May 1,
2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 10
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of Labrador West, St. John's East – Quidi
Vidi, Stephenville – Port au Port, Cape St. Francis, Harbour Grace – Port de
Grave, and Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate the Royal Canadian Legion of Labrador
West on another successful legion telethon held on Sunday, April 5.
This
year's telethon marked the 32nd year for the event and their co-chair persons
Bernie Denief and Vida Connors. The total raised on Sunday was $22,000 bringing
the total raised over the years to $2 million.
All
money raised at this event is directed to two recipients – 10 per cent is given
to the Janeway Children's Hospital with the remaining being donated to the
Labrador West Health Centre to purchase equipment throughout the hospital.
CRRS,
the community broadcasting station, has been an integral part of this event
since its inception and continues to air the telethon from 12 noon until 9 p.m.
Major sponsors like PAL, Fitz's Enterprises and 5 Star Motors have consistently
provided incentives to encourage people to donate to this very worthwhile cause.
Mr.
Speaker, this is truly a community effort and an excellent example of how the
community can partner with government to provide the best possible health care
for its residents.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Royal Canadian Legion and in
particular Bernie and Vida on their 32 year commitment to this very successful
event.
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.
It is my
great pleasure to congratulate a constituent who recently celebrated her 100th
birthday.
Trudy
Anne Green was born in St. John's on April 13, 1917. Her parents were Donald and
Jennie Butler; Donald was a partner in Butler Brothers, a well-known stationary
business on Water Street.
Trudy
lived through the Depression and Commission of Government. She attended Prince
of Wales College and Memorial University College before graduating as a nurse
from Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital. She practiced nursing then married her
childhood sweetheart Jack Green. Following Jack's discharge from the air force,
he worked at the Evening Telegram and
Trudy devoted herself to homemaking. Their only child, Derek, currently the
Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador, was born in 1947.
Since
Jack's death in 2004, Trudy has lived independently making a life for herself
focused on her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She is a vibrant woman of
strong opinions and enthusiastic conversation. In the last decade, she took
typing lessons so she could use the computer and communicate with friends and
family on the mainland.
Please
join me in congratulating a woman who has seen so much of our history but is
very definitely – as defined by her son – a woman of 2017.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
evening the Town of Stephenville, in partnership with the Town of Kippens, held
the 38th annual Stephen awards. The event honoured community volunteers with
appreciation awards, and awarded the Citizen of the Year, Youth of the Year, as
well as various athletes of the year.
Ranging
in age from 15 to 91, 24 citizens from 24 different community organizations were
recognized for their tremendous contributions to community and sport.
Gia Caul
was named junior female Athlete of the Year, and Kip Deeley was named junior
male Athlete of the Year. The Youth of the Year award winner was Stephanie
Budden and the Citizen of the Year award went to Rosie Verma.
A
sincere thank you to the Stephen awards committee and various business sponsors
that made this event possible and congratulations to all those who were
nominated and received awards.
These
amazing volunteers and athletes provide an invaluable service which
significantly contributes to the region's cultural, social and economic fabric.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize a group of amateur actors, jokesters,
singers, dancers and musicians. Since 1968, the Concert Crowd for Logy
Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove has entertained audiences; that's for 49 years.
This
year's performance was called Shelia's
Brush, written by local resident Karen Carrol, a tale of how best intentions
can be led down the wrong path. There was no snowstorm, but it was a very
enjoyable night.
The
performance takes months of preparation. What started in a local school grew to
large audiences – this year it had a sold-out audience, a full house at the Arts
and Culture Centre. I had the opportunity to attend the show. The laughter and
smiles on everyone's faces made for a very successful year.
The
Concert Crowd has donated $160,000 to groups like the Red Cross, Canadian Cancer
Society, Kidney Foundation, Rainbow Riders, Community Food Sharing Association,
VOCM Cares Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, the RNC DARE program, the CNIB, the
medical emergency support, The Gathering Place and the St. Francis of Assisi
Parish cemetery and others.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Concert Crowd on another
very successful year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Good
afternoon, today I would like to recognize the team at Central United Church in
Bay Roberts. This group of dedicated parishioners have gone above and beyond to
support members of our communities by offering a complementary Lenten Outreach
Soup's On Project.
This
involves both a takeout service to those who are alone, dealing with medical
issues and other challenges, to enjoy a delivered hot lunch, while others come
along to the Christian education centre adjacent to the church to socialize and
enjoy a homemade, hearty bowl of soup and a dessert.
To date,
approximately 600 lunches have been served. There are about 35 volunteers who,
on Tuesdays, prepare the hearty ingredients for the soups and, on Wednesdays,
cook, deliver the meals, serve the sit-in guests and clean up. This year the
project began March 1 and continued until April 5. Residents of multiple
surrounding communities enjoy this community event each year. Mr. Speaker, I
also enjoy attending and, on occasion, I have also brought my guitar along to
sing for the crowd.
Please
join me in congratulating Irish Partridge and all the volunteers of the Bay
Roberts-Shearstown United Church Pastoral Charge on their fourth annual Soup's
On Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to the Coast of Bays talented
participants in the 52nd Central Newfoundland Kiwanis Music Festival. Thanks to
our music instructors for their hard work and dedication with our region's
exceptionally talented performers.
It is an
honour for me to extend congratulations to all the performers, too numerous to
list, who shone at the festival. From singing to playing piano, solo speeches,
to traditional Mi'kmaq songs, our students excelled, placing first, second and
third in various categories. Whether you were a first time or a veteran
performer, all glowing reports emphasized your poise and outstanding talent.
I would
also like to throw a bouquet out to McKenna, Destiny and Kailee Benoit, Se't
A'newey Vocal Ensemble, and our Hennessey Memorial Rose Bowl Recipient Jessica
Willcott, who all performed at Highlights of the Festival. Congratulations to
Brandi Jeddore, recipient of the Ron Ennis Award for best traditional folk song,
and Destiny Benoit, recipient of the Adjudicator's Award for Vocal Achievement.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me, along with your classmates, teachers
and community residents in extending congratulations to all participants for
their excellent performances.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
rise in this hon. House to commemorate the sacrifices made by our naval, air and
merchant veterans during the Battle of the Atlantic.
The
Battle of the Atlantic was a struggle between the Allied and German forces for
control of the Atlantic Ocean. It brought the Second World War to Canada's
doorstep, and is considered to be the longest and arguably the most
strategically significant battle of the war.
Canada's
Merchant Navy, along with the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air
Force, played a key role in the Allied efforts. East coast cities soon found
themselves involved in the battle, since Allied convoys were frequently visiting
and leaving busy ports like Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia, as well as St.
John's during the war.
Mr.
Speaker, helping the Allies triumph in the Battle of the Atlantic came at a very
high price with more than 1,600 Merchant Navy personnel from Canada and
Newfoundland and Labrador being killed, as well as 2,000 Royal Canadian Navy
officers and men who died during the war and some 752 members of the Royal
Canadian Air Force. The Battle of the Atlantic also saw civilian casualties – we
remember 136 people died when the ferry, S.S. Caribou, was sunk as it crossed from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland on
October 14, 1942.
It is
safe to say the Allied victory in the Second World War would not have been
possible without victory at sea. While it required overcoming great odds, the
courage of the naval, air and merchant personnel helped to keep the Allied
convoys running and the supply lines to Europe open. These brave men and women
were some of the more than one million Canadians and Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who served in the cause of peace and freedom during the Second
World War.
On May
7, 2017, the Battle of the Atlantic ceremonies will commence with an ecumenical
service at the St. Thomas' Anglican Church followed by a parade to the
Newfoundland War Memorial for a wreath-laying ceremony. In addition, as a mark
of respect to those who fought in the Battle of the Atlantic to ensure our
freedom, the Naval Ensign will be flown on the courtesy pole here at
Confederation Building throughout this week.
I invite
all hon. Members to join me in commemorating and celebrating our naval heritage,
and most importantly, our naval, air and merchant veterans of past and present.
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. On behalf of my
colleagues in the Official Opposition, I join with government in commemorating
our province and country's naval heritage, especially the heritage surrounding
the Battle of the Atlantic.
As the
Premier alluded to, this conflict began in 1939 and lasted until 1945 making it
the longest, continuous military conflict of the Second World War. I'd like to
take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge and thank all of those who served in
Canada's Merchant Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, and all
who supported the war effort on the home front. These brave men and women who
served in these divisions showed great courage, bravery and duty to our country.
I would
also like to take a moment to encourage everyone to recognize the contribution
of these brave men and women by attending the commemorative ecumenical service
and wreath-laying ceremony taking place on Sunday.
To all
those who have served in the armed forces and to those who continue to serve, I
offer my sincere gratitude and respect.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement. The Battle of the
Atlantic transformed St. John's Harbour into a key convoy base for shipping
across the North Atlantic. More than 12,000 Newfoundlanders out of a population
of almost 322,000 were directly or indirectly involved in the war effort, many
who served in the Merchant Marine braving German submarine attacks to get vital
supplies to Great Britain. We must always remember the brave people who stepped
up and risked, and in some cases lost their lives in the war effort.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to reflect on the National Day of Mourning, which was
recently recognized on April 28, 2017.
The
National Day of Mourning is a time to remember those who have been injured or
who have died in a workplace. As we do that, it is important to also reflect on
how we can further improve occupational health and safety. Our government, in
conjunction with all partners in the province's workplace health, safety and
compensation system, must continue our efforts towards preventing workplace
incidents.
