateful, I might add, that we, as a government, and the minister who sat around the Cabinet table were able to maintain these great initiatives. Our government recognizes that no matter what level of government you are, you are still government and you're governing the people.

 

I've always believed that municipal government – because I spent 20 years in it, and I spent 15 years as the member of the board of directors of MNL. I know very well how municipalities and how mayors and councillors think. They're very grateful that we've been able to maintain this.

 

Not only have we maintained it, but because of the partnership that's been formed – and I give credit to the former administration. I was on the board of directors of MNL and I lobbied very hard for these initiatives on behalf of the municipal people around this province. I lobbied very hard. I was very, very pleased when I saw this come to fruition.

 

We've got a ways to go, but we are committed as a government to improving on that, whether it's through Crown lands to the regional governance model, we're prepared to look at other initiatives. As of April 1 this year, the share for the gasoline tax increased to 75 cents per litre, which provides $5.3 million, so that's all new money for municipalities.

 

One of the things that people at MNL were very, I think, pleased with was the announcement by our government that we would have a Premier's forum, the first one ever in this province. Our Premier has recognized the value of municipalities and the mayors and councillors around this province. He has a lot of respect for them. For that reason, we, as a government, will hold our first Premier's forum on October 5, 2016, in conjunction with the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador annual general meeting.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. LETTO: We spent a full hour, myself and the staff we had there from Municipal Affairs, with the delegation that was there looking at the topics they want to see brought up at the forum because it is the full day. Since when, ever, did a Premier commit to spending a full day – and ministers as well – with majors and councillors around this province? I think it's a great move forward and something that we are very proud of.

 

Now, I want to go back to some of the things the Leader of the Opposition said as well in his few words tonight. He talked about Labrador and he talked about different things. He talked about the population growth. We need to grow the population. Do you know what? He's right. We need to grow the population, but do you know what happened under his watch when he was Premier? The population dropped by 2,000 people.

 

So here he is tonight telling us we need to grow the population. Absolutely, we need to grow the population and we're going to grow the population, but we're not going to follow in his footsteps, I can guarantee you that.

 

He talked about Labrador. I cannot get up here tonight and not bring it up again. They keep bringing it up so I'm definitely going to have to do it, and that's about the study for the fixed link, the feasibility study. Again, he's trying to say that it's not a slight to Labrador, there's no indication that because they don't like Labrador they don't want to have the study done. But every time they get up, they talk about no diversification. We have no diversification plans. There's no diversification in the budget.

 

The single biggest project that could drive diversification in this province and change the way we do things, change our infrastructure, our transportation infrastructure, change our connection with the Mainland, with Canada, with the North America, is to build a fixed link – what that could do for this province. The problem, Madam Speaker, is that many of those people over there think that a fixed link is only there to benefit Labrador.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: They deserve it.

 

MR. LETTO: Well, they deserve it; you're right. But do you know what? It's a much bigger benefit than that. It's much bigger than Labrador. Labrador will see the benefits, and rightfully so because they deserve it. But when you have another connection to this province that will facilitate the movement of transportation and the movement of goods and services to and from, whether you're exporting or importing, and you have a year-round transportation system that you can rely on, it's reliable, dependable, there's no better way to diversify the economy than to have transportation infrastructure in place.

 

They tried to tie it to whether we're cutting education or we're cutting health care in Labrador. Because we're cutting that, we're wasting money on the study. Nothing could be further from the truth. And it's not the right time, they say, to do it.

 

Well, the question I would ask is: When is the right time? Maybe the right time was eight years ago, nine years ago, 10 years ago when they did a prefeasibility study. Maybe that was the right time to do it, when they had $25 billion in oil money to do it, but they didn't because it wasn't a priority for them. Well, we see it as a priority for the future. We have a vision. I've always had a vision for Labrador and a fixed link is part of that vision, I've always had it and I will continue to have it. If we have to wait for the right time it's something that will never get done.

 

You talk about diversification – and I have to bring it a little closer to home in Labrador West when you talk about diversification and doing things differently. I brought it up in my maiden speech, I think it was; you talk about new industry. There is no region in this province really that's been hit harder than Labrador West because of the drop in commodity prices. There are more commodities besides oil. There happens to be a great commodity called iron ore.

 

That has tanked the same way –pardon the pun – as oil has. Nobody has suffered more because of the drop in commodities than the people of Labrador West. Nobody in this province has suffered more and I will stand by that. Just ask the people of Wabush. Just ask the pensioners of Wabush who saw a 25 per cent and 21 per cent drop in their pension plans the last year and lost all their medical benefits because a multinational company came in, reaped the resources or raped the resources, took off and left the people who worked for them, who gave their lives to them for 30, 40 years – left them in the lurch. That's what's happened. We have to make sure that doesn't happen again. That's why I'm putting my PMR forward tomorrow.

