May 17,
2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 29
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
While I
don't see them, I've been asked to welcome Tim Thorne and Tim Turner to the
public gallery today. They are with the Murphy Centre, which is the subject of a
Ministerial Statement this afternoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave, Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune, Conception Bay South, St. George's Humber, St. John's
Centre and Baie Verte Green Bay.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
with pride that I stand here today to recognize my friend and local artist, who
you may have heard of, Bobbi Pike of Spaniard's Bay. Inspired by our scenic
province and our people, Bobbi pours her memories and experiences onto canvass,
creating her own version of the rock.
Newfoundland artist and now the author of the province's first adult colouring
book, which is entitled The Colours of
Newfoundland and Labrador, with her black and white sketches, she invites us
to colour the coves, communities and small moments of daily Newfoundland life.
Bobbi's
talent is world renowned. Her artwork can be found hanging in homes, galleries
and businesses throughout Canada, the United States, Australia, Denmark, Sweden,
Bangladesh, Germany and the United Kingdom.
Something interesting, in each of Bobbi's paintings you will find three crows.
Some are easy to see and some are hidden in the scenery. The reason: Nicknames
were developed in communities throughout Conception Bay North to distinguish
families with the last surname. Bobbi's maiden name is Seymour, and the nickname
is crow. Rumour has it that the first Spaniard's Bay constable was a Seymour. He
was often seen patrolling the lanes and drungs, wearing a long, black cape and
he became the first crow.
Colleagues, please join me in honouring hometown Spaniard's Bay girl, Bobbi
Pike.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
to deliver accolades to Mr. John Kendell who has shown tremendous fundraising
initiative through Cycling for Cancer, which has raised over $50,000 to assist
local cancer patients in my area.
This
July marks the 17th Annual Bay d'Espoir Cancer Benefit, where all residents band
together to reinsure that cancer patients have access to funding and support.
Through the efforts of volunteers such as John, this public fund has raised over
$1 million since 1999, a true testimony of our unified fight against cancer.
Today,
we thank and commend Mr. Kendell for his tremendous dedication which embodies
the Benefit's spirit of giving and caring. John is an inspiration to all of us
in our shared commitment of People Helping People. For nine years, he has led
the Cycling for Cancer ride down Route 360 and his group's triumphant entrance
to open the Benefit sparks the uplifting mood and spirit of generosity which
carries throughout the entire event.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to applaud Mr. Kendell and I encourage him to
continue giving so whole-heartedly to his community. I also encourage more
cyclists to join John on his ride this year and wish them great success in their
fundraising effort.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize and celebrate the incredible contributions of our volunteers.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a rich history of volunteering and
community involvement. They are on the front lines of all our community services
from health care, disaster relief, volunteer firefighting, minor sports the
list is endless.
The work
of the volunteer is essential work and is the backbone of our communities. These
individuals, who give freely of their time through organizations or on their
own, provide a foundation upon which the communities can grow and prosper. In
turn, these stronger communities help build a more vibrant province and this can
be seen in Newfoundland and Labrador, more specifically in the Town of
Conception Bay South where I recently attended the annual Volunteer Appreciation
Ceremony at the Manuels River Hibernia Interpretation Centre just last week
along with the MHA for the District of Topsail Paradise.
I want
to thank each and every volunteer who has given their time and talent to make
our communities a better place to live. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join
me in thanking all volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. George's
Humber.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize two recent recipients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'
Association awards for their work as educators.
Rob
Matthews, from Massey Drive, is this year's winner of the Barnes Award from the
NLTA. The Barnes Award is named after Dr. Arthur Barnes, Newfoundland and
Labrador's first Education minister who in 1928 initiated a number of teacher
conferences to promote excellence in education. The award was established in
1987 to recognize outstanding professional development service provided by
teachers at the special interest council level. Matthews has been in the
profession for 25 years and has spent most of that time as a school
administrator.
The
other winner from the Corner Brook area was Katherine Rowsell, a learning
resource teacher at Corner Brook Regional High School. She is this year's winner
of the Bancroft Award, recognizing outstanding service at the branch level of
the NLTA. Katherine has been involved with the Humber branch of the NLTA since
1989 and she has filled a number of positions in that time.
I ask
all Members of the House to join with me in congratulating these award winning
educators.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm so
happy to celebrate one of our brightest literary lights. Megan Gail Coles is no
stranger to either readers or awards panels, and she's having another large
year.
In February, Megan was named winner of the 2015 ReLit Award
for Short Fiction. If the hon. Members have had the pleasure of reading her
book, Eating Habits of the Chronically
Lonesome, they will understand how well-deserved this award and all the
others it has won really are.
Her short story collection also earned Megan last year's
BMO Winterset Award, the Margaret and John Savage First Book Award and one of
five of the Writers' Trust of Canada's Five x Five award.
In 2013 she won the Rhonda Payne Theatre Award, recognizing
her as an emerging female theatre artist. Her dramatic script
Grace was a Senior Division winner at
this year's Arts and Letters Awards.
Megan is a finalist for this year's ArtsNL CBC Emerging
Artist Award, to be presented May 28.
Bravo, Megan Gail Coles for all you have done, continue to
do and will do for our vibrant literary community. We are so proud of you. We
are so proud of her.
Thank you very much, 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 recognize the accomplishments
of a team of remarkable young women from my district.
A group of 12 girls from a number of high schools on the
Baie Verte Peninsula joined together to form the Baie Verte Emerald, the first
club volleyball team from the Peninsula. While most of the girls were
inexperienced at playing the sport of volleyball, you wouldn't know it at the
Under-18 Girls Provincial Volleyball Championships that took place in April.
At that tournament, the girls overcame a rocky start to
deliver a blazing performance in the semifinals and finals to clinch the
championship. It was the first provincial volleyball championship for the area
in such a long time.
The Baie Verte Emerald team members are: Tamara Jacobs,
Vanessa Cosh, Michaela Shiner, Theresa Walsh, Kristin Budgell, Jamie Walsh,
Mackenzie Andrews, Katie Knight, Kailey Gillingham, Abby Robins, Crystal Sacrey
and Chelsea Ward. They are coached by Marc Toms, Ryan Saunders and Hayley Shave.
They are the pride of the Peninsula, and a credit to the
great District of Baie Verte Green Bay.
I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the Baie
Verte Emerald for their championship victory.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration of the
First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR.
SPEAKER: For
Honour 100 today, we have the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I will now read into the record the following 40 names of
those who lost their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve, the Newfoundland Mercantile
Marine, or the Newfoundland Forestry Corp. This will be followed by a moment of
silence.
Lest we
forget: Francis O'Toole, Norman A. Outerbridge, Richard Owen, Walter Oxford,
Patrick Palfrey, George Richard Pardy, Augustus Percival Park, Cecil Parmiter,
Norman Parmiter, John Richard Parrell, Patrick Parrell, John Parson, Aubrey L.
Parsons, Bertram C. Parsons, Charles Albert Parsons, Charles H. Parsons, Harry
Parsons, Pierce Parsons, William Parsons, William Thomas Parsons, William W.
Patey, Reginald J. Paul, Stephen J. Paul, Frank Payne, Naaman Payne, Stephen
Payne, Archibald W. Peach, Henry W. Peach, Josiah Wesley Peach, William H.
Peach, Hector Pearce, Samuel R. Pearce, Jacob Pearcey, Edward Peckford, Alec
Peddle, Eli Peddle, Richard Peddle, Clarence Pelley, Cornelius Pender, Charles
Pennell.
We will
remember them.
(Moment
of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to speak about the recent Council of Atlantic Premiers
meeting that took place yesterday, May 16, in Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia.
The main
agenda topics discussed included strengthening the region's economy, improving
health care, enhancing energy co-operation and addressing climate change.
Mr.
Speaker, our dialogue around strengthening the economy focused on population
growth and workforce development as well as reducing red tape and barriers to
business in the region to support economic growth. Premiers also discussed
working together to expand access to high-speed Internet, particularly in rural
areas.
It is
important to highlight that with respect to climate change, Atlantic Canada is
leading the nation in mitigating the impacts of climate change and our efforts
will assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
Mr.
Speaker, health care was also top of mind with a focus on patient-centered care
and improved health outcomes. Premiers discussed federal health funding
allocations and the need to consider cost drivers such as demographics and
prevalence of chronic disease in future enhancements to health care transfers.
I am
pleased to highlight that the Atlantic Provinces are moving forward with joint
procurement of anesthesia and ultrasound equipment. The estimated savings are
approximately $6.1 million over the next three years, with more savings to be
realized in coming years as governments work together to identify further joint
purchasing opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, I was glad to participate in this productive meeting and to put forward
the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Premier for an advance copy of his statement today. We know co-operation
amongst Atlantic premiers is important and benefits can certainly be born of
these relationships. I do, however, find it interesting that the Premier's
discussions focused heavily on strengthening the economy and population growth,
certainly in stark contrast to the Liberal budget we've seen here in this
province, the one that has smothered our economy, devastated our residents and
shattered business confidence.
Hopefully, the Premier was able to borrow some good ideas from his counterparts
in Atlantic Canada. The fact is people in this province see our government's
budget as a population growth strategy. Unfortunately, it's not one for
Newfoundland and Labrador; it's one for the rest of Canada because a lot of our
residents are going to leave here and head to other provinces. We know the other
premiers will certainly benefit from that.
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 thank
the Premier for the advance copy of his statement. I note the premiers discussed
the federal health transfers, but I would have liked to have heard a strong call
from them urging the federal government to move to a formula that doesn't hurt
provinces with small and aging populations. We're waiting too long for this.
The
discussion about strengthening the economy is rather ironic when this government
is doing everything to weaken our economy and create barriers to business and
jobs.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
this hon. House to highlight our government's support for mineral prospectors in
this province and to inform residents of ongoing registration for the upcoming
Prospectors Training Course.
The
provincial government is partnering again this year with the College of the
North Atlantic to offer the course, which qualifies those who complete the
program for a Genuine Prospector designation under the province's
Mineral Act. A Genuine Prospector can
stake up to 30 claims a year without having to pay a security deposit.
The
Prospectors Training Course is intensive and field oriented and provides
training in prospecting and sampling methods, rock and mineral identification,
basic geology and mineral deposit types. This year's course is being held at Bay
St. George campus in Stephenville from May 30 to June 10. Applications are being
accepted up to May 23, and I invite anyone who has a keen interest in
prospecting to find more information on the Department of Natural Resources
website.
By
encouraging prospectors, our government is providing a basis for future mineral
development. We support the mining sector through such areas as prospector
training and mentoring, the Mineral Incentives Program, public geoscience, the
core storage program, promotions and efficient and transparent regulation.
The
mineral industry employs over 7,000 people in this province, a majority of them
in rural areas, and there is significant investment in exploration, development
and mine operations.
We are
committed to achieving long-term sustainability in the mining industry. The
Prospectors Training Course supports this goal by providing educational
opportunities to encourage growth and development in the mining sector.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of her statement today. I, too, would like to
bring attention to the upcoming prospectors training course and to encourage
individuals with an interest in mineral development to register for the course.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to thank the program partner, the College of the North
Atlantic, for offering the course again this year. This program has been
educating prospectors for over two decades and interest in the program continues
to grow.
We
believe that investments in this program will lead to a brighter future for the
mining industry in our province and there's lots of potential. However, I'd like
to take a moment to note that it's been some time since the minister has given
the people of the province an update on mining activity in the province,
especially on activity in Labrador. So while the minister says that government
is committed to achieving long-term sustainability in the industry, I
respectfully challenge her to outline what actions she's taken since coming into
office to support this commitment.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. It's good news that
the program is being offered again. I hope as many people as possible will take
advantage of this course. I also hope women will be encouraged to participate
and that the minister has ensured resources are in place to encourage women into
this typically male-dominated profession.
We are
enthusiastic about the mining industry but it must be sustainable both
socioeconomically and environmentally and must bring solid benefits to all the
people of the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to acknowledge the important work of the Murphy Centre.
The
Murphy Centre was originally established in 1986 in response to youth whose
educational needs were not being met in the traditional classroom setting. From
the high school credit program, personal development and career services, to the
Adult Basic Education program, this centre helps young people reach their
academic goals and prepares them for future employment opportunities.
Last
week, I had the pleasure of visiting the centre to meet with staff, students and
teachers to discuss the centre's various programs and achievements over the past
year.
From the
time you walk into the Murphy Centre you become a part of the community. The
compassion and interest in a student's development and achievement was evident
in every teacher I spoke with.
We don't
always know the life experiences that impact and shape a student's life. This
September, the Murphy Centre will celebrate its 30th anniversary. I am very
pleased that the provincial government continues to support the centre which
provides alternative ways for our students to learn.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I, too, would like
to extend my congratulations to the Murphy Centre on their 30th anniversary.
They continue to provide valuable education service to the students as part of a
community.
I had
the privilege some 30 years ago to be part of the opening of the Murphy Centre
and have seen first-hand over the last number of decades the great work they do
and how they are a community when it comes to creative ways of providing
education to people who have some challenges.
I, too,
particularly would like to acknowledge the two Tims, the captains at the helm of
the Murphy Centre, Tim Turner and Tim Thorne, who for decades have guided the
Murphy Centre to where it is today.
On
behalf of the Opposition, congratulations, and we wish them many more years of
educating our young people.
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 his statement. I'm delighted to
congratulate the Murphy Centre on the 30 years of helping so many young people,
including many who have gone on to achieve major academic career and life goals.
The
Murphy Centre has proven time and again that alternative learning methods are of
great value. Given its success, I ask government to actively encourage similar
learning centres, with the Murphy Centre as a model, to operate in other areas
of the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
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, during the election campaign just a few short months ago, one of the
Premier's many promises made was to turn an $8 million economic development
investment into $78 million this year. He promised to sell government assets to
raise $50 million.
I ask
the Premier, if taxing and fees is the only new generation of revenue that this
government will create. If not, when will you reveal your new revenue generation
plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
election platform was one that we put out there. Of course, we still see
significant opportunity within assets around our province that were future
assets that really do not deliver any services to the people of our province
right now.
It's
important we get an assessment of where these assets would be, and in many
situations work with communities because they could actually take advantage of
some of the opportunities that would see in their communities to use these
retired assets. In some cases it's just a matter of reducing the cost. That is a
savings for the current government.
Unfortunately, what we've seen from the prior administration, they continued to
ignore the stranded value or the cost that was costing our government for many,
many years. Many of these empty buildings are sitting in many communities in our
province right now that could add benefit to communities, but is no longer a
benefit to government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So I
guess the $8 million plan, the investment to create $78 million, is off the
table and there is no other new revenue generation. We know there are only two
options: one is to generate revenue and the other one is to reduce programs and
expenses. We know we have another budget coming the fall.
I ask
the Premier: Your plan still continues, I would think, to cut jobs this fall.
When are you going to come clean with the public servants of Newfoundland and
Labrador and let them know what's in their future?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
interesting today that the former premier mentions the two options that you
have, either to increase revenue or reduce programs or costs, as he mentioned,
within government. It's unfortunate that he did not do a better job of that and
just pretend the last 10, 12 years of his administration didn't exist, because
that's what we've seen right now. The failure to actually plan and manage for
the future of our province leaves us in the situation that we're in today.
The
commitment that we've made to public sector workers, we stand firm to this, is
to negotiate in good-faith bargaining. We value our public sector workers for
the work that they do in supplying critical services to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
we have no answer from the Premier. Premier, economists are suggesting that to
meet your Liberal target budget amounts and your promises from last year's
campaign that substantial reductions in programs will have to occur.
If you
won't tell me what the impact will be on public servants, maybe you'll take some
time to explain what programs you intend on reducing and cutting further in the
fall budget coming up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Interesting the former premier mentions about plans and so on and how we would
pay for those. In his own election platform just a few months ago that he said
earlier, they had this long-term care strategy, as he called it, to put services
in place in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you look for the budget figure on
that cost, it was kind of cost neutral.
Well, I
guess it would be very difficult to understand if you had a program and it would
be cost neutral. Who, indeed, was going to be making the donation to actually
provide the operations of that?
So these
are some of the shortfalls that we've seen from the previous administration. For
us, it is still good-faith bargaining, a fair negotiating process for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with our public sector unions.
It seems
to me the former premier would want us to negotiate in the public. That is
something that we are not prepared to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well the
question was about programs, not about public servants, and the Premier still
refuses to answer.
People
stop me every single day, and they say: Why is it they won't answer a question
you ask in the House of Assembly? They never do it. They never provide an
answer, and we're seeing it again here today, Mr. Speaker.
I will
try this with the Premier. Yesterday, the President of the Canadian Bar
Association for Newfoundland and Labrador when referring to court closures
said, Closure of such courts works to undermine access to justice for residents
of this province, and in particular the most vulnerable and impoverished
residents ....
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: If you're making decisions based on evidence and
listening, why are you closing the courts when there's so much evidence saying
you shouldn't do so?
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
happy to stand here and speak to this. Certainly, I did receive correspondence
from the local president of the Canadian Bar Association. In fact, I'm looking
forward to having a chat with them very soon to discuss this.
Again,
as the representatives for lawyers in this province, I would certainly expect
that they are going to contact us and talk about legal services and courts
closing. I would expect no less.
The fact
is we have to make very tough decisions. They are certainly not decisions that I
like having to make but we have to make tough decisions based on the situation
we find ourselves in.
It's not
something that the Member opposite likes to bring up, but the fact is he
actually closed circuit courts in many parts of rural Newfoundland when his
government was in power.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety rises and criticizes us for closing
courts, and what does he do instead of fixing it? He closes more, Mr. Speaker.
That's what we get from Members opposite. They dig deeper. He said what we did
was wrong and he does even more of it. That's what their answer is over there.
Mr.
Speaker, I will ask the Premier this, or maybe the Minister of Justice will
answer on his behalf again. Because people are going to be challenged in
travelling the long distances to court I'm told there are about 80,000. I
think one of the Members behind you quoted, I think, 80,000 citizens utilize the
court in Harbour Grace.
What
programs and supports will you provide to the people who are going to be
challenged with the need for transportation back and forth to St. John's to
avail of court services? What programs and services will you provide for them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly the first thing I would suggest to the Member opposite is that he at
least get his math right because the number is certainly nowhere near 80,000. In
fact, if this is the kind of inaccurate information that the Member opposite if
going to put out, unfortunately this is going to do nothing but cause more fear
amongst the public.
The fact
is we've had to make difficult decisions but, unfortunately, they are not
decisions that we haven't seen elsewhere. There are many individuals in this
province that have to travel tremendous distances to appear in court whether
it's at a provincial or Supreme Court level, people on the West Coast, people in
Central. That's not something that we like. It's not something that I'm sitting
here saying we need more of but the fact is we have to make difficult decisions.
When it
comes to Harbour Grace the bigger decision is why was this historic courthouse
left to rot and be placed in a dilapidated situation where it requires a fix of
$5 million to $10 million?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
just quoting from Members on your own side of the House, I say to the minister,
in information that we're hearing that they are sharing with their own
constituents. In fact, Members in the back row have tried petitioning their own
government, but the voters from their districts are wondering: Are the MHAs
actually advocating for them or are they doing it just for show?
Now,
just yesterday the MHA for Harbour Grace Port de Grave, on plans to close the
Harbour Grace courthouse, stated in the media that the facts are there, is what
she said. Thousands of people in this region come through the doors of the
courthouse annually.
So if
you won't listen to the people, you won't listen to anything we have to say or
ask, will you listen to your own Members?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that
many of our Members and I don't think anybody is happy with a lot of the
decisions that we've been forced to make, faced with the situation left to us by
the former premier and his government.
The fact
is we encourage these things. In fact, I encourage the Member to continue to
work for that. I've had a number of conversations with her and a number of
conversations with the mayor of that community. The fact is I don't expect them
to like this situation, but we encourage them to put forward their views as
opposed to the Opposition who, when they were in government, stifled any
dissent. However, I did see one petition during Bill 42 that was signed by their
own staffers.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
look forward to the budget vote to see if they are standing with their people or
with their government opposite.
We know
the Canadian Bar Association has written the minister. We know a group of
lawyers from that region have written and expressed serious concerns with the
closure of the Harbour Grace courthouse in particular. It is not about the
building; it's about the service provided to the people and access to justice
provided to people.
He just
said himself mayors are having difficulties with it and his own Members, his own
MHAs, are saying it's wrong; it's not the right thing to do.
If you
want to be a listening government, you say you're going to respond to what
people say, Premier, why is it you're not listening to people when they're very
concerned about the delivery of justice in that area?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I think that one
of the things that Member opposite forgets is that in order to have access to
justice, you do need a physical structure in which to have the court. The
problem we're faced with in Harbour Grace is that the historic courthouse was
left to rot and requires a fix of $5 million to $10 million. We are forced then
to accommodate another building at a cost of $300,000 per year, which is just an
extraordinary amount of money when looking at the other situation we're placed
in.
In fact,
I've been in touch with our Members and everybody else to say, look, we're
always willing to listen to solutions to fix these problems. Of course I'm going
to hear from lawyers in that area. This is something that is going to affect
them and their clients.
Again, I
look forward to having a meeting with that crowd as well to listen to their
views, hear what they have to say and always work towards finding a better way
forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
hearing from many library users and librarians that the process used to select
which libraries will be closed was flawed. Users in rural areas are baffled as
to why their well-utilized libraries are now slated for closure.
Can the
Minister of Education table the evidence used to select which libraries will
close?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the board
that was appointed by the previous government and, I guess, selected in other
means across the province made this decision based on empirical evidence. We
recognize, along with the board, that the libraries of tomorrow are different
than the libraries that we've had in the past. That's why the board decided to
move to a regional model as part of the Government Renewal Initiative.
If the
Member has any questions he has not contacted me, to date I will provide him
with a response, as I have, with single member of the public who has contacted
me about this to date.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bay Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the minister
continues to blame the volunteer board. I spoke to the library board and was
told that they were presented with five scenarios by the department and that
government through the removal of funds forced the library board to select
the best of the worst scenarios.
Can the
minister confirm that this is true?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm
that is not true. As part of the Government Renewal Initiative all departments,
agencies, boards and commissions of government were asked in January to find up
to 30 per cent savings because of the fiscal cliff that we going over as a
result of the wasteful spending of the government that was here previous to this
one.
As a
result of that process, the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board
submitted four presentations to government the Provincial Information and
Library Resources Board submitted four presentations to government, one of them
was about the closure of somewhere in the order of 70 community libraries. The
officials in the department worked to refine the fifth proposal.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I make note to the minister
that it was his department who forced the libraries board to use a process that
was good for them. The president of the Newfoundland Federation of School
Councils stated in the media that full-day kindergarten shouldn't be rushed
through at the expense of the education of older children.
Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals have no trouble tossing away other promises they made. Why
are they pushing through now on the backs of older children?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and
Labrador is the last province in Canada to implement a full day of kindergarten.
We are the last province in Canada to implement a full day of kindergarten.
Last
week, we had three people come to the province from British Columbia, from
Ontario, from Nova Scotia to do professional development with senior
administrators in the province about the benefits of full-day kindergarten. We
have talked about the research here at length. I won't recite all of that
because I really don't have enough time in my response. However, we are going to
be ready for this program in September and have made significant investment in
it thus far. It makes absolutely no sense, considering the return on investment,
to reverse direction now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Apparently only the minister
thinks that this is the right move at this time.
Instead
of increasing class cap sizes, introducing combined classrooms and reducing
intensive core French, I ask the minister: Will you consider postponing the
implementation of all-day kindergarten?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the
Member opposite to read the weekend The
Telegram on a regular basis. There was an editorial or there was an
opinion piece in there last weekend at around 300 or 400 words from Dr. David
Philpott, who's an expert in early learning and special education and affiliated
with the Jimmy Pratt Foundation. It's a local philanthropic organization that
has been advocating for better early learning and care for years. Also by
Margaret Norrie McCain who is with the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family
Foundation, another philanthropic organization that has pushed the previous
government into implementing full-day kindergarten.
There
are plenty of voices in favour of it. I get emails on a regular basis and calls
from people who want to move ahead. So I don't know why the Member wants to pull
the rug out from under their feet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I guess when the time is
right I'll share the tens of thousands that I get about people who are saying we
shouldn't move forward right now with that tens of thousands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
We'll have a good debate come
budget time.
This
past Saturday, I attended a large rally at Riverside Elementary. It was
organized by parents and students upset with the recent decision to axe the
planned expansion of the school.
Why was
that much-needed project axed by the Liberals? Parents, students, teachers, even
the local MHA want to know the answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
I'll tell you the answer, Mr.
Speaker. Despite having access to some $25 billion in oil and other royalties
and income, the previous government waited until they were on their way out the
door last year to announce several hundred million dollars' worth of
infrastructure.
Now I
don't know why modular classrooms are no longer suitable to the Official
Opposition because during the time that they were in government, actually over
the past six years at a cost of about $18 million to $20 million they employed
they put in 41 modular classrooms at schools across the province.
Holy
Trinity Elementary in Torbay has eight modular classrooms and I never heard the
Member for Cape St. Francis ever say a word about that being a bad direction to
go in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, obviously I need
to clarify to the minister that modular classrooms are a good tool but in our
administration we built 38 new schools. We renovated 42 other ones to ensure
people
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
had the proper learning
environment, Mr. Speaker.
The MHA
for Terra Nova is now writing me to find out the status of work completed on
Riverside Elementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Can the minister advise the
House of Assembly and his own caucus Members, what work has been undertaken to
support renovations to Riverside Elementary prior to taking office in December?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I could report
that the previous administration did very little work on preparing for the
extension to Riverside Elementary very little work. I would say that it was
such a pressing issue, why is it they waited until the dying days of their
administration to do something?
As I
said before, modular classrooms were used over a period of six years by the
previous administration. They put in 42 modular classrooms. Villanova Junior
High had five put in; Paradise Elementary had four put in; Dorset Collegiate had
four put in, and I could go on and on about this. With the five modulars that
are going to be added to Riverside Elementary, we don't see there being any
school capacity issues in terms of enrolment going up to 2021. After that, the
pressure is even less, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Again, Mr. Speaker, I'll
explain to the minister that the modular classrooms while necessary were a
temporary fix. We were moving forward to enhance learning and the environment
for students to learn productively.
Five
schools are slated for closure, three have had construction delayed and three
have construction deferred indefinitely.
I ask
the minister: How do you expect thousands of our students to continue in
overcrowded schools while various educational programs are being cancelled due
to lack of space?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
It is interesting that the
Member opposite gets up and talks about overcrowded schools. I was at a public
meeting in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's just over a year ago where that Member
guaranteed parents, teachers and students in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's that the
new school they promised for years was going to be ready for this September.
Well,
that Member was minister of Transportation and Works. As a result of his
incompetence in that position, that school is not going to be ready for this
September; in fact, it will not be ready for another full year. Then he has the
gall to stand up and complain about overcrowding.
You
should have done something about it when you were over here. Don't complain
about it now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm asking all Members of the
House, when a Member is stood and recognized to speak that we respect that
Member's right to speak. Both sides of the House, I'm asking again today to
respect the Member that's stood and recognized to speak.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Premier sent out a news release with other Atlantic premiers
talking about economic growth. Here at home, the Liberal budget will grind our
provincial economy to a halt.
I ask
the Premier: How can you suggest that you're focused on growing the economy when
your budget does the opposite?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure
the former deputy premier would know that if he went back over his own budget
documents for several years now, you would see that the trending in terms of the
economy in our province all the economic indicators were pointing downward for
this period of time. It's unfortunate that the former deputy premier did not
plan for where we are today because in the anticipated deficit that we are
oil, which is what they built their whole administration on, it would have to be
at $148 a barrel to actually get us to a balanced budget right now.
There
are extreme difficulties and fiscal challenges that we're facing within this
province. I would just wish that we were in a situation today that there had
been better planning for the economy in our province. I can assure you right now
that we will put corrective measures in place and we will get the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador back on the right track.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we had a plan
and we were honest about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We grew the economy while his
budget will shrink the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has
been in office for almost six months. All we hear are vague statements. All we
see are broken promises.
I ask
the Premier: What specifically has his government done to diversify and grow our
economy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, it
seems to me the former deputy premier wants to stand by his own economic plan
for the future of our province. As an example, one year ago they were predicting
the deficit in our province would have been just shy of $900 million.
In
actual fact, as a result of the work of their administration, which was dreadful
at its best, and I can assure you now would have gotten a failing grade by
anyone who would have assessed it, we would have been not a $900 million deficit
but, indeed, it would have been a $2.7 billion deficit.
I would
ask the former deputy premier when he stands up again: Is he satisfied with a
$2.7 billion deficit, asking future generations to pay for the things we enjoy
today? Is that still his position?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I'll tell the Premier what
I'm not satisfied with. I'm not satisfied with his lack of leadership, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
His budget will shrink the
economy. His budget will drive young people away from Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
His budget will drive people
in this province into poverty.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I ask the Premier: When will
you start taking responsibility and showing leadership? Where is your economic
plan?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First
and foremost, we have to make responsible decisions. Something the former deputy
premier did not do. Accept responsibility for your own actions and stop
pretending that the last 10 or 12 years didn't exist under your administration.
We are
taking corrective measures today. It starts with getting your own fiscal house
in order. It's something we had to do. We've had to make some tough decisions,
Mr. Speaker, I would say. We know that and we understand that, but you can never
create an economy, never get your economy back on track, first and foremost you
have to get your own financial house in order. That is the corrective measures
we've taken. In doing so, we've protected seniors in our province, low-income
earners in our province and the most vulnerable.
We will
continue to do that. We will work with the business community in our province to
make sure we do have a strong economic future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, lots of blame
and no plan.
The
Atlantic premiers talked about the importance of population growth in growing
our economy. The recent budget in this province will shrink our economy and
drive young people away.
So what
is our government doing to support growth in this region? Is the Premier
actually supporting his Atlantic colleagues by driving people out of our
province and into theirs? Is that part of his plan, or does he have a plan at
all for the economy, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, in
Budget 2016-2017, there are significant investments that would create many
hundreds of jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador infrastructure investments,
nearly $570 million worth of infrastructure investments over multi-years. We've
worked with many associations within our communities that actually drive much of
the work that occurs there. This creates economic activity. Mr. Speaker, in
doing so, we will always protect the most vulnerable in our province.
Full-day
kindergarten is another example of investments that we are making in young
families in Newfoundland and Labrador. So inside this budget, there are
certainly many different things that will actually spur the economy and create
economic growth; infrastructure spending is just one of those.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, is the Premier
actually suggesting that this budget which will grind our economy to a halt, is
he actually suggesting that it's going to grow the economy?
For 10
years we grew the economy. Now, six months in, the Premier continues to
demonstrate that he has no plan and he has taken no action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
He won't answer my question,
Mr. Speaker, so I'll ask him again: What is your plan to grow the economy in
Newfoundland and Labrador? You've had six months, still no plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well the
former deputy premier talks about the last six months and no plan. What we saw
for 12 years was one plan, single focus, nothing but oil. Once oil fell off and
the production declined and price declined, the economy stalled. The economy was
brought to its knees.
What
they see for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is continue to borrow,
create debt and let debt be the second biggest industry in our province. That's
their administration. That was their plan; continue to borrow so the next
generation will pay for the benefits that he wants to enjoy today.
Ask your
kids how much are they prepared to pay on your behalf, I'd say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi I'm not cutting into her time;
they will get their five minutes. The level of noise in the Legislature during
question and answer period is not acceptable. I've allowed some chirping back
and forth, without loud or continuous heckling. I'm getting to the point that
that is going to be cut out completely as well.
If I
can't hear the speaker who is recognized to speak myself, neither can anybody
else.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This
government promised to take politics out of government appointments to agencies,
boards and commissions, but last night in debate on Bill 1, the
Independent Appointments Commission Act,
this same government voted against an amendment that would have seen the
commission selected by an all-party committee of the House rather than by
Cabinet.
I ask
the Premier: How does keeping control of the makeup of the commission in
Cabinet's own hands lead to the less partisan system they promised?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Independent Appointments Commission that will be established in Newfoundland and
Labrador, I think is a great step forward in putting people, individuals, in
Newfoundland and Labrador that are merit-based, has the technical experience, to
help make the decisions that we must make in Newfoundland and Labrador. These
appointments, which are really something that we have never seen in our province
before as you know, prior administrations, even some NDP administrations that
we see in other provinces, have not taken the proactive measures that we've
taken to put in place.
What you
will see here is there will be a resolution with the commission's names that
will come to this House. They will debate it here and then the committee will be
put in place. We will use our Public Service Commission; unlike we've seen in
this Legislature or in this province any time in the past.
So I'm
looking forward to seeing some fantastic names, and I encourage all Members in
this House to reach out into the community, engage Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in some important work that needs to be done in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: How does a body that merely makes non-binding recommendations to
Cabinet or to a particular minister and is itself selected by Cabinet be named
an Independent Appointments Commission?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
As I said earlier, Mr.
Speaker, the self-selection that the Member refers to actually, the names will
come through a resolution in this House of Assembly here and then she will have
the opportunity to have her say.
I'm
suggesting and I will predict something that she will actually support and
endorse those names. I think she'll be very proud and when she's asked by the
media to respond to this, I believe that the Member opposite will be supporting
those names. That's what I'm suggesting right now and predicting.
Added to
that, the people that will be serving those boards, we will be reporting to the
House of Assembly on the people that would be doing the work that is required
and we are going to be asking them to do. I think that it would be very fair to
the individuals that she may know that would be interested I would suggest
that you go out and get those people in Newfoundland and Labrador that can add
that valuable contribution which is required.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: What process will we use; they would not vote for an all-party
committee, so we aren't allowed to tell them who to put on the commission.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
there's probably a step in the process that the Member opposite has forgotten
about: the Public Service Commission. Resumes and people that are interested
will feed into the Public Service Commission. They will be screened and based on
the experience and the technical ability that they would have to be part of some
of our valuable boards and agencies that we would have in our province, then
that would be taken to the commission that I am sure the Member opposite will be
supporting in the next few weeks.
With
that, the names will be selected and the Independent Appointments Commission, we
will use that process. We will put some great people in Newfoundland and
Labrador, people that we have not seen. It will not be based on political
patronage, as the Member opposite is suggesting, but we will have
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the right place doing the great work that
I'm sure they're interested in doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: Did she ask the Women's Policy
Office to analyze and apply a gender lens to Bill 1, An Act to Establish an
Independent Appointments Commission. If so, will she table that report?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, as the minister
responsible for the Women's Policy Office, I can assure the Member opposite that
office was engaged in the construction of the legislation that we debated in
this House last night. I'm very proud of the work that has been done by that
office.
I'm even
prouder of the fact that, from an operational perspective, we've already begun
conversations with important stakeholders to make sure that the opportunity for
women to participate in the Independent Appointments Commission process is one
that is taken advantage of by every woman in this province that wants to do
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
as a result of Budget 2016, X-ray
services at the Bonavista Peninsula Community Health Centre will be closed after
4 p.m. until 8 a.m.; and
WHEREAS
this will mean that anyone needing an X-ray after 4 p.m. will have to travel
elsewhere via ambulance; and
WHEREAS
as a result of Budget 2016, laundry
services will also be cut resulting in laundry being transferred to St. John's;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately direct Eastern Health to reverse
cuts to X-ray and laundry services at the Bonavista Peninsula Community Health
Centre.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we're hearing from concerned people right across Newfoundland and
Labrador. I've been hearing a lot from people on the Bonavista Peninsula.
Today's petition is signed by residents of Port Union, Bonavista and Catalina.
They're very concerned about cuts, not only to health services but to other
services in the region as well.
In fact,
there's a story in the media today featuring a community activist who is so
concerned about cuts to the AES office that she used her own vehicles to block
the doors of the office. It's a sign of desperation, Mr. Speaker.
People
feel they're not being heard. They're not being listened to. They don't have a
voice. So we will do our best to ensure people, no matter where they live in the
province, no matter what district they find themselves in, that they do have a
voice.
Specifically to the health services, there are many concerns being expressed by
residents of the Bonavista Peninsula. One resident wrote me and feels that
physicians will no longer want to come here to work, with no diagnostic testing
available on evenings and weekends. Locum physicians will also be reluctant to
come here during physician shortages.
Nurses
are already working tremendous amounts of overtime and extra hours. The lack of
X-ray services will result in increased workload with transfers to other
facilities, usually double time for travel, increase stress for nurses
monitoring patients who do not have a diagnosis. It's a major patient safety
issue. X-rays are used to rule out many different types of potentially
life-threatening conditions. This will affect Port Rexton, Trinity, the Southern
Bay down to Bonavista.
Mr.
Speaker, people have real concerns. They want answers on how any of this will
actually save money and they want answers on how it will impact their safety and
their lives on the Bonavista Peninsula.
I'm
pleased to have the opportunity to raise these concerns in the House of Assembly
on behalf of those residents.
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.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax placing a higher
tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS
surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as currently
demonstrated in other provinces as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure 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.
Once
again, Mr. Speaker, I bring another load of petitions into the House that have
been sent in by people who are just absolutely, totally concerned about what's
going to happen to them when all the different measures that are in
Budget 2016 are put in place, the levy
being one of the big ones that really concerns them.
As I've
said before in this House, whether it's people who are here in St. John's,
people who are in Wabush, Labrador, people who are down the Southern Shore, from
all over the province I have petitions today, Mr. Speaker. These people are
really worried, both about and about others. Low-income people and low
middle-income people are going to be severely hit by this budget, and government
continues to refuse to recognize what's going to happen.
Middle-income people have proven to us that they are going to be losing a good
$3,000 to $4,000 from their pocket. Money they don't have, Mr. Speaker. They are
concerned also about people who are lower than they are. People who are living
on $20,000 a year and less do not have any extra money in their pockets, Mr.