Mr.
Speaker, I was honoured to participate in the wreath-laying ceremony last Friday
at Confederation Building with the hon. Minister Responsible for the Human
Resource Secretariat, Members of the House of Assembly, and others who laid a
wreath in memory of a loved one or a co-worker. I want to thank the St. John's
and District Labour Council for organizing this very important event.
WorkplaceNL recently announced new data that show the incidence of workplace
injury and illness in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to decline and was at
an all-time low in 2016.
However,
there were still 13 work-related fatalities in 2016, eight of which were the
result of occupational disease. Mr. Speaker, one workplace fatality is too many.
The National Day of Mourning serves as a reminder that we still need to be
vigilant and ensure that safety is the priority for our workforce.
Promoting safe workplaces and communities is a priority for our government, and
we will continue to collaborate with our partners to help ensure workers return
home safe and sound at the end of each and every shift.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The National Day of
Mourning, which was recognized on Friday, is a very meaningful day for
remembering workers who have been killed or injured on the job. It's important
to the families, friends, co-workers of those individuals, and it also
highlights the importance of ensuring safety in the workplace.
Safety
should be first and foremost at any workplace. It's important that proper
procedures and policies are in place to reduce the number of work-related
injuries, illnesses and fatalities. We should do everything we can to ensure
workers in our province have a safe and healthy workplace.
Thank
you very much, 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. Thirteen people died
in this province last year because of workplace-related injury or illness, eight
who died of industrial disease. Nobody should be harmed or die while trying to
make a living.
We need
legislation covering front-line worker emergency responders for PTSD and heart
disease. We need legislation preventing night flights to offshore places. But
there is much more needed, and I urge government to get the job done.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize today as the start of Mental Health Week in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and across Canada.
Following last year's successful Get Loud campaign, the theme this year is Get
Ready to Get Loud. Confederation Building will be lit green this week in
recognition of Mental Health Week.
Each of
us has a part to play in ending the stigma around mental health. I encourage
everyone – individuals, families, schools, advocacy groups and communities – to
stand up, speak out and talk openly about mental health.
Mental
Health Week is a time to raise awareness about the challenges of mental health
and for people to reflect on their own self-care. One of our many partners, the
Canadian Mental Association, highlights that positive mental health involves how
we feel, think, act and interact with the world around us. Positive mental
health is about coping with stress and making a contribution to our community.
Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2017 recognizes the
need for improved services in the area of mental health including: an extra $73
million over 10 years through the Canadian Health Accord; an investment of $7.5
million to advance the replacement of the Waterford Hospital; and an initial $5
million to begin immediate implementation of the All-Party Committee report
recommendations.
On the
first day of Mental Health Week, I am pleased to inform this hon. House that our
government is on track to release its mental health and addictions action plan
in June of this year.
In
closing, I want to thank the many groups, organizations and individuals
throughout the province who continue to advocate on mental health issues.
I ask my
hon. colleagues to join me and Get Loud for mental health.
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 his statement today, and we join with
government in recognizing Mental Health Week in our province and in our country.
The stigma that surrounds mental health is one of the biggest hindrances faced
by those who cope with mental illness. Events like Mental Health Week are
vitally important in addressing those issues.
Advocacy
work by the Canadian Mental Health Association and numerous other groups and
individuals over many years have facilitated an attitudinal transition. It has
changed the very way we think about and react to mental illness. While progress
has been significant and we should celebrate many victories, the challenges that
remain are equally as significant. It's for that reason that we must remain
diligent and be willing to get loud for mental health. We need to ensure that
people get the cure they need, when they need it.
As
recently evident by the work of the All-Party Committee, by working together we
can make the system better, and I look forward to the implementation plan next
month.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mayday is an international
distress signal and, in that spirit, the Community Coalition for Mental Health
and Addictions is organizing a Mayday in mental health and addictions town hall
for community members and organizations to discuss mental health and addictions
in light of the report of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions towards recovery.
The goal
is to work together to find solutions based on harm reduction, through
collaboration with community and inclusion. This is a good next step for
government and community to continue to work together. Everyone is welcome
tonight, 7 p.m., at City Hall.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have reached a new level of
concern with this Liberal government. The Premier reached a secret, special
arrangement with his former clerk, giving him permission to continue to practise
law while acting as the top bureaucrat in the provincial government.
I ask
the Premier to provide details of the secret arrangement that he made with the
former clerk, Bern Coffey.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
first of all, let me assure the people of the province there was no secret
arrangement at all. The employment contract was put out this morning,
proactively, disclosed to the people of the province. The Members opposite, I'm
sure, would have a copy of that by now, so no secret contract.
What it
is with Mr. Coffey when he came to work in September of last year – we accepted
his resignation last night on April 30, Mr. Speaker – there was a time frame
that was given from anyone who comes from private life, enters in to public
life, a time frame for a transition from his previous life into public life.
The
transition time that we agreed to yesterday was not acceptable. It wasn't moving
as quickly as we would have hoped. Mr. Coffey did his job as clerk, Mr. Speaker;
I outlined this in a press conference this morning. So it was really about the
transition period that took place and it was something that we could not agree
to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
should never have been a transition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Coffey had
indicated that his legal work was sanctioned by the Premier, even though the
public wasn't made aware of it.
I ask
the Premier: Was the Cabinet and your caucus made aware of your secret
arrangement before the story was reported by the media?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all to the former premier's comment about a transition period is not acceptable,
well, Mr. Speaker, if you were the premier of this province – and we know that
former premiers would have taken a considerable amount of time. So is he
suggesting that someone comes from private life into public life, that there's
not a transition period that's agreeable?
These
things happen. It's the reason why there's a blind trust that's put in place.
They take time. So in the legal world or in the political world, these are not
unusual circumstances, Mr. Speaker.
No
secret arrangement at all. The contract has been out there publicly now, Mr.
Speaker, with the former clerk. That contract is available publicly. We just ran
to the point where the transition time would have taken longer and Mr. Coffey
offered his resignation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, there shouldn't have been a transition period because he should never
have hired a Liberal friend to the clerk of Executive Council in the first
place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Did he seek any ethical or legal advice on the hiring of Mr. Coffey?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
Member opposite, when he talks about political appointments and so on, I can
assure that the whole province and many politicians could take a lesson from the
appointments that they had made.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, is he suggesting that – as I said this morning, Mr. Coffey certainly
wasn't appointed because of a political or any affiliation to any political
party. But is he suggesting that we should not hire the best people that are
available to us, or is he suggesting that if one of those people happened to be
some Tory supporter or some NDP supporter, that we should not consider them for
jobs in great political roles in our province?
Is he
suggesting that there's no Tory available to be clerk or no Tory available to be
deputy minister, Mr. Speaker? We look for the best people that are available to
us and, goodness knows, we have a big job to do thanks to the mess that they've
left us in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
remind the Premier that he allowed his Liberal friend, Mr. Coffey, to take the
office of the highest ranking public employee who's effectively in charge of all
of government and to sue government entities while he oversaw the actual
government operations, Mr. Speaker. The Premier allowed that to happen.
I ask
the Premier: Do you believe that the actions of Mr. Coffey, the deal that you
reached with him, break the conflict of interest law and the concept of conflict
of interest?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
first of all, to the comments that's been made by the former premier about an
individual like Mr. Coffey, I think the whole province would recognize the great
work that he would have done with the Cameron inquiry and other work that would
have been done in the province, I say, Mr. Speaker.
So to
make comments about an individual and the role that he's played in the
development of our province, Mr. Speaker, is a bit – I would consider to be
disingenuous for the work that's been done.
Mr.
Speaker, number one, I'll say it for the third time I think now already, no
secret deal with the former clerk; no secret deal at all. That contract's been
out there.
As the
Member knows, any conflict of interest, the onus is on the individual, the
responsibility is on the individual to declare that conflict, Mr. Speaker. That
was clearly outlined in section 11 of the employment contract. There was a
mechanism in place for that to occur.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
remind the Premier, he's the Premier of the province and the onus is on him to
make sure it's done right, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
The responsibility falls
squarely with the Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, we're not questioning the legal past or legal history of Mr. Coffey,
we're questioning the appointment made by the Premier.
I ask
the Premier: Was the conflict of interest advisory committee consulted prior to
the appointment of Mr. Coffey?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, in
the past, in the prior administration, I'm sure the former premier would know
this. He would know that when executive people are put in place, as an example
like the clerk, what happens is you get a member from Justice – that happened.
You get someone in Cabinet Secretariat. Mr. Speaker, that happened.
In this
particular case, being the Premier, the clerk is essentially the deputy minister
for the Premier. Those meetings happened, Mr. Speaker. There was a process that
was put in place. There were conflict walls; some people refer to these as
Chinese walls, is something we've heard in recent days.
Mr.
Speaker, there were conflict walls that were put in place to take care of the
existing issues and files that Mr. Coffey was working on. Cabinet Secretariat
was aware of it, and there was consultation with the Justice department, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was a
very simple question: Did the conflict of interest advisory committee meet and
make a recommendation or is it based simply on consulting with a single person
in the Department of Justice?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure
the former premier would know that is the process that he would have followed
with his appointments in the past as well. This is a long-standing process that
occurs. He meets with a member from the Justice department, in this particular
case with the Cabinet Secretariat, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case with me
as Premier of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, there were a number of files, not a lot, seven files that Mr. Coffey
had agreed or wanted to continue on representing them. Mr. Speaker, in a timely
fashion transitioned out, no new files, no new matters for those existing
clients.