 

When you talk about diversification you have to look at other opportunities. Data warehousing – and I brought it up before. We have a company now that's prepared to look at data warehousing on a major, major scale. It's not big jobs, it's not a lot of jobs, but as I said in my maiden speech, every single job is important in the economy of today – every single job.

 

Madam Speaker, my time is running out. I guess the real thing that really boiled my blood tonight was the fact that the co-leader of the Third Party had the gall and the audacity – and I will say arrogance because they called us arrogant – to get up and say that we're not investing in infrastructure. What a – I won't say it.

 

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

It's certainly a pleasure to get up tonight in Concurrence debate and have a few words in regard to the budget, Budget 2016.

 

I had the privilege of attending a couple of Estimate Committees; Natural Resources. I certainly appreciate the dialogue with the minister and staff from Natural Resources in discussions we had; as well, the Minister of Finance and the Human Resources Secretariat, discussions as well. I certainly appreciate the input from the staff as well from that department; a very good dialogue back and forth, certainly straightforward for the most part in terms of exchange of information.

 

As well, I appreciate the fact that there was allowance for some policy discussion. While it might not have been line-to-line items, departments were, from my perspective, engaging in regard to laying out as ministers in government, to some extent, the road forward and what their perspectives were as a new government, and some of their thoughts in those departments of how they were moving forward.

 

Budget 2016; from our perspective we've heard a lot about it over the past number of weeks. Prior to the budget coming down, the Minister of Finance had talked about there were no really good choices in this budget in regard to what was going to be announced. I'll just talk about that a little bit as we go through.

 

When the budget was brought down, the measures in it heavily sided on one side of the ledger, if you will, in regard to just revenue generation through taxation and fees. I think the figure was over $800 million in regard to how you would deal with some of the issues we're dealing with in regard to the deficit, and how you would make that up.

 

There was a clear decision made and choices made on how you would deal with that. That is what this budget is all about in 2016. We'll hear back and forth in regard to what happened in prior days. Certainly it's good to reflect on what happened and expenditures and how we built the economy. But in any government that comes in, it's here and now.

 

A government comes in and assesses where they are. If they just came through an election they ran on a platform, they ran on pillars of what they believed in. They laid it out for the people, here's what we believe and here's fundamental that if you elect us we're going to do. They laid it out for people.

 

Once they got elected, they do an assessment and they lay out, they make choices. They either take those things they ran on, those elements and say, we're going to build on those, we're going to lay it out for your budget, or they don't. And we've seen some of this in this budget in regard to what was said before this Liberal Party was elected, what was executed after the election and when they put a budget together.

 

So that's the parameters. I say again, any government, when they come in, Cabinet and caucus, they sit down and they put together a budget and that's choices. It's choices they made. We made it as a government when we were there and you move forward from there.

 

Prior to last fall, the government on the other side, when the election was on, very clearly stated to people we wouldn't be doing any layoffs. The Premier said that. The Premier of the day, who was Opposition leader at the time, said no layoffs. I'm not going to do it. He said taxation. I'm not going to do that.

 

We brought in HST last April in the budget, obviously recognizing where we were and that we had to lay out a plan. We laid out a five-year plan for the people of the province. At the time, we told people there were tough years coming. Everybody would have to share in some of the tough times we had coming, but we would distribute it throughout the population and make it as easy as we could for the populace in Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

There were several elements to that. One I mentioned was revenue generation through the HST which we would have brought in January 1, 2016. That would have generated significant revenues, anywhere from $180 million to $200 million annually. That was one key component of it.

 

The other was on the expense side and looking at the public service and through an attrition program look at reducing the public service. But doing it in a manner that assisted or wasn't harsh to those who work in the public service. So we went back and looked at prior years and the statistics over a longer period of time and on average, on an annual basis, how many came out of the public service through a variety of reasons: through retirements, through movement elsewhere. Based on that we set up, over a five-year period, as people leave the public service, if there were 10 people who came out, we'd put eight back. That was the initial plan we laid out last year in our budget.

 

So that was one component of expenses. At that time as well, we initiated a process to look at efficiencies in government and departments. Obviously, you're taking people out of any area and program service delivery. You may look at redefining how that service gets delivered after that, based on rearrangement of human resources, based on different human resources, maybe even based on less human resources, but that's part of it.

 

As you take people out, you look at how you deliver services and programs. Any government is always looking at that and how you do that and deliver top-rate services and programs to the people of the province. But, oftentimes, you can do it in different ways; you can certainly do it in more efficient ways.

 

That attrition component had a parallel process with it to look at that and how we were delivering programs. So that's part of looking at our plan as we moved it forward. It's that part of it.

 

As I said on the other side in regard to taxation last year, we looked at various avenues to raise extra revenue. We looked at personal income tax. We implemented two new levels in regard to personal income tax, recognizing that there was more there that we could certainly raise and implemented them last year.