Speaker, to pay the rise in the HST, to pay another 18.5 cents on every litre of
gas that goes into their automobiles.
We're
going to see a rise, Mr. Speaker, in people lined up for food banks in this
province. I hope this government will be happy when they see more people lined
up for food banks in this province. If the Premier likes to say to me when he
stands on his feet I'll be happy with what they come up with, the commission.
I'm going to tell him, I'm not going to be happy when we see what happens with
this budget.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents
of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
our province's seniors deserve quality care and assistance when residing in
long-term care facilities; and
WHEREAS
our province is currently experiencing an escalating shortage of long-term care
beds;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to explore all options, including partnerships,
to create new long-term care beds in the province.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I guess this is an issue that's been talked about at great length over
the last number of years. Everyone knows long-term care is one of the biggest
issues facing our seniors in the province. As we all know, we have an aging
population. Seniors have been a great topic of discussion.
The
previous government made great strides toward trying to deal with the long-term
care shortage in the province by moving forward on some new strategies and
creating more long-term care beds; but, as we know, the current government
decided to go another route which we've yet to see the alternate plan outside of
closing Masonic Park.
Mr.
Speaker, seniors need our attention. They are asking for us to speak up for
them, which is what we're doing here now. Long-term care is a real issue. Sound
bites are great but action is better.
The
closure of Masonic Park is even though a net gain, net loss. We're being told
there was no loss in beds but regardless, the beds that were lost at Masonic
Park are still lost through the system.
When you
have our hospitals being occupied now by seniors waiting to get into a long-term
care home, it is a real issue, Mr. Speaker. I deal with it in my own district. I
have several heartbreaking stories of seniors trying to get into homes, trying
to get with their spouse. We have a real shortage.
We're
still waiting on the current government to follow through on some of their
commitments. As I said before, you live in hope and die in despair, but I hope
it is a hopeful thought.
We need
to find ways to make progress. Find new innovative ways to deal with the real
issue being experienced by real people in this province, Mr. Speaker, and they
are seniors.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
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 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 costs 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 think,
Mr. Speaker, our celebrated writer Kevin Major probably, most accurately in one
line summed up the reaction of the people of the province to this announcement
of library closures. He wrote: Today I was humiliated by my government.
I
believe that is an accurate reflection of how so many people feel because people
can't grasp how can they do this? To what end? Really, to what end has
government done this? What do we get from it? It's a movement that actually
impoverishes the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some
people talked about feeling like Newfoundland and Labrador has been made a
laughing stock. We've heard from the Faculty of English at Memorial University,
academics. We're hearing from people who use the libraries. It's not just about
the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable people; it's about all the people of
the province.
If we
can't afford to keep our libraries open, what is this all about? To what end? We
know we have the lowest literacy level in the whole country. We know that people
use our libraries in our communities. In some of our communities, the libraries
are sort of the heart of the community. People use them as meeting places.
People use them to enhance their literacy. People use them for library access.
The ones
on this side, the Official Opposition, already had closed a number of community
access offices. So already people were reeling from that, and now to close our
libraries with no consultation. Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador said
there was absolutely no consultation with them. This is a regressive move
backwards.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the people of Bell Island deserve to have access to services that will assist
them to gain employment and education; and
WHEREAS
these services have provided proven results to the people of our province; and
WHEREAS
decisions made in this budget by the current government have removed the
Advanced Education and Skills office from Bell Island;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the office of Advanced Education and
Skills on Bell Island.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I had the privilege over my career, for a number of years working in
the management field, of going back to Bell Island, my hometown, to work in the
AES office.
I think
a little bit of history for people when it comes to the importance of the AES
office. Coming from a community that was a one-industry town, a very vibrant
one, the second largest populace in the province next to St. John's, and in the
'60s when that all fell apart, obviously, people who were based on a particular
skill, a lot of it around labour intensive work, had to concentrate then if
there was no employment in this province at the time. In the mid to late '60s
things weren't exactly booming in this province. People were stuck there with
minimal education levels and minimal ability to gainfully find employment. So
they had to rely on Income Support and social services of the day.
That
office was integral over the last 40 years of giving people a hand up and not
a hand out of finding ways to better engage the citizens, give them access to
upgrading their education. The Adult Basic Education program going back 30
years when the college system still existed there, before it was cut by a former
Liberal administration was very important in giving people the ability to get
their high school equivalency, but also to get a trade.
Next to
CONA at the time, or CNA campus here in St. John's, Bell Island had the largest
campus. Five hundred students would go there every year from all over the
province. It gave an opportunity for those who were on Income Support to be
assessed and provided services.
As we
move forward over the next generations, we found a different way of engaging
people. The old days of the make-work projects the make-work projects were
important because it gave people a sense of pride; it gave them an ability to
give something back to the community. Most of our communities were enhanced by
the investments we did. It also got people into a routine of figuring I'd like
to be able to go to another level, either upgrade my education or find some
enhancement around employment.
The AES
office as we know it now has evolved to a point where it's a support mechanism
for people who come there, single parents who come there, older workers who come
there, young people who have struggled in the school system and those who want
to get back into the workforce. That process has been used to support people.
Taking that away right now is detrimental to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and
particularly Bell Island.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would call from the Order
Paper, Motion 16, I would move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 17.
Motion
17, I would move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at
10 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 17.
Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills, for leave to introduce a bill, an act entitled, An Act To Amend The
College Act, 1996, Bill 29, and I further move the said bill be now read the
first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that Bill 29, An Act To Amend
The College Act, 1996, be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills to introduce a bill, An
Act To Amend The College Act, 1996, carried. (Bill 29)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
College Act, 1996. (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 29 has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, at this
point I would call Order 4, second reading of Bill 27.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Today,
I'm here speaking to Bill 27, which is An Act to Amend the Law Respecting
Statutory Offices of the House of Assembly.
I would
move this, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of
The House Of Assembly, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices
Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
getting ahead of myself here today. It's almost like we had a late night here or
something. I am standing here to speak to Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Law
Respecting Statutory Offices of the House of Assembly.
I guess
the precursor to this this, in many ways, is a companion piece of sorts. As we
all know we debated Bill 1 which has now passed third reading for the
Independent Appointments Commission, which is a commission now which will govern
all bodies, agencies and commissions in this province. That includes what we
call our statutory offices here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have
six. We have the Auditor General, which is pursuant to the
Auditor General Act; the Citizens' Representative, which falls under
the Citizens' Representative Act; the
Child and Youth Advocate under the Child
and Youth Advocate Act; the
Information and Privacy Commissioner, which falls under ATIPPA, 2015;
the Chief Electoral Officer, which falls under the
Elections Act, 1991;
and the Commissioner of Legislative Standards, which falls under the
House of Assembly Act. I would point
out that number five and six are the same individual.
The fact
is that we have these statutory offices, and I don't think I need to get into a
very lengthy debate about the importance of each one of these offices which have
all evolved over the passage of time. For instance, when you talk about our
Information and Privacy Commissioner in fact, in doing this, I went back and
looked into a bit of the history. The Information and Privacy Commissioner
actually came to place back in 2003. Actually the first commissioner was a
gentleman named Wayne Mitchell who actually came into place prior to the act
being enforced. So in the grand scheme of things, we are not talking about a
significant amount of time when it comes to that particular piece of legislation
or officer.
When we
talk about our Commissioner for Legislative Standards and our Chief Electoral
Officer, that's an office that's been in place since 1993, a bit longer history.
The Citizens' Representative is an office that's been around since 2002 and the
Child and Youth Advocate is an office that's been around since also 2002.
Finally,
the Auditor General is an office that's actually been around our first Auditor
General was started in 1898. So in terms of seniority, the Auditor General would
be at the top of the list.
Now each
of these offices has a very important role. I guess if we want to talk about
them in layman's terms, the Information and Privacy Commissioner obviously and
we've heard a lot about this office, especially over the last number of years.
They deal with the right of access to information for people but also the
protection of people's privacy when it comes to release of said information.
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards and Chief Electoral Officer, this is the
individual that handles elections in the province but also ensures that all
Members follow and again, we swear an oath and we have rules that we need to
follow and these are handled by this individual. I will point out that that
individual is a gentleman named Mr. Victor Powers who actually is moving on and
has given his notice to retire.
We wish
him well and thank him for his service to this province. He has done that role
actually since 2011. It has been just about five years in that position and it
is a significant term. That's an office that there will be a vacancy in very
shortly.
The
Citizens' Representative, we've had three individuals doing that role and
actually that's held now by a gentleman named Mr. Barry Fleming. The Citizens'
Representative is an ombudsman whose role is to represent citizens when it comes
to issues of that can fall under just about anything.
Every
year their report is actually tabled here in the House. I always take an
opportunity to read the report and talk about issues that are brought forward by
citizens in this province where they feel they may be aggrieved or have issues
that are not being addressed properly, whether it's a case of discrimination,
they haven't been treated properly.
Again
there's a process in place where complaints come in, they're investigated and,
in some cases, the commissioner does a report. It's another important role
that's done on behalf of citizens of this province.
The
Child and Youth Advocate has been around since 2002 and currently it is serviced
by Ms. Carol Chafe who's been in that role since 2010. I think when we talk
about again, it was certainly before my time here in this House, but there is
no one that questions the role and the duty done by these individuals when it
comes to the protection of children and youth in our province. We've had some
sad episodes in this province when it comes to things that have happened here,
when we talk about things like the Turner inquiry, just absolute tragedies that
have happened in this Province.
It is
one of the things that our Child and Youth Advocate have taken on. In fact, it
led to and I believe it was created by the previous administration. The
Department of Child, Youth and Family Service came out of this as well. I mean,
there has been a definite move towards increased protection, increased awareness
when it comes to the protection of children and youth in this province. We all
know the stories that go around. It's a very tough role and, in fact, we have an
independent individual as well as we have that department.
Finally,
we have the Auditor General of the province who, again, I'll put it as basic as
you can get it. This is the person who looks at the books of the province. We
have had a number of these individuals over the years. We have had a gentleman
named Mr. Terry Paddon who's been in that role since 2012.
I found
it interesting actually that the first Auditor General in this province I
presume a gentleman. It says F.C. Berteau. That person held the role for 36
years, 1898 to 1934. There were no terms or defined periods of time you could
serve back then. He had 36 years serving in that role, which is absolutely
amazing. Generally, right now, as it relates to the Auditor General, that's a
10-year position.
I've
laid out the statutory offices were discussing here. I'm sure the Members
opposite will have an opportunity to talk about their opinions on the offices,
the individual's role and the work they do.
The
purpose of this was that in looking at these pieces of legislation and these
offices, the fact is they've evolved over a number of years and in many cases
I guess the intent of this piece of legislation was to bring a sense of
uniformity to this. We have differences in terms of the length of time they can
serve, differences in terms of the salary, differences in whether they can be
reappointed or not, differences in how one would remove an individual from the
office if there was cause or no cause. So there are a bunch of differences in
these offices.
That's
standard when you have offices that are created individually as opposed to being
created the one time; you're going to have these differences. So what we've
decided here is we wanted to bring some level of uniformity to make sure that
there is no one who is more important than the other. They all serve tremendous
roles on behalf of the people of this province. They're all individuals who are
independent of government. They fall under the House of Assembly. So what we've
tried to do here is bring a sense of the same terms, conditions and when it
comes to some idea of the expectations and what can be done for each of these
pieces of legislation.
That's
what we're talking about here. We want to standardize statutory offices. Some of
the things we're talking about are the manner of appointment, the term of
office, removal, suspension, salary and interim appointments. All of this is
done in light of the fact that we've brought forward Bill 1 which was the
Independent Appointments Commission, which all these offices will now fall
under.
Previously, an individual would be selected by Cabinet, there would be a
resolution brought to the House of Assembly and then debated on by all Members
and a vote cast to appoint these individuals or not. As it was said before, the
fact is I don't know if anyone has ever been turned down once a resolution has
been brought forward. I know is some cases, it's certainly not unanimity. It's
not always a unanimous vote. There have been cases where the Oppositions have
voted against the resolution appointing certain individuals.
In this
case, that's going to change now. What's going to happen is it's going to be the
same thing, done through the Public Service Commission. We go through that
process now where there's scrutiny, making sure we're taking into consideration
all the different factors as we've discussed. Once it gets to that process and a
person is deemed appropriate or I guess that's the best word is appropriate
whether they meet the criteria to fit the bill for one of these offices, then it
would go to an Independent Appointments Commission, which will then look at the
individual submitted and select a roster of three names which will be submitted
to Cabinet.
Again, I
don't want to get too much into that process. I think we had a pretty lengthy
debate here in this House on that process, whether you agree or disagree.
Certainly, we think it's a step ahead of where we were, but what I want to talk
about is why we're doing this. What we're saying is if we are going change the
process for the appointment of these individuals, we should also standardize
each of their offices and their roles so that there are some similarities there
because they should be treated similarity. Each one is an important role.
The
other thing I would suggest is that there's one change here. The Information and
Privacy Commissioner, that one is a bit different; that one was dealt with in
this House last year through the new ATIPP Act, 2015. That position is also
filled by the LGIC. It is done on a resolution of the House of Assembly, but the
process that was adopted in that piece of legislation that was decided here in
this House of Assembly is that there was a selection committee that would submit
a roster of candidates. The Speaker would consult with the Premier, the Leader
of the Opposition and Third Party, and then the resolution would be put forward
naming an individual, one individual on the roster. That would be confirmed
within 10 days of the appointment.
So with
this new legislation, the appointment of all officers will be subject to the
IAC, except for the Information and Privacy Commissioner at this time. This
office will be required to be filled within the next few weeks and the IAC will
not be in place by that time.
So the
fact is we have four of these offices that are coming up to be vacant this year.
We know the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Legislative Standards
has indicated his retirement. We know that the access to information, IPC,
Information Privacy Commissioner is actually, I think, due for June. I believe
the Child and Youth Advocate is some time during 2016. I think it might be
December of 2016. So that is actually four those positions there.
Right
now, the Auditor General is a 10-year term, so Mr. Paddon will be in that role
till 2022. And the Citizens' Representative has till, I'm not quite sure I'll
get into it; I have some notes here.
But the
fact is that none of the current individuals will be affected by this. This is
moving forward as opposed to being retroactive, so each of these individuals
will not be affected. What it is, it's going to handle each vacancy as it comes
open, going forward. It's just that we know that some of these are soon and we
don't know that the IAC will be in place by that time, which is why we had no
choice. In this case, we're also discussing interim appointments because we need
to have a plan in place. We cannot have vacancies in these offices; you need to
have them filled.
As I
said earlier, the Information and Privacy Commissioner will follow the process
set out in section 85 of the ATIPP Act, and I do have a copy of that here. This
will be filled by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so it will be filled by
Cabinet on a resolution of the House. There is a selection committee and on that
committee, it actually will comprise the Clerk of the Executive Council, Clerk
of the House of Assembly, chief judge of Provincial Court, the president of
Memorial University.
The
selection committee will develop a roster of candidates and will publicly invite
expressions and will submit that roster to the Speaker of the House, and the
Speaker consults with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and will
place a resolution in front of the House.
That's
how that works. We feel that since that hasn't been used yet, we don't want to
take out a process that we haven't even had a chance to follow through on.
That's why that one will be left the same. We do note that that act has a
five-year statutory review; as well, this act will have a statutory review. That
will be looked at later on.
Like any
piece of legislation that's dealt with in this House, you may have to reassess
them, to look at them, to determine whether they should be changed, modified
because you want to have the best piece of legislation forward. We've seen that
in the House in the past, we've seen it here in this session and we'll see it
going forward. That's how it works. Legislation becomes outdated, practices
change and we need to have best practices.
Terms of
office: Currently the Citizens' Rep, Child and Youth Advocate and Information
and Privacy Commissioner are six-year terms, renewable once. The IPC's
reappointment must be approved by a double majority vote. The AG is a one term,
non-renewable, 10-year term; and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
serves a five-year term with unlimited renewable terms, while the Chief
Electoral Officer's term has no expiry. Obviously you can see some significant
differences there between these statutory offices.
With
this legislation that we're putting forward, we'll see five statutory officers
appointed for a six-year term, renewable once, with the exception of the Auditor
General who will continue to serve a 10-year, non-renewable term. I believe that
is actually in line with all the other provinces. I think when that was
discussed, it was the purpose of when you have a 10-year term it allows you to
have some continuity to ensure again, when we're talking about the financial
operations of a province, I think that's necessary. I don't think there is any
issue or any conflict with that.
Now, one
of the issues that are discussed in this piece of legislation is removal when
the House of Assembly is sitting and removal when the House of Assembly is not
sitting. There was some discrepancy here amongst these statutory offices. So the
language ranged, depending on which office you talked about. The Auditor
General, Citizens' Representative and Commissioner for Legislative Standards may
be removed for cause. The Child and Youth Advocate and IPC may be removed for
incapacity, neglect of duty, or misconduct. So you have some significant
discrepancy there in what would constitute a reason to have somebody removed
from that position.
The
purpose of this legislation is simply to standardize the process and the
language. In this case, what will happen is an individual can be removed by the
LGIC on resolution by the House of Assembly, passed by a majority vote of
Members actually voting, and statutory officers may be removed for incapacity to
act, misconduct, cause or neglect of duty. In this case, it's a standardization
of the process. It will encompass all offices so that one office is not treated
differently than another.
We have
the same terms that can be applied to ensure that if this situation again,
that's a situation that we hope we never have to deal with in this province. We
don't want to see a resolution put forward in this House asking for the removal
of an independent officer of the House of Assembly. It's one of those clauses
where you have it. It's better to have it and not need it, then need it and not
have it. In this case, certainly we don't want to see it but you have to be
prepared for it.
Now,
that's when the House is sitting. When the House is not sitting there's no
provision in place for the suspension of the Chief Electoral Officer or the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards when the House is not sitting. There are
variations for suspensions for the other four statutory officers. The AG, the
Child and Youth Advocate, the IPC and the Citizens' Rep may be suspended when
the House is not in session, although the Citizens' Representative also requires
a recommendation from the Management Commission. Only the IPC and Citizen's
Representative specify that the suspension cannot continue beyond the end of the
next sitting of the House of Assembly.
Again,
these are the things that happen when you have offices created at different
times, not at the same time as each other. You're going to have some differences
in the legislation and in wording. We feel it should be as we move forward
here, as we bring in a new process, that we should have standardization. Through
this legislation, the LG in Council may suspend any of the statutory officers
when the House is not in session for incapacity, neglect of duty, cause and
misconduct; however, the suspension cannot continue beyond the end of the next
sitting of the House of Assembly.
We had
to have those provisions there. The fact is that this House sits on I guess if
you look at our history, we sit usually twice a year. There have been times when
the House comes back in session for an emergency session. So the fact is you
need the opportunity to be able to make significant decisions like this,
especially ones where you're talking about a resolution that's brought forward
for something as serious as misconduct or cause. We need to have that ability
there.
That
would lead us to interim appointments. These are obviously important positions.
They cannot be left vacant. Right now there are considerable variations between
the pieces of legislation for the different stat officers.
The
legislative amendment we're putting forward here would allow for an individual
to be appointed by the LG in Council on recommendation of the Management
Commission on an interim basis. In the event a person is unable to perform
duties, the office becomes vacant or an officer is suspended.
In the
case of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, there is no legislative
mechanism to appoint someone on an interim basis and we need to fix that. We
actually know that right now the position is going to be vacant, number one. An
interim appointment section will be necessary for this position. This term
expires May 31.
So if
the IAC is not in place by May 31, we have a situation where we do not have a
Commissioner for Legislative Standards. I don't think anybody in this House
would suggest that is something we want to happen or can allow to happen. We
need to ensure there's somebody put forward in an interim position, knowing that
going forward these individuals will go through this new independent
appointments process and go through the Public Service Commission as well.
We need
to have someone acting here. I don't know how long this process will take. I
don't know how long the IAC will take to be put in place. Obviously, given what
I've said here in this House, we have a number of vacancies, a number of
positions that need to be filled. These stat offices are very serious ones that
we need to have filled.
I don't
know how long the work of the IAC will take. It's an independent group. I don't
know how long that process will take. These are things we'll figure out as we
move forward with this newly created group. There will be an interim
appointment, the person is put in and then the permanent person will go through
this new independent process.
I would
move forward to discuss salary. We want to talk about consistency in the salary
provisions for all statutory officers. This will be decided by the House of
Assembly Management Commission which does have representation from all parties.
They will be consulted.
Salaries
will be set by the LG in Council after consultation with the Management
Commission. I would note, and I think this is important, salaries will reflect
the province's current fiscal situation. That's something we all face as MHAs,
we face as Cabinet ministers. I think statutory officers should face this as
well. You don't want to have a case where there's a significant yo-yoing of
salaries. I don't think that's what anybody is suggesting. The fact is we need
to ensure that they're commensurate with the place that we currently occupy
fiscally.
When it
comes to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, that's one change we will be
putting forward when it comes from the
ATIPP Act. Just to provide that information, when it comes to the IPC, the
act currently states that the next salary for the Information and Privacy
Commissioner shall be 75 per cent that of a Provincial Court judge. A Provincial
Court judge right now is in the range of $215,000. So if you want to bring in
that 75 per cent there, that will actually place that individual higher than the
other statutory officers.
We all
know it's been debated in this House, that right now an independent tribunal has
actually recommended a raise for our Provincial Court judges in the range of
$32,000. If we continue as is, using this legislation from 2015, that would
raise the judge's salaries up to the $240,000 range, and then it would be 75 per
cent of that. You would have a person doing a statutory office, similar to the
other offices, getting paid a significant amount more and one that's actually
contingent on when it comes to the judiciary.
What
we're suggesting in our case here we want to suggest both consistency and we
want to suggest fiscal prudence. We are going to suggest an amendment to
ATIPPA, 2015 so that the IPC
compensation is in line with that of other statutory offices.
We do
have some other amendments here. I don't think these are contentious by any
means. The statutory officers will not be eligible to be nominated for election.
I don't think anybody is going to disagree with that. They're not eligible to
sit as an MHA. I think that would create a whole number of problems right there.
They can
also not hold another public office with the exception of the Chief Electoral
Officer who can also hold the role of Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
That's been happening currently. I don't see there's any issue with that. I
don't think you're going to hear any objection to that. So that would be the
exception to the rule and vice versa. If you're a Commissioner for Legislative
Standards you can be the Chief Electoral Officer.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's right.
The
other thing is they cannot carry on a trade, business or profession. This is
their role and it's a high standard to maintain one of these offices. These are
things that are put in to protect and to safeguard the integrity of these
offices, which I would also note there's certainly nobody saying here these
offices are held in high regard by everybody in this province. In fact, we've
been very lucky to have individuals in these roles that, when they speak,
there's respect given and we listen to what they have to say. There's no one
questioning the integrity and we need to do everything we can to protect that
and uphold that.
An
amendment here again, uniformity. Statutory officers may resign in writing
addressed to the Speaker. When it comes to pension benefits, the
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 will
apply to statutory officers if they were subject to the PSPA before their
appointment. If the Statutory Officer was not subject to the PSPA prior to their
appointment they will be paid for contribution into an RRSP in an amount
equivalent to a contribution to the PSPP. If they were a civil servant before,
there may be a different route that's taken other than an individual that comes
from outside.
I think
that I've laid out the changes here that we're suggesting. The bill is not
significant in size. It's not a huge piece of legislation. I think what it's
doing here I know I am repeating myself, but I have to get across here. We're
moving forward into a new process for appointment. These offices will be subject
to that. So if we're going to do that, this is a great opportunity to
standardize this legislation and take these offices, which are very important,
do great work for the people, and provide some uniformity here so they are
treated equally. That's what we're looking forward here.
There
are a couple of small discrepancies, as I've outlined, for reasons that I've
outlined here. I think this is a good piece of legislation. I would like to
thank I think sometimes I forget to do this and I know everybody in this
House, having seen the work. I have to thank the people who draft these pieces
of legislation. It's a significant amount of work that goes into this through
Legislative Counsel, and all the people who pass on their thoughts and their
input and not just for this bill, for any bill.
At the
end of the day, we're debating legislation that's going to govern the people of
this province. So I'd like to thank those individuals who take their time to do
this. They work very long hours. I know Members on the other side know the work
they do. It's tremendous work. I'd also like to thank them for the time they put
into giving the briefings to Members opposite.
When I
was in Opposition, I don't know if I ever went to a briefing where the people
who answered the questions weren't forthright, would give you answers, would you
give you all the time they had to. I'd like to think that's continued now. That
there's been no change in that, because at the end of the day, as legislators,
we have to stand here and speak to legislation and we have to know everything
that goes into it. So I'd like to thank those individuals for the time they put
into this.
I'm
going to take my seat now. I know Members opposite will have an opportunity to
speak to this during second reading. I will listen to that and make notes. I
know when I get a chance to close this piece of legislation, or during the
Committee stage, I will have an opportunity to answer questions that may arise.
Thank
you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster)
The hon. the
Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am
certainly glad to rise and speak to Bill 27. I recognize that the Government
House Leader went through in detail the provisions of what's being proposed here
in regard to Bill 27, respecting the statutory offices of the House of Assembly.
And as has been said, talked about a number of acts basically standardized in
the language and process around the manner of appointment of a number of these
statutory offices that report to the House of Assembly and to look at the
various manners in regard to the protocol for these statutory offices, things
like appointments, term of office, removal, suspension and salary of statutory
officers.
There
are various pieces of legislation or statutes here governing the particular
offices: the Auditor General; Child and Youth Advocate; Citizens'
Representative; Elections Act;
House of Assembly Act; the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards only; also the act, Bill 27, will also
amend the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act in order to make the salary provision consistent
with other statutory offices.
As well,
the Government House Leader mentioned Bill 1. The legislation will come into
effect, I understand we were briefed at the same time as Bill 1, the
Independent Appointments Commission. Bill 1 discusses as well the appointment
process and Bill 1 includes these offices in the schedule of appointments.
The
Government House Leader did recognize those folks that put the legislation
together and the time they spent. I also know our staff was briefed by officials
as well. I want to recognize the information that was relayed to us in the
briefing and the work that was done.
I will
just touch quickly on a couple of those components in the statutory offices and
what this bill is looking to amend and proceed with. With the Privacy
Commissioner, we were briefed that the Government House Leader may make an
amendment to remove the Information and Privacy Commissioner from Bill 1
Schedule. The reason for this is that the ATIPP Act, 2015 already has built
within an independent recommendations committee consisting of the Clerk of the
Executive Council, the Clerk of the House of Assembly, MUN president and chief
justice.
What
would happen, the committee would prepare a roster of recommendations and submit
to the Speaker. The Speaker, in consultation with the Premier, the Leader of the
Opposition and Leader of the Third Party, would make a recommendation here to
the House of Assembly.
Section
2 of the bill makes changes to the ATIPP Act, 2015, and these were referenced
just earlier by the Government House Leader, changes to the salary of the
Privacy Commissioner from 75 per cent of a Provincial Court judge to a salary
fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, after consultation with the House
of Assembly Management Commission.
The
fixed salary clause is found in most of the statutory offices. With the passage
of this bill it would streamlined to be the same throughout all. I guess that's
what we're talking about here in regard to the various statutes for these
offices. It's about streamlining and making consistency throughout the statutory
offices and the operations, especially related to those that are appointed to
carry out the duties of the particular statutory offices. It's certainly
important to note that the terms of the and I think this was mentioned earlier
Privacy Commissioner will expire, I believe, in June 2016.
We look
at some of the other statutory offices that are in this bill and would be part
of Bill 27: the Auditor General, Child and Youth Advocate, Citizens'
Representative, Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner for Legislative
Standards. It's about standardizing the language with respect to the
appointments, and as I said before, term of office and those other elements in
regard to that whole particular office for these entities.
The
highlights of the standardization going on with these particular officers and
those that are appointed we look at appointment, term of office, removal and
suspension, acting officers, salary and pensions and benefits. With the
appointment of these offices with an appointment to an identified person to fill
such a vacancy, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Cabinet on resolution of
the House of Assembly so it would come here. This would occur after the IAC
conducted a process and made recommendations to the House. Then you get into
issues like terms of office.
The
Auditor General right now is 10 years, not renewable, the same as AGs across the
country. So there's some looking at obviously cross jurisdictional and what the
issues are and trying to be consistent. All others would be six years, renewable
once, for a maximum of 12 years. This is a change with respect to the Chief
Electoral Officer. Previously, there was no limit on that particular tenure.
This is an example of where it would be drawn into consistency with the other
statutes and in regard to terms of office.
So we'd
look at in the bill removal, suspension and acting officers. Again, there have
been some amendments made in regard to consistency and streamlining of those
particular areas. Suspension by Cabinet, a majority recommendation of the House
of Assembly that would occur, obviously, when the Assembly was in session. If
the House is not in session, Cabinet can suspend, but it will only be in force
until the next sitting of the House. Obviously, at the first opportunity it
would be brought back to the House of Assembly if it was not sitting at the
point related to that decision was made.
The
Lieutenant Governor in Council, on a recommendation of the commission, can
appoint someone acting. So in that particular case there could be someone
removed and, with the Lieutenant Governor in Council on a recommendation of the
commission, there would be someone appointed in an acting role. Then, when the
House of Assembly reconvenes, the resolution will be brought to the House to
permanently fill the position.
In
regard to salary, fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and Cabinet after
consultation with the House Management Commission. A note on that one, the
Auditor General portion of the bill does not say House Management Commission, it
only says commission. So we'll have a few questions maybe in committee in regard
to Independent Appointments Commission or the House Management Commission. Then
it goes on, Child and Youth Advocate, Citizens' Rep, the Electoral Office all
say House Management Commission. So maybe in committee we'll ask a few questions
and clarify that.
The
other area of standardization that this bill will look at is regard to pensions
and benefits. The language here is similar to the ATIPPA, 2015. If the officer
was a member of the Public Service Pension Plan they can also continue. If
they're not, my understanding is they can take a pension contribution and roll
it over into an RRSP. That gets to the compensation piece and as well brings
some standardization to the various statutes and how they operate the various
acts.
As I
said, it's a piece of legislation that I think is certainly worthwhile. It looks
at bringing various aspects of statutory offices and the legislative framework
to operate those. It brings consistency to them. The minister when he was up,
the Government House Leader, outlined in detail the particulars of that.
As we
move to committee, we may indeed have some questions in regard to clarification
on actual particular things but I think overall on first review and some of the
information we see, I think it is well intentioned. It certainly makes sense in
terms of standardization and bringing those things together.
We'll
look forward to further discussion and hear what Members of the House have to
say on this particular piece of legislation. When we get into committee, if
there are things that come up in discussion and debate that we think need to be
clarified, that we have questions on, we'll certainly bring those questions up
in committee.
I am
sure the minister and House Leader will be quite eager to answer those questions
and, no doubt, we'll have further discussion as we move forward.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to rise today in the House and speak to Bill 27, An Act to Amend the
Law Respecting Statutory Offices of the House of Assembly. My comments, Madam
Speaker, will mirror some of those already stated. I guess that's what happens
when you speak a little further down the line. Nevertheless, I'll take a few
minutes and offer some comments. I, too, certainly want to congratulate the
minister and his department and staff for their due diligence, and for giving us
the opportunity to sit with them in some explanations and some briefing notes
concerning the bill.
Madam
Speaker, the Citizens' Representative, the Child and Youth Advocate, the Auditor
General, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer
and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards are absolutely vital to the
democratic process here in our province. Each of these statutory offices plays a
critical role.
The
Auditor General, for example, provides independent oversight over financial
expenditures made by government. With a budget in excess of $8 billion, the
Auditor General's role as an impartial reviewer becomes much more clear. The
Auditor General provides government with suggestions for ways that we can be
doing things better. There's always room for improvement, Madam Speaker. We can
spend public dollars with a greater degree of confidence knowing that we are in
compliance with the Auditor General's suggestions.
The
Child and Youth Advocate is another good example. Newfoundland and Labrador
youth in care deserve a voice advocating directly on their behalf, a voice that
is independent of the department. The individuals who have been serving in these
statutory offices have been serving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians very well.
We certainly thank them, Madam Speaker, for their service.
What we
are proposing here today will impact future appointments not for the people who
currently serve in these offices. The amendments will modernize and standardize
the appointment process here in our province. It will also ensure that equitable
decisions are made in appointing new statutory officers. It will ensure, Madam
Speaker, consistency across the board when it comes to appointment, removal,
suspension and salary for all statutory offices. This is in keeping with our
commitment to openness, transparency and everything we do as a government.
This
consistency will be established in a number of ways. All future statutory
officers will serve a six-year term that is renewable once. The explanation to
this, which is included in the legislation, is the Auditor General who will
continue to be appointed for 10 years. A 10-year appointment is consistent with
other provinces in Canada and other parliaments around the world, Madam Speaker.
The
reason this exception is included is because it is important for the Auditor
General to be able to serve a longer period of time for the purposes of
institutional memory and in recognition of the fact that change to policy and
practices may take a few years to demonstrate and impact once they are
implemented.
These
statutory officers won't be eligible to be nominated for election to sit as a
Member in this hon. House, to hold another public office or to carry on in
trade, business or profession. The reason this is being written into the
legislation is to avoid the obvious potential for a conflict of interest.
It is an
amendment, Madam Speaker, that acknowledges that statutory offices are positions
of great trust. Trust that is a two-way street between the officer and
government. It protects the statutory officer from any allegation of potential
conflict. It's a necessary and worthwhile amendment to the existing legislation.
They
will be eligible to receive the same level of compensation as a deputy minister.
These are offices that entail a huge amount of responsibility and require an
immense time commitment. In view of this, it is important they are compensated
properly in acknowledgement of the duties they carry out.
Madam
Speaker, the amendments also give government the ability to appoint statutory
officers on an interim basis, a necessary provision that will allow for
circumstances that prevent an appointee from completing a full term of service.
The existing legislation contains considerable variations between the parameters
of service of the various statutory officers when it comes to a point in an
interim.
For
example, in the legislation respecting the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards there is no mechanism for appointing an interim officer. The
amendments we debate here today will standardize the interim appointment process
ensuring that we are able to fill a vacancy quickly so that the best interest of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians continue to be served.
Their
appointments must be confirmed by resolution in this House of Assembly. This is
an essential part of ensuring transparency and consistency, and allowing the
appointment to take place in the people's House, Madam Speaker, in view of all
their elected representatives and the province as a whole.
This is
a very timely piece of legislation and I am happy to speak in favour of it. Four
of our current statutory officers, the Child and Youth Advocate, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, the Chief Electoral Officer and the
Information and Privacy Commissioner will conclude their terms this year. This
means, Madam Speaker, that the new standards we legislate here today will apply
very shortly to the new statutory officers that will be appointed by this hon.
House later this year.
Many of
the objectives achieved by these amendments are in line with government's firm
policy on openness and transparency in whatever we do. We have been debating
this Legislative Session in the creation of an Independent Appointments
Commission, which was our signature piece of legislation and the very first item
on the docket as we convened this spring.
We
proposed the creation of the commission for the purpose of taking the politics
out of government appointments. We wanted to empower an independent commission,
Madam Speaker, to select the best candidates for the job in the interest of
transparency.
The
Independent Appointments Commission will hold public competitions to recruit
candidates for further statutory officer appointments. Madam Speaker, this suite
of amendments to the existing legislation on statutory offices will serve to
ensure that the Independent Appointments Commission is able to function with the
force of a strong legislative mandate behind it.
With
that, Madam Speaker, I'll take my seat. I thank you for your time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Thank
you to my colleague as well. I want to just speak very briefly to this bill
today. It's An Act to Amend the Law Respecting Statutory Offices of the House of
Assembly. I think it's a sensible and logical piece of legislation, so I really
can't add a whole lot to what previous speakers have said.
What
government is attempting to do here is make changes to a number of acts to
really bring some standardization around language and processes related to how
officers are appointed, their terms, how they get removed from office, what
happens if they should be suspended and salaries. We're talking about the
Auditor General Act, the
Child and Youth Advocate Act, the
Citizens' Representative Act, the
Elections Act and the
House of Assembly Act as it
relates to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. There's also an amendment
to the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 in order to make salary provisions
consistent with other statutory officers.
There is
a connection, interestingly enough, to Bill 1 which we spent considerable time
debating yesterday. It will be interesting to hear perhaps when we get to the
Committee stage the Government House Leader talk to us a little bit more about
how that connection works with Bill 1.
As I
said, this bill addresses the appointment of these statutory officers of the
House, their terms of office, trying to bring about some consistency. It talks
about how acting officers will be handled and the removal and suspension of
officers. It talks about salary and that needs to be addressed.
There's
also reference to pension and benefits. The language there seems to be similar
to the language in the ATIPP Act whereas if the officer was a member of the
Public Service Pension Plan, then they can continue and if not, they can roll a
contribution into an RSP. I won't get too technical on all of that. We'll have
an opportunity to review some more of those details at the Committee stage.
I want
to join the Opposition House Leader in just raising a couple of issues that
really we're just looking for some information on. We can definitely address it
either when the minister closes debate or when we get to Committee. This seems
like a logical and sensible piece of legislation which I believe we can support.
It would be helpful if the minister could tell us a little bit more about how
the bill fits with Bill 1. That would be helpful in us gaining a more complete
understanding of the legislation.
When it
comes to the salary issues, I would assume the House Management Commission would
have input on all the salaries. So we'll get some clarification on that because
the Auditor General portion of the bill doesn't actually specifically state the
House Management Commission. I suspect that's what meant by Commission because
in the Child and Youth Advocate Act
and the Citizens' Rep Act and the act
related to the Chief Electoral Office; they all refer to House Management
Commission. I imagine the intent is to make them consistent.