Mr.
Coffey was leaving a private life, coming into public service, Mr. Speaker.
There was a transition time that we wanted to engage. Unfortunately, that
transition time didn't fit the agendas and he issued his resignation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
maybe the Premier can explain how he knew exactly what Mr. Coffey had. The
Premier talked earlier today when he met with the media that there was a list,
and provided a list of all cases.
I ask
the Premier: Will you table the list here in the House of Assembly and let the
public judge if there are any other conflicts of interest?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For
someone who is, I think, still critic for the Department of Justice and Public
Safety, Mr. Speaker, I think the Member opposite should know, when he asked that
question, that there is an issue about solicitor-client privileges in our
province.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at that list there is an issue about solicitor-client
privilege. There's also – now whether he cares about this or not, I don't know.
Obviously he doesn't care or he wouldn't have asked the question, but there must
be a protection of privacy within our province, Mr. Speaker.
That
list was Mr. Coffey's list. It wasn't a long list, Mr. Speaker, for someone who
came from private practice into public life. There is an issue of
solicitor-client privilege, Mr. Speaker. There's also an issue of privacy, and
Mr. Coffey had taken many names off that list. That list was condensed, so there
would have been no conflict that would have existed with those individuals as
they fell off that list.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: Without seeing the list how can the people of the province be
assured that there wasn't more than seven? Are you asking people to simply just
trust you, Premier, on this?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'd like to ask the former premier one simple question: Does he believe in
solicitor-client privilege? Does he believe in that, because that is a
fundamental concept of our justice system? Does he believe in protecting the
privacy of individuals, Mr. Speaker?
This was
a relationship between the former clerk who was a private lawyer at the time,
Mr. Speaker. This was a list; no more additions to the list, no more new files,
Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the former premier, in his capacity today as an MHA in
this House, must understand the issues around solicitor-client privileges, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell the Premier what I understand. I understand that he allowed a blatant
conflict of interest to occur on his watch (inaudible) the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
He allowed to let it happen,
Mr. Speaker, the highest public servant in the province and the most blatant
conflict of interest that this province as ever seen before. Mr. Coffey has sued
Nalcor. He's suing Western Health. We also know that he has done work for the
Law Society.
I ask
the Premier: Can he say that Mr. Coffey did not handle any files in government
related to any of those departments?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
want to address the files that the Member opposite just mentioned – one about
Nalcor, and I explained this morning when we did our press conference, Mr.
Speaker. The issue around Nalcor – there was an employee that worked at Nalcor
that felt he was wrongfully dismissed. There's a limitation period for that
individual to act upon that wrongful dismissal. It's a two-year limitation
period.
What Mr.
Coffey did for that individual was merely pursue and give that client the
opportunity to actually pursue the wrongful dismissal. He made it quite clear to
the client that he would not be the lawyer that would be representing him. That
has never been served with Nalcor. We don't know where that will go, but what we
do know is that Mr. Coffey had made a commitment that he would not represent
that particular person.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
that the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Health, the
Department of Justice have been impacted by the Premier's secret arrangement.
What
protections were put in place to protect the public interest in these
departments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the conflict walls that were put in place that I just discussed earlier, there
was a meeting with a member from the Department of Justice who clearly outlined
the way information would flow through the Cabinet Secretariat; and the areas
that there would have been some issues that could arise, he met with Mr. Coffey,
met with the appropriate deputy minister at the time. Keep in mind that any
conflict of interest, the onus is on the individual to actually declare that
conflict, Mr. Speaker. In this particular case, there was no conflict that was
declared.
Again,
back to the Nalcor issue which they seemed to actually draw a big focus on, I
just said that a statement of claim was put in place to allow the client the
opportunity to pursue a wrongful dismissal, and Mr. Coffey had agreed that he
would not be the lawyer on record to pursue that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier says it would be a breach of solicitor-client privilege to share the
names, yet the Premier has that information available to him. I wonder if that's
a breach of the solicitor-client privilege.
The
Premier said this morning that he became aware of the Nalcor lawsuit through the
media. Mr. Coffey is on record of telling the media that government was aware of
all cases.
Premier,
which statement is correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
two different situations, Mr. Speaker. We were aware of the issue with Nalcor
back in September of last year. That was one of the issues and claims and files
that were mentioned, of the number that I just mentioned a few minutes ago.
With the
Nalcor piece, as I said, there was an employee that dismissed from Nalcor,
two-year timeframe for that employee to act upon the wrongful dismissal. Mr.
Coffey, at this particular point, filed a statement of claim. That's it; it just
sits there, Mr. Speaker, in the courts. It has not been served; no action taken
on that statement of claim.
Mr.
Speaker, I said this morning when I did the press conference that, yes, under
section 11, I should have been notified. I would have been notified in writing
on any particular area that could have been a potential conflict. When I asked
Mr. Coffey about that he had the answer, what I just mentioned there about this
particular individual and felt that there was no conflict of interest.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the Premier if Mr. Coffey wasn't in the job in the first place, this would never
have happened.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has
stated to The Telegram that proper
measures were taken to address any potential overlap. The Premier today has
talked about conflict of interest or conflict walls that have been put in place.
So I ask
the Premier: Will you publicly provide the details of what measures were put in
place with these walls to ensure and protect the public?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
number one, the contract's been out there, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Coffey had a meeting
with the Cabinet Secretariat. He also met, as I just mentioned, with the
appropriate deputy minister where there could have been, if indeed a conflict
should arise.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said so many times now, the issue around conflict of interest –
and we find it, I would suggest, in this House all the time. If there is ever an
issue, we expect that any sitting Member here would actually recuse himself of
that debate.
I'm sure
that in his past experience, Mr. Speaker, the former premier, who was a
minister, too, in some Cabinet – I would suggest that there were times that in
the debate around Cabinet table or within caucus or wherever it might have been,
that he would have found there would have been times when he would have had to
recuse himself.
Mr.
Speaker, I would think that maybe if there was ever a discussion in Cabinet
about, let's say, RNC pensions and so on, that maybe that's not an issue that he
would feel that he should engage himself in.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier is saying that – what I believe I heard him say today is
the contract was the extent of the conflict walls that he had put in place. Mr.
Coffey stated that he had erected what he called, Chinese walls. The Premier has
talked about conflict walls; now he's saying that it was his contract.
So,
Premier, are you saying that the contract was the entirety of the conflict
walls? What I've asked you to do, would you make public those walls that you say
were erected?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
only be very pleased to answer that question through your Chair, Mr. Speaker. As
I said earlier, there were a number of things that would have happened. First of
all, he met with the appropriate deputy ministers to give them an update or
explain to them what any potential issue could have been. He also met with the
Cabinet Secretariat, Mr. Speaker. I had met with him too. Those conflict walls
were put in place, the Chinese walls as he just mentioned. Not unusual at all in
this particular circumstance.
But, Mr.
Speaker, let's not forget, this was meant to be a transition out. There were no
new files, no new clients, no new matters, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Coffey had been
advancing that, reducing that client list. Unfortunately, he's loyal to his
clients in this particular case and we just could not get to where we would need
to be within a reasonable transition time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He
should have been loyal to the people of the province before loyal to anyone
else, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier says
– when I asked him what those conflict walls contain – he met with deputy
ministers, he met with Cabinet Secretariat, he met with the Premier and those
walls were put in place. That was the words the Premier just said.
What
walls were put in place, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I
think when you look at the loyalty of an individual like Bern Coffey and the
work that he's done to many cancer survivors, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, it's
tough to question the loyalty to the people of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, as I said, those
conflict walls were put in place. He met with his staff in the Cabinet
Secretariat. He met with the DM whose department that would have been involved
in some of those potential conflicts. This is the criteria that was put in
place, Mr. Speaker.
As well,
to put some belts and braces on it, Mr. Speaker, in section 10 and 11 of the
employment contract, in particular in section 11, you will see that Mr. Coffey
would have been asked to report any progress in writing of any potential
conflict.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Justice: When were you made aware of the secret arrangement with
Mr. Coffey?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
confirm that there's no secret arrangement that I'm aware of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, this morning the
Premier indicated that all his Cabinet weren't aware of it. So it's a secret to
them I guess in some respects, if you want to talk about secret agreements.
I'll ask
the minister: When did you become aware of the agreement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
made aware of this through the Department of Justice back at the time of the
hiring. As has been stated here, the Department of Justice would have had a
solicitor that met with Mr. Coffey to discuss his files coming in and going
through the transition. So that's when I would have been made aware.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, this morning the
Premier alluded to an opinion from Justice in regard to the ethics and meeting
the conflict of interest guidelines.
I ask
the minister: Can we see a copy of that opinion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
the Member opposite should know full well that an opinion of that nature would
be solicitor-client privilege. The questions that are being asked here by the
Members opposite today demonstrate that they – I think they are aware but they
certainly don't care about solicitor-client privilege, but it is something that
I certainly understand and appreciate the importance of.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member
doesn't need to hide behind solicitor-client privilege. It's up to him whether
he wants to release the information or not.
Does the
Minister of Justice believe that the arrangement made, in light of the conflict
of interest law, that it was appropriate that the Premier had made this
arrangement with this individual? As the Attorney General and Minister of
Justice, do you believe it was appropriate?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The fact
is when Mr. Coffey was hired, he immediately notified the Department of Justice.