 

It was along with as well, as we've seen this year, some of the fees. We also increased some fees as an extra revenue source last year, recognizing where we were. Recognizing the global economy and some of the things you see that the Member for Lab West just mentioned in a reduction in commodities, just not oil and gas, certainly in the mining sector as well.

 

So that has a significant impact on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not just this economy, certainly we saw it right across the country – Alberta, Saskatchewan, those oil-producing provinces and what result that had. That was worldwide, but in Canada those three provinces that I mentioned were seriously affected. So within that context we knew that decisions had to be made and choices had to be made, the same way as the government this year had to make choices and decisions. And it's theirs and you wear them. Whatever those choices are, as a government, you wear them, you're responsible.

 

In doing that, you announce your budget and you lay out for people what your vision is, you accept it and you take responsibility for it. You don't say, well, you don't understand it or you're not putting out the right information, or it's the media's fault or it's somebody else's fault. It's your budget. You own it, you live it, you deliver it. That's what you're elected to do. You can't pass the buck – excuse the pun, but you own it, it's yours, you deliver it.

 

So that's what you do, and you take your hits. There are some good things in any budget and there are some not so good things in any budget, but you take your hits.

 

I know in prior years when I was in Cabinet, we had some layoffs, increased some fees – even last year. You go into your district, you speak to different groups, lobby groups, advocates that come and see you. A lot of them are not happy, but you go through the process of communicating with them and articulating to them what your belief is as a government and how you believe the way forward is and what it's going to look like for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

 

So that's what you do. Well, it seems with this budget and this government the mood has changed, the message has changed. Originally, as I said, the Minister of Finance said before the budget, there are no good choices here; this is not going to be a good budget, nothing here – which surprised us because we had known, from our time over the past number of years, there are a lot of good programs, a lot of exceptional programs here and services that were built up over the past number of years.

 

We said to ourselves, we can't be cutting all of those. Some of them got to be maintained. To do that, that's a good thing. I look at some of the programs that you've brought in for seniors, in health care, AES, post-secondary, elementary and high school, some of the programs you brought in there: recreation programs, a variety of programs, even to maintain some of those. Our drug program, the millions of dollars we invested in that that covers a whole spectrum of our demographics and helps so many in our society. Even maintaining some of that, that's a good choice. But the message early on was that there are no good choices here, folks, not good.

 

Further in, a week after the budget or so, we hear it's not too bad. It's pretty good. We're going to do things. The message changed. That causes a lot of concern for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Most people want to know – they may not agree with all your decisions but if you lay it out to them in a clear pattern and they understand it, they respect you for laying it out and communicating what it is to them.

 

We've lost this from the general public – it is not only us on this side; we've lost it. Go out and talk to people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Don't take our word for it; go out and talk to people. Talk to industry groups. We had a discussion here tonight about some of the industry groups, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. We talked about the Employers' Council, various groups. That's what they're saying.

 

I spoke to small-business people in my district. I spoke to seniors, spoke with a single mom there just the other night in terms of her concerns in regard to the budget. People are worried. They are concerned. So that's an issue in terms of communicating the budget. That's certainly no one else's fault only the government and they take responsibility for it and that's the issue.

 

The other conflict we hear from time to time – and as I said, there were no good things in the budget, but tonight and over the past number of weeks we've heard Members getting up on the other side and talking about the investments in infrastructure. I think it is over $600 million, somewhere around $600 million this year.

 

On the one hand, we spent too much when we were there. We spent too much on infrastructure and it was wasted, but on the other hand, now they are up talking about we're spending $500 million to $600 million in infrastructure and that's a good thing.

 

We are we? Do you believe in infrastructure? Do you believe in building infrastructure, communities and regions that we have to do, or do you not? Another mixed message. We don't know where the government is. We've heard about good, fiscal management in terms of expenditures and the budgets in prior years and what was spent, too much spending going on. Well, this year over last year, there's an extra $400 million in the budget, so that's an increase.

 

But is that fiscal management? So another mixed message. Where are we? Are we reducing budgets or not? Are we spending on infrastructure that's a good thing or we're not? You can't have it both ways, and that's the message the public is getting, they don't know. The message is changing. We don't know what the message is.

 

Further to it, when you look at the type of decisions that were made and solutions to the current situation, as I said, it is about taxing and fees. There is nothing here about economic development and how we're going to drive opportunity.

 

In the forecasted, we see nothing in the Estimates about new revenue generated from economic development and economic growth strategy. We heard a lot of that before from this group in regard to they had the plan. They had the entrepreneurial spirit. They had the business expertise. They had all of that. They were going to show new growth. That was going to happen. But we see nothing, to date, in regard to new growth, new revenue from growing traditional industry, current industry or new ones.

 

When you go back and look and they try and criticize and say to us, there was no economic diversification. Well, I ask a lot of them to look around various regions of the province and what we have done. Information technology, ITC, an industry that has almost grown to $1.6 billion; we look at tourism and what that has done in the province. That's all part of the province, all over, tremendous return. That industry is well over $1 billion.