The minister may also want to comment on term limits. I
believe there will now be term limits put in place which affects, I guess, the
Chief Electoral Officer's term because I don't believe there's a term in place
for that role at the moment. In terms of retirement benefits, I'm also curious:
Do these officers retain their health benefits upon retiring?
Those are just a few
information questions that we have. I'm sure the Government House Leader can
help clarify those matters.
It seems
like a good piece of legislation. I'm happy to have had the chance to rise and
say a few words about it today.
Thank
you.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise and speak today to Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Law Respecting
Statutory Offices of the House of Assembly, as the Government House Leader
introduced earlier today. We are just looking at streamlining some of the
processes here. Part of that is a direct result of the bill which saw its third
reading last night, Bill 1, the Independent Appointments Commission.
As the
Government House Leader alluded to as well, there are basically six offices
we're looking at kind of streamlining right now. The whole reason behind that is
because they came into act at very different times, with the Auditor General
dating back to 1898 to the ATIPP officer to 2015.
So at
various times these pieces of legislation were introduced. Right now, the whole
objective is just to look at streamlining some of the provisions in those pieces
of legislation, particularly around the terms of office, removal, suspension,
salary, as alluded to, we're looking to streamline as well. Currently, each
separate piece of legislation addresses each statutory officer, but it's the
various provisions which change in each piece of legislation.
Right
now, this is something we're really confident in doing. We also expect a great
deal of co-operation from the Members opposite, as well as Member of the Third
Party. The Member for Mount Pearl North just mentioned one or two questions
there around some health benefits. I feel quite confident the Government House
Leader will have some answers to address that as well.
Again,
in an action of openness and transparency, we're basically just looking to
streamline all these pieces of legislation to make sure they're in line and that
one different act doesn't take away from another, particularly around terms of
office, salary and appointments. And right now, again, in particular, due to the
implementation of Bill 1 which just passed for third reading last night.
I don't
have much more to add, other than generally thanking the individuals who serve
in these roles. These are very important roles that provide different, unique
services to the people of our province, whether that's the Child and Youth
Advocate office or the Auditor General as well.
In terms
of each of these areas, the whole role of advocacy, the Office of the Citizens'
Representative, the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner for Legislative
Standards, these are very important roles and they need to be treated with a
high degree of integrity. We certainly respect and appreciate all the hard work
that these individuals do and now with this piece of legislation we're
streamlining it so that they're treated fairly as well.
Other
than that, Madam Speaker, I don't really have much more to add to the bill. As I
briefly mentioned there, I believe we are expecting a great deal of
co-operation, as Members opposite have indicated as well.
With
that, I will thank you for having the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 27.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Yes, I'm
pleased this afternoon to stand and speak to Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Law
Respecting Statutory Offices of the House of Assembly. Basically a housekeeping
act, but a very important housekeeping act dealing with one, two, three, four,
five, six of our statutory offices. Making sure that we have conformity with
regard to the manner of appointment, the term of not conformity with regard to
the terms of office because they have different ones, but certainly the manner
of appointment, the process for removal from office and the salary of the
officer, to have clear regulations that are the same for all of these statutory
offices.
As has
been explained by the minister in presenting the bill, some of these bills have
been in place for many years and some are brand new such as the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 but the
Elections Act was 1991.
What we
have is that over the years things evolved, and one of the things that evolved
that the bill is picking up on is the way in which salaries are set for the
different officers. Before, very often, the salary was set by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council. Sometimes it was not.
With
regard to the Provincial Court, for example, Clyde Wells prescribed 75 per cent
of the salary of Provincial Court judges in his legislation. When he did the
review of the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act he actually prescribed what should happen with
regard to Provincial Court judges. But this bill changes what was in Wells's
legislation and makes sure that the salary is fixed by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council, but after consultation with the House of Assembly Management
Commission.
I think
what the general public would not know we know here in the House of Assembly,
but the general public doesn't know, Madam Speaker is that the House
Management Commission, when it was put in place
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
One of
the things that, as I was saying, the general public may not know is that the
House of Assembly Management Commission is not just responsible for the elected
Members of the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
The House of Assembly
Management Commission is also responsible for the statutory offices. For
example, at budget time, when the statutory offices put their budgets together
they actually come to private meetings with the House of Assembly Management
Commission. We sit with them when we go through their budgets line by line. I'm
a Member of it right now, that's why I'm saying we.
The
House of Assembly Management Commission is responsible for holding the statutory
offices accountable for their expenditures and for any increases that they may
need in their budget. So then we're the ones who actually, at the level of the
House of Assembly Management Commission, approve their budgets. As I said,
that's something people would not know because that's not something that's done
in public. Things that deal with money in the House of Assembly Management
Commission, the discussions happen in private, but then we come publicly and
declare what it is that we have approved.
The
change that this bill is recording here is noting something that has changed in
practice because of the House of Assembly Management Commission having been put
in place in 2007. It's important then that the pieces of legislation referring
to these six offices reflect the reality of what it is that happens.
I do
have a couple of questions for the minister to consider. He may answer them
today or when we go into Committee. Now that the Independent Appointments
Commission is approved and I don't know when Royal Assent will come; I presume
Royal Assent is going to come quickly because of the vacancies that exist. But
now that the IAC will be put in place and all of these statutory offices will
come under the IAC except the access to information does not, all the rest do.
Because
of that, I'm wondering and again I'm hoping the minister can answer this. I
have two questions. My first one is with regard to the vacancies that are going
to be filled on an interim basis. I wasn't clear what the minister meant, so I'm
just going to ask him to clarify so I'm sure I understand.
There
will be interim appointments because I suspect the process has to take at least
some time because the commission has to be put in place. After the commission is
put in place, I presume they have to be notified of the vacancies then they have
to start the process with the Public Service Commission to have the Public
Service Commission begin the process of searching for people who can be
considered to fill the vacancies.
When the
minister spoke about the interim appointments, I wasn't sure if he meant that
people in those positions would then automatically become part of that process
and be considered for the permanent position, or are they out of the picture? I
wasn't clear about the situation, so I'm asking the minister to clarify that for
me.
The
other thing, it's more a long-term thing. Right now we have a lot of vacancies.
I would hope that with this new process in place, with the IAC in place, that we
would see better efficiency with government with vacancies not being as frequent
and not be there for a long time. So I'd like the minister then he's nodding
at me over there, so I'm right on that point. So then I'll be asking him to tell
us I presume it is going to be the Lieutenant Governor in Council's
responsibility to notify the commission of vacancies.
I'm
interested in that process. How is that going to happen in such a way that
things will happen in a timely fashion so that we don't have long periods of
time with vacancies? I would like a bit more detail on that from the minister.
I'd like
an explanation too from the minister, the rationale with regard to the pension.
Basically, what it comes down to is two positions: one is the Citizens'
Representative and the other is the Auditor General. What is going to happen is
if somebody is hired from outside the public service in one of those two
positions, they would not be part of the
Public Service Pensions Act. Only if somebody is hired from within the
public service and who is under the Public
Service Pensions Act only if somebody like that is appointed to one of
these two positions, will that person continue with their pension.
If
somebody comes in from outside to be appointed to one of those two positions,
they will not come under the Public
Service Pensions Act. Instead, they will receive an equivalent amount of
money that they then can put into a private plan. It won't be a pension; it will
be a private investment plan.
I'd like
to know from the minister what the rationale is for that. Why wouldn't they
become part of the Public Service Pensions Plan? I really am interested in the
rationale.
Having
said that, Madam Speaker, obviously, we're going to be going along with this
bill, it's an essential bill to make sure things are in good order. As we go on
with our discussions this afternoon in second reading and in Committee, I'll be
interested in hearing the minister's explanations around those three points that
I've made.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Let me
say, first of all, what a pleasure it is to stand here in this House of Assembly
and have a few words on Bill 27. It seems like a long time since I've stood up
and actually spoken on something.
Today
we're going to be speaking to An Act to Amend the Law Respecting Statutory
Offices. I think pretty much everything has been covered. Of course that's
always the challenge when you get up to speak a little bit later, is that
everyone else has already said everything and you try not to be too repetitive.
The
points that have been made here, first of all, I think it's important to note
as has already been noted, but it's important to note again that this
legislation does tie into Bill 1, which was passed last night. While I didn't
have the opportunity to speak to Bill 1, because quite frankly I spent most of
my time in the Chair, I think it's important to note that Bill 1 that did pass
last night was a good step forward, there's no doubt.
There's
also no doubt that the Opposition parties did raise some points and there were
some amendments made. There were some things that didn't pass. There were some
things that were ruled out of order, but I think they did make some points and
some valid points, nonetheless. As time goes on, hopefully we can see
improvements to Bill 1. I'm sure we will.
One of
the things that did come out of the discussion around Bill 1 last night, which
was raised by the Third Party, was the whole concept of putting a diversity lens
on these appointments. I think it is important just to note as we are talking
about some pretty significant appointments here that would be doing important
work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm sure the minister will
agree and I'm sure it will happen.
I think
it is important to note, in the spirit of what the Third Party was saying last
night, that we do put a diversity lens on these appointments, particularly these
new people who are going to be retiring and so on. As we look to replace those
people, it is important that we try to be reflective of the society in which we
live in. I think everybody here would agree with that, regardless of what side
of the House of Assembly you are on. I think it's an important point to make.
Madam
Speaker, again, as it comes to this particular bill, really what we're doing is
we're taking a number of acts, we're taking the
Auditor General Act, Child and
Youth Advocate Act, Citizens'
Representative Act, Elections Act
and so on, and we're standardizing those acts. The rationale of course is all of
those acts pertain to important positions within the province that do important
work for the people and to standardize those acts because they were created at
different points in time in history, therefore they're not necessarily all
consistent. What we're trying to do here is to bring consistency to it.
Of
course, the positions we will be talking about have been mentioned. We're
talking about the Chief Electoral Officer; the Commissioner of Legislative
Standards, that person is one in the same. We're talking about the Auditor
General. We're talking about the Child and Youth Advocate. We're talking about
the Citizens' Representative. We're talking about the Privacy Commissioner.
I would
assume when we have legislation come into this House of Assembly around the
office of the seniors' advocate, I would assume at that point in time that
legislation would also mirror the changes we're seeing in these acts as well.
That would certainly make sense to me. I would assume that's what's going to
happen. It is important to do that. It's important to bring consistency.
The
things we're talking about are the terms of appointment, the removal of somebody
from office, interim appointments, suspensions, salaries and so on. If you look
at the acts that I referenced, and it's all covered here in Bill 27, the various
acts, you will see that when it comes to a number of these things around
salaries, appointments and so on, they're different for different offices. You
have different terms. You have different salaries and so on, and different means
of removing people or reasons for removing people. We're just standardizing it
right across the board so that it's consistent for all. I think it's important
to do just that, Madam Speaker.
I could
go on and on, but I don't really see the need for it. I've got a feeling; I've
got a strange suspicion this is going to pass unanimously. I really think that's
going to happen, and that's obviously a good thing. We don't see that happen all
the time, sometimes we do.
I've
heard the Opposition say, and certainly when I was in Opposition I would say the
same thing, if you bring forward good legislation that makes sense then there's
no reason why everybody wouldn't vote for it. I've got a feeling this is a piece
of legislation that's going to do just that.
So I
encourage everybody to support this legislation. It's a good piece of
legislation, and I thank you for your time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Government
House Leader speaks now he will close debate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am
quite pleased actually with the second reading on this piece of legislation so
far. Although if I wanted to be facetious, responding to the comments from Mount
Pearl Southlands, I could say there's lots of legislation we brought forward
that makes good sense that the Opposition just doesn't agree with. Again, I'm
just being facetious there.
I get
what the Member is saying in that. The fact is even though it's an important
piece of legislation I agree with the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi
it's housekeeping in nature and it's not changing their roles or the work they
do. What it's doing is standardizing it. Again, I certainly appreciate that.
What I
am going to do, I will try my best to respond to the questions raised but we
will be going into committee. So if I didn't answer it or if I forget it, please
make sure you take an opportunity to stand and ask again. I have gotten the
answers. Thankfully, that great staff I referenced in my first comments have
been getting in touch with me to help clarify it. I think I knew a few of the
answers, although some of them, particularly the health benefits, I wasn't quite
positive, but we have staff who do a great job of making sure the information is
there.
In no
particular order, I think one of the comments from the Opposition House Leader
was about the commission. I think that's actually it is the Management
Commission. What is it, it is actually referred to earlier in the act as the
Management Commission under the definition side. So that's why when it goes to
the section you referred to under the
Auditor General Act and just says commission, it is Management Commission.
That would clarify that aspect.
I think
the Deputy Opposition House Leader talked about health benefits for statutory
officers. What I would say is they are not addressed in this particular piece of
legislation. A response has actually been sent to Members of the Opposition and
their staff. So everything I'm saying here now should be clarified in writing. I
have no problem standing and speaking, putting it on the record.
A link
was sent setting out revised Treasury Board policy respecting criteria related
to the eligibility for other post-employment benefits. These changes stem from
the Other
Post-Employment Benefits Modifications Act which was passed by this
House in December 2014, which is listed below.
In order
to qualify for group health and life benefits pass retirement one must: one, be
in receipt of a pension from a defined benefit plan, whether it is PSPA, TPA, et
cetera; two, have 10 years of service; three, retire immediately with no
deferral of benefits allowed.
That's
the criteria. I believe it has been sent out. If there are still any questions
that Members have, I'm sure they can raise that and I will try my best to
answer. I think that's something that in fact, it might even be better talking
to the individuals in the Finance Department because they are certainly more
qualified to answer that than I am.
One of
the questions from the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi was talking about
the internal appointment process, and would an individual that is appointed
under an interim process be precluded from being able to apply under the full
process. I would say no. I don't believe that's the case.
I don't
think there's anything that can stop an individual. Now I think most individuals
who would do that would likely not be interested in doing it in a full-time
manner but I don't think there is anything that stops them from going through
the process established and having their name considered for that position.
That's my understanding of how that process will work. Again, it goes to the
recommendations and everything else.
We may
see that very soon because, as we know, the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards and CEO or Chief Electoral Officer, I think that's May 30. So I can
say, obviously, we would like to see Royal Assent for this bill. We would like
to see the resolution brought to this House soon and we'd like to see them get
up and running.
I may
have heard this wrong, you can clarify if I am wrong. We talk about the
vacancies, and what are we going to do to make sure they are filled and done on
a timely basis. I can say from my very short time here and I think the problem
may exist on a number of levels. I think in some cases when you go through these
processes, whether it's the Public Service Commission, just the shear amount of
work that's there can delay these things.
Again,
I've seen that, maybe not so much in the appointment process, but in the natural
job process when it comes to positions within the civil service. In fact, you
see people applying for a position, they go through this process, then they're
wondering where am I in this process and they're waiting to hear.
I think
sometimes that can get backed up there. I don't think that's a new issue. I
think that's been there for some time, but I'd like to think that the Minister
of Finance and President of Treasury Board, who handles the Public Service
Commission, I'd like to think that we can try to make this work faster because
it's tough for two reasons. Number one, if you have a vacancy, you want it
filled. You want the work done. Number two, the person that is applying for a
position, they want a job and if they're qualified, the quicker we can make
these two things come together it is better for everybody, so I'd like to think
it's going to happen.
The
second part of this we're talking about is sometimes in the appointments process
I think you have to want to get it done. I'm talking about the appointments. So
right now, under the process that I would have come into, but I haven't, I step
in and there's X number of A, B, C's that may fall under the Department of
Justice and Public Safety. So you're trying to learn what they are, who's there,
who's expired and there's a number of them that are expired. Number one, I can
say that I've gotten numerous letters from the heads of foundations,
pre-existing members, or people who are responsible saying fill these positions,
get them done.
I've had
to write back and say no, I can't do it; we have to wait for this process.
Normally, if this process wasn't put in place, I could just fill them and get
them done. I could have them done as quickly as I wanted to do them. Why weren't
they done? I can't answer; I have no idea. But I'd like to think that if I'm
going to stand here and talk about how important it is to fill it, I'm going to
do my best to ensure that it gets done as soon as possible.
So the
power has been taken away from me in some cases. Under the tier twos, the names
will come through to me and I can't act until I get the names. Once I get the
names, it's my duty to get these filled as soon as possible as soon as I get
those names.
Under
the IAC, I'd like to think and I don't want to prejudge it; I don't want to
place undue expectations on these individuals that will fill that role. But I'd
like to think that they're going to have to move fast. And there's that fine
line between due diligence, no different than anybody. If I run a business, I
have a job vacancy and people put their resumes in when they come in, I want
that job filled because I need that work done. But I'm going to give it the time
that it needs because if I make a bad hiring decision, I'm going to cause myself
a lot of problems down the road. And we've seen that in government, we've seen
that in private service and we've seen that everywhere.
If you
don't have a good hiring process, you can get yourself in trouble because once
you take that on then there comes a whole new set of responsibilities,
employment and law labour. So I'd like to think that there's a fine line where
we want to move it quick but, at the same time, that responsibility will come
down to Cabinet as well. We all know that the names are put forward to Cabinet.
Cabinet is to appoint. If we delay it, then we're causing our own problem.
I know
that might not be a satisfactory answer. I think we have to see where we are. It
is like anything new, you assess it after a period of time and gauge where you
are. Are there things that can be done is it working smoothly, swimmingly? I
hope that's the cause.
I'd like
to think that it will be very streamlined. I'd like to think that, and I have no
reason not to think that. If there are issues and they are identified, we have
to do our best to make sure that they are addressed as well.
I think
I've covered off that but, again, if I've missed anything, I know that the
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi will stand up and ask in Committee and
I'll do my best to get those answers.
On that
note, I will sit down now. I would like to thank Members opposite and on our
side for their contributions to this debate. This is a good piece of
legislation. It's a necessary one, and I think it is in the best interest of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
On that
note, I will stand and close second reading and look forward to the Committee
stage of this process.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
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.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House of Assembly. (Bill 27)
MADAM SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The
House Of Assembly, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 27).
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Madam Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Education, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 27.
MADAM 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, Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Law Respecting
Statutory Offices Of The House Of Assembly.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Madam
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Lane):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of
The House Of Assembly.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House of Assembly.
(Bill 27)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East Quidi
Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
The
question I have is to continue a conversation with the minister over an answer
he gave to me, because it covers sort of all of the bill there is no other
place for me to stand and ask it. It has to do with the appointments by the
commission.
Really,
what my question was, Minister, I'm talking about prior to vacancies happening.
For example, if the Cabinet knows there's a position coming up that's soon going
to be empty because of retirement or something, it's something they're
responsible for; or if you, as the Minister of Justice, know there's something
coming up that you're responsible for, is it not true that you then are the ones
who have the responsibility to notify the commission that this may be coming up?
That's
what I'm looking at. Sort of prior to the commission having the stuff in their
hands, who lets the commission know that there are vacancies coming up in the 34
agencies they're going to be responsible for?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will lead off by saying,
obviously, that's not I'm not saying I'm not going to have a chat about it,
but that's not part of this. I would suggest with these ones here, that would be
the House of Assembly's responsibility I would assume to notify the commission,
given they are statutory offices of the House of Assembly.
As it
relates to your question when it comes to tier one and tier two, it's my belief
that depending on which department the board, commission or agency falls under,
yes, you would make the commission aware of what is there, what is vacant. If I
came in, I learn what is there then we have to make them aware so they know, so
it can be advertised as well.
I would
assume that the Public Service Commission will have to be probably more
importantly, the Public Service Commission, rather than the IAC, because the IAC
I might have this wrong. I'm just sort of thinking out this in common sense
way. There's probably somebody smarter who knows the answer to this. The Public
Service Commission who are the ones that are going to advertise this, put it
online, make it accessible are obviously going to need to know, who are all
the different groups? I think that's all going to be put online, every one of
them: vacant, non-vacant, eligible, non-eligible. It has to be put online, as
well as the process for one to apply.
If I
have, for instance, the Law Foundation Commission, then it would be my and I'm
getting requests to make sure that's filled, then, yeah, I might have a
conversation with the PSC to say, look, this is the group here, make sure
they're online. There are vacancies coming up, make sure we get the ads out so
that people from all over can apply, put their resumes in, go through that
screening process, then put it in front of me so I can make that decision.
I might
be wrong, the PSC has to be that group. The IAC, I would assume, is only going
to respond to information that is forwarded to them by the PSC, because
everything the IAC sees has to be pre-screened by the PSC. Everything has to go
through that process. The PSC, which is also going to be responsible for the
advertising side or I guess the publication or notification of the information,
that's where that would be handled.
When it
comes to the statutory offices we are debating here now, I would assume the
House of Assembly would obviously make sure the PSC knows that, look, these are
the offices here. These are when the due dates are coming. So that we can have
I think, obviously, you need advance notice. If we know an individual or a spot
is going to be open in X-amount of time, then let's do the work beforehand if we
know an individual is moving on.
I will
just use the example that we know of right now. Mr. Powers has given notice that
he's going to retire. If we had known all this before just assume everything
was in place and that was in two months' time, then why would we wait until the
actual retirement date when you can do better succession planning and have that
put forward so we can try as best as possible to (a) avoid an interim
appointment, and (b) have a gap in the amount of time in which one of these
positions is vacant.
That's
my take. If I get any contradictory evidence to that, I'll certainly pass it on
during this committee.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Those
who are listening back in your office and looking up stuff, I know they'll get
the clarification. It seems to me, though, when it comes to appointment of these
six, it's actually the LGIC who does the appointment. They don't consult with
the House of Assembly Management Commission.
We take
care of financial stuff, but the appointments happen from council.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
My
question, what I'm trying to get at, with the commission in place who's going to
coordinate to make sure the appointments are happening, that there's a
notification? Because I'm assuming that somebody must coordinate now for the
Cabinet. Is it the Executive Council, do you know? That's what I'm trying to get
at. Who will do that coordination?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I believe that would be the
Clerk of the Executive Council who will take that role in ensuring all this is
put forward, and through the PSC and through all the process that's going to
unfold. That's my understanding, it is the Clerk.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
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 through 8
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 8
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 8 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 Law
Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House Of Assembly.
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 the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 27.
CHAIR:
It has been moved that the
Committee rise and report Bill 27.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again,
Madam Speaker returned to the Chair.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Madam Speaker, the Committee
of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me
to report Bill 27 without amendment.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 27 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Madam Speaker, I would call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
Good afternoon, Madam
Speaker.
It's
quite an honour to stand here today and speak on this budget. It's an honour
anytime we have to get up and speak on Members' statements or whatever we have
to do, but this is an honour for me today.
We all
came here as newly elected Members to government to make Newfoundland and
Labrador a better place. It's unfortunate our province is in such a mess. We
have to be strong leaders and head us out of this fiscal crisis which we are now
facing.
I came
from a rural district which serves over 10,000 constituents with many needs. As
you know, I have a strong background in municipal affairs. As you can tell, the
parts of this budget, municipal governments are going to benefit from this. I'm
hoping to meet with most of them in the coming weeks and be able to announce
what we have planned.
On
behalf of my colleagues in the government caucus, I am pleased to offer my
perspective and ultimately my support for this piece of legislation. It has now
been over three weeks since Minister Bennett presented the Budget Speech in the
hon. House. During that time the budget has been examined, picked apart by the
Opposition, in the media and by our own caucus Members alike. I won't deny there
is much in this budget that I don't like. I won't deny that my constituents are
flatly against the budget.
I've
attended many events in my district since April 14 and I have fielded dozens, if
not hundreds, of calls and emails from the people who reside in the Harbour Main
area. Again and again I hear from constituents how difficult the revenue
measures in the budget will be on them. Again and again I hear the hardships
that Budget 2016 will cause in
communities around our province. I'm standing here and speaking in favour of
this budget, but I am not deaf to the issues and problems that the budget will
cause around Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will
come back to the reason I'm supporting the budget in the face of widespread
outrage from my constituents, but first I have talk about the outrage itself.
Because people out there every day are exercising their democratic rights to
have their voices heard through protests and civil action. There are many people
marching on Confederation Building and rallying by the hundreds and thousands in
protest of the budget. There are dozens of calls on the
Open Line shows and the panels. There are frustrated interview
subjects on the news.
People
have taken to social media in great numbers to protest the 2016 budget. They
have made their voices heard in almost every possible way. There's a mood of
frustration in the province right now, Madam Speaker. While this budget has
broken into focus, I believe it's a mood that has been in the back of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians minds for years and years.
Everyone
has a reason to be frustrated, but we need to be truthful and factual of the
authors of this frustration. As tempting as it is to blame the people who wrote
up the documents that Minister Bennett presented on April 14, they are simply
the messengers, and so are we. We are messengers. The news in this, after 12
years of incompetence, arrogance, mismanagement from the Tories, we are broke.
We're worse than broke; we are faced with a debt crisis that far exceeds any
other jurisdiction in the country, including Quebec.
Madam
Speaker, it is not even breaking news; the PCs had full access to the province's
Treasury for 12 years. They had Newfoundland and Labrador's chequebook in their
own hands. They had our financial presents and future in their hands and what
they chose to do with it was take out an enormous mortgage to win points with
voters and vested interests.
They
took out this mortgage on our future with a care-free ease of spending someone
else's money. As long as resource revenues were pouring in, they could continue
pushing the debt crisis towards future governments, future generations to deal
with. The province's resource revenues allowed the PCs to continue riding the
fiction that under their stewardship Newfoundland and Labrador was now an
economic powerhouse.
Madam
Speaker, it's true we have more money flowing into our Treasury than ever before
in our history, but the only thing we were was a powerhouse that was ringing up
debt and causing instability, public spending that would prove to be vulnerable
to the slightest hiccup of the global commodity prices. It's been said by my
hon. colleagues but it bears repeating once again by me: The Tories squandered
what should have been a birth right for our province.
Madam
Speaker, they blew nearly $30 million and we have nothing to show for it but an
economic public debt, an unfavourable economic future and an unhappy population
who is sick of being let down by their elected leaders.
When I
say they're writing a fiction, a false narrative of prosperity, I really mean
it. It was such an effective fiction that we all bought at least part of it. We
believed we were hearing that Newfoundland and Labrador was finally a province
that we are now the masters of our own destiny and the days of hardship were
behind us, but the definition of fiction is a story that isn't true. What the
PCs were telling us and what we were mostly happy to believe was simply not
true. It could have been if they had spent those dozens of billions wisely.
Because they were reckless with revenues, their story was false. We began to see
just how untrue their story was when the bottom fell out of the oil market, very
rapidly the whole narrative collapsed as well.
I
mentioned that the mood of frustration has been lingering in people's minds for
years and years. I think that's true. Even during the heights of the boom there
were only certain areas of the province, economically, that benefited. People
who worked in the oil patch were doing all right. Madam Speaker, people who
worked in the construction sector were doing all right. People who sold houses
or trucks were doing fine. Of course, the PC appointees to the cushy positions
in government were doing all right.
The boom
made things harder for lots of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. The boom
drove up housing prices and rent. It drove up the cost of consumer goods. It
widened the divide between the have and the have-nots here at home. Remember,
even at the height of the boom, employment spiked in certain areas, namely the
Avalon Peninsula, but other parts of the province still suffered from some of
the highest employment rates in the country.
All of
this economic inequality persisted through the boom. The people it affected had
to endure hardships the whole time. Those people have been frustrated now for a
long time, and there are more of these people than the PCs would have us think.
Then the boom collapsed and even the people who benefited started to suffer.
Fort
McMurray started sending its unemployment back home to Newfoundland and
Labrador. People here in the province lost the oil patch or construction jobs.
The real estate market has tanked too. All of this adds up to a recipe for
serious popular outrage.
Madam
Speaker, do we feel good about having to implement such a tough budget?
Absolutely not, but we simply have no choice. We either act now and start to
correct Newfoundland and Labrador's finances, or we give up and give in and keep
our spending at a similar level. If we give in, then the economic prosperity
that we had a taste of will never be ours again. So that's why I'm supporting
this budget.
I hear
the frustration and outrage from my constituents and from Newfoundland and
Labradorians across the province. I share it, but my outrage is directed at the
crowd opposite who have placed us in this position. I'm supporting the budget
because I know it contains a credible and workable plan to correct the
province's course.
Nothing
in this budget is left to chance or wishful thinking. It's simply a reduction of
spending and a structural increase in revenue that will over time result in
a return to surplus, and not even over a long period of time. According to the
financial projections, if we follow the measures outlined in this budget, we
will certainly return to a surplus in seven years. That's with fairly
pessimistic resource price projections. If resource prices recover sooner, we
will return to surplus sooner. Surplus is the key to bettering our financial
position.
And now
the boom is on the horizon and we're sailing towards it. We may not reach it
this year, or next year, or even in five years' time, but we will reach it. And
if we have our financial house in order, next time we'll be ready for it and we
will not fail, as the PCs have done. That's why I'm supporting the budget
because this is a necessary step along the way to prosperity, because what we
were told was prosperity under the guiding hands of the Tories was actually a
detour into a debt crisis with no easy solution.
I will
conclude my remarks by citing a few of the positive aspects of the budget, apart
from the fact that it's the first step into fixing things. For one thing, the
budget invests over $75 million in new spending to protect the most vulnerable
in our province. There's a Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement that will
go towards easing the financial burden of the new revenue measures for the most
vulnerable in our society. There are enhancements for the existing seniors. So
for the most vulnerable in our province, the low-income individuals, families
and seniors, there is help and we're committing to taking care of them.
Another
thing to remember is that the newer levels of taxation that are implemented,
even with all the increases, our people will still be paying the same level of
taxes they did in 2006-2007.
Madam
Speaker, this $570 million in infrastructure spending we recognize that
infrastructure is an investment in our province will go to provide value for
our citizens for years to come.
Before I
close, Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the things I have been
asked. What are my issues on personal things. What are my issues on mental
illness, people in old age homes? I think our government has already proven that
we are trying to take care of them the best way we can. That's why a lot of the
supplements were done.
A little
while ago the Member for Paradise was interviewed by
The Telegram. He had said in this comment, we have never seen so
many emails as we've seen in the past weeks and months since this budget came
down. Well, I say to them, if I were on the spending spree and the shopping
spree that ye were on for the last number of years, I wouldn't receive an email
or anything towards it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
Because, as we all know, we
all have vacations, but when we come back from a vacation we have to put our
fiscal house in order. In order to have our house in order, we have to go on. I
know what that's like as a single woman today. I know what it's like to deal
with things like mental illness, autism and personal care homes, because I've
been through it all.
As far
as our health care system, when my daughter walked in a few weeks ago with my
grandson for an MRI and she's up waiting to get her instructions and he says,
mommy, do we have to pay? And the lady says no because she's always trying to
teach him about money, you can't be spending, we can't and the nurse says no,
you don't have to pay, it's free.
Walking
away myself, last week, after spending a day or two at St. Clare's and getting
the treatment that I got, I know what it was like to be able to walk away and
not have to worry where my money was going to come to pay for those bills.
I think
as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today, I know there's a lot in this budget
that's harsh. I know there are a lot of other things, but I think when illness
strikes there's nothing can compare to that, nothing in this whole world. If we
can walk in and out of our health care systems and be treated as individuals
24-7 and not have to worry, like a few years ago when I had an accident in
Florida and I won't repeat the words my husband said to me what we were after
the accident. I couldn't go to a hospital and have my MRI done because I wasn't
sure what the insurance would cost, but here in Newfoundland and Labrador we
have a first-class medical system. I know we have to wait, but in life everyone
has to wait.
I will
conclude by saying thank you for the opportunity that I had today to speak and
let's move forward with this budget.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
It is my
honour to stand here in this hon. House today and speak in favour of the main
motion on the budget.
Madam
Speaker, I first of all want to say that I'm very proud of the team we have on
this side of the House. I'm very proud of the depth and the strength they bring
to this hon. House and their work ethic and their intellect, their integrity
that they bring to this House of Assembly.
When I
look around at my colleagues here gathered, I see the former Chair of the
Canadian Medical Association. I'm a former Chair of the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce. I know the Premier is the former head of the Canadian Pharmaceutical
Association. We have business leaders, we have teachers, we have lawyers. We
have so many professions and people who have contributed to the communities,
mayors and councillors.
There
are so many people gathered in this hon. House. I think it's been difficult over
the last number of months to listen to some people who have been taking personal
exception to the people on this side of the House because of some of the
difficult decisions we were forced to make.
I also
want to say thank you to the people who support government, the people who
what I mean by that is I meant the I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. The
people who support the work that government does. I'm talking here about the
bureaucracy. We have a tremendous number of people within the organization,
within government who have spent countless hours.
Madam
Speaker, I know you've been witness to some of those countless hours of people
who have had to stay working late, away from their families, because they too
are very interested in ensuring that we have the best budget to address the
concerns we have financially for this province.
Madam
Speaker, you've heard repeatedly from all sides of the House how difficult this
budget is. There is no doubt, it's challenging. It's frustrating, quite frankly,
Madam Speaker, that we, as a province, find ourselves in this situation.
We had
peak oil price back in 2007, we had peak oil production. We've taken in
approximately $25 billion in new money new money, Madam Speaker. Not what we
normally would get in the day-to-day activities of government. We're talking
about new revenues to this province. Over the last decade with peak oil and peak
oil production, we've taken in the most we've ever taken in in the last decade.
Yet,
during that time of what I'm going to call prosperity because when you take in
that much new money, all my colleagues would agree, everyone in this House would
agree, that's a prosperous time. You know, in the last six of the 12 years of
the previous government we ran deficits, Madam Speaker. Very, very difficult.
We
placed last in economic growth over the last seven years last in economic
growth over the last seven years, Madam Speaker. According to Don Mills, CEO of
Corporate Research, He left the province with a structural budget problem that
is going to be difficult to fix. There's no doubt about that.
Madam
Speaker, if we did nothing you heard it time and time again. If we did
nothing, our deficit this year would have been $2.7 billion. We were able to get
it down to $1.8 billion. Now, that is still a tremendous sum of money.
Just so
that we can get our minds around how big is a billion, if we look back a million
seconds ago, that would have been 12 days ago. If we look back a billion seconds
ago, that would have been 31 years ago. A million minutes would have been a
year, 329 days, 10 hours and 40 minutes ago. A billion minutes would have been
the time of Christ.
Just to
give you the difference between a billion and a million, because of course we
talk about these large numbers. We throw around billions and millions as if they
mean something, but you really can't grasp how big a billion really, really is.
Now we have an $8.48 billion budget.
Now,
Madam Speaker, to talk a little bit about our debt. It took us 66 years in this
province to amass $11 billion in debt. That's all the hospitals, all the roads,
all the schools that we developed in this province over the last 66 years came
to be our bill came to $11 billion.
Now,
Madam Speaker, if we do nothing in the next five years, if we did nothing under
this budget, if we kept on going the path that the former government set us on,
in the next five years we would have doubled our debt. Now think about that. It
took us 66 years to accumulate $11 billion in debt, but if we had followed the
path that we were on under the former administration, in the next five years, we
would have doubled the debt. Madam Speaker, that's very, very difficult. We
would not have been able to sustain the services in this province.
If you
took a look since 2004, if you take into account our Crown corporations, the
former government actually doubled our public sector debt to a record of $15
billion. Madam Speaker, that's a heck of a lot of money. That's a heck of a lot
of money.
I read
with interest the article that was in The
Telegram most recently written by Des Whelan, the president of the Board of
Trade. He talked about how the health care budget has increased 142 per cent. It
has gone from $1.2 billion to $2.9 billion. That's quite an increase; 142 per
cent over the last 12 years.
The
Fraser Institute put Newfoundland and Labrador last in Canada when it comes to
value for money. So we're doing something, Madam Speaker, that is increasing our
costs but not getting the level of services that we require. The Education
budget has increased I see the Minister of Education here since 2000, 71 per
cent. Yet, we have had a 36 per cent decrease in enrolment over the same period
of time.
The
Conference Board of Canada in 2014 ranked Newfoundland and Labrador a D overall.
Madam Speaker, change is required to this province, definitely. Over the last
decade government spending has been as high as 36 per cent per capita higher
than other provinces. It's astounding, Madam Speaker.
Now, in
preparing to discuss the budget, I went back and I said well, the Auditor
General must have had something to say about this over the years. Surely the
Auditor General must have pointed out to the Members opposite, the former
government, that while the times are prosperous and while we have some windfalls
with regard to the oil and gas and while we had peak oil and while we had peak
production, times were good, but surely the Auditor General would have pointed
out that there are concerns.
Madam
Speaker, I went back to 2006. I looked up what the Auditor General said. In 2006
I am quoting now from the Auditor General report.
we must not lose sight of
the Province's enormous debt, related debt expenses and the fact that oil is a
non-renewable resource with a limited life. We have the highest net debt per
capita of any province in Canada, our debt expenses totalling $947 million. Debt
expenses from 2006 are close on $1 billion the highest interest costs as a
percentage of total revenue of any province in Canada.
In 2006
the Auditor General said that. Well, did the Auditor General say anything else?
So I skipped ahead three years. We are at peak oil production, money was rolling
in, maybe they're addressing the problems so I went to 2009 and I read and I'm
quoting now from the Auditor General's report from 2009: 'Although recent
surpluses may be perceived as being an abundance of money available for
Government programs, Government will continue to be challenged to meet the
expenditure needs of the Province, as well as the need to address its
significant debt.' In particular it was noted that for each dollar of revenue in
2008, approximately 57.0 cents was allocated as follows: 10.5 cents to pay the
interest on our debt (also known as the 'interest bite'); 16.6 cents spent on
education, and 29.9 cents spent for health and community services.