He notified the Premier. He notified Cabinet Secretariat. The fact is he was a
practicing lawyer. As someone who practiced before they got into politics, I
understand how transitions work. Certainly, I had a transition period myself. It
took me a significant period of time to get rid of my files.
Because
he identified that right away, there was a meeting with the solicitor in the
Department of Justice to make aware of the cases that were there and the plans
to make sure that the transition period could happen. As the Premier has said
here today, that transition period has taken some time, but there was advice
given on things such as conflict walls.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, if you shouldn't be put in the job, there's no need for transition, and
that's the point here today we're trying to make.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Education was out publicly defending this scandal on
Friday. He stated: The opinion we have internally is that there is no conflict
of interest.
I ask
the Minister of Education: When did you find out about this secret deal that the
Premier had arranged?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of
any secret deal. I think that's been clarified by the Premier and the Minister
of Justice here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Education: When did you become aware of the arrangement that was
made by the minister with Mr. Coffey?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I became aware
of the current story that's in the news through the news last week. I'm not
aware of any secret deal or whatever it is the Opposition is trying to cook up
here on the floor of the House of Assembly today. It is absolutely bizarre.
They
pretty well pointed out they have absolutely no respect for solicitor-client
privilege or the privacy of the now former clerk. I think it's absolutely
outrageous. They should be ashamed of themselves.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
hon. minister on Friday had an opinion in regard to what information they had
received on the actual conflict of interest.
Is he
saying he wasn't aware that there was a conflict of interest or he hadn't gotten
an opinion on it and he just found out in the media? So Cabinet didn't know.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
As I said a moment ago, Mr.
Speaker, the Member should be absolutely ashamed of himself up here throwing
around mud, dirt, innuendo, making things up here on the fly of the House of
Assembly. He absolutely has no idea what he's talking about, is absolutely
disregarding all of the answers that the Premier and the Minister of Justice
have given him here on the floor of the House of Assembly.
It's
obvious to me here today that he has absolutely no interest in what the answers
are. In any case, he'll continue to make this up on the fly, as he has been
since Friday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I say to the minister: I'll
put my record as minister up against his any time in his 17 or 18 months
(inaudible), I guarantee him that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Any time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The Premier cannot
demonstrate why Stan Marshall was not in a conflict of interest as CEO of
Nalcor.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Now the Premier stands by Mr.
Coffey and does not feel he was in a conflict.
Will you
immediately appoint an ethics commissioner to look into all appointments and
hires made under your administration, to date?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
guessing that the House Leader – if you had to put someone to deal appointments
by the former administration, we would have needed commissioners the number of
times that they were actually making political appointments.
Mr.
Speaker, we have put in place one of the best Independent Appointments
Commission that exists anywhere in this country right now – anywhere in this
country. The Independent Appointments Commission is put in place; they're doing
a great job. We're getting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that never ever
thought they would have an opportunity to sit on boards.
Mr.
Speaker, we're getting people right now that are stepping up. We have a new
chair of Nalcor. There are people that are getting involved on a daily basis
through the Independent Appointments Commission. They're doing a good job and
we'll continue to use the Independent Appointments Commission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
Leader for a quick question, no preamble.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the people of
the province are outraged by what they are seeing here. The Premier has kept
this from the people of the province; they've kept it secret from the Cabinet
and the caucus. No one knows about it –
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to get to
his question.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is another example of
complete incompetence by the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
I ask the Premier, Mr.
Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Premier told media today he believed it was fine for the most senior public
servant to continue suing government until June 30, that he thought it was all
right not to inform his Cabinet of the ongoing potential conflicts, and that he
would do it all over again.
I ask
the Premier: In light of this egregious lack of due diligence, will he resign?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
no intention of resigning.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
At some point, we might
figure out who the real Leader of the NDP is, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about
conflicts, I have to remind the Member who just answered that question that she
was the individual that stood up in the Management Commission and voted for her
own raise – her own raise – in the Management Commission; made sure that she put
more money in her own pocket.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
More money in her own pocket.
So, Mr.
Speaker, no, I have no intentions of resigning. When I made the comment this
morning about hiring Mr. Coffey, yes, if I had to do that over again, given the
information that I had at the time, we would have done it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask for the co-operation of
all Members.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I point
out to the Premier that what we are questioning him about today here is his
behaviour as the Premier of this province. And believe me, what I've heard on
the streets during this weekend, people are not pleased with his behaviour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
So I ask the Premier: Why was
Cabinet not informed that Mr. Coffey would be acting as a lawyer against Nalcor
and Western Health, while also acting as clerk of the Executive Council?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
one more time I'll repeat the issue around Nalcor. There was an individual that
was dismissed from Nalcor a couple of years ago. There's a timeline for that
individual, that client who was a client of Mr. Coffey's, to actually put in
place the appropriate measures that they could actually, at some particular
point in time, not with Mr. Coffey as their solicitor – so what Mr. Coffey did
in April of this year was pursue and give that client the opportunity to pursue
a wrongful dismissal charge.
Mr.
Speaker, that has not been served. I asked Mr. Coffey about that on the weekend.
That has not been served to Nalcor. At some particular point in time and history
the client might decide to do that but from now, as we know right now, there is
no action being taken and Mr. Coffey would not be the solicitor for that client.
That's what I was told this weekend.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the
Premier was satisfied that all safeguards were put in place and Mr. Coffey's
cases posed no conflict of interest, why is Mr. Coffey now resigning?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes,
I'll answer that question one more time, Mr. Speaker. What happened when this
all started back in September of 2016, Mr. Coffey was working towards actually
transitioning out of a law practice. He made a commitment that there would be no
new files; there would be no new matters. For those existing clients, Mr.
Speaker, there were a small number of clients that he was working with to
transition his way out of his law practice. He was the sole proprietor within
his law practice, so he was transitioning out.
Unfortunately, what happened was we could not agree on what the acceptable
timeline would be. Mr. Coffey made a decision that he would return to private
life and, I guess, do what he's going to do in his next step in private life.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Are there any other special arrangements for Liberal appointments to
senior government positions that government has not yet revealed to the people?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
never were any special arrangements, Mr. Speaker. There were no secret
arrangements. We just outlined that. The employment contract for Mr. Coffey is
out there. So when the Member opposite talks about special arrangements or
secret arrangements, there are none of those. I have no idea – she might be used
to putting special arrangements in place within her own party.
Mr.
Speaker, the contract agreement is out there right now. That is out there
publicly. We just ran out of time with his transition period and the resignation
was tendered and accepted yesterday.
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.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that the private Member's motion that was tabled on April
10, 2017 will be the private Member's motion that we will have here in the House
on Wednesday.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Members opposite have tabled a number of questions and I'd like to take
the opportunity to provide the answers to those this afternoon.
On April
5, a Member opposite tabled the following question in the House in relation to
the proposed long-term care and acute care hospital in Corner Brook: What is the
full value for money assessments conducted by government by EY? Mr. Speaker, the
full results of the value for money assessment will be provided when a
successful proponent has been identified. This is consistent with practices in
other jurisdictions so as not to influence the bids from potential proponents. I
table the document for the Member opposite for her information.
Mr.
Speaker, on April 5, also the Member opposite asked a question around the
long-term care and acute care hospital in Corner Brook: What are the specific
risk assessments applied to the various procurement options? Information
regarding risk assessments will be provided as part of the full value for money
assessment when a successful proponent has been identified. This is consistent
with practices in other jurisdictions so as not to influence the bids of
potential proponents.
I might
add that the answers to those questions were also shared with the
representatives of CUPE when the minister responsible for Transportation and
Works and I met with him several weeks ago.
Mr.
Speaker, as well, on April 5 the Member opposite tabled the following question,
again, related to the long-term care and acute care hospital in Corner Brook
around what are the financial rates that are assumed with respect to each
procurement option.
Information regarding financial interest rates will be provided as part of the
full value-for-money assessment when a successful proponent has been identified.
And this is consistent with the practices of other jurisdictions so as not to
influence the bids from potential proponents.
Mr.
Speaker, also on April 5 the Member opposite tabled the following question in
the House in relationship to the proposed long-term care and acute care hospital
in Corner Brook: What are the transaction costs, legal and accounting,
associated with each procurement option?
Mr.
Speaker, the current contract with EY, which advised and led us through the
procurement process for the long-term care facility, is $450,000. And the
services of EY for the value-for-money analysis for the long-term care project
and acute care hospital cost is $400,000. The province is also retaining the
services of a legal advisor and a fairness advisor for the long-term care
project and the cost of these services will be provided when a successful
proponent has been identified. The province is in the process of retaining these
services for the acute care hospital and the costs will be provided when a
successful proponent has been identified. I'd offer these questions for the
Member opposition.
In
addition, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions from the House Leader on the
opposite side that I'd like to provide the answers with today. On March 7 the
Member opposite tabled the following question in the House: What is the number
of temporary hires or 13 weekers for each month of the last 12 months as
organized by department? And I'd like to table the document with the answer on
that today.
Mr.
Speaker, also on March 7 the Member opposite tabled the following question in
the House: What is the number of temporary hires who have been extended beyond
their original tenure by month for each of the last 12 months? And at this time
I table the following document in response.
Mr.