 

We look at a traditional industry like our fishery, the wild fishery and the aquaculture industry. Heavy investment on both sides of that industry and we see results from it. With the wild fishery, in terms of the shellfish, we have challenges. We're working together with the Minister of Fisheries now and with an all-party committee and looking at various items related to shrimp, which is very concerning. I think we all understand that. Some of the things we're hearing this year in regard to the crab industry, it's early but there are some concerns there as well.

 

Even when we look at within the fishing industry itself and look at the ground fishery and some of the great work and great investments we did over the past number of years in science research and the groundfish and what's happening there and other species, there's great opportunity there. That's an area where we're encouraging the minister to look forward to that industry and grow that traditional industry because that's new revenue, new growth that we can pursue.

 

To date, the fisheries fund which would have been a great component to drive that industry, to help us transition, do some of the things we need to do in technology and innovation, I certainly hope the minister is still advocating for that. We know when the current prime minister of Canada, when he was Official Opposition Leader, he wrote the then premier of our province and said he would keep the promise made by the federal government. That promise was a fisheries fund of $400 million – $280 million from Ottawa, $120 million from our province – so we could grow our industry, both on the aquaculture side and the wild fishery side. So we certainly hope we're going to see that, but we haven't seen it yet. We haven't seen any of that investment; haven't seen it.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't have a deal.

 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Someone shouted from the back there, we didn't have a deal. Well, I suggest they talk to our senior officials of trade in BTCRD. Talk to your director of trade, he was in all the meetings. I can guarantee you he knows there was a deal. Anybody who looked at it knew there was a deal.

 

If the prime minister of Canada was going to support it he must have thought there was going to be a deal because he said he would, he'd keep the promise. So if there's no deal, what's he keeping? Anyway, I guess they'll figure that out on that side.

 

At the end of the day, I want to see the investment in the fishing industry that was promised and we can move it forward. The deal is done. It's time to put the cash on the table. Let's move on, build the industry. That's what that's about. I'd like to see the Minister of Fisheries, he's over there. He seems pretty excited. I think he's going to do it; I hope he does.

 

Mr. Speaker, that's an example of we haven't seen a lot in regard to diversification but there are huge opportunities. I certainly hope, and I encourage the folks on the other side to continue to build and grow.

 

Other areas are technology industries. We've done a lot of work over the past number of years there. We continue to see a lot of growth, a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of innovation. Certainly our engineering school at MUN, the Genesis Centre. A lot of new companies have grown out of that just from ideas and commercialized, and now are selling technology all around the world.

 

That diversification is ongoing, it is started. The reality needs to kick in on the other side. I don't know if it has or not, but you need to continue to grow and continue to build that so we can see the results we need. As I say, to work on the other side of that balance sheet, to generate revenues, new wealth, which we haven't seen. As has been said over and over again, you can't just fee your way and tax your way back to prosperity. That doesn't work. No economist or nobody else is going to agree with that.

 

With this, we've all heard on both sides of the House the feedback we've gotten from all types of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians whether they're a small business, whether they're in rural Newfoundland, whether they're in urban centres, it doesn't matter. They've all heard the challenges with this.

 

The problem with this way forward is that we have a slowing economy. I think in many parts of Canada – BC and Ontario are doing well. We've slowed a little bit, but right now this kind of action that's being taken in this current budget does nothing to give consumer confidence in our economy. That's very worrisome, because if people don't spend, the economy contracts. The economy has contracted somewhat already. We don't need to further exacerbate that and further contract the economy.

 

That's what this budget is all about. It's reaching into people's pockets with two hands and taking a lot of money out. There's a threshold, most will tell you, of what you can do before you stifle the economy. This budget is on the road to do that. When you have people, especially young families who are looking to start a career, looking to make choices, we want them to think there's hope and prosperity and there's an ability to stay here and build it here.

 

Our demographics, as we all know, are going in the wrong direction. That's reality today. We need people and we need young people to stay here and grow their families. We've built great infrastructure and great communities over the past 10 years, with the opportunities with our post-secondary education, with our schooling system, and we need the environment for people to want to stay.

 

My other fear with this budget is that the message is doom and gloom. If you look at the resources, not only in our people but in our industries and our natural resources, there's abundance. Offshore, we have probably 5 or 8 per cent of even the oil and gas explored and not even produced yet.

 

The future is extremely bright. We have to send that message and lay out a plan and let Newfoundlanders and Labradorians here, and not here who want to come back, that this is the place to be. This is the place to invest. This is the place to raise your family. I'm sorry, this budget doesn't do it. They need to start listening and start addressing this budget so they don't kill Newfoundland and Labrador and defeat the great progress we've made over the past 10 years.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER (Lane): The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's a pleasure to stand here tonight in this hon. House to represent the good people of the great District of Exploits and, indeed, all of the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

It's a pleasure to speak to Concurrence. First off, I would like to remind everyone here and throughout the province that we should not underestimate the seriousness of this situation. We have to go back in time and correct years of reckless spending and unsustainable tax cuts. This is not about political popularity – as my counterpart spoke of earlier. This is about a solid fiscal future.