So in
2009, we're reminded again by the Auditor General that things aren't so rosy. I
skipped ahead to 2012; I'm quoting from the Auditor General's report: Since
2003, the Province's expenses have grown from $4.7 billion to $7.8 billion in
2012, an increase of $3.1 billion, or 66%. Per capita expenses in Newfoundland
and Labrador are the highest in Canada. Furthermore, per capita expenses are
approximately 50% higher than the average of all other provinces.
Our
colleagues opposite like to talk about well, they weren't here then; some of
them weren't here then. Well, I'm going to go to 2014 and 2015. The Auditor
General's report: The 2014 provincial budget presented a three year outlook
which forecasted a deficit in 2014-15, followed by small surpluses in 2015-16
and 2016-17. Well, we know that that didn't happen.
I'm
going to go on to quote: The inherent volatility in commodity prices is
highlighted by the current downturn in oil prices. While there is no certainty
that oil prices will remain low, it does point to the risk to provincial revenue
and the overall impact
.
Again,
in 2015 he goes on to say the Auditor General again, Madam Speaker,
shows a
deficit for the year of $986 million, the largest in the Province's history
.
Madam
Speaker, year after year and I could have quoted the whole 15 years of reports
the Auditor General raised the alarm, said to the former government, said to
the people of the province: We're in trouble here. You better start addressing
the serious situation of increasing cost, decreasing ability to pay for the
cost, and, Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in this year we find ourselves in
a very difficult situation. We find ourselves in an intolerable situation
because, of course, when you look at your own household finances, we know that
if we've over-borrowed and we can't pay our debts, what happens.
Madam
Speaker, we've had to make some very, very difficult decisions. One of those
difficult decisions was the temporary levy. I want to speak to the temporary
Deficit Reduction Levy. No one likes it when taxes rise. Of course no one does,
no one in this province an unenviable position that we are in, but I want to
remind the people of this province that the levy is temporary. We have drawn it
out and drawn attention to it so we would be held accountable to making sure
that it is temporary.
Now,
Madam Speaker, when I look at a comparison, and I read to you the Auditor
General's report from 2006, I showed you what the Auditor General was saying. In
2006 I want to do a comparison of the income taxes then and the income taxes
that we've had to put in place, including the levy. I want to just do a
comparison.
In 2006,
before the former government decided to decrease levels of taxation, the
personal income tax rate was 10.57 per cent for income up to $29,590. Madam
Speaker, today, with this government, the income tax on up to $35,000 would 8.7
per cent. If we look at income between $29,000 and $59,000, in 2006 it was 16.16
per cent. If you look at it today for incomes between $35,000 up to $70,000,
it's 14.5.
So what
I'm illustrating, what I'm saying, what I'm telling the people of the province,
the people who are listening to us, is while it's difficult, it's not
impossible. We've been here before. This is a circumstance where we have to as
my mother used to say cut the cloth to suit the garment. We've got to start
reining in our expenditures, making sure that we are spending on what's
essential, what's important, what is required by the people of this province,
and we have to make sure that we have the revenues to fund that.
I think
the people of the province understand when I say that while we are experiencing
a difficult situation today, if we continue on a secure path forward we can get
things under control, we can improve the fiscal situation, we can enjoy the
incredible opportunities that this province has.
Madam
Speaker, just this week I had the opportunity to meet with a number of
ambassadors from the European Union. They were visiting. It was an incredible
opportunity to meet with 24 ambassadors from all over Europe that came to St.
John's to hear about the opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the
opportunity, Madam Speaker, to talk to them about the incredible things that are
happening in the mining industry.
So, as I
said in this House on April 28, when I gave a Ministerial Statement where I
talked about some of the things that are happening, Canadian Fluorspar, the
expansion of IOC into Wabush 3, some of the things that are happening with the
underground mine in Vale. I was explaining to them some of the incredible
opportunities. Madam Speaker, in this budget we did allocate money to continue
to do the geological survey of the province, and some of the opportunities that
there are in gold and other types of mining around the province. They were very
interested and enthusiastic, actually, in the opportunities that abound.
Then I
had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with them going over the prospectivity
of our offshore oil and gas. They were amazed to learn that we have 350 leads in
our offshore; that we have developments in the Jeanne D'Arc basin; that we have
opportunity in the Flemish Pass basin; that we had interest of about $1.2
billion last year in terms of work commitments in offshore oil and gas for
offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
They
looked around our province and they saw the wealth and opportunity that's here.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you I am enthusiastic. I am not just enthusiastic, I
am hopeful, I think we are blessed to live in this province.
I know,
Madam Speaker, you have to look towards the Member opposite who's making some
interesting remarks across the way.
Madam
Speaker, we should be hopeful in this province. When I look around the globe,
and I've been fortunate to travel a little bit and have the opportunity to visit
other countries. It is amazing the opportunities that lie in our province. The
wealth and abundance of natural resources, the ingenuity of our people. We are
known globally for a lot of innovation around cold water, harsh environments,
around ocean technologies. It is astounding some of the work that is being done
here.
Madam
Speaker, there is a lot of opportunity and future prosperity and wealth in this
province. We just need to harness that energy. I'm not just talking now about
offshore oil and gas. I'm talking about the energy of the people. We could do so
much in this province.
We're
talking about the budget. I know in the Department of Natural Resources, for
example, Madam Speaker, we've made some investments this year to ensure the
mining industry. We have added to the Mineral Incentive Program with an
additional $100,000 for the Junior Exploration Assistance program for the next
three years. We want to make sure and encourage the continued development and
growth in the mining sector.
I
announced today in my Ministerial Statement how we're doing a prospectors
course. I also want to point out, Madam Speaker, in this budget we've allocated
money for a province-wide geological survey. We've been doing this for many
years. We are going to continue to do this because that's what brings
opportunity to this province.
We also
invested in orphaned and abandoned mines. Last year there was precious little,
but we think it's very important in this province to make sure we have a safety
program for the environmental protection and for public health and safety. We've
allocated $300,000 this year in a $2.4 million program over multiple years to
make sure that we have orphaned and abandoned mines are well secure.
Madam
Speaker, what I'm saying, that I want to point out, is how much we've invested
in this province and how much we're going to continue to invest in this province
to harness the activity, to harness the potential to ensure the ingenuity of our
people.
This
budget may be difficult for people, but it's not impossible. This budget may
cause people to pause and say, oh, I don't want to go back to a 2006 or a 2007
tax level. But we know we can get through this, Madam Speaker, and we'll be that
much better off.
I also
want to point out some of the other oh, I see my time is running out. I'll
have to take a future opportunity to talk more about the opportunities in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member her time for speaking has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I'm
proud to stand to talk to the main motion of the budget; proud of the thought
and the effort that's gone in on behalf of caucus and Cabinet to craft what has
been a difficult budget. There's no doubt about it.
To start
to deal with some of the comments from the opposite side, there is a vision in
this budget, contrary to what some would say. The problem has been there are
none as blind as those who will not see. There is also a plan to achieve that
vision, despite the comments to the contrary. That vision is quite clearly one
of fiscal sustainability. The plan is a seven-year plan to get from the mess to
there.
We had
as my colleague pointed out a few moments ago a period of peak oil production
and a period of peak oil price, 2006-2007. Both have passed and will not come
this way again. You only have to look to the situation in the Middle East to
realize that our contribution to the global oil market is not going to make a
significant difference in prices. We are subject to the whims of what is
essentially a volatile market. We need, as a province and as a government, to
move away from reliance on volatility and volatile commodities.
We also
have to reverse a culture of spending, which has seized the previous
administration, and avoid the sprees like we saw in the period of 2006 to 2015,
when like a bunch of drunken sailors on Water Street at night, they managed to
get through $25 billion in 10 years.
Budget
'16 sets out the road to a balanced budget in seven years. It restores
confidence with prudent management and sensible spending. The credibility of
that plan has been acknowledged by independent voices, contrary, again, to what
the Opposition parties would have us believe. The Member for Stephenville Port
au Port made great play of that in his eloquent speech on the subject.
The
independent voices are those of the bond-rating agencies and the syndicates that
lend money to provinces. Had the province not acted in a decisive and clear way,
the penalties would have been swift and severe. You've seen the consequences for
dilatory action in places like Alberta. We have need of a certain sum of money
and we need to pay as little as possible for it. By providing a clear plan and a
way forward, we have achieved both of those, the ability to borrow what we need
and at rates which are competitive and affordable.
Having
said that, we still in the abysmal situation, left from the previous government,
where we actually have to spend $983 million in this coming year just simply to
service the debt, to pay the interest on the mortgage that they took out on
behalf of every man, woman and child in this province.
The
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune said, well, why don't we go and borrow
like the feds? I would point out that some simple arithmetic would point out
that the $30 billion debt she proposes for Canada would be spread over a
population of 35 million people. We currently have a debt somewhere in the order
of 80 times that magnitude already, and she's proposing to suggest we borrow
more.
The
Third Party had a suggestion that we should increase borrowing by 100 per cent
over what we have suggested. These are totally unrealistic and unsustainable
ideas. So we have to find what we can afford, what we need and what we can get
in terms of value for money.
We go
back to the debt; $983 million in debt costs this year, whereas we can only
afford $890 million on children's education. The level of taxation has been a
stick they've tried to beat us with, but essentially it goes back to those
levels before the spending spree began in earnest.
In
actual fact, given the magnitude of our debt, it's not unreasonable. What is
unreasoned and unreasonable has been the cherry-picking we've seen in the
debates and in Question Period when the media are here to highlight the weakness
of their previous planning and try and cast the blame for the financial mess on
to this side of the House when we are actually doing a really creditable job of
dealing with it.
The tax
package has been dissected. It has been taken apart and they have tried to
portray each of these components as evils when, in actual fact, the sum of these
components is greater together than the component parts. Taken together, it's a
comprehensive package. Not like the utopia party over there would have us do,
which is to borrow another 100 per cent on what we have already, with no plan as
to how to spend it reasonably and no conceivable way of ever paying it back.
It's a
comprehensive policy based on taxation levels that are realistic, given our
level of revenue. The temporary levy, which they love to decry, is part of a
package; it goes straight on the deficit reduction. That's what it's there for.
It goes straight to that and not into the pot of general revenue. It's pitched
specifically contrary to the information opposite to exclude the lowest 38
per cent of incomes in this province. Of those people who do pay, 43 per cent of
them would be paying less than $1 a day.
In 2018,
it will go down. It's in there. It's in the plan. It will be gone by the end of
this seven-year plan, at which point we will be in balance and fiscally
sustainable, because we're not going to make the same mistakes they made,
spending money we haven't got and can't afford to borrow.
Contrary, again, to what the Members opposite would have you believe, that is
clear. It is open. It is in the budget document. It's there in Estimates. Again,
none so blind as those who will not see.
We have
taken, in addition, specific measures to deal with the challenges that
vulnerable groups are presented with in life. We have new supplements for
seniors and for low income. It depends on taxable income, not gross, as the folk
on the other side of the House would try and make out. The supplements are
phased out at income levels which start to reflect the cost of living, again,
taxable income.
The
problem has been, there has been so much obfuscation and disinformation
propagated by the Members opposite, who throw out incomes and dire predictions.
These measures are robust and the fog they create over there is deliberate and
based on laziness when it suits their political short-term goals.
The
Minister of Finance has responded to their half-truths with facts. Yet, they
choose to be hard of hearing when it comes to those facts. They talk of $3,000
extra in taxes. They pull these figures out of the air. Well, $3,000 extra in
taxes, Madam Speaker, equates to purchasing $150,000 of HST liable purchases in
a year. Alternatively, it's 24,000 litres of gasoline or three million litres of
aviation fuel. I'm not sure that a typical expenditure of anybody in this
province.
The
measures are crucial in terms of taxation, but equally crucial are expenditure
measures. Long term, the very nature of expenditure measures is that they are
slower.
The
Members opposite, particularly the Third Party, went to town on the subject of
rationale. Well, rationale, as I said the other day, is the exposition of
reason. It's a very topical word from them, but the rationale here the
exposure to reason is the fact that our books have not balanced and could not
balance with the policy of the previous government. They do and they will with
this. My grandson is not going to be saddled with $53,000 on his head, along
with every other man, woman and child in this province because they could only
think about spending and borrowing. It won't happen.
Spending
wisely is often spending less. So, as a government, we were put in power to make
some decisions. We have a responsibility to decide what is it we need, what is
it we want and what is it we can afford. Those three pockets meet together in a
venn diagram, and in the middle is determined what we as a government can do as
policy. We're not here to talk about frills. One could argue on a philosophical
basis whether that's the role of government too.
Progressive program spending has not really been addressed or critically
reviewed in any serious way over the last few years. We've heard from the
Minister of Education and the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, and
every department about the challenges they were left with.
Over the
last decade programs have been added willy-nilly, without any thought and with
absolutely no evaluation built in. My own department consumes currently 38 per
cent of the provincial budget; 38 cents of every dollar, Madam Speaker. It is
simply not sustainable, yet the interesting thing is when I went out to visit
the regional health authorities at the beginning of this year, sat down and
talked to them about what their challenges were with a group of trustees in
every board who were time expired and were serving until replacements could be
produced through the appointment system we agreed on yesterday, these members of
the board could not recall ever having seen a Minister of Health. They have been
in post between three and six years. They could never recall being asked or
invited by a Minister of Health, as board of trustees, to meet with the Minister
of Health, none of them.
So doing
business the same way simply because we've always done it doesn't make sense.
Indeed a famous scientist once said doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result is a form of insanity.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Looney.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yes, thank you.
My
argument is within my own department, and I hear it around discussions I have
with colleagues, is why on earth do you keep doing things, not only when there
is no supporting evidence, but there's actually evidence to the contrary that
these things are potentially ineffective. It's become a part of the previous
government's culture that you simply do not do anything critically; you simply
get in there, spend first and think later. My own department had an advertising
campaign which cost $200,000 and was predicated on dancing mammals actually
attracting people to use a health line. As the people concerned said, Minister,
that really wasn't our demographic, I think, was the kindest way of putting it.
We had
the wonderful example of a come-home campaign to repatriate Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, vast amounts of money put into it and then someone thought that
perhaps airing it in Newfoundland and Labrador wasn't going be terribly
productive and the whole thing was canned. Money spent, money wasted, no gain.
Spend first, think later.
The
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune loved to castigate me over changes to the
provincial low-risk breast cancer screening program. My response to her and my
response to them is still, why when the previous minsters of health, some of
which sit on the opposite side the previous ministers of health had access to
the same information I had for five years. For five years, Madam Deputy Speaker,
they choose to continue to fund something for which there was no evidence.
We have
to examine what we do through the lens of what is needed versus what we want,
what we can afford and what we can't and where the evidence lies. So folk over
there would have you believe that this is not a budget with any investment. That
is simply not the case. We have an investment for seniors and aging in this
province. We have a sensible plan to look at long-term care as part of an
organized, programmatic approach based on placements, not knee-jerk, let's build
some beds.
We had a
plan that was derived when I was in another capacity
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker is having trouble hearing the Member.
Thank
you.
MR. HAGGIE:
through Central Health, for
example, which had an integrated, long-term care strategy for aging in place,
rehabilitation and all the services were needed. Yet because it didn't fit with
the ideology opposite, no one did anything with it. They went out to some
buddies and said let's have a tender to put some long-term care beds here and
here. It was flawed from the get-go. One of our first decisions as government
was to take that off the table and try to find the money to make sure that we
did it properly this time, instead of as a knee-jerk.
We have
a need for community programs to support those things so that people can age in
place and we can reduce the demand for the high-level, specialized long-term
care that is the goal or had been the goal of the previous government, and the
only answer. We put money in the budget for new drugs, but I challenge the
Members opposite that money has been going in for years what's ever come off
the formulary? Nothing, it just got bigger and bigger, and no one has done any
due diligence about what is it we need, what is it we want, and why we are
spending our money on stuff that is outmoded and no longer best practice.
In
health, we know that more care is not better care, it is simply more care, and
it's more expensive and nobody gains. We have to engage with the patients of
this province, the people of this province and with the care providers to work
through practice issues. What is appropriate care? What is appropriate use of
diagnostics? Those are areas, for example, in which there is a vast literature
already there where we could save 25 to 35 per cent in diagnostic imaging and
laboratory services alone, Madam Speaker just those two areas. That may not
result into any immediate savings, particularly with diagnostic imaging, but it
would abolish the wait-list in any substantial way. Yet again, none of that has
been addressed.
So in
terms of investment, there were comments again made on the other side about a
lack. But again, there are none as blind as those who will not see; $574 million
of money into infrastructure, we're leveraging from the federal government. This
will generate 1,000 jobs a year over the next four years. Could we have done
more? I doubt it. The important thing is that we have not done less. We have
penny-pinched and saved where we could, and we have put money into things that
will generate revenue and work for this province in difficult times.
So
again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just reiterate the fact that this is a difficult
budget, but contrary to what the Members opposite would say, there is both a
vision of where we need to go and a plan to get there. The facts of the case are
that cherry-picking on the other side does not make that any different.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, from my point of view, I ask for the support of the House
in this budget, which I think is a very creditable performance, given the
abysmal mess we were left to face.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
Well, there you go. Thank you
very much, Madam Speaker.
I'd like
to take the moments I have available to me to introduce to the House a very
important budget item that was in Budget
2016, which is the $8.5 million that was allocated for the completion not
the continuation, but the completion of the Western Memorial Regional Hospital
planning study.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
Madam Speaker, it cannot be
left unsaid that there are concerns on the West Coast of exactly what is the
status of this particular project. In fact when the people consider that over
$50 million will be spent by the end of this fiscal year on planning or site
preparation for a hospital design which is not even ready to tender as of yet,
it is only fair and reasonable that there would be questions.
Well,
Madam Speaker, those questions are shared by everyone on this side because, of
course, as we went into this, in the lead up to the election campaign, there was
no signs that there was any troubles or issues; in fact, the former government
simply said that the construction of the Western Memorial Hospital was on track
and on time and on budget. It was probably the 25th or 26th time that they had
said that, but nonetheless there was a commitment that was given that all was
well.
Madam
Speaker, when we formed the government on December 14 and were able to look at
some of the documentation, some of the issues, some of the evidence surrounding
exactly the status of this hospital and the $42 million that had been spent at
that point in time, we knew all was definitely not well. In fact, Madam Speaker,
we discovered very quickly that there was no capacity for the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to proceed with a tender, to proceed with a build
opportunity to get the project, to get steel in the ground as a former member
from my district once said, in a timely fashion.
By the
time this is all said and done, $50 million will be spent; $25 million
approximately on site infrastructure, which many affectionately call one of the
largest dog parks in Western Newfoundland because there is no particular
function for it at this point in time, and $25 million on studies. How did we
get to this point?
Well,
Madam Speaker, I'll attempt to walk you through some of that particular
narrative, some of those facts and some of those inalienable truths. On October
of 2007 the Williams government announced that Corner Brook would benefit from
the construction of a full service replacement hospital for Western Memorial.
Now, in October of 2007, the reason why that decision was taken presumably was
because the current hospital was in a state of disrepair; that was nine years
ago. With no hospital available to replace it, it is in a greater state of
disrepair. The need could never be better or greater.
An
interesting element of that particular budget decision in October 2007 was that
government announced a total budget envelope of $142 million to achieve the
project, to achieve the goal. Now, Madam Speaker, anyone would know that at $142
million this was woefully inadequate and underestimated the actual cost of the
project.
It is an
important and relevant point, because from that moment onward the PC government
was engaged in an exercise to try to put the toothpaste back into the tube. They
knew that at $142 million, the project could not be completed as budgeted. They
had to in their own words rightsize it. We know what that means.
Two
years later, in January 2008, there was some progress when AMEC consultants were
contracted for site evaluation at a contract cost of $120,000. By April 30,
2009, Hatch Mott MacDonald and Agnew Peckham consultants were contracted to
product a master plan, a functional plan, which would be followed by a
predesigned series of studies for the future of the hospital. The contract price
of that contract: $1.6 million.
There
was a hospital master plan that was delivered by those consultants in late 2009.
There was a functional plan that was delivered in 2010. Then there was an
estimated project completion cost, which was kept relatively secret, tagged at
$800 million not $142 million, $800 million.
In
September 2010, the government, however, asserts that construction will indeed
begin in 2012 and will be completed in 2016. Now when you're $668 million short
in a budget which represents five times more expense, you can understand why
there might be some concerns; however, those concerns were never adequately
voiced to the public, or for that matter to themselves.
With
that as a backdrop, concern mounted and in November 2011 a second set of
engineers was then hired. Stantec Consulting engineers were brought in to do due
diligence work on the Hatch Mott MacDonald's $1.6 million worth of work. This
contract cost $177,000 extra. Stantec offered up a series of redesigned
considerations and suggestions.
In
August 2012, Stantec was called in again to redesign and redeliver a brand new
master plan. Contract cost for that particular initiative, an additional
$205,000. However, government put this aside as simply saying we are confirming
the hospital, we are just simply rightsizing it.
In March
of 2013, Stantec delivers a new master plan for the Corner Brook hospital that
includes 160 acute care beds which is down from the 199 which are currently in
the building 100 long-term beds, plus 48 hostel beds. Anticipated construction
cost by this engineering firm comes in, not an exact figure but a range. They
suggest it will cost $588 million, give or take 30 per cent either way.
So in
other words, either $411.6 million or $764.4 million. In reply to this figure
the Premier announces $227 million is in Budget 2013 to build a hospital, which
is already known internally by the government to have a construction cost of
$411 million or $764 million, or somewhere in between. Stantec is then
contracted to deliver a second functional plan for the hospital. The contract
price for this: an additional $1 million.
By
September of 2013, government decides to proceed with a specific development
program called the design-build approach. Transportation and Works is directed
to develop two separate packages for construction. Package one being a long-term
care facility, and package two an acute care facility. A wise path to take,
given the fact that alleviation of the long-term care concerns and needs would
go a long way in being able to deliver a functional and highly efficient and
effective acute care hospital.
Package
one is to consist of 120 long-term care beds in a design-build approach, which
specifically, Madam Speaker, would include facilities for a food service
kitchen, with capability to provide food services for both the long-term care
and the acute care hospital. It would include restorative care units, a
rehabilitative care unit and a palliative care unit, which obviously have a
direct connection and synergy with a long-term care facility.
Now bear
in mind, Madam Speaker, a restorative care unit, a rehabilitative care unit, and
a palliative care unit both very important and essential, publicly available,
publicly-funded health care units and facilities would be part of the long-term
care facility in the PC's September 2013 plan. Then an acute care hospital would
take up phase 2 with a 48 bed hospital attached.
December
28, 2013 I understand to be the date Transportation and Works issues a
request for qualifications and a request for proposals on a design build based
on the above, with those specific publicly-funded, publicly-available and public
administered health care facilities of palliative, restorative care included.
Madam
Speaker, we're already getting into a time when there is an expectation growing
within the people of the West Coast and all those who would use the hospital,
that a PET scanner, which is the emerging technology for diagnostics and
selected radiation and cancer care treatments, should indeed be included in the
facility. The PET scanner and radiation therapy debate goes to a head from July
of 2013. It escalates right to the point of the issuing of the RFP in December
and continues on until April of 2014.
Madam
Speaker, may I simply point out as a matter of record, that the hon. Member for
Humber Bay of Islands was a key proponent of these facilities and really
brought this debate to its head. He was the one who really took charge and
identified not only the need but the technical feasibility to this initiative
and this endeavour.
In
August of 2013, however, the Health Minister of the day did not agree. Instead,
suggesting that radiation therapy as proposed, that would be offered in Corner
Brook, would result in patient harm. Radiation therapy would result in patient
harm.
The
Official Opposition, however, providing evidence led by the hon. Member for
Humber Valley at the time, and the hon. Member for Bay of Islands at the time,
put forward the notion this was misguided in its rhetoric and that such
facilities are becoming standard model for inclusion in smaller, progressive
secondary health care institutions, and models were given. It resulted in the
government reversing itself and announcing the inclusion of select radiation
therapy, and the Health care minister was shuffled.
Government, however, after having announced this, proceed with hiring an Alberta
consultant to investigate the feasibility of the decision they had already
taken. So the government announced a $500,000 contract to an Alberta company to
investigate whether or not indeed radiation therapy was feasible, after
announcing that it would continue to occur.
Now,
progress was being made in July of 2014, Madam Speaker, with the Corner Brook
Care Team. The CBCT joint venture was awarded with both the design-build
development packages, with an initial consulting cost of $12 million. CBCT is a
joint venture between B+H Architects, Montgomery Sisam Architects, PCL
Contractors and Marco Construction, Madam Speaker, for the record.
In July
of 2014 to April 2015, CBCT focuses on the design-build package for, number one,
the long-term care facility, with an understanding that the long-term care would
be first out of the gate. Again, this includes a food service kitchen large
enough for both the long-term care and the acute care facility. It also was to
include restorative care, rehabilitative care and palliative care in the
long-term care facility.
Madam
Speaker, this is where it really, really gets interesting, because again the PC
government then reverses itself in April of 2015 for yet another time. It
reverses itself and decides to proceed with an RFP on a design-build-operate for
the long-term care package only. Now, this has a significance and relevance
because of course what is in the privately design, build and operated facility,
what is designed to be in that institution, but rehab, restorative and
palliative care.
So with
that said, the Corner Brook Care Team is ordered to stop planning the design
build of the long-term care component of their contract and change orders, I
understand, are issued to direct the Corner Brook Care Team to redirect and
concentrate on the acute care package exclusively and to reincorporate
previously removed project components of food services, rehab, restorative and
palliative care.
Now,
Madam Speaker, this is all occurring at point when Intermediate crude was still
trading at $110 a barrel. Following the review of the functional plan by Western
Memorial's department heads, other changes were also then incorporated,
including location of the intensive care and the footprint of the diagnostic
imaging centre.
This new
direction means that, Madam Speaker, additional redesign work would be required
to reincorporate these services, those important publicly available health care
services, back into the acute care plan. These change orders result in
additional redesign and additional consulting costs, but the end result is that
the government goes away from offering additional funds and simply scales back
the product that the Corner Brook Care Team was to provide and it goes from
being a detailed design package to a schematic design only.
Now,
this is an important point, Madam Speaker, because when they do that by going to
a schematic design only, that's where the capacity to be able to go to tender is
functionally stopped. That occurred prior to March 2015. Yet, in the
Budget 2015, the PC government puts
out the following message to the media and to the public and registered on the
public website of the Department of Health: Question in its FAQ section: Will
the continuation of the Corner Brook hospital be impacted by declining oil
revenues? Answer: The decline in oil revenues will not impact on the
continuation of this project. Government has committed to constructing a new
hospital in Corner Brook and we will deliver on that promise.
There is
just one problem, Madam Speaker, what they did not inform any of us, anyone in
the public, was that all future funding for the Corner Brook hospital was
removed from the multi-year fiscal forecast in
Budget 2015.
The PC
government continues to insist that the hospital is proceeding. In the course of
the election of 2015, the PCs promised the hospital is still proceeding. It is
still going to be built, they stated during the election campaign. It wasn't
until quite after the election campaign in January 2016 in an interview with, I
believe, The Western Star at the time,
the now Opposition Leader, former premier, criticizes the Liberal government for
consideration of proceeding with Western Memorial at a time when oil revenues
are so low.
Madam
Speaker, this is where we are today. We have a design schematic only. We do not
have something which can go to tender. The entire fiscal framework, the entire
funding for the project was removed from the budget in 2015, without any
announcement or public acknowledgement. We went into the summer and fall and
into the general election with the former government stating as if it were a
statement of fact this project is proceeding regardless. Never saying, never
telling, never informing that they had removed from the fiscal framework all
funds related to this project.
Then we
have them going into the election campaign saying it's business as usual. Then
in January 2016, there was a revelation that the current administration should
never ever consider doing this project because oil revenues are so low.
Well,
Madam Speaker, we can inform this House as we did the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador and in particular to the users of this facility that need it so
badly it was needed in 2007 when the decision was taken to replace it. It had
issues back then. It is now nine years later. It has even greater issues today.
We allocated $8.5 million to be able to complete this project. Yes, that is a
lot of money. It is not a simple continuation of the same old, same old. It is
not a continuation of planning; it is a completion of the plan.
Madam
Speaker, that story had to be told on the floor of this House, and I appreciate
it very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day, with the consent of the opposite House Leaders, I would
suggest we recess for supper.
MADAM SPEAKER:
This House now stands in
recess until 7 p.m.
May 17,
2016 HOUSE
OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 29A
The
House resumed at 7 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motion, Report of the Social
Services Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
speak for a couple of minutes to Concurrence on the Social Services Committee. I
got a little enthusiastic earlier this week when I tabled the motion and I
proceeded into the details at that time. I'll take a little more time right now
to explain the process maybe to some of the people who are listening.
I was
responsible to Chair the Social Services Committee. There are three. There's the
Resource Committee, Social Services Committee what's the other one? I'm just
forgetting. I'm looking for someone to help me out here. Resource Committee,
Social Services Committee and there's one more, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Government Services.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Government Services. Thank
you, I say to my hon. colleague.
On the
Social Services Committee, I will read the Members. They certainly all played a
valuable role. It's a very time-consuming process but a very necessary,
important process. On the Social Services Committee was the hon. the Member for
Topsail Paradise, the Member for Burin Grand Bank, the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands, the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for Fortune Bay
Cape La Hune, the Member for St. George's Humber and the Member for St. John's
Centre.
Mr.
Speaker, the Social Services Committee is responsible to oversee the budget
Estimates process for eight departments. Those eight departments are: the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development, Fire and Emergency Services, the Department of
Health and Community Services; the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the
Department of Municipal Affairs, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation, the Labour Relations Agency and the Department of Seniors, Wellness
and Social Development.
Each
year after the budget is brought down, no matter who the government of the day
is, we go through a process for the next number of weeks in the Chamber called
the Estimates process. That's where the minister comes into the Chamber with his
senior team of officials and the Opposition and the Third Party get to go
through the budget process line by line and ask questions.
Often,
there might be discrepancies or differences maybe from a 2015 budget to a 2016
budget. In a certain department, you might see a difference of $700,000 or
$800,000 or $2 million. Because we are all here representing the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, just a voice for them, and because the finances that
go through this House of Assembly are taxpayers' money, it is very, very
important that we be transparent and very important that we be accountable. So
that's the democracy that we live in. They ask questions and the minister
answers as best he can.
Normally
there are three hours allotted for the Estimates process, but it can be longer.
I mentioned earlier the night that we sat for Justice and Public Safety I think
we maybe went close to five hours
AN HON. MEMBER:
Four hours.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Four hours, was it? The
minister was very gracious in answering the questions that were asked of him.
In
addition, Mr. Speaker, to the Members that sit in the Chamber, that make up the
Social Services Committee, I must mention the Broadcast Centre downstairs. We
don't see them, but every single day they are doing very valuable work. They are
recording the things that we do in Hansard. Everything that comes out of our
mouth is recorded forever in this place, which sometimes can be a scary thought.
They do a great job down there, so I want to thank them as well.
My first
time I had been a critic the last couple of budgets, Advanced Education and
Skills and some other areas, but it was my first time chairing. We try to be as
fair and non-partisan as we can and ensure that everybody gets their questions
asked. I want to thank my fellow Committee Members. They did a great job showing
up and if they couldn't, they took responsibility for ensuring that they had a
substitute in their place.
Mr.
Speaker, the Estimates of 2016 was all about the budget that was brought down on
the 14th of April, a budget with a revenue of $8.48 billion. We've been hearing
a lot about the very difficult budget that was brought down and there's no
doubt, but I think sometimes we lose sight of the fact that significant funds
are still going into investing in providing services in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I was certainly pleased to see a healthy portion of that coming to
continue to build vital infrastructure in the part of the province that I call
home, continuing on with the Trans-Labrador Highway, some repaving or levelling
of Route 510 and a number of other things.
That's
all I'm going to say, Mr. Speaker, in Concurrence about the Estimates process.
It's a very important process. A friend of mine, a former MHA from this House,
Sammy Slade for Carbonear Harbour Grace before the electoral boundary reform,
always used to refer to this place as the people's House. Absolutely, it is the
people's House and we need to remind ourselves of that on a daily basis. Indeed,
the work that we do here is the people's work.
It was a
privilege for me to Chair the Social Services Committee and work through the
Estimates process with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to stand in my
place any time as well and represent the people of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
I look forward to continuing to work hard on their behalf.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's,
indeed, a pleasure to get up here tonight and talk a little bit about the social
services sector. The part that I'm going to speak a little bit about tonight is
Municipal Affairs, where I'm the critic for Municipal Affairs.
First,
before I start off my speech tonight I'd like to congratulate Shayne and Amy
Meade, the newest married couple in Newfoundland and Labrador. I performed the
ceremony at 6:30 p.m. on Middle Cove beach where they just got married. I'd like
to congratulate them tonight.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's going to be a surprise
for a lot of the members of the family, so I hope there are not a lot of them
that are watching this tonight. I may ruin their surprise. I hope there are not
a lot watching. I think I'm okay. I really do think I'm okay.
Mr.
Speaker, that's a young couple that's starting off in life. I wish them all the
best. Newfoundland is a great place to live and grow. They're in the best spot
in the world as far as I'm concerned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
When I look at the budget
this is, I don't know, how many times up now speaking on the budget. Our leader
asked me to be a critic for certain departments. Two departments that really
touched home with me was the fishery because I do have allegiance with the
fishery. I grew up in it and my family's involved in it. We're still involved in
it.
Municipal Affairs was important to me also because being a former mayor I can
remember the late Jack Byrne called me one day. The municipal election was
coming. Him and my father I wanted to run to be a councillor, the two of them
wanted me to run to be the mayor. I argued, and guess who won? The two of them
decided afterwards and I ran to be the mayor. That's how I became the mayor of
Flatrock was because of the late Jack Byrne, the Member that preceded me before
I came here. He was a great Member and a great man in the district. He was a
good friend, too. He got me into municipal politics.
The one
thing I'll say to every municipal leader out there, everyone that's involved in
council and I know there are lots of Members here, there are former mayors
here in the House of Assembly with us now and people who ran. It's unbelievable
the satisfaction you get from doing things right in your own community. It's
hard; it's not easy. It's a hard thing to do.
Municipal leaders, the decisions they make are so close to home because the
decisions they make are involved with their neighbours. To be a volunteer and
have to make a decision whether they're going to be able to let them build a
shed or build a house or put a road in, and you're dealing with your neighbour.
It's hard because that's your neighbour and sometimes you'll disagree.
I'll
always remember the first decision I made. It was a friend of mine and we argued
whether a road had to be paved in a subdivision or not. Anyway, I won. It got
paved, but it was difficult. We really got to applaud our municipalities in this
province because for the most part they're volunteers. They put so much time and
effort into it.
If you
look at small communities, like I do in my area, you'll see the people on the
council are also involved in everything else, from minor hockey to Girl Guides
to everything else that's in that small community because they're the true
leaders of the whole community. I really applaud the municipal leaders who are
in.
I'm very
happy I said it in Estimates, and the Member for Lab West said to me after how
good it was for Municipal Affairs. There are a lot of good things that happened
within Municipal Affairs. I'm very pleased to see they have the 90-10, that
didn't get cut, and the 70-30 and the 80-20, because it's important to the small
towns.
Again,
going back to my days as mayor of Flatrock, we were looking to get a fire truck.
At that time there were seven applications in. I said this before, but back then
it was 50-50 funding. None of the small municipalities could afford it. To go
out and tell a municipality, listen, $125,000 of our budget is going to go
towards paying for 50 per cent of a fire truck. They couldn't afford to do it.
This
change we did over the last couple of years, it's great. It's fantastic what we
did for the small towns. Then the mid-size towns, if you look at towns that were
over 3,000, they are on the 80-20 split, which again is very and it makes
sense, they got more revenue coming in and 70-30 for the larger towns. So it
was a great thing and I'm glad that you kept that ratio there.
Also,
last year another thing we put in was the sustainability plan for municipalities
to give them some extra money. It was an extra $22 million, and that stayed the
same the year. Our operating grants, I understand they stayed basically the
same, too, for the towns. So it's huge. That's great, because you know what? I
said it here so many times I said it here.
When you
download things to municipalities or you download from us down to them, at the
end of the day there's only one person that's going to pay. We only got one
taxpayer in our communities, and that's what we got in small communities. No
matter if they give it to the provincial government or to the municipal
government, there's still one person who got to pay those taxes. I was pretty
pleased with that, but I talked to the municipal leaders in my area and those
are the good things.
Before
the budget came down there was nothing good in the budget. The Minister of
Finance said there was absolutely nothing good in this budget. It was a bad
budget, and there was nothing good in the budget. Well, I just gave you three
things that were good in the budget, okay. So it wasn't all bad. That's a good
thing. I know you're agreeing with me.
In the
budget, you've got to understand with municipalities, they have small budgets
and they got to be balanced. At the end of the day, they can't run deficits,
they can't run surpluses. At the end of the day, they've got to be able to
balance the sheets. They got to know this is the number of dollars we're going
to spend and this is what we got coming in. So it's got to balance.
The
difficulty that municipalities and I asked a question on this the other day to
the minister. The difficulty they're concerned with and they're really concerned
with and if you look at the release at their symposium they had out in Gander
last weekend it was very clear how concerned they are, because the added taxes
and fuel costs, for example.
I know
the Member for Topsail said that CBS, I thought, told him that because of what's
happening in this budget it's $250,000, or was it $300,000?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Three hundred and fifty
thousand dollars.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's $350,000 extra that it's
going to cost that town. So you've got to understand where they're coming from.
While the 90-10, the 70-30 and those things are great, that town did their
budget last year. So they got their budget all ready for this year. Once the 16
cents comes in on a litre of gas, they've got to figure out, okay, what are we
going to do? What services are we going to cut in order to be able to pay for
our gas bill? Because they can't run a deficit. Insurance costs, where are they
going to get the money for insurance costs?