Speaker, on March 9 the Member opposite also tabled a question to the House:
What is the profile of the reduction of the 450 full-time employees as announced
in Budget 2016 and as promised in
Question Period by the minister on November 17, 2016? Mr. Speaker, I table the
information there for the Member opposite.
In
addition, there was a question from the Member opposite related to the total
amount of provincial revenue generated in this fiscal year '16-'17 to date from
personal income tax. Mr. Speaker, personal income tax for '16-'17 cash revenue
to the end of February 2017 – I have the number here and I'll provide that to
the Member opposite. It's important to note that this figure is the cash revenue
only as recorded in the government's account Oracle financial system, and
excludes any provincial administered credits that are charged against personal
income tax. The difference in cash revenue would be a result of any changes to
the tax system and changes in the tax file are based, as well as changes in the
individual taxpayer circumstances, as well as any prior period adjustments.
In
addition, for personal income tax for '15-'16 cash revenue to the end of
February 2016 is also provided on the document that I will provide the Member
opposite today. I'd ask to please note that these figures again are cash revenue
only as recorded by the government's accounting Oracle financial system and
exclude any provincial administered credits that are charged against personal
income tax. I'll provide that answer to the Member opposite.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite also asked a question with regard to the provincial
revenue generated in fiscal '16-'17 from the gasoline tax, and if up-to-date
information wasn't available, could I please provide the most recent
information.
Mr.
Speaker, the gasoline tax cash revenue, as of the end of February 2017, is
$274,183,321. It is important to note that this figure is cash revenue only as
recorded in government's accounts Oracle financial system and excludes any
provincial administered rebates that are charged against gasoline. The
differences in cash revenue would be a result of any changes to the tax system
rates, changes in the consumer tax base, as well as changes in consumption.
In
addition, gasoline tax '15-'16 cash revenue to the end of February 2016 was
$180,796,682. Please note that this figure is cash revenue only as recorded by
government's accounts Oracle financial system and excludes any provincial
administered rebates that are charged against the gasoline tax. I'll be happy to
provide the Member opposite with that detail as well.
Almost
done, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on March 15 the Member opposite asked the following question about
provincial revenue generated from corporate income tax.
Mr.
Speaker, corporate income tax for '16-'17 cash revenue to the end of February
was $222,288,268. It is important to note that this figure is cash revenue only
as recorded in government's accounts Oracle financial system and excludes any
provincial administered rebates that are charged against corporate income tax.
I'll provide the rest of the answer in the document when I share it with him in
a moment, Sir.
Mr.
Speaker, also the Member opposite tabled a question: What is the total number of
revenue generated for this fiscal year from revenue actions contained in
Budget 2016 and if up-to-date data was
not available, please provide the most recent total.
Mr.
Speaker, there is no straight answer to this. Some streams may be available such
as the tax on insurance premiums; however, the change in year-over-year revenue
cannot be isolated to any single action. Multiple things would influence the
change in revenue.
Personal
income tax for example. Revenue would have changed due to the rate changes,
individual changes in personal income, individual changes in personal
circumstances and deductions, and individuals leaving the tax base, for example,
moving out of the province or if an individual had become deceased during the
calendar or fiscal year, individuals entering the tax base or moving into the
province.
Mr.
Speaker, if the Member opposite would like to provide – if you would like more
information on that, I can certainly make officials available to provide him
with even more detail.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further 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
the Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial drug program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in
Budget 2016; and
WHEREAS
many low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care;
and
WHEREAS
those same individuals can now no longer access dentures;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover
low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
And as
in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken to this issue pre-budget and I was hopeful and optimistic
that this issue would be addressed somehow during
Budget 2017. The cuts that were made in
Budget 2016 were disastrous. They had a particularly harsh impact on
low-income families, on seniors, on some of the individuals that were accessing
the Adult Dental Program through the Access and 65Plus Plans.
That
program was one that was created under the previous administration, and the
Liberal Opposition often called for improvements and expansion to that program.
So we were quite surprised to see the program wiped out in 2016. We're hopeful
that considering the impact it had on people's lives that we'd see some change
in 2017, but we did not.
We saw a
budget in 2016 with 300 new taxes and fees and only one of those partially
adjusted in the 2017 budget. So we've got 299 new taxes and fees, some of which
have only come into effect in recent months. None of that was fixed through
Budget 2017.
Vital
social programs, like the Adult Dental Program, were cut in 2016 and there was
nothing done to address that in 2017. So that's a major concern. It's a major
concern for, particularly, seniors.
We have
seniors that are also dealing with increased costs for home care. Home care
hours were cut over the past year and there were no improvements in that area in
this recent budget. There were cuts to the Prescription Drug Program that
affects seniors and low-income individuals. There was a reduction in diabetic
test strips that are available to individuals living with diabetes in our
province.
People
are facing an increased cost of living on top of all of that as a result of all
those new taxes and fees. This is really unfortunate. It's irresponsible to see
this kind of cut in health care. The Adult Dental Program should be restored to
support those that are in need of care and in need of support.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise today to present this petition on behalf of a large group in my
district.
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
public recruitment is ongoing at Mistaken Point UNESCO World Heritage Site; and
WHEREAS
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has undertaken support to
commitments made in the nomination documents of the World Heritage Committee;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately restrict the public recruitment
process for Mistaken Point UNESCO World Heritage Site to qualified people from
the local area so that people from the area are carefully and thoughtfully
vetted for the position in an open, fair and transparent process.
Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken before here in this House in regard to Mistaken Point and
the tremendous opportunity it gives to the Southern Avalon and all of
Newfoundland and Labrador in, I believe to be, our fourth UNESCO World Heritage
Site designation, and what that means, as I said, for the province as a whole,
and I believe it's the 18th in Canada. It looks to bring tremendous opportunity
to the region, but also a structured and formal approach to ensure that these
fossils, 500 to 600 million years aged, are protected and preserved.
Out of
the dossier that was submitted in regard to getting World Heritage status, one
of the requirements, or one of the things supported was that a benefit would
accrue to the local community and regions. Certainly, one of those benefits
would be that those who are qualified have a good understanding of the cultural,
academic and technical experience of that site would be able to qualify for
positions in the area; and, in so doing, they would live in the community and
support this site going forward and what it brings to the area.
So this
evolved from the community, from the region, several hundred names, I believe,
here in total. There was some concern – I've addressed it with the minister in
regard to how the process was going. I think immediately the process for four
new positions went public rather than internally and locally to the region, I
understand, which is allowed under the current legislation and current process
in place. Certainly there are huge concerns with the region that we're not
exercising the great opportunities and possibilities for the people in the
region.
I know
of some myself who have worked there over the summer. Some have gone off and got
various degrees from different universities, and from all we hear are certainly
well-suited to fill these positions. We just want to ensure that government and
the minister recognizes this and makes sure every opportunity and every benefit
we can ensure is vetted with the community and with the people in the region is
maximized, because that's what it's all about, and asking the minister to take a
look at this to make sure every possibility, as I said, for employment and
benefit to the region is secured, because this is something on the Southern
Avalon that's important to the region, certainly important to the people here,
and it's a great economic development and sustainability, and bodes well for the
future. I'm asking them to take a real look at this and make sure it's done
properly.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government plans to remove the provincial point-of- sale tax rebate on books,
which will raise the tax on books from 5 percent to 15 percent; and
WHEREAS
an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must
be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada, and
the other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to
encourage reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS
this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we
will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government
a tax to read the books of our own writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe that the words, the prayers in this petition really say it
all. It talks about the extra burden now on book publishers, on book sellers, on
authors. It talks about the very odd decision of this government, in trying to
raise revenue, to do it on books. When we know that books are a necessity, and
we know that any investment in education, any investment at all in education is
good for our economy, for the current economy and for the future economy of the
province. So it's odd.
What
kind of thinking went into developing this tax? Who thought that this was a
smart move? It's hard to conceive of that, Mr. Speaker. It's hard to conceive of
who actually sat down and said: You know what we can do? We can tax books. We
can make sure it's harder for our students to pay for books. We can make sure
it's harder for seniors to buy books. We can make sure it's harder for our book
publishers to sell books in the province; our own writers.
We can
make it harder for our own people, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to
buy books by our own authors. Who would have sat down and thought that was a
good idea? Who would have sat down and really thought of the ramifications of
such a decision? Really, what are the benefits?
My
colleague here from Bell Island responded to my question, my rhetorical question
of: Who? Who would have thought that this was a good idea? He said the Liberals.
Well, that's exactly who thought of this and who didn't think it all the way
through in terms of what are the roll-out effects? What are the ramifications of
making it more difficult for people to have books?
We've
heard of students whose cost for their books at university-level courses, that
in one semester the extra money they pay is in excess of $100 just on taxes on
the books they need for their semester; some of them way in excess of $100. Who
could have conceivably thought that this was a good idea? And what are the
benefits to the province? I can't imagine that in the scheme of things the
economic benefit really is a benefit at all to this province.
We can
very clearly see how this kind of tax is detrimental to our own people, to our
students, to our booksellers, to our publishers and to our authors. This is not
a win-win situation; this is a lose-lose situation. Again, Mr. Speaker, at what
point did no one stop and say: This is not the route to go. This is lazy, lazy,
ill-informed policy. There's no other way to frame it.
Thank
you very much.