 

This budget is honest. It's certainly not easy, but it's honest. Even with these actions, we are still paying more for debt servicing than for educating our kids. Across all brackets, taxpayers will pay less than they did in 2006. We are spending $8.48 billion on programs and services, including $570 million on infrastructure which will help create 3,860 person years of employment.

 

Our government was left with the largest deficit in our province's history. If we did not take action, what was a planned $1.1 billion deficit would have mushroomed into a $2.7 billion deficit had we followed the former administration's plans. We cannot keep spending at levels beyond our means. We currently now spend more on paying interest on money borrowed and debt servicing than on delivery of education in our province, which is normally the second highest budget line after health care.

 

Our Premier had asked the former premier to provide the updated financial data which was withheld from the public. Now we know why. Not knowing the severity of the financial situation has resulted in changes to our plans. I do not like many of the tough choices in this budget and I am optimistic that these short-term sacrifices we all have to make will lead us back to a better financial position and create benefits for the long term.

 

Some of our measures implemented are temporary. The increase in gas tax will be reviewed again in the supplemental budget. As well, the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy will begin to phase out in 2018.

 

There will also be some positive impacts on the budget. Including investments to advance broadband Internet, tourism and cultural funds, agrifoods, forestry, fishery initiatives, as well as programs for regional economic development and plans to support the attraction of new business and help local business do more internationally.

 

Our government kept small-business tax at 3 per cent and also did not change payroll taxes. Municipalities retained their operating grants. There are infrastructure investments in towns and transportation infrastructure that will also benefit my district.

 

We have created a new program for lower-income residents, seniors and those with disabilities that would be impacted by new and increased revenue measures by investing $76.4 million into a new NL Income Supplement. Those benefits will be paid directly to eligible low-income seniors, families and individuals in quarterly installments.

 

Our budget outlines $63.7 million of enhanced benefits to help low-income seniors, individuals, families and persons with disabilities. This includes a quarterly payment of $455.75 for a senior couple with a net income of $26,000 or under, and a $227.50 quarterly payment to a single-earner family whose net income is $40,000 or less. There is also the NL Income Supplement which will be based on family net income.

 

The temporary Deficit Reduction Levy will generate $126 million per year while other measures are identified and we begin to see their benefits. This will begin to be phased out in 2018 or sooner. We are working to eliminate the waste and excess spending in the public service so we can protect every single job possible. Our taxes are lower today than they were in 2006 and before. We have to make the right choices. Making the right choices are not always easy, but are necessary to put our province back on track.

 

Who to blame? You won't hear no more from me after tonight about blame. We've probably heard enough of it. Since the NL budget came down everybody is looking for someone to blame for this mess, with most of the fingers currently being pointed at our current Liberal government, which is a shame. But people with ears and people with thinking minds, after reflection, will see the truth in where it lies. I believe our plan is not without hardship, but we don't deserve the bulk of the blame.

 

So who do we blame? How about the previous PC administration of Danny Williams and then Kathy Dunderdale? During those years we had high oil revenues and we were told we were a have province, no longer dependent on the federal government for handouts. Why, then, were thousands of people still leaving for Alberta to find work every year? It appears our great economy still wasn't creating the jobs we needed.

 

Solution: the Muskrat Falls megaproject. Despite numerous studies and warnings about the economic viability of this project it went ahead. And to limited credit, it certainly supplied our residents with great benefits, thousands of high-paying jobs, which certainly is not bad. That's the good thing; the only good thing that I can see from it.

 

We are now starting to see what the cost really was and is, and we will be paying for many years to come. Despite the squandering revenue and resources by the PC administration, they don't – you people don't – deserve shouldering all of the blame either.

 

So now, who can we blame? How about Clyde Wells? Maybe it was John Crosbie's mismanagement of the collapse of the cod fishery. Oh, and we can't forget Brian Peckford and the Sprung Greenhouse cucumber venture. Perhaps it was Joey Smallwood's fault. He's the one that started the mess, right?

 

No, they don't deserve the bulk of the blame either. Everybody here tonight, and everybody at home throughout this province; it's time for all of us to take the blame.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. DEAN: The unfortunate truth is we collectively – the current population and previous populations – are to blame.

 

Nobody likes to say it but there persists a culture of entitlement in this province in which we demand jobs, benefits and services from government that our province simply cannot afford to continue enduring at the rate; decades of spending and borrowing by our governments to pay for our culture of entitlement because we demand it.

 

We need leaders who are willing to make the hard choices and to be honest with the voters on what must be done. But until we accept, collectively, the responsibility for where we are today, our ship's fate will eventually see bottom, being brought about by our futile bailing efforts. We can no longer afford the promises of jobs and handouts of the past. Self-reliance, perseverance and hard work were once our attributes we proudly stood by, and we must embrace them once again if we are to succeed.