The
biggest thing, when they really got looking at things the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, again he got up and I asked him a question on the libraries.
He said he never spoke to MNL about the libraries. I'll tell you, maybe he
didn't but MNL are really concerned over that because that's the start. That's
where they see a start of this downloading that they're fearful of. They really
are. They're really scared, because what's going to happen is I'll give you an
example.
In my
district, the Town of Pouch Cove, they have a wonderful library down there. The
usage is over the top. The town itself in the last two years invested an extra
$8,000. They put in their budget, the last two years, $8,000 to run an
after-school program because there was that much interest there. The libraries
board gave them so many hours to operate their library and they did that from in
the morning. After school the library was closed, but there was an interest in
an after-school program.
Council
voted on it and they all voted to take money out of their budget to be able to
use this after-school program. This is what they do for their there's no rent
going into the library. The library is in the building, so they don't have to
pay anything for the building. The light bill in the library is paid by the town
and the town pays for the cleaning of the place and everything else. There is no
snow clearing. The town takes care of all the snow clearing. So the librarian is
basically the cost of what it is for the library.
Now
we're going to tell that town that's after doing its part, as far as I'm
concerned, really after doing its part, that now they have to come up if they
want to keep the library in their town, if you want a library in that town, then
they have to come up with the money to pay for the librarian. I believe they are
really doing their part.
I think
we really have to look and see how important libraries are to small communities
like Pouch Cove. There are a lot of people who go to the library that use it for
the Internet. They go and they do some research. There are a lot of children who
use it. They go there and they study in the evenings.
There's
some tutoring that's getting done. There are some kids helping other kids.
Libraries are great resources in our community. There's a program there in the
morning for the tots, reading to children. Those are services that we
especially in communities like Pouch Cove and all over the province where they
don't have the big centres like we do here in St. John's and areas like that.
It's an important part.
I know
every one of you guys and ladies over there on the other side, small libraries
that are getting cut in your areas are important to those communities. There's
none of you who can get up and say, no, we didn't want that library, or there's
no municipal leader who'll come in and say, listen, that library means nothing
to us, we don't want it. We don't want that library, take it back. They're
important because they're an important part of the community.
I don't
believe we should be downloading to the volunteers in municipalities who are
working hard. Most of them that are in municipal buildings, the town does their
part, like I just named, the heat bill and different things like that. We can't
be downloading this stuff to municipalities. If you read their release, they're
wondering what's going to happen in October. If this is the start is this what
you're starting to doing to us?
There
are good things in the budget, like I said earlier. I named off three to start
off three good things in the budget. But there are a lot of things in this
budget that's going to affect municipalities right across the province. It's
going to make it harder for them to give the services that the people in their
towns deserve: the snow clearing, the garbage collection and all the street
lighting. They do a lot of small things in the area.
Even
when you look at 50-plus clubs and I read a thing last night about 50-plus
clubs and how concerned they are about the budgets. Our town councils are key to
keeping our communities together.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Go ahead. Say what you have
to say there.
AN HON. MEMBER:
We call them (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. I don't understand what
he's saying anyway. It doesn't make any difference. It didn't make any sense
anyway.
I'm
trying to talk about small towns like you have on the Northern Peninsula, how
important their town councils are and why we should be supporting their town
councils. That's what I'm talking about.
I'm
talking about how many libraries you are losing in your district. It's zero.
You're happy; you have a smile on your face. Talk to the fellow from Catalina
that's losing his, talk to people that are losing their libraries. You're happy
that you got zero. Talk about all of them because we're not happy about losing
libraries. Communities are not happy. Town councils are not happy.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm here tonight talking about municipalities in this province. I'm
talking about how important they are to the people of the province, how
important they are to the constituents, what they do for small towns, what they
do for large towns. They're volunteers. They're people that come out and give
freely of their time. In some cases, they do over and above everything.
They'll
be out doing maintenance. Go to a Santa Claus parade in a small community and
see, probably, who the Santa Claus is. It's probably the mayor. It could be the
deputy mayor. But you can mark it down that they're there and they're involved.
Go see who is running the Girl Guides; go see who's running minor hockey.
They're volunteers. They're the heart and soul of Newfoundland and Labrador, and
we have lots of them out there. We have to support them.
While
this budget did a few good things, they're scared and they're nervous and
they're afraid of what's going to happen in future budgets coming down the road
in the fall. What else is going to be cut? What else is going to be downloaded?
You may think the libraries are a small, little thing, but they're afraid that
it's just the start the added cost of gas.
They're
human, too, because I guarantee you they're the ones that are emailing you.
They're the ones that every time you go to one of your functions that are
talking to you and saying what effect this budget is having on their towns, what
effect it's having on their neighbours, what effect it's having on the seniors,
what effect it's having on people who are on fixed income in these small
communities.
That's
who is talking to you; I know they're talking to you because they tell me.
They're talking about effects that this budget is having on normal
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, on hard-working Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, our seniors. This is the effect it's going to have. As you
download services and make the towns' costs go up, they're the ones going to be
paying the taxes there too and they're afraid of that.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to just touch base today I heard lots of speakers here today
and it was interesting to listen to them all. The Minister of Health said we
spent like drunken sailors. Well, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health to go
to the Town of Gander and ask them about all of the investments that were done
in there in the last 10 or 12 years and if they considered the fire departments,
water treatment and everything else that was in the Town of Gander spending like
drunken sailors, because that's not what happened.
Let me
tell you, when you look at this budget today, you guys are going to spend more
money than we spent last year. You're spending more money. You talk out of both
sides of your face because one time you got up and you talked about how we're
spending like drunken sailors, yet your investments in towns, roads and
everything else, the same as we did we invested in communities. We invested in
communities in the roads, infrastructure in the communities. We invested in
building town halls, more fire trucks than you could ever imagine in this
province
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, but do you know what?
That's a good thing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Part of
the reason we ask those who are identified to speak to address their comments to
the Speaker is so not to engage other Members directly in debate. I'll ask the
Member to address the Speaker with the comments and not directly engage other
Members in debate, and I'll ask Members opposite to respect the Member that's
been identified to speak.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
address you now because I don't want to get that crowd going again.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, we've done a lot over the last I'm going to talk about small
communities right around this province. We've invested like I said to you
earlier about the fire truck for the Town of Flatrock where it was 50-50 and now
it's 90-10. Now there are about 30 applications in for fire trucks. That's
because of smart investments we made in small communities right across this
province.
The
Department of Municipal Affairs, there are some great people in that department,
running that department. They do great work; they're on the ground listen, we
still have a lot of issues in this province. We've got a lot of issues when it
comes to water, we've got a lot of issues when it comes to waste water, and it's
going to take investments. There's no doubt about it. I hope that you do invest
in Municipal Affairs and I hope you do invest in the towns in our province. It's
important that we do. Like I said, the people that are running our communities,
our mayors and councillors, are the heart and soul of all our communities and we
deserve to be able to be there to support them.
Mr.
Speaker, the biggest thing that people in this province want is to be able to
have some hope. Today I listened to a lot of speakers get up there were four
of them got up in a row and I don't think either one of them had anything they
could say to somebody, hope that there's a positive everything was just so
negative, and it was doom, gloom, doom, gloom.
The
reason why that is and we asked the questions here today in the House of
Assembly. They don't have a plan. They've got no plan. The only plan they've got
is to tax, tax, tax, tax and cut, cut, cut. Today I think there were probably
about five questions asked to the Premier of this province. What is the plan you
have for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador? Each time he got up he blamed
us. It is our fault that he doesn't have a plan. We hear it day after day, they
get up, you don't understand. Well, the people of the province do understand.
They do understand. If you talk to them, they'll tell you. I understand they've
got no plan.
One of
the Members said today I'm not sure which one something about lazy. I heard
a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, describe this budget as a lazy budget a very
lazy budget. They went and they took every line and said, okay, we're cutting
there, we're cutting there, we're cutting there. That's all they did. We're
taxing here, we're taxing there, we're taxing there. Where was the plan? What
are we going to do in the future? Where's their plan? They have no plan. And
that's the whole problem; they never had a plan coming in.
They
were about a week before election day before they hauled their book out and
tried to say that we have a plan now. I think it was a week before the election.
The day before the advance poll they came out with a plan, and then we heard
what the comments were on that. There were really scary comments on that. People
looked at it and thought it was a joke. I guess now it's no joke because we saw
the results.
I've got
one minute left and I really want to just say that this budget really does
affect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I listened to everyone over
there today. I listened to the Member for Harbour Main, and I really felt
heartfelt for her because she knows. She has listened to it in her district.
She's hearing it every day. It's hard to go back to your districts and do what
you have to do. It's hard to be able to talk to people and take what it is, but
let me tell you, those people do understand.
What's
happening in this budget is an attack on people who are hard-working
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and there's no need of it. There's no need to
do what you're doing. There are better ways to do what you're doing. If you had
a plan in the first place, it would be a better way to do it, but what's
happening here is low-income, middle-income and hard-working seniors and people
who are on fixed income are paying the price of what you're doing over there
today.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte Green Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
always, it's a pleasure to rise in this hon. House and have an opportunity to
speak to Concurrence. I, too, like my hon. colleague, would like to speak to
municipalities in my district and speak a little bit about what I've been
hearing throughout this budget process, this budget debate as well.
Before I
do it, I want to say how much of an honour it is for me to again rise and
represent the good folks of Baie Verte Green Bay. It's a fabulous district. In
my first address to the budget, I was reminded by my colleague opposite about
the he has respect for MHAs who operate in larger districts. My district is
one of those districts, Mr. Speaker.
We were
formerly the district known as Baie Verte Springdale. We're very happy to have
the fine people of Green Bay South join us in the new District of Baie Verte
Green Bay. Mr. Speaker, 42 districts representing a wide range, and certainly
hard-working and industrial people. I'll get to that in my notes, but I want to
say it's been a pleasure in the first five or six months here in the House of
Assembly to represent these fine people.
Before I
forget it, Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose I had the opportunity of
recognizing nurses' week and I got a good pat on the back for doing that. So
today I want to recognize National Police Week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I look around
this House of Assembly and I see my good friend up in the Chamber, and I see my
good friend the Sergeant-at-Arms, and I see my good friend the former premier of
the province, who were police officers like myself in the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary. I just want to take the opportunity to wish all my friends on both
sides of the police forces that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker, both of them with the prefix royal. I think my hon. colleague mentioned
that in one of his speaks.
I think
there are only four or five police forces in the world with the prefix royal and
we have two of them here in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I'm pretty proud of
that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
There are seven of them.
MR. WARR:
What's that, seven? Seven.
Thank you.
So I'm
pretty proud of that, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to talk about the first time I had an opportunity to address the House, Mr.
Speaker, I talked about two things that my grandfather used to say, and that was
never put off for tomorrow what you can get done today, and look after the
pennies and the dollars will look after themselves. I want to add one more to
that tonight, Mr. Speaker, and that's waste not, want not.
Mr.
Speaker, I've never been in the blame game. I say things for what I mean. If I
come across as blaming people or a group of people, that's not my style. I'm not
in the blame game. I think we own this. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we
own this collectively. We have an issue, let's fix it.
Budgets,
Mr. Speaker, are about choices. We have one of two choices, as far as I see it.
We either choose to remain status quo or we choose to do the job we were elected
to do, and that's to operate this fine province that we all live in.
The hon.
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, in one of her talks, asked about what
values did we base our budget on. I think that was a question the hon. Member
asked. Well, I'm going to take the opportunity to answer that, Mr. Speaker. We
based our budget on honesty, responsibility, accountability, good sound
management and concern for the well-being of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
I just want to go back to
another comment that was thrown from across the House, Mr. Speaker. I can't
remember, and it doesn't really make a difference about who said the comment,
but the comment was with regard to the budget. I took great exception with the
Members opposite who made a comment that we made mean-spirited decisions when we
chose to release this budget. I don't think they're mean-spirited decisions
whatsoever. I think they're good, sound decisions. There's nobody has any more
empathy for the people who will find themselves with difficult times.
We all
see this budget as a difficult budget, but I was given the opportunity
contrary to what was written on my Facebook last week, I ran on my ability to
manage. That's what I ran on. I ran on my history, and I ran on the fact that
I've lived all my life with budgets.
Like the
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned today about the team we have
here. She talked about boards and commissions, and people on this side and on
the other side as well. We've got a great group of people in this House of
Assembly.
I, too,
Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to lead. I sat as chairman of the board of
directors of the Canadian Regional Hardware Association. I sat as chairman of
the board of the Castle Building Centres, which was a national board. I sat as
chairman of the board of Atlantic Building Supply Dealers Association. So, Mr.
Speaker, budgets are not new to me.
I spent
the last 28 years operating a family business. Budgets are not new to me. We've
had some pretty trying times over the years as well, but do you know what. The
hard work and the dedication to steering the ship in the right direction, the
dedication that we had paid off certainly in the end.
I want
to talk about my hon. colleague, the Member who just spoke from Cape St. Francis
talked about the fact that they spent a fair amount of provincial investment
in all of our communities, and yes they have. They did, Mr. Speaker. That same
Member made a comment I think it was the Member made a comment that what we
were doing as a collective body here with this particular budget that we had
brought down, his comment was too much, too fast. I say to my hon. Member, with
respect, that works both ways because we spent too much too fast as well. I just
wanted to make that comment and I make it with the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker.
The
other thing that was said was we've never seen anything like this before the
hon. Member said. That's because we've never been in this financial mess, not to
this extent, Mr. Speaker. We've got to work our way out of it. I would suggest
that we're on the right track.
Mr.
Speaker, while I'm missing my good friend from Labrador this evening
AN HON. MEMBER:
Torngat.
MR. WARR:
the hon. Member for Torngat
Mountains, I want to talk a little bit to the Member for St. John's Centre who
made a comment today with regard to Kevin Major, a well-known writer. He talked
about the fact that he's ashamed in this province, Mr. Speaker. I take great
exception
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. WARR:
Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER:
He was ashamed of
(inaudible).
MR. WARR:
He was ashamed of being a
Newfoundlander. What was the comment?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. WARR:
Never mind, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, there was a comment and ashamed was in the comment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WARR:
I took great exception to it
anyway, when you talk about this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I had the opportunity, when I was home a couple of weeks ago, to see a
CBC newscast called Because News with
Gavin Crawford. You would all know Gavin Crawford. The headline says: It's
brutal news: Rick Mercer on Newfoundland library cuts.
Mr.
Speaker, back on December 6, 2001, there was an amendment made to the
Constitution of Canada. That amendment included our good friends in Labrador. I
took great exception to what was written here.
Mr.
Speaker, Labrador gave a part of my family in Happy Valley-Goose Bay an
opportunity many, many years ago. Those people are still there today and
certainly been very, very successful business operators in Labrador. Labrador
gave my daughter, when she graduated from Memorial University, in Natuashish her
first job. I take great exception with Rick Mercer, who we all have the utmost
respect for. I mean Rick Mercer is a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
Mr.
Speaker, when I look at this, When news broke that over half of Newfoundland's
libraries
no panellist was more upset than Newfoundland's favorite son
Continuing Newfoundland's war ... This is killing me as a Newfoundlander ... If
you want to destroy rural Newfoundland
. And the list goes on. Estimates are
the average Newfoundland family ... News is making an effort to keep
Newfoundland reading ... We want you to take a work of fiction and add some
Newfoundland to it.
What
happened to Labrador, Mr. Speaker? What happened to Labrador in this news
article? I'm appalled that Rick Mercer, given the type of person Rick Mercer is
I know deep down Rick Mercer is a true Newfoundland and Labradorian but he
didn't prove it in this document, Mr. Speaker, and I take great exception that
he never included our Labrador friends when he addresses us as a province.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to before I do that, I want to turn to, because I was
surprised that this article didn't come up in this House of Assembly. It was
written by Paul Lambe. Paul Lambe is from here in St. John's. The article was
saying: To those thinking of leaving N.L. I just wanted to highlight some
remarks in his letter.
His
first was, I encourage young people to take a break and wait for things to turn
around
It will not be long and things will get better, unlike what these
bleakers' (those with only bleak outcomes) say. They find it too easy to
complain.
The
situation is as it is because of a collective will and responsibility. Whether
it's you or some of your family or friends, or others you know, you have to take
responsibility for all the past, the politicians that were elected, the policies
in place, the waste that occurred. If you did not stop it, you were a part of
it.
I go
back to my comments in the beginning, Mr. Speaker. That was a wonderful letter
that I thought Paul addressed the province in the media. I thought it was well
written and some really good commentary.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I'm referenced because I pride myself here in this House of
Assembly of paying attention to what's being said. My hon. colleague across
talked tonight about being positive and I certainly agree with the Member, Mr.
Speaker. I want to talk about some of the positive things that are happening in
the good District of Baie Verte Springdale.
First of
all, we had a company in Springdale Springdale Forest Resources; a great
company under great management. Actually, they picked up the contracts for
cutting the lines across Newfoundland, the Island portion of our province, for
Nalcor and put a lot of people to work in my part of the district.
I want
to say, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last week to talk a gentleman in
Triton. I won't get into names, but I will tell you that the good news is the
marine centre, which was one of the most premiere marine centres in Newfoundland
and Labrador building fishing vessels, has recently reopened in Triton. It's
doing all kinds of refit work on vessels.
He just
hired six new journeymen welders and just received his first contract, a 55-foot
fishing vessel from Boston, Massachusetts. We want to talk about good news,
let's talk about the fine country of the USA bringing their work to my district,
Mr. Speaker, for quality work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, as we're talking into boat building, I want to talk about three
manufacturing facilities that we have in the district: Green Bay Fibre in King's
Point, coastal marine in King's Point and Atkinson & Yates in Springdale. I've
had an opportunity to talk to three of those owners and I'm happy to stand here
and report today that they have a full contingent of workers in their shops.
You're on a waiting list to get a boat built in these three manufacturing
facilities right now. The business has never been any better. This is good news.
I want
to talk about Modular Homes in La Scie. It's probably one of the few modular
home-building businesses on the Island, Mr. Speaker. Things continue to go well
for them as well.
I want
to talk about Duralite drills in Triton. Mr. Speaker, a manufacturer of drills
I'm just lost on the wording. Anyway, this company now is talking about shipping
their drills as far away as South America. So there are good things happening in
this province and there are good things happening in my neck of the woods.
My
colleague, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, today talked about the
good things in the mining sector that's happening on the Baie Verte Peninsula
with Rambler and Anaconda. I just want to remind everybody that the mining
conference will be held in Baie Verte on the 3rd and 4th of June this year.
I want
to talk about another comment that came across from the Member, and I agree with
him. The comment was we're just a small player in the fishery, so said the
Member. I say that's so unfortunate when we have the best product in the world
off the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's so unfortunate.
Mr.
Speaker, again, this is a tough budget, but I want to take the opportunity all
of our districts have been affected. I know the good Minister of Municipal
Affairs is going to open the purse strings, hopefully sometime soon. I want to
talk about things that are needed in my district. We have roadwork in Seal Cove
and Wild Cove. We need roadwork in Coachman's Cove. I want to talk about the La
Scie highway.
The
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune mentioned in her speech that she has $200
million worth of product coming up over her highway. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, I
have $500 million coming up over the La Scie road. Even though there was 10
kilometres done on that road last year, there are lots to be done.
We're
talking about the brush cutting and roadwork in Westport. We're talking about
the roadwork in Middle Arm, Burlington and Smith's Harbour. We're talking about
the roadwork in King's Point and the community of Rattling Brook. We're talking
about the roadwork to Little Bay and Beachside. We have issues with the water
supply in Woodstock. The list goes on. Not to mention the health services in La
Scie and Triton.
I can't
leave without talking about the resettlement of Little Bay Islands. The people
of Little Bay Islands have been waiting for an answer. I assured them last week
that the minister is working on the resettlement policy.
Last but
not least, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about pavement. I want to talk about the
unpaved roads because I have three of them: Purbeck's Cove, Nippers Harbour and
Snooks Arm road. We're talking about replacing pavement. These people have never
seen pavement.
I see my
time is up. I'll take the opportunity to thank you for your time. I look forward
to the opportunity to rise again.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
and speak on resources. The
Labour Relations Agency falls under my critic roles, and I thank the Minister of
Environment and Conservation and his staff it was short, but I appreciated
their input.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to start off, I made a conscious effort, I said I'd like to try
to speak to the facts about my district, how it affects my district when talking
about the budget. Sometimes we get lost when talking about the big picture. I've
got to commend the Member for Baie Verte Green Bay. He spoke very passionately
about his district for most of his speech. I've got a lot of respect for that.
As my
colleague for Cape St. Francis gets up, I admire any Member in the House who
gets up and speaks with passion on their district. I think there's a lot to be
said for that. Those are the people who put them there, and it's refreshing
sometimes to see they get up and they go back to their roots and the reason
we're all here. I just wanted to commend them for doing that. I think it's very
enjoyable to listen to. I've got to say, I sit down and enjoy any Member that
gets up and speaks to the facts like that. As a matter of fact, that's something
that I'm going to try to do, stick to the script here tonight, Mr. Speaker.
My
district, CBS, as a lot of people may know, may not know, it's probably the
second-largest municipality in the province. We're not sure on the numbers; I
guess we'll find out with the census this year. It's quite a beautiful district
that's been rapidly growing, expanding. As a matter of fact, I guess our growth
outdid our infrastructure, is what happened, really, because the town just
exploded and we never had the infrastructure to deal with the demands. A lot of
young families, a lot of home-builds we're averaging 200-250 a year for a
number of years, which was rapid now. I know Paradise, my neighbouring my
colleague for Topsail Paradise's district, that's taken off too.
When I
hear Members opposite sometimes reference the spending, waste of money, and I
suppose we've wasted a lot of money. I do take some exception to that, because
my district in particular, it's almost 27,000 people, and I tell you there are
not many of them people in that district would say any of the investments that
were made by this government in that district were a waste of money.
We have
a new arena. We have an outdoor soccer, AstroTurf field. We have a new Manuels
River beautiful facility, it's used by everybody, university programs there.
It's a first-class operation right on the Manuels River. It's world renowned,
the Manuels River. And there are many other infrastructure recently myself and
the Minister of Municipal Affairs were up to the opening of the new fire hall
and town.
This is
a fast-growing town and all these things were needed. I don't think for a second
any of those investments and there are others would I constitute a waste of
money. You have a district that's servicing possibly in the vicinity of, I don't
know, maybe it's a service centre for, I'd say off the cuff, maybe
50,000-plus, 60,000 people which brings me to a point.
During
the government's budget consultations, there was one I attended at the Manuels
River Centre. It was hosted by the Minister of Education. There was a good
turnout. Every table in that room talked about the need for regionalization.
There's no better example when you look at the metro area, moving outside the
city, of an area that can foster in the regionalization. You look at the
surrounding communities which brings me to another point, actually.
I
listened to the Member for Harbour Main, this evening, speak on the budget. I
want to commend her. She did a great job. It's never easy getting up in the
House, as I'm learning. I keep saying if I keep practising, I'll eventually make
it perfect. The more I stand up, I get more comfortable.
I want
to commend her, and this is not meant to be a slight because myself and the
Member for Harbour Main do get along great. I have a lot of respect for her.
I'll say it because I've lived in CBS all my life; she has quite a beautiful
district. I was kind of wishing that she would talk more about her district. I
kept saying you should talk about your district.
She has
one of the most beautiful districts in the province arguably, a lot of activity.
It's a rapidly growing town. The Marine Institute has a first-class facility up
there. We have the Historic Sites in Cupids; you have the squid-jigging grounds.
It's just quite a beautiful town.
I just
wanted to put that in because it's a neighbouring district of mine. As a matter
of fact, there was a time, up until 2007, that my district used to take in
Holyrood up to the North Arm Bridge. I have a lot of family, actually, in the
Member's district so I know that area quite well. Actually, I have a lot of
family in her district.
I just
wanted to highlight that. I do have a lot of respect for the Member and she did
a great job, but I just wanted to point out about her district because I think
she does have quite a beautiful district.
Mr.
Speaker, as my colleague for Cape St. Francis pointed out, this budget the
Minister of Finance stated there was nothing good in the budget and that was her
prerogative. I do agree that there were a lot of good programs, existing
programs that are still in the budget that were brought in by this former
government. He's highlighted some and I highlighted some investments, but some
of the hard-core areas like the Town of CBS, the town themselves are looking
at an increase in cost when you look at insurance, gas for their vehicles and
whatnot. They're looking at a $350,000 increase.
In the
recent municipal budget in CBS there was a lot of controversy because they
actually increased property taxes. They stopped the seniors' discount, and there
were other unpopular decisions, fees and stuff like that. There was a lot of
public outcry in my district over it. Their words were they cut a fine line to
get their budget balanced. Now they're faced with this extra burden of $350,000.
That's an approximate figure, Mr. Speaker, it may go higher. When you look at
the budget implications, that's not a big town.
We know
the City of St. John's obviously is facing a bigger burden, and we know what
just happened in recent months out in the city with their budget. You have a
problem. There's a download on municipalities, as my colleague stated. Those
towns and cities already have their budgets done. Under legislation, they have
to be balanced budgets. Now they're faced with this extra burden. So where does
that go? Unfortunately, it's going to go on the taxpayer. It's going to go on
the people, the residents of the province who are every day I mean every day
and every hour of the day crying out. Because of this existing budget, they
don't know how they're going to do it.
It's a
two-pronged approach, because the provincial budget is coming at them with all
the tax increases, the levies and you name it. Then, indirectly, it's coming at
the municipalities. Now they have to kind of tighten their belts on the town. So
you're getting it coming from your provincial and your municipal level. That's
pretty tough on a lot of families.
As I
speak of the budget like I say, this is coming from a resident in my district.
I've had this in front of me now for a couple of weeks actually. It was on April
18 I got the email. It was a paragraph she wrote that really hit, when I read
it, I circled it. I have a lot of emails that I can I have more than that,
that's just a few I printed off. There was one there that I was
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
There was one comment, and
I'll just take a paragraph. It hit home, and I'm sure Members opposite probably
can appreciate it.
She
says: I'm a mom, a wife, a manger of a retail chain. My husband works slightly
above minimum wage, full-time job. I'm a breadwinner and trust me, when I say
bread it's not plentiful. This budget scares me. We live penny to penny. I
already removed $70 extra tax from each pay so that I have that lump at the end
of the year to put towards unexpected bills we accumulate through the year. I
have lived here for eight years and I've never been able to afford to leave this
Island. Why is this allowed? Why must we pay a membership to live here? Are
welfare receivers looked up legitimately? Are people who avoid taxes being
addressed? Are cash jobs being ditched? Unemployment ?
Do you
see the frustration of this lady? It's a lash out at people who are struggling.
It just shows the anger; a budget that's almost pitting one group against
another. She's just screaming out.
When you
read in the context, this is a real person. There's no one in this House can
deny this person is struggling and they don't know how they're going to make it.
So with the download on municipalities, as I said, and the provincial budget,
it's going to be very tough for those people to survive.
To my
district again, as I say, I have 13 personal care homes in the boundaries of my
district. They provide a great service. As we know, long-term care beds we
have a shortage. Those personal care homes have been around a long time. I've
been in every one of them. I know a lot of the owners, actually. They work very
hard and provide a great home for those individuals. They're some of the more
unfortunate people. They're given a good life but they struggle. I know
personally, and some of them are very sad stories, but they are quite happy. The
surroundings those home owners have provided them is quite pleasant actually.
In
saying that, Mr. Speaker, I have gotten calls from numerous owners in my
district and their concerns are very well founded. As a result of the budget
cuts on over-the-counter drugs we have residents who are getting $150 a month.
They have to pay if they need winter boots, a winter coat and other things.
That's their coffee money if they go to the store, whatever. That's their pocket
money for a month. You take that in 30 days; it's not a lot of money, $5 a day.
If they
need Aspirin or if they need apparently alcohol swabs won't be covered because
there's a better way of doing it. I'm not opposed to that. I'm waiting on some
information from the parliamentary secretary to Health. I'm having trouble with
some of the names of the districts, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Virginia Waters
Pleasantville.
MR. PETTEN:
Virginia Waters
Pleasantville. Thank you very much.
Those
personal care homes are calling and saying, these people with $150 a month, we
don't know where they're coming up with money to pay for those needs they have.
Whether that be Tylenol, an Aspirin, like I said, a cotton swab. I don' know,
maybe vitamins. People take these medications for whatever purposes. It could
be, I don't know. I'm not a person who takes vitamins but for those residents,
it becomes part of their life.
If you
go in those homes, they know their medications better than anyone working there
or anyone. They look for certain things. They need them, they want them. Whether
they need them or not, they believe they need them. It's part of their life. So
now you're going to say if you need this, you're only going to have this much
money a month, which is pretty well nothing. That's the stuff that really hits
the core.
I'd like
to also tie that together with seniors. I speak with seniors a lot because I do
have a lot of seniors in my district. When you go and knock on doors during an
election you realize just how many retirees and seniors are in your district.
One
thing stuck out to me during my time knocking on doors, Mr. Speaker. I saw a lot
of struggling seniors. I've had the fortune of being able to assist a lot of
them and help them with different programs and avail of different things. It has
worked out good, even with the municipal government. I found that really
enjoyable. I enjoy helping. I enjoy doing what I can because it's not a matter
of me being special it's just directing them in the right way. They don't know
where to find the services in government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They
don't know where to find the proper services within government. So you just lead
them to the right program and they've been very appreciative.
Those
same seniors have made references to me in the last number of weeks. With this
added burden, they don't how they're going to make it. I know first-hand because
I dealt with a lot of them on different applications, different things. I wonder
how they're going to make it, too, Mr. Speaker.
Seniors
in my district I have a lot of seniors. I don't know if there's a Member in
this House who don't have a lot of seniors in their district. This is not party
stripe stuff; this is the bread and butter. This is the main again, I always
come up and I don't play on words when I say this. I try to be as genuine and
sincere as possible. I try to speak from the heart. We get back in our tangents
back and forth but ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I was elected by the people in my
District of CBS. I told them I'd represent them. I told them I'd be their voice
and that's what I try to do every day in this House.
The
Minister of Health said today the definition of insanity. I use it a lot in my
terminology sometimes, too. Sometimes I wonder, you're getting up here and you
do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. I feel like
that some days here because you keep trying to put personal stories we can
talk about pie in the sky stuff and the stuff that doesn't really matter to
people
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker reminds all hon. Members I that I realize you have very, very pressing
conversations but if you could have them outside, if you must.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I try to
put it as personal as possible because hon. Members opposite have the same
people in their districts we all do. We all have the same concerns whether
they are more or not. Be sincere, listen to what people have to tell you, try to
advocate on their behalf.
Mr.
Speaker, most Members in this House, every day outside of whatever we do in this
House I think, ultimately, our role is trying to help the people in your
district, trying to help people in the province. Ministers try to help and do
what's best in their portfolios. It's what we're all supposed to be doing here.
But if we do that in isolation of what people are telling us, the people on the
street, whether it's emails or phone calls, when you run in to a coffee store
there is not a place in my district I go and this conversation don't chime up.
I don't
think a lot of people are really going they're upset and they're nervous.
There's a lot of concern. All I can tell them, as a Member, is that we'll bring
your concerns forward. We all individually get up here and we all speak
sometimes in generalities and whatnot, but we're always talking about the same
thing: It's about the people. I don't say that lightly because I really, truly
believe it. Without the people, none of us would be here today. I keep saying
that over again because it is true.
We all
ran on a platform that what we were going to do was the best for our district. I
won't even go there, but I do understand some of the on that side of the
House. I understand politics. That's something that they will deal with and I
wish them well. From my end of it, and really when we stand up here, all of the
Members, the Third Party included, they get up and they speak passionately about
their district or they speak passionately about issues and they should be
listened to. I think it should be given some more credence because those are
real people. That's what we're all elected to represent. They have real
concerns.
When I
read out that email anyone is welcome to it; I'll keep the lady's name I've
had emails: I'm crying as I write this email. I have no doubt they are. How do
you respond to that? I write back and say I feel sorry for you. I never get into
the bashing of the government. Actually, some Members opposite, I've cc'd the
Premier on emails. I made that clear in my email. This is not about picking
sides. I understand where you're coming from. I support your cause but,
ultimately, it's the government's decision. It's heart wrenching, but it's real.
Maybe
that's the sober thought everyone in this House needs to have. You have a budget
that's arguably one of the toughest budgets we've faced. Getting up every day
and blaming the former administration that plays well in some avenues. Fill
your boots; I guess that's their prerogative. I can't control what someone else
says. But that's starting not to wash in the public. The public are, kind of,
come on, will you get on with it. What's your answer to the question, what are
your issues?
I have
schools in my district teachers, parents, principals: they're all concerned
about the multigrades, the Intensive Core French and the class size, but nobody
is listening to them. I'm one person. Yes, I come in and I sit and stand in this
House as one of 40. I'm one person. I tell them every day and I try to do my
best. If I'm not speaking individually to one of the Members opposite or
ministers, I'm here stood on my feet or I'm emailing or phone calling.
I'm one
of 40. Actually, there are seven here, of 40, and two there. There are nine of
40 that I think are doing what they can to represent their districts. It's not a
finger-pointing thing across the way; there are good people over there. Like
most Members, we're all in this for the same reason.
I see
emails that come in to all sides of this House. Some of them are pretty
desperate and some of them are not responded to. I think we can park the budget
for a second and if you look at the realistic view, the realistic point, all the
rest of it is smoke and mirrors. It's about the people. Until we all take that
sober second thought people are not protesting, people are not having these
meetings; people are not emailing hundreds of emails per day for something to
do.
People
are very concerned, Mr. Speaker. I really and truly, from the bottom of my
heart, wish people would listen the government would listen to those people.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
staying on the social theme this is my third time speaking to the budget. On
the theme of Concurrence, I was just asking my colleague exactly the nature of
what I should be talking about. So I'm going to pick up from my critic from
across the way and the idea of social themes, the presentation that we made
together with the Labour Relations Agency, Francophone Affairs and then we'll go
through the next 20 minutes or so on social themes.
In
staying with the social theme, if I may I'd like to just take a personal second
and apologize to my father- and mother-in-law. I mentioned them in my maiden
speech. I thought we had an hour and a half and we did have an hour and a half
for a break. I thought it would be sufficient. Anyway, my wife just picked me up
and we went back over to their place. They used to run Hong's takeout. He was
cooking up a big storm and at about 10 minutes to seven, I realized I had to go.
So they've got a great scoff going over there and I'm back here with all you
fine folks.
Anyway,
I'm back here, and the chicken was great. I had a chicken leg that was great.
Anyway, if he's listening, they're listening, I apologize to Mr. and Mrs. Hong.
AN HON. MEMBER:
They're eating your food
(inaudible).
MR. TRIMPER:
That's right.
Staying
on the theme of social affairs we don't get to talk about them too much, but I
did want to just have a little mention, take a couple of minutes to talk about
the Labour Relations Agency an extremely important organization. I must say,
it's not a lot of people in there, but a very impressive calibre of folks that
are there. They've got an interesting record running I'm not sure how long
it's going to last this year, but certainly for the last year, and I estimate
we're probably on about month 15 now, we have not had a legal lockout or strike
in this province.
I would
give a lot of the credit to the people around Mr. Geoff Williams and his team. I
get a regular report from these guys, and each Friday I get a summary of what's
going on in the province. There is a lot of tension, there's a lot of challenge,
but when you have good people calming things down at the table and getting
people to work together, I must say it's just a joy and a pleasure to work with
a good calibre group of folks like that.
Another
great group that we don't get to speak a lot about, but is going to enjoy
tremendous profile here in the province in just about one month from now is the
Office of French Services. That's the Francophone Affairs Department. I'm lucky
enough to speak some French and can carry on with these guys. Jim Prowse and his
team run that operation.
In about
one month from now on the 22nd and 23rd this province will be hosting the
Canadian Francophonie, so all of the territorial, provincial and federal
ministers responsible for French Services will be in our fair city. Yours truly
and the federal minister, Joly, will be hosting a day and a half examining how
this province and how the rest of the country can do what we can to fulfill
obligations regarding the francophones of this country.
We have,
for example, in Newfoundland and Labrador about 3,100 people who identify
themselves as mother-tongue French, and frankly that is my responsibility to
make their life as smooth as possible and provide them an opportunity to enjoy
and live in this great province in their own language.
Staying
on the social themes, what I wanted to go to is just talk about how we made some
priorities and choices. Certainly the Finance Minister and President of Treasury
Board has talked at length about the efforts we took around the Cabinet table to
ensure the most vulnerable in our society were protected. The last thing on
anybody's mind, whether it be in Cabinet, in caucus, or I'm sure, in this House,
wanted to do was to have the most vulnerable folks pushed to a point of being
even more vulnerable. That was so not our mission. I'm very pleased to say that
after a lot of hard work we managed to accomplish that with initiatives, and
we've spoken about them at length I've spoken about them at length the
enhanced Seniors' Benefit and our signature piece in the budget, that $75
million, $76 million that we took and created into a Newfoundland and Labrador
Income Supplement, specifically targeted at those most vulnerable and making
sure that they were protected.
Switching over and staying with the vulnerable, I also wanted to make a little
comment because I've been subjected to a series of interviews just in the last
week and a half regarding the cancellation of a job-owned program that's been
going for years in the Department of Environment and Conservation. I wanted to
comment on it because we felt, and I felt, in Environment and Conservation back
in January when we were tasked with this need to see what we can do to
contribute to the resolution, to the solution that we needed to come up with in
our budget, we had to look at, okay, what's most vulnerable in terms of the
scope and mandate of Environment and Conservation, and what can we do to
contribute again to the solution.