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
there's been an identified lack of mental health services in our province's K to
12 school system; and
WHEREAS
the lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and
WHEREAS
left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious
issues;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs
in our province's K to 12 school system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had the opportunity to present this and every time I present it,
there are obviously some viewers out there or there are people who pass on the
message, or there's another petition that comes in that acknowledges the
challenges within our school system, and the importance of having programs and
services to address the particular needs that young people and our student
population are facing in the education system around mental health.
We know
society has changed dramatically over the last number of years and there's a
multitude of challenges within the education system. But within society, as
young people grow up, and to identify and support mental health issues is the
key component to ensure that our students have the ability to be successful
through our school system, and then move on to post-secondary and to whatever
other process they use in their adult lives to be able to be contributing
members of society and be able to have the best quality of life as possible.
Mr.
Speaker, as we look at it, we know there's a multitude of programs and services
that we've improved in our school system over the years, but we still are
lacking a better approach to mental health and better preventative and
identifying processes in advance.
We went
through Estimates this morning for the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development and while there's no doubt great work being done by
educators and great work being done by our school administrators, there are
still challenges that they face because they don't have the resources. They
don't have the lead coming from the department to foster that.
They
don't have somebody organizing or developing partnerships with the private
sector and the not-for-profit sector who have a speciality in this area, who
have an ability to identify how we implement programs and services; how we best
serve them; how we use technology go get services out there; how we use the
medical profession to be able to identify early signs of mental health issues;
how we use the existing volunteer sector and peer counselling within our own
school systems, older students supporting and counselling younger students,
students who are on the same class (inaudible), processes around empathy and
supportive mechanisms there.
So, Mr.
Speaker, it's an identified issue here. We had a great committee, an All-Party
Committee that identified a multitude of challenges within the mental health
community because they listened to those people who were facing it, they
listened to the professionals who have a skill set, they listened to those who
have done the research, and they looked at how things are being addressed in
other areas and some of the positive things that have happened and some of the
challenges that they've had and have come up with a set of recommendations to be
implemented. In that, are a set of recommendations about how we address early
identification of mental health issues, and particularly around students and how
we foster that in the school system and how we support that.
So we
need to not only take what the committee has identified and put that as a
recommendation, but we also have to take into play what our own educators and
our own society said.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to present this and I'll have a chance to speak to it again.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 1, budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
looking forward today to speaking to the budget following the non-confidence
vote that was moved by the Official Opposition. I'm happy to stand to speak to
it, because we continually need to set the record straight with this government.
The people need to hear what the real situations are. It's something that this
government is not very good at, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Finance stood in this House and presented a Budget Speech which was
a rosy picture of the reality of this province; a rosy picture that claimed we
were stable; a rosy picture that said everything was going well. It's like we
had two different worlds being presented to the people of the province – the
majority of whom heard about the Budget Speech, some would have watched it, they
would have seen reports in the paper, but at the same time there's more to the
budget than a Budget Speech. You also have a load of documents which give the
real figures, which give the real details, which really tell us what the
economic picture of the province is.
There's
even a budget document, Budget 2017,
that's called The Economy. You have
the budget document the Estimates
book, which is a very, very thick book. That book takes every department of
government, department by department, and goes through their budget, goes
through what was spent in the previous year, goes through what the government
said was going to be spent and what changes were made.
Then
after the budget, the budget came out for 2017-2018, we are now going through
what's called Estimates. At Estimates, we get to sit down in committees with the
minister and key people in a department and question the government on the
Estimates. We go through it line by line. If we see anomalies from the year
before coming into this year, we ask about those anomalies. We get explanations,
and they are very good meetings, Mr. Speaker.
I have
to say that I always find that the staff of the department and the ministers are
forthcoming. We get their briefing notes when the meetings are over. They answer
our questions. Sometimes we may be happy with the answers. If not, we get to
question more and we can ask questions here in the House of Assembly. But the
average citizen, the average person, is not sitting down and going through the
thick document called Estimates. The
average person is not going to the book that's called
The Economy, for many reasons, Mr. Speaker.
One, the
average person out there is very busy. They are people who are trying to make a
living. They are people with families and responsibilities. To go online,
because that's what they would have to do, open up these documents and start
reading them is something that I think is very time consuming, number one, and
it is a demand on people that's very, very difficult.
What I
think government has a responsibility to do is to paint the correct picture when
the Minister of Finance gives the Budget Speech, not correct a picture that only
gives part of the story. Not correct a picture that ignores the reality of
people's lives, but something that really speaks to the full reality.
In the
Budget Speech, the minister, supported by the Premier in comments afterwards,
did their best to obscure the bad news, what the reality is in our province
right now. They hoped, I guess, that if it came out in dribs and drabs, a bit of
information here, a bit of information there, that people wouldn't put it all
together and figure out what was really going on in the province.
So I
want to speak to some of the things that are in the documents, that are in what
the budget is all about, not the rosy speech that was given by the minister.
What are some of the facts that are in the book that is called
The Economy? Well, in that book that's called
The Economy, there is a page about the economic indicators in our
province right now and those economic indicators are very, very serious. There
are nine in particular.
So you
have one: the real household income. The real household income in this province
since the last budget is down 3.2 per cent – down, real household income. And no
wonder, based on the budget of 2016-2017 which laid such a burden on the
shoulders of the people of this province with new taxes, new fees, new fines.
Whichever way this government could try to pull money out of the pockets of
ordinary people in the province, they did it. So no wonder the real household
income is down.
Retail
sales; that shows people's spending power. As consumers, what are they doing out
there? Are they spending more money? Are they going out to eat? Are they going
to movies or other cultural events? Well, retail sales are down 3 per cent. It
goes along with the real household income done 3.2 per cent. A little bit of a
correlation there.
Then you
have housing starts. We all know that's also a sign of a booming economy when
housing starts are going up. When people feel they can take on building a new
home; that they can take on, especially younger people moving ahead, looking at
having families and looking at settling down together and creating families
together. Housing starts, Mr. Speaker, are down 3.4 per cent; real correlations
here.
Then the
real GDP, the real gross domestic product, which is that by which we judge how
the overall economy is making out, that's down; down by 3.8 per cent.
Then you
have the real final domestic demand. What is it that people are looking for?
What is it that people can seek? What is the demand of the person out there, the
consumers out there? The demand is down 4.1 per cent.
Capital
investment, people who do have money and who invest in capital infrastructure,
invest in creating capital projects, et cetera. Capital investment is down 9.1
per cent. The only indicators, Mr. Speaker, that are up is the cost of living
has gone up and the unemployment rate has gone up.
So what
we have here – and this has been definitely stated by economists. What we have
here are documents that show that our economy in this province is in a
recession, and economists agree to that. You would never know from the Budget
Speech that was presented here in this House in April that we were in a
recession. No mention of that to the people of this province.
We tried
to get the minister after the budget was read in the House; we tried to get her
to confirm these numbers on the record. Unfortunately, the minister got
defensive, she got indignant. She suggested it was fear mongering for us to
point out to the public what the real message was in the budget documents. That
it was fear mongering for us to do our job as an Opposition party and question
them on the real issues. That it was fear mongering for us as an Opposition
party to raise those questions during Question Period.
Well, I
find it absolutely unacceptable and disgraceful that the Minister of Finance
would call our questioning fear mongering, when what we're doing is asking her
how do these figures, which are in her document, which show how badly our
economy is, how do those figures balance out with what she gave as the Budget
Speech in this House, which is what the majority of the public know. They don't
know all these details. So if government is not going to do its responsibility
and point out the real story, if government is not going to do its
responsibility and point out what the real economic reality is, then I think we
have the responsibility as an Opposition party to do that.
So it's
not fear mongering, Mr. Speaker. It's trying to get government to acknowledge
the reality so that people can say to them, what is your plan? How are you going
to get us out of this? What they have in their budget is not going to get us out
of a recession. Again, that's something that economists agree to.
What
this government didn't want people to realize – I've heard people say:
oh, wow, it wasn't as bad as I thought. That's what this government was trying
to do, to get people to think that way, but what people are starting to realize
is that the 2017 budget is basically the 2016 budget. We still have a tax on our
books.
Our post-secondary students, since last year, are spending
hundreds of dollars on books just in tax. That is absolutely unacceptable. We
have low-income people, ordinary
income people every time they go and try to buy a book having to pay tax. It is
unbelievable in a province that has the lowest literacy level in the country
that we have books that are taxed. That tax remains. They put it on in 2016. Did
they take it off? No they didn't. It's still there.
The levy
remains. That extra tax remains. They made some changes to it to decrease
slightly the number of people who are being charged a levy, but the majority are
still charged and the levy still remains, Mr. Speaker.
The
provincial tax on insurance; I've had many people talk to me about the tax on
insurance. They are finding it difficult. That tax remains.
All
kinds of the fees remain. The 300 fee increases; 300 fee increases that deal
with just ordinary life. That deal with getting your car registered; that deal
with your driver's licence; that deal with your moose licence. I mean 300 fees
were increased and those increases remain.
We still
don't know what the government is going to do about libraries. That was in last
year's budget, and this year they're waiting on a report. This year's budget
hasn't closed the libraries but we still don't know what is going to happen.
One of
the things the Minister of Finance put forward was that things were much better
than we thought they were going to be because we had an increase in revenue.
Look at that increase in revenue, Mr. Speaker. Where did that increase in
revenue come from? That increase in revenue came from oil production and an
increase in the price of a barrel of oil.
Now
that's rather frightening, that we have a better budget in terms of revenue than
the government thought because something they have no control over improved.