 

Local issues back home and throughout the province, whether it's health care, education, library concerns; I, as well as everyone here, including the Opposition and the Third Party, want all of our people to know that we are going to work collectively. If there are better answers out there to curtail some of the hardships that are being forecasted, I'm sure as a civilized government we'll have a look at that.

 

We will continue listening to our province's municipal leadership. If our listening skills need more refining I would have faith in this administration, more than any previous administration, to rise to that challenge.

 

In closing, I will leave each and every one of you with this thought: Inspiration comes from those who manage well something from nothing, not from those who manage poorly nothing from something.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre. 

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

I'm very happy to stand tonight to speak once again, but for the first time in this session of Concurrence. It's been interesting.

 

Over the past few weeks we have worked really hard. I would like to commend the staff in the Minister of Finance's office. I would like to commend all those in Treasury Board. I would like to commend all the staff, all the people who so diligently and passionately work in the public service who went, who were instructed to go line by line by line by line to look for savings.

 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we mustn't forget that they were also instructed to look for a 30 per cent reduction over a period of three years and present that to the minister. Again, people went through line by line by line. But some people who were very experienced, who may have been in particular departments for a number of years, who were responsible for delivering programs for looking out at the economic health of our province, knew that to look for 30 per cent savings in a specific department, as a matter of fact, was unreasonable. Actually, for some of them it meant that they couldn't fulfil their mandate. But people went line by line by line, as our Minister of Finance told us that she went line by line by line looking to cut and cut and cut, looking for savings, savings, savings. They're calling it savings.

 

Mr. Speaker, my hope, our hope – what we would hope from our government is for that Minister of Finance, for the Premier to shift their gaze from the line by line by line, to look out and to look out over the horizon, and to look at the big picture.

 

We can talk a little bit about Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador. Everybody in this House, everybody in this province knows that we're not completely comparing apples to apples. We know that there are such grave differences, but what we do know is common, that both Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador have a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Both provinces do. Both provinces have really hard workers and both provinces also have people who are passionate, people who care. And both provinces were very heavily reliant on oil.

 

Both provinces got creamed by the commodity markets, particularly in oil. Us, as well, in terms of some of our mining projects. Alberta was hit really hard, Newfoundland and Labrador was hit really hard. Those are some of our comparisons. That we both got hit really hard, we both have a whole lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians living in our provinces.

 

I find it very interesting – again, just to wrap up my thought about thanking the people who have worked so hard to get us to this point. Everybody in this House and the staff here at the Table here in the House, and our Pages, we've been here for hours and hours and hours over the last few months talking about the budget. Some of us are happy with some of the aspects of the budget. Some of us feel there are real problems with the budget.

 

One of the things I have talked about a lot is the fact that these extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, but they call for a measured hand. They call for not knee-jerk panic reactions, and what I would hope is that our government would have come in and not spent so much time blaming the other crowd who created a bit of a mess for us. We know that, they know that, government knows that. I talked a little bit about the similarities between Newfoundland and Labrador and Alberta, but here are the differences. Rachel Notley rolled up her sleeves and she went into her House and proudly –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: I believe our Minister of Finance and our Premier rolled up their sleeves, they worked hard too because they were doing their line by line by line, but the difference is she didn't blame anybody who came before her. She said I am going to invest in the people of Alberta, and that's what we would have hoped our government would have done. That they would have come in with confidence rather than coming in with doom and gloom and saying: oh, these bad decisions and we're so sorry. But for them to have come in – if only they had come in with a budget that they could have been proud about.

 

Tonight we're warned that this temporary levy is going to go on for about seven years. So is this what we're looking for?

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that's what they said, too.

 

MS. ROGERS: Yes, that's what the Minister of Finance said today.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

I would ask the hon. Member to address the Chair. 

 

MS. ROGERS: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

 

That's what the Minister of Finance said to us this evening. I think I took notes, but she said we have a seven year –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

She said we have a seven-year plan and we're going to remove the temporary levy. So it's a little bit scary. Mr. Speaker, maybe in fact she's going to remove that levy even earlier than seven years. One would hope, and if she can assure us that's not the situation, then my most sincere apologizes because what I heard tonight –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

What I heard tonight was that there was a seven-year plan and the levy was temporary. Maybe she didn't mean to put those together like that, but that sure sounded to me like what it was. I'm hoping then, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping I am wrong. I really, really am hoping I am wrong. I am hoping we are not having seven years of this lack of vision, this lack of hope.

 

Mr. Speaker, our Newfoundland and Labrador, we have among some of the richest resources in our grounds, in our earth, in our water and in our people, and nothing, none of that was celebrated in this budget and none of that was highlighted. Not once did she talk about really investing in our people. Not once did they say we have a plan where we can work together to get out of this mess, because the people are willing to do that.