So core
programs such as endangered wildlife populations, drinking water quality,
protected areas, wise decision making around the environmental assessment
process, these are some examples of some of the key things that we wanted to
preserve and, in fact, enhance in our program.
Strategies and techniques and so on were in a particular package in Environment
and Conservation. There was some $300,000 worth of savings amongst a variety of
initiatives; some of which included a program that's been going on for years.
One involved a collection of coyote carcasses that's been going on I indicated
in a response to some questions the other day and people have a lot of
perceptions, I would suggest, about this animal it is a predator that is here
to stay.
We have
been paying $25 a carcass for the last many years and in the rate of collecting
some 1,000, 1,100 carcasses a year, we are actually bringing in thousands and
thousands of carcasses. We do examine them. We have been examining them. I would
suggest that the point of collecting more data around what is happening with
coyotes is well passed.
So some
of these decisions, while people may, on the outlook, say why are you doing that
and how come you're pulling this back, now what's that going to mean, we're
going to have coyotes in the street, in fact, we've collected a great deal of
information. We understand a lot about this animal and that's just part of the
wise decision making that we're implementing in this province now to catch up,
frankly, with the rest of the country.
Another
one that's out there is in jawbone collections. I've think I've done four
interviews so far. I have two more tomorrow, one of which is with
The Wall Street Journal, of all
places. So it is getting a bit of attention. I look forward to talking to those
guys about moose and jawbones, but I just wanted to put a few thoughts out there
because people are saying what a travesty this is that we've scrubbed this
program.
As I
said, we have already collected a substantial amount of information. Jawbones
were collected to provide an age as to the animals that hunters select when
they're in the field. So there is a bit of bias there. Also, they have been used
in some research applications in terms of measurements. We're talking
measurements of millimetres, thereabouts, as an indication it has been
suggested of the quality of the habitat that these animals occupy.
I would
suggest to anyone who's listening I'm sure I'm holding everybody fascinated
here that why not just study the landscape itself as opposed to trying to say,
well, let's measure a jawbone and if it's getting bigger or smaller, maybe that
might infer what's going on in the habitat. I would suggest that perhaps a more
appropriate way to do this is to just go out and understand what's going on with
the landscape.
In fact,
that's what the Wildlife Division and Parks and Natural Areas Division have been
doing and we're shifting more and more in that direction. I look very forward to
seeing some great insight coming forward as a result of frankly using a lot of
the information we've already collected, but using it in a wise way, with a lot
of the computer modelling techniques that are out there and available.
There is
a theme here running through my presentation: staying on social issues. Like
many of us do here, we check up on what's going on outside of this amazing room.
I just decided to cast on to Facebook. Well, what a sobering thing that is to do
sometimes. I've decided I'm just going to let people fly on my Facebook site.
I've decided I'm not going to block, so there's quite a litany of goodies in
there; some complimentary, some not so complimentary. But anyway if people want
to vent, let them vent away. One thing I've said this is my third time
speaking to this budget is that if everything that was being accused of us was
true, I think I would be holding my head in shame. But I'm very pleased to say
there is a lot of good news in this budget and there is a lot of good, wise
thinking in how the decisions were made.
I feel
that's always important to talk about, so here I go with my third kick at this.
I wanted to reach back to Labrador because I just saw some postings about how
little money was being spent on highways up there and so on. On one hand I
understand where the venting and the frustrations are coming from because, boy,
we're just hacking paths and roads out of pure wilderness. In many cases, as my
comrade from Baie Verte, the Member for Baie Verte Green Bay which by the
way we were just talking about what an oxymoron that is, Baie Verte Green Bay.
It's like Baie Verte Baie Verte, but anyway. He made a comment that folks
hadn't seen pavement. Well, we haven't even seen a road in many locations, so
we're happy to see progress.
I was
extremely pleased. Of all the needs in Labrador, there's no question that a
consistent ask of so much of the Big Land and, frankly, of so much of
Newfoundland, is to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. By complete, it means
pavement and an efficient, safe highway with support along the route. We're
talking hundreds and hundreds of kilometres. There's still a lot to do. A lot
has been done by the previous administration and a lot more to do.
In these
times of trying to find money, it's amazing that my colleague, the Minister of
Transportation and Works and through his team and his effort and listening,
frankly, to the four of us from Labrador, the Premier and the rest of caucus
was able to come up with $63.7 million for continued activity on the
Trans-Labrador Highway. That's primarily what we call the Phase III and that's
going to be a huge boost.
The
other exciting thing about this announcement is and I'm not sure if it's out
there in the public, so I won't make it here tonight in the House the federal
government is also getting ready to make a contribution to that same project.
They also understand the importance of it. I would see substantial progress
being made on that highway this year.
So when
I hear people say you're only doing 17 kilometres, folks, you're following
snippets of thoughts and maybe some deliberate misleading that's going on. Mr.
Speaker, 17 kilometres refers to the amount of pavement on the Phase III that
wasn't completed last year; therefore, it's carried over this year. So we have
17, plus $63.7 million from the provincial government, plus a substantial amount
from the federal government, plus many other paving projects.
I met
with the Minister of Transportation and Works just the other night here in the
House and looked at some of the other great projects. My colleague for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair has a lot of great projects going on in her area
this year. That should go a long way to helping some long-needed problems in
terms of just moving around. It's very good to see.
Another
project that I'd like to talk about in terms of money and yes, it's under
infrastructure development, but I can tell you when you're connecting
communities, it's all about social connectivity. Labrador has an interesting
characteristic with it.
I think
it was just two Sundays ago I was still snowmobiling in Churchill Falls. We do
like to say we get 10 months of winter and two months of bad skidooing.
Snowmobiling is really important. It's long been talked about that the Member
for Torngat Mountains that is how he travels. Wintertime is when he does get
around to see people. I think a lot of folks in this province would see winter
as a time to cluster around the fireplace, stay warm, and maybe we'll see our
neighbours and friends in the summer.
In
Labrador, it's the opposite. That's when you get out and about. You're starting
to see great people and friends, and to see some $730,000 maintained for the
Labrador teams. We also have a substantial amount of money, a similar amount of
money, for the grooming subsidy. This is a highway of snow and ice and it's
extremely important for bringing all those communities together.
I'm
sorry, it's $351,000 for the Labrador grooming subsidy and $730,000 for that
travel subsidy for those Labrador teams to travel back and forth.
Another
very important project that's going on off the North Coast again, speaking of
vulnerability and important social issues is within the territory, the
self-government of Nunatsiavut. Nunatsiavut is a very proud area. We've just
marked recently a 10th anniversary.
In the
community of Hopedale is a former American base. It was the satellite station, a
radar site, and, unfortunately, when they pulled out they left a bit of a mess,
which is typical, frankly. I find within the Department of Environment and
Conservation we are dealing with a lot of legacy and it's a main preoccupation
of so many people. Nevertheless, we're getting to the bottom of it.
To that
end, and further about the most vulnerable, we decided we needed to maintain the
clean-up activity that's going on around that base at Hopedale. To date, the
government has spent in excess of $12 million. It's primarily around the
remediation and cleanup of PCB contaminated soil. That work is going to continue
and we've allocated some $1.46 million to carrying that on.
I guess
I need to also think about the rest of the province, which I do. I'm just being
a little facetious. I have to say, I think I was maybe two hours on the job on
the 15th of December in my office sitting in a boardroom and I understood there
was a large demonstration up on the Terra Nova River with the trestle that was
going on.
The
Member for Terra Nova and his colleagues in the area and so on were on the
phone, were meeting with me right away about the urgency and the importance of
fixing and finding a solution for a trestle that, frankly, our department has
basically condemned. It's not in a great state. We don't believe it's safe.
We are
enjoying good co-operation with the local population. This is a facility they
use extensively. I'm very pleased to tell the House we have allocated
substantial monies that we hope to match with perhaps some federal partners and
perhaps some other partners, and we look forward to proceeding with this project
this year of renovating, perhaps replacing that trestle.
Plus,
it's important that with such a long facility such as is the abandoned sorry,
not the abandoned, but the former railway that was the Newfoundland Railway. We
have some 130-plus overpasses and we are concerned about their integrity and so
on. So we've allocated another substantial amount of money, in the vicinity of
$250,000, that will start feasibility work on those that are the most
vulnerable.
So we
have vulnerable infrastructure, but, of course, we're concerned about human
safety. We also get the point that these pieces of infrastructure are very
important for the connectivity of people that are travelling between
communities. That ATV trail has become very popular and I'm very pleased to see
our government moving in a direction to support it.
I also
want to talk about good things that are going on. I'm going to make a plug right
now. If you want to see and talk about social and economic activities coming
together, that is happening. The Member for Baie Verte Green Bay mentioned the
upcoming Mining Conference that is hosted every year in their community in early
June.
I know
about this event every year. I must say, I've never been to it because I've
always been one week later in Labrador, in association with what used to be
called the Voisey's Bay and Beyond Conference. Now we refer to it as Expo
Labrador. This is a real coming together of promise, optimism, plans, ideas,
networking and business dealing around three or four days in Central Labrador,
in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
I would
refer to my colleague from Baie Verte Green Bay, that often I find the
delegates from his conference because it's mining and so much about Labrador
is mining off they come to Goose Bay. They've got a pretty busy month between
his conference and the one that we have in Lake Melville. It's great to see the
province come together around the importance of mining. In Labrador, we've got
other things going on of course, but Expo Labrador is a wonderful showcase for
it.
Finally,
I wanted to come back to just a final plug around the budget and the importance
of understanding that we listened. We heard that whatever we're going to do with
this budget and these decisions, we've got to make sure that those most
vulnerable are not feeling any more threatened. In fact, I'm pleased to be part
of a government where I have to tell you, we went in on a Sunday and we came
out on a Thursday. It was a marathon session of decision making and so on, a lot
of camaraderie, a lot of understanding and a lot of working with department
officials. But to see the work that went into making sure the allocation of the
monies that we had would go to those most vulnerable, it was uppermost in
everybody's mind, and we had to keep going until we got it right.
I got to
say, we went back to the drawing board many times, but I'm very pleased to see
how it did turn out. I'm very appreciative now that you can go online and look
at the calculator, and understand for those who are most concerned how much
more benefit they will receive as a result of the budget and as a result of the
facts that the government that I am associated with was actually learning,
listening, thinking and moving forward.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, some-20 seconds left, perhaps I'll say thank you very much
and maybe we'll see at the next budget.
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 am
very happy to stand and to speak this evening on Concurrence. Because of our
small but mighty caucus, my colleague for St. John's East Quidi Vidi and I
share all the critic areas between the two of us. I must say, we are very
committed to that. We are very happy to be able to work like Trojans in order to
be able to cover all these critic areas. We have the energy, we have the smarts,
we have the spunk and chutzpah to be able to do this. So I'm very happy.
Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I'd like to do tonight is I would like to do a favour
for my colleague for Baie Verte Green Bay. I would like to take a few minutes
of my time to kind of help him and do him a favour. He misquoted the amazing
Kevin Major in the House, and I know that wasn't his intention so I'm going to
try and help correct him so that he can save face and so that it can be recorded
in Hansard.
Now,
what my colleague for Baie Verte Green Bay said, he said that Kevin Major said
he was ashamed to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, that he was ashamed. He
said that that's what I said. What I would like to do is I would like to correct
it for him so that the next time he sees Kevin Major he will know that it's been
corrected and he will know what Kevin Major, in fact, did say.
What
Kevin Major said after government closed all the libraries, he said, this week
listen carefully now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
I ask my colleagues to listen
carefully because we don't want anybody misquoted in this House. He said, This
week I was humiliated by my government.
These
are the most troublesome words I have written in a very long time. And I have
written many words in my time, most all of them about a homeland that I care for
deeply.
It is a
homeland I wish to see grow spiritually and intellectually, one I wish to see
prosper. As do you, I do not doubt.
But
taxing books and forcing a mass closure of libraries is absolutely not the way
to go about it.
The
citizens of Newfoundland
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
I would wonder if my
colleague for Mount Pearl North, he probably wants to hear this as well because
I know he's a fan of Kevin Major.
MR. KENT:
(Inaudible) sorry.
MS. ROGERS:
I know he's a fan of Kevin
Major, so I won't repeat what I just read because I know that you have listened
very carefully before. You probably read this letter.
But
taxing books and forcing a mass closure of libraries is absolutely not the way
to go about it.
The
citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador are in a financial quagmire, and, true
enough, it is not the present government that put us there. Kevin's got the
picture But it is the members of this government who must demonstrate our
priorities as a society as we struggle out of deficit and debt.
Literacy must be a priority.
Safeguarding easily accessed, knowledge-based resources must be a priority.
This is
an interesting few lines coming up now, Mr. Speaker. There are some belts that
as citizens in a civilized, forward-thinking society we refrain from tightening.
The belt that preserves and protects intellectual well-being is one of them,
especially in light of the small fraction of the overall budget represented by
this tax and these cuts.
I urge
you all to reassess and reevaluate the choices being made.
We, the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, need the conscientious, enlightened
judgement of you the women and men elected to serve us.
in
outrage and in hope, Kevin Major who happens to be the author of 18 books, a
lot of them about Newfoundland including:
As Near to Heaven by Sea: A history of Newfoundland and Labrador,
No Man's Land, Hold Fast, Blood Red Ochre
and The House of Wooden Santas.
This,
Mr. Speaker, is not a man who is ashamed to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
This indeed is a man who is incredibly proud to be a Newfoundlander and
Labradorian, incredibly proud of our heritage, incredibly hopeful. This is a man
who has written a letter because he has hope.
He has
hope in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he is challenging every one
of us in this House of Assembly. He is challenging us to be forward thinking. He
said that not everything is one the table; that is what he is saying. So I hope
that my colleague for Baie Verte Green Bay sees that, in fact, Kevin Major is
not ashamed. He is angry, but he is hopeful. That's what we're hearing from the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
That is what I believe every
one of us in this House is hearing from our constituents. We are hearing anger,
but from many of them we are also hearing hope. They know that a budget is all
about choices. They know that; everyone here knows that. Every single bit of
that budget is about choices. Again, as our Minister of Finance told us, she
went line by line by line making choices. Although again, I would like to say
that's not what a Minister of Finance does, goes line by line, but comes up with
a bigger vision. Then it's that bigger vision that influences every single
choice that is made in a budget.
I can't
figure out what kind of choices she has made. I just went through the Budget
Speech again and I looked for indications of what that big picture is, and all I
could find was the Minister of Finance constantly going back to fiscal realities
or the bottom line, or the debt or the deficit, which is all part of a reality;
but when Members of government keeps standing up in the House and referring back
to the Official Opposition who, not so long ago, were occupying their seats and
constantly blame them for the situation that we're in well, we all know that.
But how do we move forward? That's what we should be talking about. Now the
blame back and forth but how do we move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
exactly what Kevin Major was talking about. I urge you all to reassess and
re-evaluate the choices being made. We, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
need the conscientious, enlightened judgement of you, the women and men elected
to serve us. He wants us to move forward.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I was looking in this budget again. I was going to go through critic
area by critic area, department by department for Concurrence. But when I was
hearing some of my colleagues from government speaking, I kind of thought, okay,
maybe we're getting it wrong. Maybe they do have a big vision. Maybe there is a
vision beyond just picking people's pockets and taxing everybody. Maybe there is
a vision.
I kept
looking through here, through the budget and I can't find it. Mr. Speaker, I
want to find it. I want to find the big vision. I want to find that overarching
vision that guided every single choice that was made in the budget. I couldn't
find it.
The
opening statement by the minister in her speech is: Mr. Speaker, today, in our
government's first budget, we are laying out a fiscal plan that allows our
province to regain control of government finances. So not about pulling us
forward or not about harnessing the energy or leading the people or looking at
diversity. She says: It is a credible plan, with clear objectives, transparent
goals, and targets to which we will hold ourselves accountable. It is critical
that we do so.
Then she
blames, again, the government: The uncontrolled growth in expenditures, the
dramatic fall in revenues and oil production, exacerbated by poor decision
making by the previous government have produced a serious and unsustainable
imbalance that must be corrected. These are the words of an accountant; these
are not the words of a visionary for our province. I'm concerned about that
because that's what we need right now. We all know that we're in a really tough
situation financially. We need to be able to get out of this tough situation,
absolutely. But how is it that we do that? Is it just by expecting everybody to
tighten their belts?
I kept
wondering, what is this government's vision for Newfoundland and Labrador right
now. What is that overarching plan? Where does government want Newfoundland and
Labrador to be in the next few years, aside from just talking about debt and
tightening our belts? I'm not naive; I know that the debt is considerable, that
we have $14.7 billion in debt and that our deficit is $1.8 billion. I know
that's really important and I know that has to be dealt with. But I'm not quite
sure they have done it adequately in this budget. I don't know that there's any
forward thinking that's pulling us out of it. I looked for some stimulus
spending and I looked for ways of diversification and, again, I couldn't find
it.
The
other thing I found curious is that climate change is not even mentioned in the
budget at all, which I find quite interesting when it's such a big issue, and
it's not in the budget. But I did find a return to addictions in this budget
that the only thing really that there are temporary tax measures and there's
tax fairness although I don't think the way they're doing the taxing is very
fair at all. Most people in Newfoundland and Labrador don't think it's fair
either, most economists don't think it's fair, and labour doesn't think it's
fair. I'm not so sure how they arrived at the fact that they think it's fair,
but I don't think it's fair. It's really, really regressive.
What I
did find, really, what they're doing is just hoping that oil prices will come
back up again. The main goal here is taxes and hoping that the oil prices will
come back up. Then on page 5 of the budget I've mentioned this before, but I
think it's worth noting again. They're saying beyond 2016 so this is the
economy and where we're headed. The topic of this particular section is: Where
we are headed. It says, Beyond 2016, economic growth is expected to be
curtailed by a combination of factors, including declines in capital investments
as major projects move beyond peak development and the requirement for further
provincial deficit reduction measures. So we all knew that. We knew last year
that that was going to be happening.
Most
main economic indicators are expected to be lower in 2021 than current levels.
Several major economic indicators like employment and real compensation of
employees will be lower by 15 per cent and over 22 per cent respectively when
compared to 2015 levels. Provincial deficit reduction measures
so that's
what government is doing, what they're doing to reduce our deficit, reduce our
debt. So the measures they're doing, it's the Government Renewal Initiative
measures, which is GRIM. I would like to say that the GRI, the Government
Renewal Initiative, add that m, measures, is GRIM.
Provincial deficit reduction measures are estimated to account for 40 to 50 per
cent of predicated declines in these broad measures of economic activity.
Now,
that's concerning. I would think that's concerning to the government. That's
concerning to us. It's kind of a bleak outlook. So I don't know I went through
a number of the pages looking for the actions of what government is going to do
and it ends up: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of the province we will
not stop until we have our province back on stable financial footing and we have
restored confidence in the fiscal future of this great province we are proud to
call home.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not quite sure how they're going to get there, aside from the
taxing. They're hoping the price of oil will go up and that will be their
saviour. Now, the other thing I found kind of interesting is that the DBRS,
which is a bond-rating agency, said in an interview with CBC in April '16, about
Newfoundland and Labrador and about this government's budget, The more
substantive proposals for restructuring programs and reducing spending are still
being developed and will not be presented until the fall.
That's
kind of scary, Mr. Speaker, because basically what this bond-rating agency is
saying is that
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
maybe they've been speaking
with government. I don't know, but somehow they've figured that there's going to
be more restructuring. So the grim exercise, that grim approach that government
is going to lay on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they're waiting to
see these further cuts.
Then
they're saying, As major investment projects near completion (e.g., Hebron and
Muskrat Falls), the economic outlook is only expected to deteriorate further.
The province expects a prolonged period of adjustment characterized by years of
economic contraction, declines in population and employment, and for
unemployment to rise to nearly 20%.
I tell
you, Mr. Speaker, the government's grim initiative paints a grim picture, so I
don't see how this budget even though they're taxing people in different ways,
particularly with that levy and it's not fair progressive taxation, and they're
hoping on oil prices going up, but the outlook is bleak. The government is
saying in their own budget that outlook is bleak. This DBRS bond-rating agency
is saying that the outlook is bleak. So what is government offering us? A very
bleak picture, something that's very, very grim.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expected
something better, expected something different. And government cannot just keep
saying to the previous government, well, you made a mess and we're in a mess
because you're in a mess. They've asked for the job to lead us out of this, so
they have to stop complaining about that because that's tired now.
So they
are the leaders. They are the ones who supposedly will lead us out of this. They
are the ones who are going to but we haven't seen that plan yet. All we've
seen is cut, cut, cut, line by line by line, and we haven't seen an overall,
overarching plan and vision of how to stimulate the economy because they're
saying that their grim measures, measures that they're doing through their
Government Renewal Initiative is actually to slow down the economy and it's
going to create unemployment, that unemployment is going to rise
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
and they've also got verification from the bond-rating agency that they're right
about that. So the bond-rating agencies got it figured out as well.
It's no
wonder at times government bristles when we try and raise these issues because
it's not looking good. They don't have a plan. They haven't developed a plan
that harnesses the resiliency and the willingness of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
to help get us out of this
situation that we're in.
Mr.
Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are willing to roll up their
sleeves. They're willing to help work. They're willing to get us out of this
situation. We have to have progressive taxation. We have to have an overarching
vision that stimulates the economy, that harnesses the natural resources of our
people, that creates that real diversification that gets people working because
our crisis is an unemployment crisis. That's what needs to be addressed, and
that's not what this government addressed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker reminds the hon.
Member her time for speaking has expired.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before the Speaker recognizes
the hon. Member, the Speaker would remind all Members that while single
conversations may not seem too loud, when you have a number of them going on at
the one time it is very disruptive to the House. I would ask that you take your
conversations outside.
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
delighted to have an opportunity to rise in this hon. House today to talk about
the tremendous work being done in Newfoundland and Labrador toward ensuring the
well-being and protection of children and youth. Each one of us here today
agrees that our children and youth are our most valuable resource. Our hope is
that they are given the opportunity to grow, thrive and succeed.
As a
mother of two children, I certainly share the sentiment of wanting to ensure
safety and protection of our children and youth. Our government remains
committed to continuing to build a revitalized child protection system that is
responsive to the priority needs of our children and youth, as well as
continuing to make significant progress in creating a culture of accountability,
excellence and consistency across all programs in all regions.
Our
government also shares the philosophy which resulted in the creation of the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services to address systemic issues
identified through internal and external reports, in particular, the Clinical
Services Review, 2011. Recommendations of the Clinical Services Review continue
today to serve as the department's guiding framework.
Undoubtedly, since the department was created, a number of significant
milestones have been achieved, which enhance the services and care provided to
children, youth and their families. Every accomplished milestone can be credited
to the input, hard work and co-operation of Child, Youth and Family Services
staff throughout our province who are committed to making a positive difference
and significantly impact the lives of our children and youth.
We
continue to move forward with a focus on further enhancements to child and youth
care. That is why budget 2016-17 continues the support of these efforts with an
investment of approximately $150 million for child protection. Mr. Speaker, $150
million for child protection: this is what Government Renewal Initiative is.
This is what GRI is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
This continued support will
help us to drive change that results in the best practices and enhanced
approaches to supporting children and youth in need of protection. While I've
only been with this department for five months, it was immediately obvious how
passionate employees are about what they do on a day-to-day basis.
I've
also experienced the high level of professionalism in which the work concerning
the areas of child protection, youth corrections and adoptions is conducted. It
is within the context of this professionalism that many difficult situations and
decisions are encountered on an ongoing basis.
The
assessment of risk is a major component of the duties performed by many
professionals, including social workers on a daily basis. Social workers
regularly work with families receiving services from the Department of Child,
Youth and Family Services to deal with a variety of risk areas as a result of
the action or inaction of a parent or parents.
These
risk areas for children include examples, such as: physical and emotional harm;
sexual abuse and exploitation; inappropriate supervision; substance abuse or
other abuse. All matters are taken very seriously, as well as the well-being of
children and youth is our primary focus. While cases can be extremely complex in
nature, the department's role is to protect the best interest of children and
youth who are or are at risk of maltreatment.
Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services continues to succeed
in laying a strong foundation to address the systemic issues in child protection
services in the province. Since the creation of the department, programs and
program delivery are constantly being evaluated to ensure they are as effective
and as efficient as possible. We are all aware of the difficult decisions our
government was forced to make because of the unprecedented financial situation
we inherited.
Mr.
Speaker, on June 15, 2015, the Member for Mount Pearl North acknowledged that
their administration also had to make difficult decisions with their budget. The
Member said, and I quote, We had very difficult decisions to make in this
Budget process, as you know. We have made them, we will defend them, we will
stand by them, and we will live with those decisions.
As we
lay the foundation to regain control of government finances, we are guided by
unwavering values and we will take care of the most vulnerable in our province.
That is why, despite the difficult fiscal realities facing the province, budget
2016-2017 reiterates our government's commitment to ensuring the protection and
well-being of children and youth.
We have
made every effort to minimize impact on our front-line services as we navigate
through these difficult financial times. That is why our government chose to
amalgamate Child, Youth and Family Services sites where we could not have any
impact on client service or impact on our staffing model.
The
closures affected Gambo and Port Saunders. But the previous administration, with
the minister of that time the minister who was the MHA for Terra Nova closed
three offices on the West Coast of this province. The previous administration
closed Piccadilly, Stephenville Crossing and Burgeo. However, it is important to
note that the closures from this previous government and the past did not result
in any layoffs.
Port
Saunders had a caseload of six. The quota is one staff to 20 children. That's
what we try to maintain. It was one to six in Port Saunders. This one affected
employee had the option to continue employment at Roddickton's site. Child,
Youth and Family Services will continue to be provided for the area through our
Roddickton office. In terms of Gambo, there are currently 91 cases and 13 foster
homes. A total of eight positions will amalgamate with our Gander office which
has 20 positions.
It is
our belief that the closure of offices will consolidate staff and enhance the
effectiveness of child protection services through strengthened teams for case
management. It was also the previous administration's belief. It will result in
more social workers coming together in one site to help make decisions based on
greater input.
We
remain committed to the approved organizational structure of one to 20 and team
structures. Safe and sustainable communities are an important focus for our
newly elected government, and child protection is an important aspect of this
focus.
Like
every government department, we had to do our part to help keep our deficit
under control. For Child, Youth and Family Services it was important that we
find a way forward that allowed us to continue to meet our mandate and
commitments without any direct impact on our service delivery. I feel budget
2016-17 has helped us, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services,
achieve that objective.
Despite
the difficult fiscal realities facing the province, budget 2016-17 reiterates
our government's commitment to ensuring the protection of our children and youth
in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is particularly important when you understand
the context in which these services are delivered.
While
the population of the province continues to decline, the number of children
entering into care continues to rise. However, Mr. Speaker, it appears that over
the last couple of months that number is stabilizing, finally.
We
currently have approximately 1,000 children in our care, with another 5,000
involved with our Protective Intervention Program. Of those in care,
approximately 60 per cent are in sibling groups and 33 per cent are of
Aboriginal descent. We recognize we still have challenges in many of our remote
Labrador communities. We will continue our focus on improving caseloads in these
areas.
In terms
of foster care, we have approximately 975 children including our Level 4 staffed
residential placements and out-of-province placements. We constantly hear the
old adage: It takes a village to raise a child. Well, this is also very true
when it comes to child protection.
Our
government understands the importance of working together with stakeholders as a
cohesive group. We are focused on working in tandem with all of our stakeholders
and others interested in ensuring our children and youth receive the best
possible care. At the end of the day, we all collectively share in the same
goal, namely the safety and well-being of children and youth in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Our
government's continued investment in
Budget 2016 clearly articulates our ongoing commitment to improve and
enhance service coordination and delivery in all regions of our province.
Our
government is continuing to move forward to enhance the lives of young people in
a variety of ways. We are addressing poverty, violence and mental health issues,
enhancing education, working collaboratively and effectively with Aboriginal
communities, improving services for persons with disabilities and enhancing
health care and wellness.
As I
stated earlier, the children and youth of Newfoundland and Labrador should have
an opportunity to grow, thrive and succeed in a safe and nurturing environment.
This is
about our children and youth. They deserve nothing less, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for the District of Topsail Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
caught a little off guard there. The hon. Member had some time left so I wasn't
expecting her to sit down as quickly as she did. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak in Concurrence here tonight and have a chance again to speak to the
budget.
One of
the challenges we face every day is based on the response we receive from people
in the province and have been continuously receiving from people of the
province. We try to pick through the material and say where do we best use our
time, what is best to discuss and what matters should we raise, because there is
so much the people of the province are responding about. There are so many
different areas and so many different topics that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador are writing us about, calling us about and stopping us on the street
about to say their view and their opinion on the budget.
We spend
it's amazing, I laugh at it. I shouldn't laugh, I suppose, because it's a
pretty serious matter, but it's kind of humorous in a way. We're saying where
are we going to go today or what issues will we raise because there are so many
people asking us to raise so many matters on a regular basis. If it be education
education is a key one of late because parents are just starting to realize
and understand what the impacts of some of the decisions are on education.
They're becoming concerned. What a lot of people can't understand is why you
have programs that have been proven to be beneficial and provide a better
quality of education, where available for students why some of those programs
are being reduced.
I don't
know how to tell it to people only to say, well, they're saying it's tough
times, a tough budget and they have to make cuts. Then, the next question is why
are they creating a new program, an additional service, an additional program,
when they can't fund the good programs that are there today? Intensive Core
French is a significant one.
I had a
parent contact me the other day who told me that there were two students in the
class who didn't make the draw for Intensive Core French. So out of this whole
school and these classes and kids are going to school together and going
through year by year, and now a group of them want to go to Intensive Core
French there were two of them. She said my daughter came home in tears in
absolute tears, in no other way but absolute tears and upset; why can't I do
Intensive Core French with my friends, Mom.
Now, how
do you tell the child that? Two children in the school who got missed out on the
draw and yet, at the same time, they're beating the bushes and doing all the
work to bring in full-day kindergarten. Why can't they postpone it? If they're
in such difficult times, instead of bringing in a new program or a new service,
why can't they postpone full-day kindergarten?
There's
no doubt full-day kindergarten has proven to have good results; no doubt about
it. No doubt about it at all. But as Members opposite have said many times, you
can't be all things to all people. I've said it when I sat over there, you can't
be all things to all people. You can't. Why would you put more pressure on a
system, a higher demand, a new program, a new service that is, yes, a good
program, but you decrease the good programs while you're doing that. It just
doesn't make sense to people. It certainly doesn't make sense to me.
I know
the Minister of Education, when he was Opposition critic, talked about it before
and criticized us for making cuts in education. Fair enough. That was his role;
it's our role here today. He's minister opposite over there now and he's the
minister in charge.
He
criticized us. He criticized us last year when we increased the cap sizes for
classes. He criticized us right here in the House of Assembly. He talked about
what's wrong with you guys over there in the government. Families and teachers
are raising red flags, is what he said here in the House, Mr. Speaker. He said
they're raising red flags already. He used words like students and teachers have
taken another hit on the reductions that they're doing.
The
Minister of Education stood in his place here in the House and he said, look
what you did. It was bad and wrong for you to make cuts in teachers, increase
class sizes; bad for you to do it but we're going to do more of it. And people
are saying how did he square that. How does a government square that by saying
what the previous administration which Members opposite like to talk about all
the time.
That's
their strategy. They're calling us the former premier and former that's all
their strategy. Fine enough, that's the game they want to play. If they want to
recognize us in our place here for what we represent or who we are, that's up to
them to do that. We'll continue to represent, call them by their proper titles
and respect their position here in the House.
When
they were here, they criticised us for doing these things. And then they do more
of it. The Member opposite just here tonight talked about how we closed offices.
I think she was referring to AES offices. We closed AES offices, a bad thing for
us to do. When they were the government they closed AES offices bad, bad. It
wasn't a good thing for them to do. Fair enough.
Just
like they are today, we had tough decisions to make. As a matter of fact, the
minister of Education last year, in responding to the current Minister of
Education, in one of his comments he said: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in the
province is well aware of the fiscal situation of the province and the
commitment that we have to look at all of our processes.
As a
matter of fact, the Education critic at the time, currently the Education
Minister, criticised us and said: You're reducing programs before you've done
your full assessment on the value of what programs are good and what programs
are not criticised us. And now they're doing exactly the same thing. Not only
doing exactly the same thing; when it was bad for us to increase the cap size,
they've done it further. When it was bad for us to close an AES office, they've
done more.
So these
are the kinds of things that people are saying to us, Mr. Speaker. These are the
kinds of things that people are talking to us about. I talked today in Question
Period about the courthouses. I talked about the Harbour Grace courthouse at
some length. I know the area well, I have family there. Lots of people live in
the area. It's a booming area; lots of new housing, young families and lots of
pressure on municipalities for enhanced services. It's a good area, lots of good
people out there and so on. We talked about this today, as I said, in Question
Period.
But
they're wondering so we asked a petition to come in and the Member brought in
a petition. It's against the decision of the government; we're going to vote for
the budget. What that means is I'm against the decision that government made,
but I'm going to vote in favour of it. Now, each individual Member has to sort
that out themselves; every Member in the House has to sort that out themselves.
I had a
Member opposite in a conversation there since the budget who said, I remember
when they talk about Bill 29. Everyone remembers Bill 29, and then we took
action to fix it because we agreed it was the wrong thing for us to do, we got
to fix it. They hung us out on it over and over and over, and they still bring
it up.
People
have said, and the Member opposite has said, do you know what? This budget is
our Bill 29, because people are not going to forget it. It's not going to go
away and people are not going to forget it. I don't believe it is.
I know
Members opposite are being told, just ride it out. The days are going to get
easier. The days are going to get better. We know that. I would expect the
leader to be telling caucus members: Settle down, it's the right thing to do.
These are tough decisions. This is what leadership is about. You upset people,
that's it.
We heard
Members opposite say it's not about votes. If they don't elect me again I'll
have a clear conscience, I did the right thing. There might be no one to elect
them again because there'll be no one else to vote for them because they're all
going to be gone. That's what's going to happen. We hear it from people.
I got a
letter from a lady yesterday. She talked about how she's a young woman, her and
her boyfriend and how they got through their education. She even joked and
talked about how she is supported by the food bank. Now, she joked about it
because she said it's the mom and dad food bank. My mom and dad look after us.
Lots of times we get leftover meals and so on from mom and dad and that helps us
out.
This
year she was looking forward to buying a vehicle and touring the province. She
talked about how she went from a substandard, or not ideal basement apartment,
to a rental property now that's above ground and how that's a big step for them.
Actually, she wrote the Minister of Finance. I was sent a copy of it since. She
talked about all of that and talked about it at length. She talks about: Why
should I stay here when everything I'm trying to save and do, and everything I'm
trying to do to move myself forward is being taken away in a tax or a fee?
Now, the
Members opposite were quite clear last year on taxes because they beat us over
the head day after day on the HST increase and made clear commitments, it was
bad and it was wrong. The Premier himself talked about how it was a job killer.
He talked about it over and over. He said it's going to crush the economy and
it's bad. Don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do it.
We were
standing in our place saying, we're in a tough fiscal spot. We've got to roll in
our spending. We've got to adjust our taxation. We can't keep going the way
we're going. I was the worst in the world for doing it, Mr. Speaker. I was the
worst son of a gun in the world for taking that position.
The
former Leader of the Opposition that's the way he likes to reference ourselves
in the House, so maybe I'll use that. The former Leader of the Opposition, the
Premier of today, stood here and talked about budget documents. He talked about
Japan and their own budget document. In that country consumption fell
drastically. Their economy went stagnant. Future tax increases were postponed
for fear of prolonged economic difficulties. The research is clear: An increase
in HST is a job killer. Those are the words the Premier used.
Well, if
only it was the HST that they decided to do. How much further ahead would we be
today than we actually are if it was only the HST increase that they decided to
do? But it's not what they decided to do. They did much more than that, and
that's what people are concerned about.
If you
take any part of the budget in isolation you take a little piece of it in
isolation people would say, that, by itself, I can understand that; I can
understand increasing fees or I can understand them trying to make adjustments
in some programs or services. But when you put it all together, people are
saying their position is you can't move in the province without the negative
impact hitting you.
I've
asked the Premier here in the House about what the impact is going to be on HST
on the cost of groceries. He said there's no HST on groceries. That's not the
point. The point is that it's going to cost more to cause those groceries to be
available on the shelves in stores in our province.
I would
suggest and suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the more remote and more challenging the
transportation needs are of a particular community, the bigger the impact is
going to be because now we've got increased costs for fuel. It's significant for
gas; less significant for diesel, but a significant cost for fuel, plus the HST.
We've
got taxes now on insurance, which it's going to cost more to operate vehicles.
That's not just the vehicles to deliver produce fresh fruit and vegetables and
so on to grocery stores. That's also when the grocery store picks up the phone
and calls the local electrician and says: I have a problem with my cooler, can
you come over and fix it. His costs are more to operate his business, so he's
going to pass that on to the grocery store too. When he brings that truck down
to the local service station to get it fixed, it's going to cost him more to fix
that as well and to have that repaired as well. He's going to pass that on to
the grocery store as well. And on it goes.
My
question was about what analysis has been done to determine what the impacts are
going to be on the cost of food for the people of the province. I don't believe
they have it. At least they haven't shared it yet, anyway. When all this rolls
out, if we can look into our crystal ball and look forward six months or a year
or 18 months down the road, what's going to be the impact on goods and services?
One of those obvious that we all need is affordable and good-quality food
purchases at grocery stores. What's the impact? They don't know what it is.