They have no plan for the future to try to make sure that they have revenue that
they have some control over, to make sure that we're not every year going to be
dictated to and controlled by the price of oil.
Yes,
there was a reduction in the deficit and, yes, they reduced the gas tax they put
on last year. They didn't remove it but reduced it. How were they able to do
that? Simply because the price of a barrel of oil went up higher than they
anticipated and because there was more oil production than they anticipated.
Something I want to point out, which government has been a bit rosy about as
well, wearing rose-tinted glasses, is the fact that they are basing this year's
budget, 2017-18, on getting revenues based on $56 US a barrel for oil. Now, I
know they have in their document, in the booked called
The Economy, some of the projections that are out there by the
professional groups but, so far, those projections are off because right now I
think it's $51. So what are we going to find next year? This year it was a bit
higher than they expected and right now the signs are that the price of oil is
going down.
It was
only last week there was an economist, a specialist from the UK, who was on the
airwaves here in the province and his judgement is it's going down to $51, $52 –
it's there already – and it's going to stay there; it's not going up. So if that
turns out to be the case, we have a very difficult situation for next year.
Because if their budget, based on $56 US a barrel, without any plan for
increased revenue from any other source, if that's what happens, if that's what
we have happening with oil going down and staying at around $51 or $52 a barrel,
well then we're going to have a loss of revenue next year and we're going to
have a more dire picture than what we have right now. This is what they don't
want people to understand.
I don't
want to make things negative for people, but people know the reality. This is
what the government seems to not recognize, that people know the reality.
They're living the reality. They're living with more and more money being taken
out of their pockets. Life is getting harder for them. More people are going to
food banks. More students at Memorial University are going to food banks.
We have
a very serious situation with a government without any plan. There is no plan in
this budget. No plan for building our economy. No plan for economic
diversification. They use all kinds of great language but when you look for
actions, there's nothing there, and that's what's frightening.
Yes,
they're going to let more Crown lands be available for agriculture, but no money
to help people who are already farming or the younger farmers who want to start
larger enterprises, no money to help them. They need more than just land. They
need support. They need start-up. Or they need start-up, if not for a new farm,
for new projects.
We have
a problem with regard to food security in this province. Government mentions it
in their document, but there's no vision of how they can work with the
agricultural industry to take care, to start moving towards food security in
this province – nothing, and that is what is so disturbing.
This
government may not realize it, yet people notice that, and certainly people in
the agricultural industry notice it. So we ask this government to become more
realistic with people and more honest with people, because what's happening is
they are ignoring the reality. They're trying to pitch this budget as being a
good news budget. They appear to have convinced themselves that last year's
budget was a good budget also, and the only problem was they didn't communicate
the budget well enough.
Well, I
got news for them; no matter how they communicate it, no matter what they did,
they couldn't make that budget a good budget and be seen as a good budget by
people. People are still living with that budget. They could not, by any stretch
of the imagination, say to people in some form or other oh no, it's a levy, but
it's not really a levy. Oh, yes, there are 300 new areas that have fees that
have been increased but no, that really didn't happen. I don't know how they
think they could have communicated a good budget last year, how communication
could have changed the reality. People know what was happening. What has
happened now is that we are in the same situation. The mean budget last year
gave no hope and now we have a leaner and meaner budget this year, and people
are not happy.
They can
try all they want to make it sound okay, to make it sound new, to make it sound
all right, people know the difference. We're not the only ones who are saying
this. The media reports portrayed the budget as a stay-the-course affair, and I
agree with that description. The problem is that staying the course in this
province is going to mean all of our economic indicators continuing to go
downwards, everybody suffering more when it comes to trying to make ends meet.
That's what staying the course is going to mean. Staying the course is going to
mean higher unemployment. Staying the course is going to mean an economy that's
more and more in recession. This is what they've given the people of this
province.
I will
have a couple of more times in the budget debate to speak, Madam Speaker, and I
look forward to continuing to raise these issues.
Thank
you very much.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to be back in the House of Assembly and to have an opportunity to speak
to the budget. I guess we'll all have three opportunities at least, and this is
my first one.
Madam
Speaker, I just want to start off by saying that I want to keep my commentary
here to try to be somewhat balanced and fair on it. I certainly have a lot of
concerns, as has already been pointed out. But there have been some good things
in the budget as well and I think it's important that we recognize the good and
the bad.
So I
will say, just to start off, that I think this whole approach of this zero-based
budgeting exercise, while there are still a lot of unanswered questions – and I
do thank the Minister of Finance; she did arrange a meeting with Opposition
Members and members from her department to try to answer some of those
questions. Unfortunately, there are still an awful lot of questions that they
weren't really in a position to answer in terms of where some of these savings
are.
I think
originally we had a number of $41 million and we managed to be shown where
there's $25 million that really they couldn't account for in terms of exactly
where that money would be saved. I think what we got from it is that a lot of it
is ongoing, actions to come. So that would certainly lead me to believe that
when we looked at, for example, the flatter, leaner management process and so on
that they looked at in core government departments and then Eastern Health, well
then we have agencies, boards and commissions where we haven't seen that happen.
So it makes you think that perhaps that's coming and we could see some cutbacks
and layoffs there, for example.
Without
having that actual information given to you, it's hard to really know. So I
guess when we talk about budgets and the devil being in the details, there are
still a number of details which we are yet to become aware of, and I guess we
will find out as time goes on.
I will
say, though, that the whole concept of zero-based budgeting, I think, is a good
one. I think it's a good idea to be able to say just because you spent X amount
of dollars on travel last year that that automatically means you can spend the
same amount this year. Perhaps you don't need to do as much travel this year as
you did last year. Perhaps money that was spent on office supplies and furniture
you needed last year, perhaps this year you don't need to spend as much,
therefore why put the money there that would only get transferred over into
other categories to be spent on other things, or to be spent because the
year-end is soon going to be up – and we hear these stories about we're getting
close to year-end, we better spend all the money or we won't get as much next
year. So I think the whole concept of starting at the zero-based and justifying
every expenditure, that part of it at least is a good idea and I do support that
in principle.
There
were a few other tidbits in there that I thought were good in the budget. There
was some increased funding for early childhood educators; they're going to get
an additional $1 per hour. That's certainly a positive thing; something they've
been looking for, for a while. I think we all agree that we need to make sure
that our children are well cared for, so this goes a long ways to helping
towards that.
We see
an increase for the child care subsidy for families on lower incomes. Again, I
would see that as a positive thing. We saw some new funding for student
assistants in inclusive classrooms. That, I think, is an important thing. It is
certainly something that all Opposition Members raised and have lobbied for. I'm
glad to see that that did happen.
Now, I
did hear commentary from the NLTA President Jim Dinn – I'm not sure if he's
still the president, or if he's past president now. Anyway, there's a transition
perhaps. He did make some commentary that while he was glad to see that
announcement, it doesn't go anywhere close to making up for the issues that were
created in Budget 2016 when there was
a number of positions and resources cut. So he did make that commentary.
I don't
have the details on it. Those are his comments, not mine. I know there still
continues to be issues in the classroom. But, with that said, having some
additional student assistants is better than not having them, so I will point
out that I'm glad to see that.
There
was some new funding for transition houses there, which was a good thing. A new
pilot project there to provide legal advice for victims of sexual assault – very
pleased to see that pilot project. I think it was just announced about a week or
so ago. I think it was primarily federal money. There may have been some
provincial money that went with it, but in any regard it is welcome news. I
think it's a good initiative and I was glad to see that in the budget.
There
was also funding put in place for a new program for energy efficiency under
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Again, that's a positive thing. Although I
will point out that there always was a program called the Residential Energy
Efficiency Program under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, which was very
similar. That program got cancelled in last year's budget and now we've
introduced a new program. Now, it could be argued that perhaps this program is
somewhat enhanced because there's not just a grants program but there's a loans
program as well. I think even the grant may have increased slightly. So glad to
see that back and if there are some enhancements, that's a good thing. But
again, you're only replacing what was removed in last year's budget.
I was
also pleased to see some funding for mental health. The work of the All-Party
Committee on Mental Health, I think that has led to this. I'm glad to see
there's some money set aside to start working on some of the recommendations
that came out of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. I
think there's some money now going towards looking at the replacement of the
Waterford and so on, which again we all know that's needed. That's not the same
as building the Waterford. Setting money aside to move the process forward is
not the same as it actually happening.
I'm glad
that they've done it – don't get me wrong – but until we actually see
construction, then we've seen on lots of projects in the past, whether it be
this administration or past administrations, where money would be set aside for
studies and all this kind of stuff, and site reviews and all these things, and
then it never happens. Or something gets announced and then it gets re-announced
and re-announced, and five years later we're still announcing it, we're still
studying it, but nothing ever happens.
I hope
that we're serious about this, and this not just an attempt to pacify people who
are advocates for mental health, to give the suggestion that we're really going
to finally do something and that we actually don't. I hope that we do, and we'll
certainly be following that as we move forward.
So as I
said, these are some of the things, Madam Speaker, that were in the budget that
I would view as positive things. Certainly I can't forget as well the gas tax
reduction. I'm glad to see that it will be reduced. I don't know why we had to
wait until June to reduce it. It could have been reduced immediately when the
budget was announced. Anyway, it's going to be reduced in June. I'm glad to see
that happen. It think it's 10 cents and then an additional four, is it, or
something like that. We're not eliminating the total 16 cents, but we're
eliminating eight and four, is it – 12 cents altogether this year. So I'm glad
to see that happening, for sure, but it is important to point out that really
all we're doing is partially reducing something was done last year.