 

Now, the other thing I find kind of interesting is that the Minister of Finance and the government are woefully complaining that we here, the Third Party, has kind of derailed their budget, that we've kind of derailed people's understanding of what's going on. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out there are 31 Members on the other side of the House and a number of them are Cabinet Ministers. So with all their resources and all the people that are working for them, they probably have hundreds of staff, counting staff for Cabinet ministers and in their departments, and then all the staff they have in their offices, and lots and lots of money to do the work they need to do, lots of money and lots of staff.

 

Well, here with my colleague from St. John's East – Quidi Vidi and myself, we're only two over here and we can actually count our staff complement, probably on one hand. So I'm not so sure how my colleague and myself and our staff complement, that we could probably count on one hand –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: I'm not so sure how we could derail their whole budget. It's a mystery to me.

 

We've been accused of fear mongering. Again, we're only two with that small component of staff. We have very little money in our budget to be able to do the work that we think we need to do in order to be an effective opposition, but I believe we're doing it.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

 

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

It's a mystery to me how the Minister of Finance and some of the Members on the other side could blame us for derailing the whole messaging of their budget, for fear mongering. When in fact, Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how our phones do not stop. This is not a complaint, but our phones are non-stop. You hang up one – while you're talking on the phone there are other people leaving messages saying they are so worried about what this budget is doing to them.

 

Do you know what we do, Mr. Speaker? We talk to them and we say, okay, let's kind of figure it out. Maybe you're going to be eligible for the Income Supplement or maybe you're going to be eligible for the Seniors' Benefit. Let's look at what you got and let's see what's out there that's available for you.

 

Mr. Speaker, for some people we can allay a little bit of their fear but for many people, a lot of people have it figured out on their own. As a matter of fact, we see our role – because government has handled this so poorly, we have seen our role as trying to allay people's fears.

 

I was at the apartment building on Brazil Street this evening, which is an apartment building that houses some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in St. John's. The poverty that I saw is absolutely devastating. There people living in those apartments, they're just studio apartments. It's only one room and a bathroom. Most of them pay $600 or $650 a month. Most of them are either on Income Support or seniors on OAS and GIS. Because as we know, we have the highest percentage of seniors on OAS and GIS.

 

Their rent is $600 to $650 a month, plus heat and light. None of them have rent supplements and it is heartbreaking.

 

There are a number of people there who don't even have beds. They're going to be hit by the extra HST on stuff. Their food is going to cost them a lot more. None of them have gotten an increase. None of the people who are on Income Support have gotten an increase. I don't know in how many years, but most of them are going to have to live on – because they don't have rent supplements and because they are on Income Support, most of them live on about $90 every two weeks. That's about $180 a month. That covers their food. That covers transportation. That now covers all over-the-counter medications.

 

There was a woman that I met and she has severe diabetes, and she has a very badly infected foot. The medication her doctor prescribed is over the counter. It's a certain type of pill that's not covered by our drug plan. She has to pay $60 for that, plus she has to pay a lot of the other over-the-counter drugs she needs.

 

I have no desire to fear monger anybody, none whatsoever – none whatsoever. These are the realities.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: I see our role is to say to people, okay, how can we help you? What can we get? What are the programs available? What kind of help can we get for you?

 

There are realities of this budget. Aside from people who are on the lowest income in our province, people who are on Income Support or seniors who are on OAS and GIS, among most of them are women. Because we do have the highest percentage of seniors on OAS and GIS, most of them are women. A lot of them, women who didn't have paid work outside the home, who raised their children and helped populate our province.

 

Then, the other groups of people that are really affected by this are people in around the $40,000 and $50,000 range. A lot of them might be young families. Young families who are paying a mortgage. Young families who are paying car payments. Their house insurance has gone up considerably because of the taxes on their house insurance, taxes on the insurance for their cars, increase in registering your car, and then there's that levy. There's been a lot of talk about that levy, Mr. Speaker, and what we do know about that levy is that it's such a regressive tax. There's no fairness about it at all, none whatsoever.

 

I know I've used this example in the House a number of times, but I'd like to say it again because it just illustrates how unfair the levy tax is. I believe that all the people who worked so hard on this budget, they weren't interested in making unfair taxes. I don't think so. I think it wasn't intentional to make it so unfair, but something went amiss, something went wrong. This is not working out well. It's really not working out well for the people of the province. Again, maybe because there was so much activity in the line by line by line cutting –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: – rather than having a broader vision about how to lift us as a province out of this really difficult financial situation we are in, how to stimulate our economy, how to get people to work.

 

Rachel Notley's plan for Alberta, her budget was called Jobs Plan. That's what we would have hoped for our own province because our people are used to working really hard, and they want to work hard. We've heard from so many people.

 

A few times I've heard from seniors who are saying I wish I had the money to help. If I had more money I would put it in as well to help. I'm not making that up. That's what people have said to us. They've said that at our town halls. It's kind of heartbreaking.