We had
chosen a plan over the last number of years that was going to be smooth and it
wouldn't shock the system, was words I've used in the past. We didn't need to
shock the economy and shock the province. As a matter of fact, if you look at
core government and I stand to be corrected. I'm sure the Minister of Finance
can correct me, but if I remember correctly, the number of public servants in
core government today is less than what it was prior to 2010. I think 2009, but
2009-2010, and since that time the number of public servants in core government
again, I stand to be corrected, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if it's not
right, but that's my recollection on it.
It has
continued to decrease in slight numbers. The reason why people might be
surprised to hear that is because it was done over a period of time where it
wouldn't have a big impact on the people of the province. People wouldn't see
and feel those particular hits.
Mr.
Speaker, when you go from here to here overnight, that has a big impact and
people feel it. It's hard for them. They don't have a crystal ball to look into
to say what's the impact going to be in six months or a year down the road?
That's why we hear the government talk about evidence-based decision making.
That's good policy for them. They're going to make evidence-based choices. Good
for them.
To do it
as a campaign promise as part of their commitment and so on, I'm perfectly okay
with that. That's a good way to do it, to say we're going to do this through an
evidence-based process. We're going to analyze. Now there is in business, of
course, what's known as analysis paralysis. Analysis paralysis, it's a term
known in business and it brings businesses to a halt. When businesses
over-analyze and don't take steps to rectify their business operations or to
take steps to businesses are in business to make profit and to do business,
and they don't make those steps. They analyze too far and they can't move fast
enough and change fast enough.
We've
seen that in big industry. We've seen it in airlines, as an example. When you
have a few days of bad weather, Air Canada takes weeks to catch up. They say,
well, that's part of the they've been too lean. They try to get too lean but
when they're analyzing their issues, they spend so much time analyzing they
can't fix the problem.
We don't
want government to do that. Government has been criticized for being
over-analytical and doing too much of that red tape in the past. We reduced a
lot of it, and we know this government is committed to reducing red tape and it
was talked about with the premiers today.
Mr.
Speaker, the point being is that if you create all those hardships and you
haven't analyzed the impacts, then they're very dangerous decisions to make.
We've seen that, and we're seeing that now with this budget. We're seeing this
now with the decisions that are being made by this government.
Mr.
Speaker, the part of the government that is also creating or the decisions and
process the government is doing that's creating a problem for people in the
province, is people are saying, look, it's the spring of the year and I was
going to replace the windows in my house, but I don't know if I'm going to have
a job in six months and I'm waiting to find out what's going to come in budget
number two in the fall. This is having a big impact on spending in the province.
This is having a big impact on investment.
When
businesses are saying we're trying to figure out where the province is going.
The picture painted by the government has been one that's doom and gloom. The
Budget Speech itself, and the lead up days before the budget was it's doom and
gloom and there's nothing good coming out of this, and part of the budget is how
much the population's going to decrease and how much it's going to suffer for
businesses and so on. So we heard all of that leading up to the budget. People
are now going, oh, what's happening?
Well,
one of the interesting things that's taken place over the last few days is
they've really changed their messaging. They came in here and said things are so
bad, we got to bring in a bad budget. Well, people weren't accepting of that.
They say, well, decision making and the budget, there are choices that you make
as a government.
Of
course, Members opposite said it's the previous administration, previous
administration. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I've said it before in this
House and I couldn't be more sincere when I say this. More than anything else I
hear from people of the province is they're sick and tired of hearing those
words, the previous administration and the blame. They are sick and tired of
hearing it.
I can't
be more serious or more accurate or more genuine or more sincere by saying
everybody who has a problem if someone has a problem with education, they'll
raise it. If someone has a problem with health care, they'll raise it. If
someone has a problem with taxation and fees, they'll raise it. People in all
spectrums are raising it. They're raising it broadly, but that's a tactic the
government decided to use. That's a tactic they're using and they continue to
use it.
Of
course, there's a right to use whatever strategy they want, but in the last few
days we've seen a change. Because the budget they painted as being so bad, now
they're starting to talk about good. We said since day one, there were some good
things in the budget. I was glad when things weren't cut. I was surprised when I
heard things like courthouses which is where I started my comments this
evening were being cut, because I don't think they've done any analysis to
determine what the impacts are going to be.
Just
last year the Minister of Justice stood here in the House and criticized us over
the family violence court in Labrador West and was looking for commitments that
we were going to put it in place. Now he's shutting the court down completely;
shutting it down completely.
Harbour
Grace is the one that comes back to quite regularly, because Harbour Grace is
probably the busiest court. Whitbourne, Placentia court closures feed in there.
Now, the Members opposite are going to get up and say, well, you closed
Whitbourne and you closed other courts. Well, yes, we did. They're going to
criticize us for doing it, but as they've done with other things, they're doing
more cuts and reductions the same way. It's a busy court, it's a big court.
I know
the Member for the area is gravely concerned about it. I believe she's sincere
in her concern. I believe she's hearing it from people. Mayors are talking about
it; the justice community is talking about it. They're talking about the denial
of services and justice services for the people in that region.
I think
that's a very important matter and I believe that's an error the government has
made. It's unfortunate because they talked about that they will listen to what
people have to say and people matter and people are important, but they're not
responding to the concerns expressed by the people. That's also a feedback we're
receiving from people around the province.
Mr.
Speaker, my time has quickly run out. I didn't want to use a speech. We know
Members opposite are reading prepared texts that are being provided to them.
I've decided not to do that. Members over here are not doing that. We're talking
about the experiences we're having and what we're hearing from people in the
province. We'll continue to do that right up until the last vote that we have on
this budget.
We'll
continue to make and share the concerns expressed by people. We'll continue to
share the concerns and ask for changes and why can they make those decisions
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
Member's time has expired.
MR. P. DAVIS:
We'll continue our work as an
Opposition.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to get up and have a few words to say about the Concurrence on social policy. I
presented our department's Estimates at this meeting of Education and Early
Childhood Development. I want to say thank you to all the officials in the
department. I keep saying to the officials in Education and Early Childhood
Development that I drew the long straw when it came to senior officials in the
department. I have to say, they are amongst the most professional and competent
people that I've worked with in my 45 years, so hats off to them.
They say
there are always brains behind an operation. They are definitely the folks who
are giving us very wise advice. They have been very co-operative and
understanding as we try to pull the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador back
from the fiscal cliff that the previous government thought they'd just drive us
all over and there would be no impact, other than when we hit the bottom.
With
respect to education in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it's important for
people in the province to have an understanding of a few key facts. We've heard
a lot of rhetoric and then there are the facts. We just heard a lot of rhetoric
that time, which I'll easily be able to rebut in a minute.
There
are a lot of facts. One of the facts is that from 2004 to 2015 so over the
course of 11 years the budget for the Department of Education increased by
nearly $300 million. Over the course of 11 years the previous administration
increased the budget for the Department of Education by $300 million almost.
But, at the same time, there was a steady decline in the number of students in
the province. We know the demographic challenge that we have. Our population is
aging. People are having smaller families and that's a fact.
Over the
course of time that the previous government increased education, K to 12
spending, by some $300 million, the population of students that the system is to
serve declined by over 12,000 students. In fact, it was closer to a
13,000-student reduction. The number of schools also, likewise, declined from
303 schools to 262 over that 11-year period.
So you
have to wonder how it is that we were increasing by that significant per-student
amount when the enrolment was going down so much. You wonder about what it was
we got in return. If you look at certain test scores and student achievement in
schools under the current administration's supervision, then there is cause to
question what it is we got for that money.
One of
the things that has been raised here in the House of Assembly in Question Period
and with me and I have lots of emails and telephone calls and have had lots of
conversations with students. For the information of the Member for Conception
Bay South, I'm not sure where it is he gets his information, but I have
diligently responded to every person that's gotten in touch with me. If he has
some information that's contrary to that, if it isn't just a cheap shot that he
decided to throw out here on the House of Assembly floor, I encourage him to
back up the evidence with what he said today. Otherwise it is just a cheap shot
and that's all it is.
One of
the things that's going on, Mr. Speaker, is the allocation of teachers has been
provided to the system by the Department of Education. The Department of
Education doesn't do the deployment. There's about $550 million, about 60 per
cent of the budget for the Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development that's represented by teacher salaries and benefits. When we do a
calculation in the department on what it would cost for a program, the figure
that we input for a teacher's salary and benefits is $89,500.
The
other day the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island talked about wanting
to get rid of multigrading and to have some additional 500 teachers as a result.
If you do the math on that, times $89,500, you see the kinds of numbers we're
talking about.
The
allocation has been provided to the school districts and the largest one being
the English School District. Now that's working its way through. Schools are
finding out they have been reduced some portion of a teaching unit, one or more
or partial units. What is happening is that principals will now get back to the
districts to give them an update about enrolment or programming or what have
you. The district will then see if there are opportunities to adjust, provide
additional teaching allocations to the system in order to keep up. Then, at the
end of the summer, there will be a further adjustment which will help ensure
that schools have what they're entitled to under the teacher allocation formula.
Like I
said, in response to a question in Question Period from the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island, the English School District, as I understand
it, will be advertising for more than 200 teaching positions this summer. There
will be more than 200 teaching positions, new positions advertised for this
summer.
One of
the reasons why is we are following through with the commitment that three
parties in this House of Assembly made. Now two parties, the Opposition parties,
have decided to renege on their promise to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador to have full-day kindergarten. That's their decision because there will
be generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and families who will
remember that. I'll be sure to remember them. I don't plan to fade away any time
soon.
Basically, Budget 2014 committed over
$30 million over three years for full-day kindergarten. Now that was
infrastructure and programming. In fact, the French system in the province, the
five French schools the Francophone schools in the province they've always
had full-day kindergarten. There have been schools that have been offering
full-day kindergarten within the teaching allocation that they were given. What
we're doing now is implementing the full program.
The
Leader of the Opposition got up a few minutes ago and said: Why are you getting
rid of a proven program? I'm not sure of the language he used, something about
research. I'd like to see the research evidence that he's talking about on
Intensive Core French. I'd like to see the research on Intensive Core French
because I'm not aware of what he's talking about. If he has some data, empirical
evidence on that program here in the province, I'd like to see it. We do know
the benefits of full-day kindergarten, there's no question. I've gone over that
time and time again.
So just
to give him a bit of information about how many people are impacted and then he
can judge the proportionate impact. Now I understand, before I go on, that there
are families, students and teachers who are disappointed that the province can
no longer provide a full teacher unit for a partial class of Intensive Core
French. I know that's disappointing. I've talked to many parents who are
disappointed by it and I'm disappointed by it, but it's not a practice we can
continue.
Intensive Core French; the decision to limit the offerings impacts 14 schools,
20 classes and approximately 140 students 20 classes in 14 schools. Full-day
kindergarten impacts 185 schools, 370 classes and 4,750 students. We're talking
20 classes of Intensive Core French versus 370 classes of full-day kindergarten.
I know
that likely comes as no consolation to parents who are bitterly disappointed
about the change in Intensive Core French, but that is really the proportionate
difference. A program for 4,750 students or a program for about 150 students; a
program that has reams and reams of evidence conducted here and elsewhere and
not so much on the other end of it. In fact, there are quite significant
reductions in the number of students who are taking French immersion in senior
grades. There's quite a lot of attrition. I'm not sure if the Member opposite
has research conducted on that he'd like to get up and tell us about.
One of
the things that has come up it came up here in the House today was the whole
question of school infrastructure. It was interesting. The PC Party, the
Official Opposition, sent out a press release yesterday saying that the Member
for Terra Nova had to vote against the budget now because they're going to be
using modular classrooms for Riverside Elementary. As I said in Question Period
today, over a period of six years the previous administration put 41 modular
classrooms in place in schools around the province in order to deal with
enrolment capacity issues in school.
Dorset
Collegiate, Pilley's Island, had four modulars added. I never heard the Member
for Baie Verte Green Bay, I never heard of him voting against the budget
because those modulars were added. I didn't see that happen here. That cost the
government $2 million.
Paradise
Elementary had four modulars added to a new school. I didn't see the Member for
Topsail Paradise or the Member for Mount Pearl North vote against the budget
that put those modular classrooms in place. Villanova Junior High had five
modular classrooms put in place, and I didn't see anyone vote against those
budgets.
Holy
Trinity Elementary has eight modular classrooms behind it eight and I never
saw the Member for Cape St. Francis get up in the House of Assembly and vote
against the budget that put those eight there. That cost $4 million.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. KIRBY:
Four million dollars for Holy
Trinity, but overall it was about $18.5 million for 41 modulars. Now if this was
not an acceptable way to deal with a short- or intermediate-term capacity
issues, enrolment capacity issues, a capacity to accommodate student enrolment
numbers in schools, than I'm not sure why the previous administration put 41 of
them there, why they spent $18.5 million on it and why we didn't see Members for
their own districts voting against their own budget, as now they're demanding
the Member for Terra Nova should have to do. So it's completely hypocritical.
It's the essence of hypocrisy, basically. So there's that.
Again,
like I said, the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island is out decrying
overcrowding at Beachy Cove Elementary. I was out at a public meeting there last
year where he guaranteed that the school would be open for this September, this
coming September in Beachy Cove, in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, to deal with
school capacity issues. That's not going to happen.
What
happened was the previous administration promised to build these schools on an
accelerated schedule that did not reflect what the understanding is within
government in terms of the length of time that it takes to build a school in the
province. On some of the schedules they announced, I'd say you'd be challenged
to build a house in the length of time, but they were going to build schools in
it. Now the schools are not ready, and that's somebody else's fault. We've not
been here for six months and now, all of a sudden, these schools they failed to
plan for are not our fault.
Similar,
the Member for Mount Pearl North, he's complaining that the extension is not
going to be on St. Peter's Primary in time. I say if he wanted that to be done
sooner, he should have asked his own government to do it sooner because he was
at the Cabinet table. That didn't happen. Then he got up in the House of
Assembly on a petition one day and said: Oh, you've got I don't know what he
said, four or five a number of vacant classrooms down at Mary Queen of the
World, I think he said, and you can send French immersion students down there.
So I got
on the email and I contacted the school council chair out there. I said the
Member for Mount Pearl North is standing up in the House of Assembly saying we
should start busing your children in French immersion down to the other school
on Topsail Road. Is that the position of the school council? They said, no, we
haven't had any conversation with him about it. If we were going to make
decisions based on what the Member for Mount Pearl North is saying, then I think
we'd probably get in a lot of conflict with parents because it's not something
that he's even brought to the school council. And I suggest that's probably an
appropriate way to deal with things.
Despite
all the challenges, there are good things that are happening. Like I said today,
the previous administration had access to some $25 billion over the course of
their term of office from various royalties and so on to the province. They
chose to spend it whatever way they did.
In the
end, on the way out the door, they had a budget where they promised hundreds of
millions of dollars' worth of infrastructure that you just can't deliver on, not
unless you just put it all on the credit card. That's basically what they're
suggesting, I suppose, and we just can't do that. So some of these projects have
been delayed, and they're going to be priorities for us once we get this fiscal
ship righted. But right now we're dealing with a mess and we're trying to do the
best that we can.
While
doing the best we can we're actually spending, this year, $106 million on a
number of different school infrastructure projects. Mr. Speaker, $106 million
this year on school infrastructure projects: on new school constructions, on
school extensions, on repairs and maintenance $106 million. So the suggestion
that we're not doing anything to address capacity issues is not true.
Again,
these involve schools that were promised on an accelerated schedule that could
not be met. There was the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's one the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island guaranteed people just over a year ago that
would open. The school in Torbay, a similar situation, was promised. It won't be
delivered on the schedule they promised. The Octagon Pond school in Paradise is
going to be finished; the Gander grades four to six school; the new school for
Conception Bay South; and the Virginia Park School, which has been something
that's been out there for quite a long time and still not finished, we're going
to finish it. There's also the extension and the renovations for St. Peter's
Junior High. So there's quite a bit going on. There are other projects I could
talk about as well, but there is quite a lot that is happening.
Another
thing that has come up is the issue of busing. I empathize with families who are
going to have a change to their routine as a result of the changes in busing. We
have the Member for Cape St. Francis he was out at a public meeting last night
making absurd claims about government's position. That's not a big surprise to
me. But he was out at that while we're sitting here in the House of Assembly
trying to deal with the Independent Appointments Commission.
Mr.
Speaker, basically it boils down to this: over $50 million is being spent right
now, this school year, on busing. And, the projected expenditure for the next
school year is almost $60 million, a tremendous sum of money on busing. The
preference for the school districts, and certainly for the Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development, is to spend our money, to focus as
much of our expenditures as possible on our core mandate, which is teaching and
learning, investments in the classroom. So we're trying to bring the busing
costs down.
What are
they doing? You'd think they were doing something draconian to students the way
you hear the Member for Cape St. Francis talking about this. It's going to cause
people to have their schedules changed, and that's difficult for people to deal
with. But in the end, we have had double runs for busing in the province before.
It's pretty consistent with the district's policies in other areas of the
province. It does lead to changes in the opening times for schools. That's to
allow for the additional time for pickup and drop-off of students. It's fairly
easy to understand. As a result of the changes that the district is making this
year, there are 37 fewer buses that are going to be used 37 fewer buses.
The
Opposition would prefer to have that money spent on those 37 additional buses.
But it's like everything they say here in the House of Assembly, it's only a
million dollars, it's only $25,000, it's only $50,000, it's only $100,000, it's
only $5 million
MR. KENT:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North, on a point of order.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd ask you to state the
Standing Order.
MR. KENT:
No problem, Mr. Speaker.
Standing
Order 49. The Minister of Education just referred to a Member being out of the
House last evening. He's well aware that's unparliamentary and I would
respectfully ask him to withdraw.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, it's well known
the Member was on Twitter. His picture was all over the Internet that he was out
of the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is
unparliamentary to refer to a Member as being out of the House.
MR. KIRBY:
Oh, I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
I saw it on Twitter and I thought it was appropriate. I will sit down now.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Member to withdraw unequivocally.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes, I withdraw
unequivocally, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It looks
like I'm going to be the last speaker in the last Concurrence debate of
Budget 2016.
So much
has happened since April 14, it's hard to know where to start, Mr. Speaker. So
much has been said in the House, but so much has been said elsewhere, completely
all over the province.
What's
disturbing for me here in the House is that when we stand up and speak as
Opposition, government mocks us. They say we don't know what we're talking
about. They say that we don't have facts, et cetera, et cetera. I'm getting a
bit tired of that. That's why I have decided that for the rest of the debates
I'm going to do a lot of letting other people speak, and let them tell their
constituents and my constituents that they don't know what they're talking about
and that they don't know reality.
I'm
going to start tonight with one of my own constituents. This is somebody who
does not want to be identified, and I will honour that, of course. I will never
say anybody's name here in the House who hasn't asked that their name be said.
This is
a constituent who wrote me early on, actually, after the budget came down, on
April 18th. The writer says: I am a lawyer, a recent grad and one of your
constituents working in St. John's. I'm writing to share my fear and anxiety
about the budget with you.
I
graduated from a good law school outside of Atlantic Canada in 2013 with
$100,000 in debt. I moved home out of dedication to family and to my home. The
salaries here are not competitive with where I studied I'm protecting the
person by not mentioning the province. Despite the fact that I am a lawyer, a
job typically associated with at least having enough, I live paycheque to
paycheque and I hope that the government side of the House is hearing this.
I have
played with the numbers in the budget. It seems to me a single person without
dependents will have to pay around $3,300 with the $600 levy. Mr. Speaker,
$3,300 is more than three loan payments. I don't know how I'm supposed to bear
this unless I reduce my loan payments, but I am unwilling to do that. I have
worked hard for my whole life. I got an education that was extremely inflated in
price compared to my colleagues from even 10 years ago and it's only getting
worse for the following years.
I am
unwilling to take on more interest in my presently $85,000 of student loans
because the previous governments mismanaged the resources and the money they
had. In fact, my unwillingness goes to the fact that my partner and I will
likely be leaving. We don't own a home. How could we? We don't yet have
children. Having either of these things here is not in our plans now, given
these outrageous fees and I hope we're listening to this. This is only an
example. I have many like this.
On two
other notes, I state that my nephew was behind in school living in a small rural
community the MHA of which is here in this room. The combined classrooms
and/or reduced classroom size will mean that a child like him so capable of
being bright, you should see how deep his curiosity runs will be pushed along
in a school system that is too bogged down to even keep a child back a grade
anymore.
Finally,
my sister was mentally unwell for a long time. To see the closure of a section
of the Waterford today broke my last stable straw. This is too much to take
emotionally; it's too much to take financially. Please give my concerns a voice
if it's possible.
I
communicated with this person about an hour ago to let her know that I was
reading this. I got a real big thank you from the person because that person
wants everybody in this room to know what this budget is doing to her, one of
our young, bright people: a young lawyer ready to commit to this province and is
not going to be able to do it.
I have a
number of letters like this from people starting out, middle class, and really
believing they can't stay. This government is really doing things backwards. The
Minister of Education talked about facts. Well, there are facts and there are
facts, I realize that. If I tried to spend time trying to untwist the way some
of the facts have been presented by the government, I'd use up all my time plus
by 1,000 times. I don't intend to try to untwist the facts that they're
presenting here. I want to present other facts which are facts.
There is
fiscal and economic policy and there are principles in fiscal and economic
policy. Surely, the government side, the Minister of Finance and the Premier,
everybody else in Cabinet and the backbenchers should know that those policies
exist.
One of
the really basic economic policies has to do with the employment impacts of
spending cuts. This government started from the worst possible place in doing
cuts because, in actual fact, it's in our social programs that we get most
employment. Cuts in social programs give us greater unemployment and a drop in
the GDP. That is an economic fact.
If you
did economics 100, that's what you're taught. And believe it or not, even though
we talk about economists on the left and economists on the right, et cetera, if
you go into an economics classroom you're getting a neutral course; a course
that's teaching you economic policy, no politics involved. In such a course you
would be taught exactly what I've just said.
So when
we look at industry, when you do cuts in industry you affect employment. Now
here's the important thing in this fact: for every $1 million, you can estimate
how many cuts it would mean if you lose a million dollars invested in a certain
industry.
I have
the list here. It's a very typical economic list. What is the industry that
creates the greatest number of jobs per $1 million? It's the educational
services. If you put a million dollars into educational services you get 20.54
equivalent jobs. I mean that's how it's worked out. So education is number one.
That's the highest employer when it comes to jobs per $1 million invested in the
industry.
What's
the next one? Accommodation and food services. That makes sense. It's 16.25.
What's the next one after that? Health care and social assistance. If you invest
in that industry it's 15.54 equivalent jobs.
Here's
the really interesting thing. Guess which industry that happens here in this
province that creates the smallest number of jobs per million dollars. Guess
what, the oil and gas. The oil and gas extraction, for every $1 million you get
0.38 equivalent jobs. That's a fact. That doesn't mean that we don't have oil
and gas. Of course we're going to have it, the same way with mining. The second
lowest is mining when it comes to the creation of jobs. So they get the money
but we don't get the jobs. That's the reality. They get the money but we don't
get the jobs.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker has stood on several occasions and asked Members of the Legislature to
respect the person that has been identified by the Speaker to speak. I will ask
one final time. If we have continued interruptions, whether it's tonight or
tomorrow, the person who's interrupting the person identified to speak will not
be permitted to either ask or answer questions the following day.
The hon.
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I will
respond to what was shouted out across the floor to me because I don't want
anybody in Lab West saying that I want their jobs gone. What I'm pointing out is
that if you're going to do cuts in a budget, you look at what creates the most
jobs. The government doesn't get to do cuts in the mining industry anyway.
We are
happy to have the mining industry and we're happy to have the oil and gas
industry. We want them to thrive here, but we have to remember that when it
comes to our overall economy the overall provincial economy when it comes to
job creation the job creation comes from educational services, accommodation
and food services, health care and social assistance. Arts, entertainment and
recreation is number four. What's the message? Where this government if it
were really interested in job creation, it would see money going into those top
four industries as real investment that's going to create jobs. They've done the
opposite, Mr. Speaker. They've done the extreme opposite.
The
other proof of this that would fit into the educational services or could be
in social assistance is child care. Child care was really proven in Quebec
when they brought in the child care program; the jump in the economy in Quebec
for no other reason but there being a child care program. So what have they
done? They have cut services in the areas where jobs are going to be created.
That's
why they have had to recognize in their budget that there is going to be an
increase in unemployment because of the budget. There's going to be an increase
in unemployment for a number of reasons, but this budget is going to contribute
40 to 50 per cent of the increase in unemployment and 40 to 50 per cent of the
decrease of our economy.
I still
can't figure out, and neither can any economist that I've spoken to neither
can any person in this country who has a thought in their head figure it out
how they think things are going to turn around as they continue down that road.
It can't. It won't happen.
They've
put their hopes in the price of oil going up again. They actually say that in
the budget. That's actually in the budget as well. What is the sign of hope? Not
that they have great plans for job creation, it's that they're going to get more
revenue because oil is going to go up and there is more exploration.
The
point I was making, when I was interrupted some minutes ago, is that it will be
great to have revenue coming back to the province if oil goes up to $50, which
is probably the max that it will happen, but we're not going to get a lot of
jobs from it. We need jobs, and that's another economic fact.
A main
factor in having a good GDP in a province or in a country is employment. Our
unemployment is going up. None of that is making sense, Mr. Speaker, and all of
that is factual.
I will
not have the other side of the House tell me I don't know what I'm talking
about. I've spent 40 years as a teacher, as somebody out working in the
community with people doing community development, as a researcher in
international economics, I'm not going to be told I don't know what I'm talking
about. Neither do people who have been writing letters in the paper, sending
emails to us, et cetera; neither do they want to be told they don't know what
they're talking about.
Let's take one example, the library cuts. I'm sure
they're saying oh, no, not again. Well, do you know what? Yes, again because
over half of our libraries being closed in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is
not acceptable.
There was a wonderful letter on May 4 in
The Telegram. It came from a person
who is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I can say the person's name because she
signed her name to a letter in The
Telegram. She currently lives in Germany, but she wrote this letter because
she's so upset about the library cuts. Let's listen to somebody else, somebody
who knows what she's talking about.
Library cuts a staggering blow to rural NL.
Several years ago I had the great honour and good fortune to work as a Community
Access Program IT trainer in a rural Newfoundland public library, I suspect
she's saying rural Newfoundland because it was on the Island of Newfoundland,
before somebody jumps up and says she didn't say Labrador as well located in
a village school building. It was one of the most meaningful experiences of my
life.
I
had grown up in a larger urban centre where the library was usually a fairly
quiet and deserted place. Here, by contrast, there was always bustle: the local
people, and in particular the children, read voraciously. Every lunchtime and
after school the children would stampede into the library to choose new books
and would often discuss books that they had just read with the librarian or with
me. If the librarian had not constantly urged the children to bring books back
before taking out new ones, the library's stocks would have been depleted within
a week. My impressions have been confirmed by the release of the extremely high
circulation figures for this particular library.
She
doesn't name the library. She does point out though, at the end of her letter,
that the library is one of the ones being closed.
I'd
like to point out to the Minister of Education that the library being described
here is not from 1896. It's from the last few years. So I don't know when the
Minister of Education was talking about: libraries aren't the same, libraries
are different. Well, we're talking about a library here in rural Newfoundland,
on the Island, in this decade; children rushing to read books, children
wanting to read books.
She goes
on, As a result of all this reading of library books, the children had an
astounding depth of general knowledge and interest in world affairs. Notably,
the boys were as much involved in the library as the girls, and it kept them
actively engaged with their education. For children whose families were unable
to provide them with books at home, this is very important, families who did
not have the money for books at home the library filled the gap. Some of
these children have demonstrated continuing high academic achievement, as I was
delighted to observe last Christmas at the school prize-giving ceremony
Not last
century, last Christmas. These children are some of the highest, academically
achieving kids in our province, in a small rural school on the Island with this
dynamic library, and this library is being closed.
She goes
on and talks about everything else that went on and goes on in that library. You
have a program for preschoolers. Apparently, parents come most likely, I would
imagine mothers, because there's no daycare provision in the village. She keeps
calling it the village. The books on child rearing and child psychology were
also extremely well-used. Puppets were available to the children outside of
storytime for spontaneous dramatic play. And she goes on and on.
I
encourage people to look up the May 4th
Telegram article and read all that she says. The end of it, she says it's
a beautiful letter. I don't have time to read it all, but at the very end she
says, and I'm reading it out for her. I implore Mr. Ball to reconsider this
irresponsible and ill-informed decision
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that it's unparliamentary to refer to another Member by name.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
It's unparliamentary under
any circumstances to refer to another Member by name.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible) when I was
quoting from something directly that it was all right. I will repeat
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to withdraw.
MS. MICHAEL:
I implore the Premier yes,
I'm very sorry, I didn't realize.
I
implore the Premier to reconsider this irresponsible and ill-informed decision
a decision which will undermine the education and ambitions of children living
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Isabel Taylor.
I will
continue doing this for the rest of the time we have to speak to the budget in
the legislation that we have to try to get this government to hear educated,
intelligent people with experience from our communities saying to them what the
real impact of this is. I implore the Premier to take back this nonsense of the
closing of the 54 libraries in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm not sure how long I have
to speak to this, Mr. Speaker. I have a minute. Well, let's see if I can't
condense it down into a minute.
I'm just
honoured to be able to stand, and I'll be sitting very shortly. This was my
first opportunity during the Concurrence debate to sit on this side and answer
questions. I will get an opportunity to speak to the budget as I will be
introducing the main motion back for debate now shortly.
Thanks
again for this opportunity.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the report
of the Social Services Committee be concurred in.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Report of Social Services Committee, carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Fogo
Island Cape Freels.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
privilege to get up here this evening and speak on the budget. I only wish I had
a little better handwriting.
There
are a couple of things I'd like to start off with the budget. One thing that we
started off with is why couldn't we be more like Alberta? Alberta has a little
debt and we have a lot of it. We had a $2 billion cheque that was put our way,
and that's the easiest way to put it. Alberta has very little debt and we're up
to our eyes in debt. We had a $2 billion cheque that came to us. They put it in
the pension plan and then they forgot all about the pension plan until last
year. So we have to fix this fiscal crisis and we have to do the job fair.
It was
quoted by the Finance Minister a while ago that she's after signing 9,500
mortgages for $200,000 or more. That's a bit shocking. We have to put a plan in
place and we have to do some long-term planning. There's no point to be on a big
spending spree when you don't have a lot of money to spend. We're going to try
and control that as best we can.
In my
district, as everybody knows, it's probably one of the hardest hit districts out
there; the loss of seven libraries, two clinics and a school. That's basically
because of the overspending and not having the foresight to see a plan for the
future. That has been a big issue for me in my district. Over the next coming
days I will have a petition I'm going to present on behalf of one of the clinics
and maybe some of the libraries I know there have been libraries there.
Social
media is another thing I'd like to touch on. Social media has encouraged us so
much over the last few days how bad this budget was, but a lot of it is getting
the message out there. The levy; 38 per cent of our residents will pay nothing
on the levy, while 43 per cent will pay less than $340.
A couple
of weeks ago it came up about the fees. I was sitting down with a couple of
people and I said how about the fees? They couldn't come up, because I had the
full sheet there. The only fees that they could see they were going to be hit
every day as we always hear talk of the low-income people. What fees they're
going to have to pay basically would be the registration and their insurance
would be the main fees they were struck with. And on the other thing was the 2
per cent on the HST. So it's not a full 15 per cent on everything, it was just 2
per cent. A lot of people said my driver's licence is a fee, but it's only every
five years you have to pay that fee.
People
were calling me. They were saying gas, 16½ cents, how ae we going to do it?
Well, in 2013-2014 gas was $1.44 a litre. This morning when I checked the pump
it was 99.9 here in this city. So the 16½ cents on top of that will still be a
lot lower than the $1.44 that we paid two years ago.
Then we
talked about the cost to municipalities. Municipalities can apply for a refund
for their gas that they spend; 16½ cents, actually, they can apply for. Plus,
they can apply for 100 per cent of the GST on all of their gas sales. So at the
end of the day they are not really paying the pump price, they're getting a
refund from there.
It's
fair to say, yes, in this budget everyone is being taxed. My good friend here
from Central talked about it the other day, everyone is taking a burden in this
and we are. Everybody is being taxed on this and that's how it should be. A
lot of the times you say that we're taxing the poor and we're not touching the
rich.
Anyone
who would have read The Telegram last
week would have seen that 10 per cent of Canada not only Newfoundland, 10 per
cent of Canada makes over $80,000. In this province 12 per cent, according to
the journalists 12 per cent of the province pays 54 per cent of the income tax
of this province. I'm only basing that on an excerpt from
The Telegram. So through all that, I
think the tax of this no, it's not great, but it's the best of a bad
situation.
I was
over to the hospital a couple of weeks ago. I went up to visit my daughter who
worked upstairs who, I'll be honest, would rather not say that I'm the MHA for
our district right now. Anyway, I went and sat down while I was waiting for my
friend. I had a coffee and I sat with this older gentleman. He had no idea in
this world who I was, so I said, Sir, how's everything today? I struck up a
conversation like I normally would. You wouldn't know I was home, but that was
fine.
He said
what do you think of the budget? I said it's funny you say that; I'll ask you
what do you think of the budget. He said it's that levy, b'y, that gets me. I
said, Sir, if someone told you that levy was to keep this place open and I
looked all around the Health Sciences. I don't know if I'm allowed to say Health
Sciences or not. I looked all around the hospital where I was and I said, Sir,
suppose this levy was to keep this open. He said to me: Young man, I would pay
double.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Young man?
MR. BRAGG:
That's what he said. No, he
didn't know how old I was. The man was a bit older than me.
Anyway,
through that, I reached out my hand and said: How do you do? I'm the MHA for
Fogo Island Cape Freels. Just like that. So it's perception. Yes, they're
getting a lot of mileage out of the levy, but the thing is, if we tell people
what the levy is for it will keep open the hospitals. It will keep open the
schools. It will keep the highways going. It will keep our ferries going. It's
all the services it will go through.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BRAGG:
Exactly. So we started it off
and I'm off my notes here now.
I have
to say, in the beginning I looked at this and I sat here and I was
shell-shocked, is the word I would use, when it came out. But the more I'm here
the more I understand the need and the urgency of this situation, the magnitude
of it all and the importance of us to do the right thing.
It's
easy. On Facebook people say vote no. Vote no means you'll sweep the problem
under the rug, ignore it and next year it gets worse. I don't think that's what
we signed up to do. Someone said it right. If we're only here one term and
that's what comes out of one term that we did the right thing, well, you know
what? We'll hold our heads high when we walk about the door.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
I looked into the budget and
if you look at it, we have $570 million that can be spent in infrastructure:
$63.7 million on the Trans-Labrador Highway; $62 million on our provincial
roads. Everybody is always asking for pavement. Everybody says: Do you know what
will get you elected? Pavement.
Honest
to God, someone told me in my district: You do twice as many kilometres of road
as what the last MHA did and you're safe to get in again. I said, Sir, how much
would I have to do? He said two kilometres. Mr. Speaker, I have a bigger
district now so I can only imagine I'm going to have to look for more pavement
in a bigger district.
There's
$23 million for the Team Gushue Highway; $8.13 million for wharfs and terminals.
I can tell you right now from where I stand wharfs and terminals and ferry
infrastructure are a very important part of my district and for the travel of
this province. Here we are now we have a beautiful big boat
AN HON. MEMBER:
Where's she to?
MR. BRAGG:
which is hanging out down
at the waterfront. I mean we spent, is it someone can correct me $50 million
or maybe $49.9 million on that boat. Right now we've had no service. For me, for
the service that we're offering right now, if there was no money in the budget
we would not be able to have an enhanced crew on the Fogo Island Change
Islands run, we would not be able to provide the service.
So as
bad as it is right now, we're moving the people off those islands. That's with a
boat that is now half the size of the one that sits idly down to the waterfront.
The Minister of Transportation did a little scrum today he told me. He said we
were given a lemon to make lemonade. I know where there's a thruster that can
stir it up, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
And it isn't on the run
across from Fogo Island to Change Islands, Mr. Speaker.
You look
at my district. My district is a fishing district traditionally. I went down
last week. I had to go to a graduation so I always leave a little early. I
always drop into a different gas station every day when I'm moving to get gas.
There
were eight or 10 men in the gas station. I walked in the door and knew what I
was facing. They all came and almost rolled up their sleeves, but I was cute
enough. I was driving a Honda Civic at the time. I went in and I just parked
underneath a couple of the bigger vehicles. So they got in and they told me
about how bad this budget was, what should be changed and it was too much, too
fast, and they went on. So I gave them their say and I sat back. Now, I said:
Gentlemen, you give me a minute of your time and I'll explain to you what I know
about this budget that we're doing.
It's a
necessity. This budget is not something we have that we're enjoying putting out
there. And I said it before; there are no high-fives on this budget. It's a
budget of necessity. I explained to him the levy and the importance of the levy,
the gas up 16½ cents and where that was all to. I went through the whole gamut
of that.
One guy
said: I make $35,000 a year; I'm going to have to pay about $5,000 extra because
of the changes. I said, oh, well you must be making a lot more than that. I said
if your light bill is $300 a month for 36 months, if you do the math on that,
the extra 2 per cent is $72 on the year. I said that's the most expensive thing
that comes into your house. I said I see what you're driving outside, so the 16½
cents in the gas should be of little worry. I said you probably burn more
starting your vehicle than I'm going to burn going down to the run.
Anyway,
I made light of it and I explained it to him. When I left, each one of them when
I went in that door had this illusion that we were doing this horrible thing
reached out and shook my hand. They said do you know what? You do what you have
to do. So I thought it was a good move.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
I'm really glad, actually,
that I had the time to sit back from my position back here, sort of elevated
over everybody else. Some people might say in the backbench, but it's a great
seat to see what goes on and listen.
I'm
really glad we've had a month almost now to talk about the budget. It seems like
a lot longer than after going all last night. It is the people I talk to to be
honest, everybody's views have changed. It's changed to the point that people
are understanding right now. People know what we have to do and see where we
have to go.
Someone
said everybody is going to leave Newfoundland. Who's going to leave for $72 on
their light bill a month? Nobody that I know of. Who's going to leave for 16
cents on a litre of gas? Nobody that I know of.
Right
now and I had it here I'm a fan of a singer downtown. I wish I could find it,
but my papers are gone everywhere. He says in a song: I was born in this place,
grew up in this place and here is where I want to be. I think nothing says it
better than every one of us that's in this room here this evening, everyone who
sits in rural Newfoundland and in urban Newfoundland and wherever they may be,
this is where you want to be.
AN HON. MEMBER:
And Labrador.
MR. BRAGG:
And Labrador, too. I'm sorry.
I haven't been to Labrador yet. We'll fix that.
We're
making a move here so that we see this longevity for us, for our kids, for our
kid's kids and go on down the line. I live in rural Newfoundland; everybody can
talk about out-migration and where it's going. We all realize it as the
generation gets older.
I grew
up in a generation that a lot of us stayed home. From the time I finished
school, a lot of everybody in my area have all moved on. Yeah, Fort McMurray
fires last week. There's not one person here who didn't know someone who moved
to Fort McMurray. They did not move because of the levy or the 15 per cent on
the taxes, they moved because they wanted to make a better life for themselves.
Some moved out of necessity, but they moved. Some of us stayed where we are.
I drive
around rural Newfoundland. It's good and I'm as proud as anybody can see. I look
at my district. It's a huge district, no doubt. I look at the businesses in my
area. If you come down through Hare Bay there's a fabrication shop and a leather
shop. We have a woodworking shop. We have a place for Indian Bay Frozen Foods
and Fiberglass Works. The hon. Member for Baie Verte Springdale was talking
about everything in his district, and I took a few notes.
Wood-Pick, smoked salmon and sea urchins; we have Beothic Fish in my area,
hiring anywhere from 300 to 400 people directly. I have no idea how many
fishermen are in that area. They do crab and groundfish. Crimson Tide, in Dover,
they employ 200 to 300 people. We have Hodder's in Stoneville who does sea
urchins and the Co-op on Fogo Island that does most anything that comes out of
the water. Change Islands, there's a company that does sea cucumbers.
Now, if
you add to that, there are numerous grocery stores, hardware stores, banks, two
hospitals, cottage hospitals I might add. A brand new one out on Fogo Island and
one of the oldest cottage hospitals and well-maintained is the Brookfield
Bonnews. Then we have nursing homes and seniors homes.
We have
three stadiums in the district: one in Centreville-Wareham-Trinity, one in
New-Wes-Valley and another one out on Fogo Island. Numerous walking trails we
have so much. I've said it for years. I live in an area that has four seasons.
You can do anything at any time. There is always something to do.
We have
historic sites and homes. There is an old courthouse in Greenspond excuse me,
I was all choked up because I was going back home then the Barbour site in
Newtown. The historic places that are around my area are amazing.
I would
not be here wanting to do anything that would damage that in any way, shape or
form.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
It's like I said, I was born
in Greenspond and I don't want it to be yet, but when the time comes that I have
to go, may it be in Greenspond.
Mr.
Speaker, it was a great opportunity to stand here this evening. I thank you very
much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia West
Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
I can
assure Members of the House, I'm far less animated than the Member for Fogo
Island Cape Freels but I share certainly in his passion for Newfoundland and
Labrador, in particular, rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
I think it's a wonderful
place to grow up and live and to stay and raise a family. Someday I'll come to
Greenspond to visit the Member.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a privilege to rise once again in this hon. House, as it is every
time when we rise. But particularly, I'm pleased tonight to rise and speak to
the budget which we have now spent a month debating, believe it or not. It feels
like it was just yesterday. Actually, it feels like it was a year ago. It's been
a great discussion on both sides of the House. I thank all of my hon. colleagues
for their candor and their commentary.
I also
want to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, to my constituents. As all Members would
know, we were in here until 1 o'clock last night and we were in here fairly
late. We start around 1:30 every day, to those watching at home. So it gets
fairly difficult when you're trying to return calls to your constituents. It
takes a little while to get back to people.
I thank
people for their patience and their understanding. Anyone who has written me an
email or an inbox message, they've all gotten a reply back. I phoned probably
close to 300 people back that have asked me to do so and that I've offered to. I
think it's very important that we have that kind of communication with our
constituents. I want to thank them for their understanding and their patience.
Speaking
now to the Opposition and the Third Party, we may not always agree on a
direction for our province, and we may not agree that
Budget 2016 is the right document to move us forward, but I believe
each of us comes here to fight for our constituents. I applaud them for their
outspoken feedback on behalf of their districts. That's what this process is all
about. It's a true honour, certainly, for me to join them here in the House of
Assembly.
I'm also
here to speak on behalf of my district and my constituents and on behalf of the
province as a whole because Budget 2016
concerns every single one of us. It concerns the people of Marystown, the people
of English Harbour East and the people of Bellevue, the people of Monkstown. I
met with people from all communities in my district and I've heard their
concerns and thoughts about the budget.
Similar
to the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels, how many people have I sat down
with, have I actually gone to their House upon their request, have I ran into at
an event, have I spoken to on the phone or replied to an email and they've
almost come through the phone at me, Mr. Speaker. But then at the end of the
conversation, they have a greater understanding of the measures that we're
taking.
In fact,
I had one call come to my office from the community of Petit Forte, a lovely,
beautiful community, picturesque community on the Burin Peninsula. He was rip
roaring through the phone, no doubt, Mr. Speaker. When I asked him to provide me
with line 236 on his income tax return and we put it into the income calculator,
it turns out he stands to benefit hundreds and hundreds of dollars from this
budget. He was very appreciative of that.
I
certainly heard my constituents' feedback and I've relayed it to my colleagues
in caucus and in this hon. House. The people I talk to, they're frustrated.
They're frustrated that we're in this mess. That $25 billion worth of oil
royalties were spent and now we're left in this position, we're a new
government, we have to come in and we have to take measures that are extremely
unpopular and measures that we don't want to take, Mr. Speaker.
There's
no one here on this side of the House, certainly, that would want to bring in a
budget like this. I sit behind the Finance Minister; it gave me no pleasure to
sit and listen to her 55-minute speech, that's for certain, I tell you. Not
because of its length, although brevity is always something I value. But
certainly, I can say there are measures in this that are unpopular, that we
understand and we want to remedy as soon as we can, as conditions allow.
The
people I've been talking to have been waiting a long time for a government to
come in and do what needs to be done. After observing over a decade of reckless
PC spending, over a decade of short-sighted actions conducted without a guiding
long-term plan, people saw this day coming.
We're
hearing the negative feedback. No one likes paying more taxes. No government
likes raising them. It's a financial strain on an already strained populous. But
without implementing the measures that we've taken, we would abandon our
province to a debt crisis that could place our current level of services and
supports in serious jeopardy.
The
situation is bad, Mr. Speaker. There's no getting around that point, but there
is hope. I do truly believe there's hope for Newfoundland and Labrador. We are a
place abundant of resources, abundant of people with ingenuity that I believe
will lead to brighter futures moving forward. We have hope because we have an
opportunity here, Mr. Speaker. It may well be one of our last opportunities, but
it's clearly there just waiting for us to take it.
We still
have the seeds for success sewn all over our province, from the vast mineral
wealth of Labrador to the billions of barrels of oil off our coast. We have a
creative population, an increasingly world-class tourism industry, competitive
post-secondary institutions and the potential to be once again global leaders in
the seafood industry.
We have
a strategic location that means we're poised to become a key player in arctic
commerce. And for now, we still control our financial destiny but if we falter
in this critical moment, then the opportunity may vanish as quickly as the oil
revenues did under the PC stewardship, or lack thereof.
Unlike
the price of oil, we may never bounce back from that, Mr. Speaker. We are
already spending more on servicing the interest of our debt than we are in
providing our children with education. This is a point I emphasize everywhere I
go, and I've travelled through over two dozen communities in my district since
the budget, every weekend. Like so many Members on both sides of the House, we
return to our districts and spend the weekends often attending functions and
doing meetings with people.
I say to
them, yes, it is tough. Yes, this budget is grave, but we are currently spending
more on interest payments than on the education system here in this province.
That is a very concerning fact, Mr. Speaker, extremely concerning for the future
of this province. So I ask Members and I ask the people watching at home to
think about that for a second. That is good money heading out of our Treasury
and into the pockets of the people who own our debt.
We hear
lots of commentary coming from the Opposition about the increased spending this
year. Well, a large portion of that was for increased debt-servicing costs
because of the inaction and the results of their mismanagement, Mr. Speaker. We
don't want to put this province in a position where we are spending more and
more and more on debt servicing. It means it's money we can't spend on roads or
bridge repair or putting broadband in communities which, by the way, we
invested $2 million in this budget for the broadband initiative here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It's money we won't have to invest in our
post-secondary institutions or our municipalities.
The
interest we owe on our debt has the power to dictate many of the actions we take
as a government. If we continue to add the principal of our debt, we run the
risk of having our debt-servicing obligations overwhelm us. Imagine if we had to
spend more money on interest than we did on health care. We're already spending
more on interest than we are on education. Continuing on this path, Mr. Speaker,
we would eventually eclipse health care, and that is extremely concerning.
Imagine
if our number one concern at budget time was how we are going pay off our
creditors rather than supply the necessary and vital services that we do to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Would we be able to provide anywhere near
the level of services we provide now if that reality comes to pass? No, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
basic math something that the former Finance minister from the other side
admittedly wasn't good at, and there's only so much revenue that comes into the
province. If we don't have enough revenue coming in to cover our expenditures,
then we have to borrow the money. Borrowing the money increases our debt load,
meaning our interest payments are even larger.
Having a
higher amount of interest shakes the confidence of the people we would borrow
from, meaning we would have to borrow at higher interest rates and our debt
quite literally, Mr. Speaker, could drag us into a situation where our creditors
would own us and the only alternative to that would be bankruptcy. We are
committed to making sure that we are never on a path to there. Do any of us want
this reality? Absolutely not, and I think that holds true for all Members of
this House, no matter of political stripe.
I don't
think there's a soul out there who would like to see that happen to our
province. There's not a person in Newfoundland and Labrador who would like to
hand our descendants the keys to a province on the verge of repossession by
financial institutions. As we have stated, our budget contains the necessary
adjustments to our taxation scheme to start the process of preventing this
nightmarish scenario from becoming a reality.
We
regret that we are in this position, to have burden our people and our
constituents with increased taxes and fees we truly do. Given the choice
between sharing around the burden of recovery and allowing Newfoundland and
Labrador to become irretrievably burdened with debt, it was a tough decision to
make, but the necessary one.
Our
budget presents to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to our creditors
a workable plan for returning to surplus in just seven years. The creditors have
already responded favourably to this, Mr. Speaker. Seven years may sound like a
long time, but considering that the PCs left us with a structural annual deficit
of nearly $3 billion is an incredible accomplishment that we can say that we
will be moving this forward to get rid of and erase our debt.
The easy
way out, Mr. Speaker, would be to continue on as the PCs had by mortgaging
Newfoundland and Labrador's future for the sake of winning political favour.
There's no better example of that than the fact that just last year, I believe,
there were 19 out of 20 fire trucks put out into PC districts. If we were
motivated in the same way that our predecessors were motivated, then that's what
we'd be doing. We would be mortgaging our future and we would continue to offer
people unsustainable and ill-advised take breaks and giveaways.
Mr.
Speaker, as I've said here in the House before, the District of Placentia West
Bellevue is a very big district. It's very large. It encompasses great
industrial areas, as I liken it to be the industrial heartland of the Island
portion of Newfoundland.
We have
the Marystown Shipyard which, Mr. Speaker, as people in my district would know,
is facing some difficulty at the moment. I want to inform my constituents that
the federal Member of Parliament and I met with the Marystown town council last
week, along with representatives of the union. The Premier will meet along with
a working group of the town. We're going to work for the people of Marystown.
We're going to make sure that we do our part as a government to bring work to
the area because that sustains not only the Burin Peninsula, but the entire
province.
We also
have Bull Arm, which is operating at peak of over 3,000 people, generating
revenue for the province, I should add, not only in taxation but direct revenue.
We have Long Harbour with the Vale site there. And, of course, we have the Come
By Chance refinery, which is a wonderful example of what a diversified economy
looks like all in my district. We're very proud people and we're very
welcoming people. We take people from all parts of the province, employ them and
we're very happy to do that.
In
addition to these industries that we have I know, certainly, I work with my
colleagues particularly the Member for Burin Grand Bank who is my neighbour
to the south, and we're working as we move forward every day, Mr. Speaker, to
bring more industry and more economic development to the Burin Peninsula and to
my district that extends onto the Avalon Peninsula as well. This is something we
work very hard for and it's on the top priority.
If we
were like the Members opposite, we'd continue to ring up the public debt for the
sake of approval ratings and short-term electoral favour. And we would squander
the fleeting opportunity to halt Newfoundland and Labrador's descent into an
inescapable debt crisis. If we were concerned only for our own political
survival, like the Progressive Conservatives who came before us, then that is
what we would do; and history would remember us as a government that came into
power and instead of doing what was right, sat by and let our province's destiny
slip through our fingers and into the grip of lending institutions.
I'm
proud to say that we will take the less travelled road, Mr. Speaker, and we will
make the decisions that are right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That does not mean that we are deaf to the concerns of the people. Every day
that I listen to my constituents and hear the concerns they're bringing forward,
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Members of this caucus know that I, along
with all my colleagues, we bring forth the concerns that we hear to our caucus,
and we are genuinely and actively listening to the people of our districts to
make sure that decisions we take as a government, that we respond to them
appropriately and we respond to them in time when we can take the measures to
correct some of the tougher decisions that we have made here. In due time, we
will, Mr. Speaker.
We are
asking people to help us take the necessary measures to halt our slide. We ask
this because we see the opportunity to bring Newfoundland and Labrador back to
prosperity. And it's not some imaginary prosperity, Mr. Speaker, like the kind
the PCs sold us; true prosperity like our oil-producing neighbour, Norway,
across the Atlantic.
I
mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, that there's hope. And I believe if we all join
together to get our Treasury back in order, we will be poised to seize a future
of unlimited potential. Imagine what we can do with the oil revenues when we
diminish our debt servicing obligations to a manageable level. Those revenues
will return. It's more or less a market certainty.
If we
have control of our debt load, then we will no longer have to use these resource
revenues as collateral when that day comes. We will be able to harness them to
shape the future that we want for ourselves and for our people and our
constituents. It isn't a hypothetical future, Mr. Speaker, that's predicated on
the type of wishful thinking that got us into this mess, as the Member for St.
John's Centre said today that we're banking on oil it's not true at all. This
is a future that we can ensure for our people. And if we take the steps today
that will get our financial affairs in order, it will bear fruits for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Before I
finish up, Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some of the commentaries that have
been made here tonight about the lack of hope. I believe there is hope, and I
believe there's a lot to stay here in Newfoundland and Labrador for. I spoke at
the Tricentia Academy graduation in Arnold's Cove on Friday night, and I said to
the graduates these were all 18 year olds about to embark upon going into the
workforce.
MS. DEMPSTER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BROWNE:
Not far off my age, the
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair reminds me.
They're
about to embark upon going into post-secondary or into the workforce. I said to
them, there's a lot of negativity out there some of it unfounded, in my
opinion. There's a lot of negativity. And now as young people entering into the
workforce and into society in a new stage in their lives, it's up to them now to
cut through that negativity and find a path forward. There is a path forward
here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I hear
Members opposite say the young people will go. Well, as a young person myself, I
see ample opportunity here and I see lots of reasons to stay right here in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
I would suggest: What legacy
are we leaving the young people of this province by kicking the can down the
road and leaving them mountains of debt, Mr. Speaker? These are tough decisions,
but necessary ones, given the mismanagement the former government made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
This budget is a blueprint
for the future. Although it is tough, although it is hard, Mr. Speaker, we as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to pull together, we have to come through
this and we will come through this. There is a light at the end of the tunnel,
but it requires us to come together and pull together.
We've
come through rough patches before. When we work together, when we collaborate,
we are stronger. I do not see the point of spreading negativity for its own
sake. I believe there is fear out there because it's being promoted to be there.
I think if we collectively and resoundingly join together, we can come through
this. We will come through this; I am convinced that we will.
For all
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether you are young or old, rich or
poor, we will work through this together. We will be a government that
represents all people. We will be there to listen and to serve because this is
truly, as the Member said, the people's House where we do the people's work.
This government will listen and we will respond.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for Virginia Waters Pleasantville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd
first of all like to say I'm not as elegant a speaker as the Member for the
District of Fogo Island Cape Freels. He did an excellent job and I'd just like
to say congratulations on that.
I'm
pleased to stand here in this hon. House as the representative for the Virginia
Waters Pleasantville District. The situation that we've been faced with this
budget is difficult at best, no doubt, in relation to the previous mismanagement
by our previous administration. The budget, while it's difficult to deal with,
is our best
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker wants to remind all hon. Members that there have been several warnings
given. It was said earlier by the other Speaker that if this persisted, we would
be naming Members and they would not be recognized tonight and they would not be
recognized tomorrow to ask questions or to answer them.
This is
the final warning. If there is one more outburst, that's what's going to happen.
I
recognize the hon. the Member for the District of Virginia Waters
Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you for the protection,
Mr. Speaker.
This
budget, while it's a difficult one, is our best shot to try to right this
financial ship that we've been left with. I've heard the concerns of my
constituents and expressed them to our government Members with respect to
several issues, the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy being one.
No one
likes the situation that we've been placed in. I brought these concerns forward
on numerous occasions and we're trying to work through those. But let us not
forget that the reason why we instituted this temporary levy was a direct
reflection of the financial disaster that was left to us by this previous
administration.
Let's
take a second to talk about this temporary levy. Mr. Speaker, 38 per cent of the
taxpayers will not pay any of the temporary levy and almost 43 per cent of the
people will pay less than $340 per year on this levy.
Let's be
clear, the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis last week mentioned that the
temporary levy was based on income. I wanted to clarify that it's based on
after-tax income so people can understand that if someone is making $30,000 in
gross income, that's not necessarily what they take home. I just wanted to make
sure that the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis understands that because there
was a little clarity problem last week.
The hon.
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi talks about us not taking care of our
seniors and low-income individuals and families. So I just want to take a second
and go through some of the things our government has put in place to bolster
this area in our province, to help these most vulnerable populations.
We have
announced approximately $3.5 million to support the placement of select
individuals with enhanced care needs in personal care homes; $250,000 towards
starting a new seniors' advocate office. This is not a luxury, like the Member
for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune says it is. I believe the seniors' advocate will
help identify ways to better assist seniors and face the reality of providing
the best possible care we can to this aging population.
There is
an additional $300,000 to the Seniors Resource Centre to enhance information and
referral systems; $300,000 for age-friendly transportation services; $100,000 in
support to continue development of age-friendly communities throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador. These measures will go a long way towards ensuring
some of the seniors in our community are protected during these tough economic
times.
So I ask
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, is this not support for seniors and
low income? Is it enough? Absolutely not. But given the horrendous financial
situation we've been given, this is a great start.
One of
the policies that I'm most excited about is our homes-first policy that
encourages support to let seniors age at home, where they are not only more
comfortable, both physically and emotionally, but it also gives us an
opportunity to allow people to receive the best possible care where and when
they need it.
Another
measure that will work specifically to protect seniors in these tough economic
times is the $12.5 million investment that our government has ensured to the
enhanced Seniors' Benefit. This will give seniors a steady, reliable income that
will help them contribute more to society.
We must
also protect those low-income earners and families who struggle to make ends
meet. That is why we've created the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement.
We have an obligation to put in place revenue measures that address the deficit,
but we also have to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected
and helped.
The NLIS
will come into effect on July 1, around the same time as the revenue measures
outlined in the budget will come into effect. The first quarterly payments will
be disbursed in October, and that will be a double payment. This supplement will
be automatically applied to individuals whose income tax is below the threshold
of $40,000. The only requirement is that they have to file their income tax.
This will greatly reduce the stress of having to navigate through additional red
tape in the system.
Mr.
Speaker, two features in our plan to stabilize the economy are diversification
and selling government lands to raise revenue. The Department of Transportation
and Works is working hard on this file with the Real Estate Optimization Plan.
Once we have this plan, we will determine the parcels of land and buildings that
are best assets for our government to divest and find opportunities to sell.
This plan has to be done correctly for the long-term viability of this process
and we're going to do that.
As I've
mentioned previously, already in my district there are opportunities coming
forward to look at developing farming operations which will bring much-needed
revenues to our province as well as employment. In my district in Virginia
Waters Pleasantville, you don't think of farming when you come to that
district for sure. There are lots of other areas in the province that have a lot
better situations for farming, but there are a couple of areas in my district
that are great opportunities for farming operations and we're looking at a
couple of those. Some people have come forward looking for that.
Increasing the number of farming operations in our province makes good sense for
a lot of reasons. Obviously it helps diversify and strengthen the economy, but
also to shore up food security, which is always an issue when you live an on an
island like we do. Mr. Speaker, while streamlining this process may take some
time, I'm confident that we can facilitate some innovative, excellent projects
in my district in the near future.
The
Leader of the Opposition mentioned that the Rowan Centre program was closed.
This is true. But the program only served 65 people in the entirety of 2015.
Simply put, the resources were very underutilized. Those resources, including 2½
full-time equivalent positions, will be redeployed to better help the people
struggling with mental health and addictions issues in our region.
I take
great exception to the comments that the Leader of the Opposition made. He had
the opportunity to make these changes, but decided not to. He and his party
chose to kick the bill to the kids. We, and I, are not prepared to do that.
Tough decisions needed to be made and his former government never had the
intestinal fortitude to do what was necessary.
Mr.
Speaker, we have had numerous requests from the Third Party to have dealt with
our budget the exact same way as Alberta did their budget. They seem to think
that Alberta dealt with their budget better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. B. DAVIS:
Several economists have come
forward. Ron Kneebone, an economist at the University of Calgary said, and I
quote: Newfoundland's interpretation of the fall in the oil price is that oil
not going to come back any time soon.
So
rather than accumulate a whole bunch of debt, waiting, hoping, praying that oil
prices will come back, they decided to take action to close the deficit.
Alberta, the NDP's province
AN HON. MEMBER:
It was an economist, right?
MR. B. DAVIS:
An economist said this:
Alberta seems to be deciding to do the opposite. When you have decided to do
that, are oil prices going to come back any time soon? There's a very high risk
when you take that chance.
Robert
Kavcic, a senior economist for BMO, said also: There's zero appetite for
Newfoundland's debt. The budget makes Newfoundland's bonds more saleable. It
makes economic sense from their standpoint. I'm not economist, but that's two
economists.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to take a second to speak about Virginia Park Elementary.
It's in my district. It's one of the major projects that we're doing that's
going to change the outlook of this schooling in the district. I've held
meetings upon meetings with the people in the district, the stakeholders, the
school councils, the Department of Education, obviously the Department of
Transportation and Works, as well as the school council there and the parents
and teachers. It's important that we keep an open dialogue going. That's one of
the things that was lacking in the previous administration with this project.
This
project obviously was very difficult from the start. It's done on the former
dump site for the American base and obviously there are a lot of issues that
came along with it that drives costs up. We want to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that
the school is safe for the children. That's why we've put the due diligence in
place and we're going through this process of making sure they're involved in
every aspect, step by step.
So we're
very close to that right now. The tenders went out; we're getting close to
having a bid awarded. I just want to ensure to the people in the community that
we're going to make sure this project is a great thing for the future of our
community and make sure that our kids have that safe opportunity to get a great
education.
They
already have great teachers, faculty and staff down there and they get great
outcomes. What we want to do now is give them the building to match their
capabilities, so it will give an opportunity to succeed even further. I know the
hon. Member that used to represent that district before will agree with that
statement for sure.
I'd just
like to clue up there now. I'm excited to see the continual progress of this
project. I want to address a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition who
mentioned that our budget went up. That, again, is true. He should know; his
government is the reason for the increase. The increase is related directly to
debt-servicing costs incurred by the previous administration and payments
directly to the Teachers' Pension Plan. These are both decisions that they made
and were caused by failure for them to plan. We need to look at this for the
future.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here this evening in this House of Assembly and speak to the main
motion of this budget. I was hoping to speak to Concurrence earlier, but
fortunately, or unfortunately, we had so many people that wanted to speak that I
was unable to. But I am happy to be able to stand here and speak again to
Budget 2016.
The
first thing I would like say is that during the Concurrence, that would have
been a good opportunity to discuss the Estimates process that we went through
with the Department of Justice we did here one evening. I think it might have
been a Wednesday. Certainly, the Leader of the Official Opposition was there,
the Member for St. John's Centre was there, and I thought it was a good session
actually in terms of Estimates.
I've
been on that side asking questions. I've had some very good sessions and I've
had some that weren't so good in terms of answers. I tried my best to provide
every answer I could. Certainly, I had some conversations with Members who said
that in terms of back and forth, they thought it was productive, so I appreciate
that. And I have to thank the staff that was with me at that time because they
make up this department. They are the people who make the department go around.
I certainly think I might be interchangeable. I could be taken out, but we still
have a very strong core for the Department of Justice and I'm very happy to be a
part of that.
Now,
speaking to the main motion of the budget, certainly there's been a significant
amount of debate over this. The budget was brought down April 14; we're here now
over a month later speaking to it, going through the regular routine of any
budget. The fact is that there's been a significant amount of debate,
commentary, questions and issues with this budget, as there should be.
This
budget is not the same as many of the budgets that we've seen from the previous
administration. I guess there's a similarity in that there's a deficit, but
there's not a similarity in the fact that in this case, this budget was
driven, in many ways, by the choices that we wanted to make, but certainly by
the choices that were made by a previous administration.
I will
point out the irony that many Members on the other side have stood up and said,
well, they talk about what we did and talk about the future they talk about
what we did. But I was over on that other side when I heard about Liberal
decisions in the '90s and Liberal decisions in 2003. In fact, I heard many
Members on that side say since 2004.
I think
I heard one Member opposite say, you can't have it both ways and you can't speak
out of both sides of your mouth. I say, you're saying it right there. One minute
you stand up and you can't be blamed for everything you did in the past. Then,
the next minute you stand up and you defend those decisions that you made.
One of
the pieces of commentary that they put forward was what shouldn't we have done.
There are a number of things that I don't think we, or I, would have done. It
adds up. I think the Member behind me for Baie Verte Green Bay said earlier
you start with $50,000, you start with $10,000 and a million dollars, it all
counts and it all adds up.
One of
the things they talk about and I've heard some criticism of the process. I
don't think there's anything wrong with scrutinizing every department, looking
at it. One of the things that we did notice was the significant amount of
government public money spent on advertising. The amazing part that I really
noticed was how in some departments the amount spent in last year's budget, the
budget leading up to an election, actually doubled. They doubled their
communications budget in an election year and they're proud of that. That's one
of the things that I would not have done.
I want
to talk about the Department of Justice and Public Safety because that is the
department which I'm happy to represent on behalf of the Premier. I want to
respond to some of the comments by the Leader of the Official Opposition or the
former premier or whatever the term is. The fact is he is the Justice critic as
well. He's made some commentary tonight and in the House during Question Period
and I want to respond to that.
He says:
What wouldn't you have done? One of the things that I probably wouldn't have
done is I probably wouldn't have ignored the courthouse in Harbour Grace. I
probably wouldn't have let it rot to a state where it's actually a hazard and
you couldn't actually go in there. It's hazardous to people.
I
wouldn't have allowed the historic courthouse in Harbour Grace to rot and be
dilapidated and unavailable for use by our Provincial Court. Let it rot to the
point where it actually requires multi-millions to fix. That's what I wouldn't
have done.
Now,
that's some of the stuff I wouldn't it's funny because the Member opposite
takes the opportunity to stand up sometimes and say this is what they should do.
I say, you worry about the decisions you made and worry about the decisions you
make on that side. I don't think you have to worry about what decisions we're
going to make on this side, including all of our Members, it doesn't matter who
you are.
One of
the points he said was, well, the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave
brought in a petition about the courthouse. He said, you brought in a petition,
but you're going to support the budget so that's a contradiction.
I say
two things to that. Number one, we're all elected on behalf of our constituents
here. We have to do what we think is in the best interests of our constituents.
So if a Member wants to bring forward a petition and present it here in the
House of Assembly on behalf of their constituents, then that's what you're
doing. That's your job.
Now,
it's not going to be like the past where I know Members on the opposite side got
petitions but those petitions, I don't know, they might have went in the
shredder, they might have went in a cupboard somewhere, but they certainly
didn't get presented. So I have no problem with the Member bringing a petition.
We've
had a significant number of meetings since that time. She's not happy. Do you
know what? Neither am I. I don't like the fact that we were presented with tough
choices that we had to make. They say you can't blame us. Yes, we can. We can
certainly blame you. Do you know what? We formed government December 14 and it
was only a few months before that the Premier spoke about it earlier today
$900 million deficit projected. That was the deficit that was projected when
this crowd went and had their negotiations with the independent tribunal on
judges. Now, that's something I'll get to in a second as well, but these are the
numbers they had.
Of
course when we get in and we actually look at the books, it's almost triple
that. So I don't know if that's just not knowing the difference, if it's
incompetence, not wanting to put the information out there. I just say it is
what it is. We take over and this is what we have. So do you know what? Yes, you
can certainly share in some of the blame.
I've got
to digress for just a second, because it reminds me the Member opposite
actually said tonight, well, if you're in such difficult times, why are you
doing this, why are you doing that? I think you might have been talking about
full-day kindergarten. If you're in such difficult times again, as if he
doesn't know that we are, because he put us there.
I can't
take credit, but it reminds me of a story I just read recently. In the story
actually it was a politician that took over a very similar situation to us. The
politician took over a huge deficit and, again, getting some blame for that and
having to make difficult choices based on that. This was actually around
2008-2009.
This
crowd is saying, well, they would have us go back and do the same things that
they did. They would go back and question the policies. So here we are and in
this story he talks about how basically he is there with the mop. We're all busy
with the mop. We're mopping up the mess that was left to us. The crowd that
created the mess is over on the side saying, you're mopping up too fast. Oh, no,
you're not mopping up quick enough; hold the mop differently.
So I
would say to the other side, pick up the mop and help us clean up the mess that
you left us. That's what I would say to the Members on the other side.
That's
the funny part here is the crowd that created the mess sits back and criticizes
the steps that you have to take and they put you in that situation. Actually,
that's a story from an American politician. In that case it was President Obama
took over from the significant financial mess left by previous administrations
to him, whether it was Bush. So in that case, it was amazing when I read it, and
it just struck me. My God, there were such similarities to what we're dealing
with here.
Now, I'm
going to go back again to the courthouse in Harbour Grace, because I've got to
correct some of the issues that I have here, again, I have no problem. I've
been on the Opposition side. I know they're going to put forward concerns. I
know they're hearing it. So have I. We've all heard it. There's no doubt about
that.
Some of
the problem too is that the Members opposite put out information that's just
factually incorrect. I have to go back to Question Period today where the Leader
of the Official Opposition, the former premier, talking about the courthouse in
Harbour Grace saying it services 80,000 people 80,000 people. That's wrong
that's wrong. That information is incorrect. So I'm going to say, if you're
going to put out some information, just try to make it factually correct. Please
do us that favour.
Again, I
have no problem with asking a question, that's a fair point; but if you're going
to ask the question, stick to the facts when you do that. He's not isolated in
that because we've seen that from multiple Members on the other side when they
ask questions multiple Members.
We've
had questions about the courthouse in Harbour Grace. Do you know what? I
unfortunately don't like the decision, but I've had meetings with the mayors.
I've had conversations with solicitors. I've had meetings with the MHAs and
we're going to continue to talk to them. We're going to continue to talk to the
judiciary. We have to continue to figure out these issues.
The
Member opposite doesn't like when I bring up the fact that he did very similar
things just a couple years back. In fact, in 2013, what they did to the
Department of Justice was absolutely amazing.
The
other side, too, that I haven't heard much of is that there were some good
things announced in this budget when it comes to Justice and Public Safety. One
of them is the significant investment in the Family Court here in St. John's. We
know that caseload is growing. We're going to put the money into the
infrastructure to ensure that we can accommodate this.
There's
money going to go into a review of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
That's a very sad story we all heard. Actually, I was dealing with it just after
Christmas where we had some issues. It is issues that we've seen persisted over
time. These are issues that you inherit.
It's
funny actually, I go back to a great interview I heard this evening with the
Minister of Transportation whose frustration, I think, is showing when he's
talking about the problems that he inherited that he has to deal with. I think
he has done it with a tremendous amount of class and work ethic in handling
these problems, taking what was left, talking about the boats that were bought
and the significant overruns putting in the docking system, I think it is.
It's a
decision that was made. We see what the results are and here we are dealing with
it. Do you know what? That's what we wanted. We wanted an opportunity to deal
with these issues. We wanted an opportunity to come in and to right the wrongs.
Come in and fix a lot of the mistakes we have seen over the past 12 years.
Now, the
unfortunate part is that in many cases it's funny because they mentioned the
fact of the deficit and about taxing and spending. The leaders of both
Opposition parties are on the record in the last six months saying they would
have done the same thing. No, they would only do the popular taxes. They
wouldn't have made any bad cuts.
That's
on the record. The Leader of the NDP, the Leader of the Official Opposition,
they say the same thing. They would have had to do it. They talked about the
plan well, I can't get into that plan because we saw that plan. The plan was
outdated within months because it was based on faulty information.
Going
back to it, they want to talk about people that you hear from. The fact is,
yeah, we've had to make some decisions that are certainly tough and are
certainly unpopular. At the same time, I've heard from some people. In fact, it
was shortly after the budget that I went to a fireman's ball down in Margaree, a
local service district in my community. You go down, people were expressing
their concern over it and I've been speaking to people. So when I went down to
this, you don't know what you're going to expect.
Actually, the first person I walked up to he came up I didn't know what I
was going to get. He came up and he grabbed me by the hand. He said: Thank God
somebody had the guts to do it. That's what he said to me. He said: All I'm
hoping is that when you get this righted, when you fix this, don't forget us,
the people of this province. That's who we don't want to forget. We don't want
to forget the people of this province that are making these decisions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
We don't want to forget the
children that will grow up and will inherit what is left to them. We want to do
what is right to make sure they are left with something that is better than what
was left to us. That's what we would like to do.
The fact
is that this is a budget that we had to make a lot of difficult decisions. But
I'm willing to say that even if they're tough, I think the benefits will be seen
over the long run. Sometimes we don't talk about it, but there are a significant
amount of good things in this budget.
I've
heard the term austerity tossed out. But as the Member for Cape St. Francis
tossed out tonight, he said, you guys spent. And we did. There was a significant
amount of spending in this budget; $8.4 billion if I'm correct. I might be off a
little bit, but I think that's the number. There was a significant amount of
spending.
I know
the Minister of Municipal Affairs has gone out and worked with his federal
counterparts and worked with his department. I think the number I've got is $570
million
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's $350 million (inaudible)
$575 million infrastructure.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, $575 million in
infrastructure spending. Do you know what?
AN HON. MEMBER:
And $350 million Municipal
Affairs.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And $350 million in Municipal
Affairs. That's a significant amount of money that's going to go into
communities to provide the infrastructure and services, to provide jobs. These
are the things that are happening. In fact, I'm happy to see this because my
district has been Liberal for some time and we've done without.
In fact,
it was only last year that I think the biggest municipality in my district, Port
aux Basques, got the grand total for capital works of zero dollars.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Zero dollars.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The fact is do you know what?
Right now I'm happy to see that there will be infrastructure investment in my
district, in districts on both sides of the House of Assembly, because decisions
had to be made that are in the best interests of people regardless of political
stripe.
The
Minister of Transportation is going to make sure again there was a politician
once that used to say about taking the politics out of pavement. I don't know
who that politician was, but that's what he's done.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) fire trucks.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm not even going to talk
about fire trucks. I'll leave that to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to talk
about fire trucks, but the fact is we are seeing investment. We're seeing
investment in roadwork. We have the Burgeo road which in December of 2014
collapsed.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It actually collapsed. Now,
unfortunately I stand here, it's May of 2016, and that road is still collapsed.
It was not fixed. I know direction was provided to say fix this because this is
a health hazard, and for whatever reason previous ministers didn't want it done.
So I'll leave it to previous ministers of Transportation and Works to talk about
why that bridge one where an employee of Transportation and Works almost died
in that accident.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Actually, I just got a
message from him last night talking about the treatment he's still going through
and he's hoping to get back to work again next year. That's not fixed, but I'm
glad to see that work is going to be done this year. It's going to be done. It's
going to be starting, hopefully, in the next month.
I'm
going to see investment in health care. Every Member here has had an opportunity
to talk about their district. Did we all see what we wanted? You better believe
we didn't, but we did see investment because we have to continue to have
investment, and that's what's going to happen in this budget.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that I'm looking forward to standing here
this year talking to this budget and speaking to next year's budget and the ones
after as we move forward in providing a brighter path, one that we were not on
the right track for with the previous government. The fact is that sometimes you
have to have these budgets which are not popular, but which are necessary steps.
It's a correction to previous administrations and making sure that we do the
right thing.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to stand here and
speak to this budget.
To
conclude, I would also say now given the hour of the evening, I would move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that this House do now adjourn.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
This
House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, being Private Members'
Day, at 2 o'clock.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2 p.m.