 

The other day when I was walking down one of the streets in my district a young woman came out and she said, Gerry, I just want to thank you so much for all the work you're doing. She said, this is my nan and she's lived in this house for over 60 years. She said I'm really worried about her. Her municipal taxes have gone up, the tax on her home insurance has gone up, food's more expensive. She's hardly doing it now. She said I'm really worried about her. She said, I'll pay what I can, but my nan has nothing. She can't, it's too hard on her.

 

People are being reasonable. I believe the people of the province want to be reasonable and want to be part of the solutions. It's unfortunate that this government hasn't come up with the solutions that involve the people of the province besides picking their pockets. Picking the pockets of the people – that P3 approach, picking the pockets of the people and squeezing the life out of people.

 

Now, we haven't created the negative feeling that people have about this budget. Again, my colleague and I, we're just two with – count on one hand our staff component. We haven't done that, and we have so few resources. When you look at the resources across the way and the people – they've hired, they have communications people, they got consultants, they have it all. So it's kind of interesting that the budget isn't resonating with people as they'd hoped it would.

 

I think what government has to do is not bash us and blame us –

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: – but maybe what government has to do is look at, why is their budget not resonating with people. Why is it not resonating with people? Do you know why? Because I think people are figuring it out themselves.

 

We haven't written pamphlets that go to everybody's house that say anything about the budget. We don't own media companies. Government has the resources to kind of sell this budget and it seems not to be selling.

 

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that government, instead of this line-by-line-by line cutting, to shift their gaze. To shift their gaze, to look at the horizon and say, really, to what end? What is the ultimate plan? What is the ultimate plan they have for this province that would include the people of the province? What is the plan? What are they looking at down the road besides just cutting line by line and cutting debt and deficit? That's important too, but that seems to be all there is. That seems to be the substance and there's no other substance.

 

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that they lift their gaze, look at the people of the province, look into the future, listen to what people are saying, because people have it figured out on their own. They don't need me to tell them.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MS. ROGERS: They have it figured out on their own.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

 

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I know I only have a few minutes. I'm going to try to speak a bit fast because there are a few issues that affects the department here.

 

I just heard the Member for St. John's Centre talking about she don't fear monger. How about that $20 million slush fund you said is in the Department of Municipal Affairs? Your co-leader stands up today and says it's only $20 million for municipal capital works. Can you get together and discuss what the $20 million is for?

 

Mr. Speaker, I'll make a suggestion. Why don't they show up to Estimates and why don't they ask questions at the Estimates? Then they'll know what's in the Estimates book, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. JOYCE: They'll know what's in the Estimates.

 

I heard the Leader of the Opposition tonight – I don't usually say much but there are only so many times you can listen – when he was saying: Well, once you make a commitment you have to stand by it. I'll show you four to five commitments that he made when he was the minister of Health and Leader of the Opposition for the hospital in Corner Brook and not one was ever fulfilled, Mr. Speaker.

 

The other thing, he got up today picking on the Member for Lab West and Cartwright L'Anse au Clair about picking up for Labrador, how he's the big saviour. Guess what? When there were realignments of seats, guess what? He even said three is enough for Labrador. They don't need four seats in Labrador. He was the premier who brought that in to put three seats in Labrador, to take away a seat because of the vastness in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Now, all of a sudden he's the big saviour for Labrador.

 

I remember the Member for Ferryland talking about capital works. I don't think there's anything wrong with spending on capital works but I'll tell what's wrong, I say to the Member for Ferryland. When you have infrastructure, $20 million for three years, you spent it all in two and you write every town council in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and say have your letter in by November 3 for capital works, knowing there are zero dollars in it – to all the councils in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

MR. JOYCE: That's the difference, Mr. Speaker. When you stand up on that side of the House and you want to say we have to be fair, we have to be upfront with the people, look in the mirror. I can tell you, I've been over on that side. I've seen how many times the Leader of the Opposition announced the hospital. I've seen the letters sent out by the former minister talking about the municipalities. Get it in; we need your letter. They forgot to say one thing: There's zero money in there.

 

Mr. Speaker, I have lots more times to say – I'll say to the Third Party, if you want a briefing on Municipal Affairs, I'll happily give it to you because in Estimates, obviously, you didn't get the facts straight.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

The motion is that the Report of the Government Services Committee be concurred in.

 

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

 

Carried.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

 

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

 

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

 

CLERK (Ms. Barnes): Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms. Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Lane, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Bragg, Ms. Parsley, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Warr, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

 

CLERK: Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael, Ms. Rogers.

 

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: 28; the nays: 8.

 

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

 

On motion, Report of Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

 

Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day I would now move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that this House do now adjourn.

 

MR. SPEAKER: It's been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

 

All those in favour, 'aye.'

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

 

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

 

Carried.

 

This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, 2 o'clock, being Private Members' Day.

 

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 p.m.