That
kind of ties into what the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi was
saying. That the reality of it is that
in last year's budget, there
were severe measures taken by anybody's account on behalf of the government.
Now, whether that was necessary or not, that's the part that's debatable.
Government Members and Cabinet would say we actually had to do that; we had no
choice. There are other people that would say that you didn't have to do any of
it. I think in the middle, the reality that most people would say that I've
spoken to at least, and I think my constituents would say and I would agree 100
per cent, that we absolutely had to do something last year.
Unfortunately, there had to be some increases. It was a question of degrees. It
was a question of how far it went. And that was really the issue that I had with
the budget, that was the issue that my constituents had, is that they felt it
went too far. What you heard from so many people, the terminology was: too much
too fast.
It's
important to realize that, again, as the former speaker said, the budget was
kind of being sold and a lot of people sort of bought into that idea, at least
originally, as this is not a bad budget because we didn't tax you any more – I
think the Minister of Finance or other Members might have said something to that
effect.
There
are no new tax increases. That's what it was. There are no new tax increases in
this budget and everybody was really excited about that – there are no new tax
increases. But you have to ask yourself is the reason why there's no new tax
increases because there's really nothing left to tax. Because last year we
introduced 300 new taxes and fees and so on and that had a severe impact on many
people and that continues today.
So if
this year to simply say we didn't increase it, we didn't add any more, that's
not necessarily – I mean it's a good thing, obviously, but it's not really a
good thing because you also didn't eliminate all the damage that was created in
last year's budget. You didn't eliminate what you did last year. You can't
pretend that last year didn't happen.
People
realize that when they look at their paycheque. I've had many people say to me,
they look at their paycheque and how much money that they paid in, it's way
beyond what it ever was. And we've seen the impact that it's having on many
people in the province.
Now,
some people can shoulder it more than others, without a doubt. If you are
somebody who is just struggling, just barely getting by, just barely making ends
meet as it is, then last year's budget, and this year's continuation of that,
was devastating – absolutely devastating.
There
are other people that were in a position to shoulder the tax and all the
increases but it has had a major impact on their lives, on their spending
habits, on their expendable income and so on. Now, are they going to the food
bank? No. Although we have seen an increase in food bank use, which is very
important to note; an increase in food bank use. We've seen a number of
businesses shut down and we've seen increased bankruptcies, people going into
consumer protection and so on or creditor protection.
So
there's no doubt that it has an impact but there are still a lot of people that
were able to suck it up – for lack of better terminology – but their spending is
down. Because of their spending being down, then what are the things you cut?
There are certain things you can't cut. You have to pay your mortgage. You have
to pay your car or whatever, if you have one. You have to eat. You have to have
heat in your home. The kids have to go to school and they need lunch and so on.
But when it comes to going out on a Friday night or a Saturday evening or
something, down to The Keg or wherever you like to go, perhaps going for a
couple of drinks down on George Street if that's your thing, perhaps going to a
movie. All those types of things, those are the things that get cut. Those are
the extras, if you will, that get cut.
There
were an awful lot of people who were forced to give up all of those things and
they're not happy about it. The other thing is it's not just them. It's the
impact that has on those businesses. I've spoken to a number of business owners
and so on in the bar and restaurant industry and other businesses who have told
me they have seen a tremendous drop in sales. There's no doubt about it.
I spoke
to a gentleman a couple of weeks ago; he's a member of the Home Builders'
Association. He told me that housing starts are down something like 50 per cent
from last year. He said it's incredible. And people who do renovations on homes,
people who make a living renovating homes, their business has dropped off
substantially. All it has really done – this guy told me, which makes sense – is
it's fueling the underground economy.
More and
more people – there were always people that would do it anyway, but more and
more people are forced to get it done for cash and to get it done on the cheap;
to get it done for cash. Then that sometimes sacrifices safety and everything
else, but that's happening.
Like I
said, there are a lot of people just not getting those repairs done on the home,
just not building that new patio deck, just not building that shed, just not
making that improvement to their cabin or whatever the case might be. They're
just not doing it because the money isn't there. That's impacting businesses.
It's impacting employment. That's why we're seeing businesses shut down. That's
why we're seeing bankruptcies and all of these other things.
The
Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi is right. Even in the budget document
itself, when we look at the indicators that are there, we see unemployment is
up. We see housing starts are down. Household income is down. All those things
are down. These are things that we need for our economy to thrive and to grow
and so on. That's what we're seeing.
I guess
the point is, Madam Speaker, as I said, it's not about what was done in
Budget 2017. It's about what was done
in 2016 and allowed to continue on in 2017. That's what's having that impact.
Like I said, there are other things as well. I don't know how many people I've
had call the office, and deal with seniors and so on, that were impacted very
negatively by things like when they cut the over-the-counter prescriptions, home
care.
You talk
about the devil is in the details; if you read the budget last year, nowhere in
the budget did it talk about we're going to cut home care hours or we're going
to increase the amount that a person who receives home care is going to have to
pay. We're going to increase the amount that someone who receives home care
supplies is going to have to pay.
That
wasn't in the budget. All of that came to light two or three months later when a
letter was sent out by the various health care authorities to their clients
saying your home care is up for renewal. By the way, so that you know, last year
you paid X; this year you're going to pay Y. We're increasing the percentage
that you have to pay towards your home care and we're reducing your hours and
you're going to have to pay more for your supplies.
That
wasn't in the budget. It just happened, it came out over time. And I suspect
there are going to be similar things, perhaps, that may come out over time with
this budget that we don't know about yet. It will come out in dribs and drabs
and so on.
These
are the things that are important to people. The people don't necessarily get
all caught up in these big budget speeches and the big numbers and everything
there. That's really not what they're focused on. They're focused on: How does
this budget affect my day-to-day life? That's all that matters. The rest of it
they couldn't care less. They could care less.
How does
this impact my day-to-day life? Do I have to pay more taxes? Will my services be
reduced? How can I live? How can I pay my bills? Are the services going to be
available for me if I get sick? I have a child going to school next year, are
they going to be in a safe classroom with all the resources they need, or are
they going to be in an overcrowded classroom with lack of resources? Those are
the things that people are concerned about and those are the details that you
don't see in a budget document.
And it's
hard for us and the people have said to me, you know, how about this, how about
that, how about somebody else, some of these detailed issues. And my honest
answer is I can't tell you. I can only tell you what is available today. I can't
say to you that as a result of this budget that in two months' time that this
service could be taken away or reduced. I can't say that. I don't know – I don't
know. So, Madam Speaker, these are the things that matter to people and these
are the things that we have to ask questions about, we have to raise concerns
about and so on.
So my
time is pretty much running out. I will just conclude or summarize by saying, as
I did in the beginning, there were some good things in this budget and there
were some things that are not good. I'm prepared to talk about the good and the
bad, both. And I think we all should be open to doing just that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
And the ugly?
MR. LANE:
I won't say the ugly, but the
good and the bad for sure.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker, for the time.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Madam
Speaker.
It's
certainly an honour and a privilege to rise in this hon. House once again and
speak to Budget 2017. But I have to
say that in the last two years it's certainly anything but pleasurable to speak
to the budgets that are being brought down, because we're seeing the impact of
these budgets is having a very negative and detrimental impact on the well-being
of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker.
Before I
get into the budget, I would like to recognize all of these volunteers in our
wonderful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, last week being Volunteer Week,
and I was very fortunate to be in my district and be able to participate in some
volunteer appreciation events, which were absolutely incredible, Madam Speaker,
to witness.
When
you're here in the House of Assembly, particularly when you're discussing the
budget, you can get downhearted sometimes, but all it takes is a visit to your
district, with your constituents, and you're soon re-energized again because of
the great, fantastic people that you're working on behalf of out there in the
districts. You know that no matter how tough it gets, the tough keep on going
because, at the end of the day, we're all about making things better.
The
theme of this year's volunteer week was: volunteers impact people's lives. They
really genuinely, truly do. I know I've spoken about this a few times as I've
got up in the House this year, but it has been quite an incredible year in the
District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune and Coast of Bays with the unprecedented
floods and fires. And it was clearly volunteers who got us through these times.
We were very nervous, particularly during the floods and not knowing whether our
houses were going to be still on land or overboard by the time morning came.
But, at
the end of the day, it was the volunteers who put you at ease. We knew the
firefighters and the first responders were out there doing everything they could
to mitigate the danger that we were in, and they were there to pick up the
pieces the next morning. So hats off to all of them and, again, when we had the
fires, the calls came in at about 4 in the morning, by 6 o'clock we had a
community of volunteers at the Lions Club cooking up breakfast for the firemen,
and they stayed there and cooked for two days as the firemen fought the fires.
So
incredible things like that happen all across our wonderful province because of
volunteers and on behalf of myself as the MHA for the District of Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune, and all my colleagues, I say thank you to each and every volunteer
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
And this being the Budget
Speech, I also want to talk a little more about my district before I actually
get into details of the budget which gravely concerns me, and that is, again,
picking up the pieces from the fires that took place. I would like to thank the
Minister of Education for taking the time to come to the District of Fortune Bay
– Cape La Hune last week to see the school and the damage first-hand and to talk
to the people and see how they were affected and talk to the children. While he
was there, we also toured around some other schools in my region.
I think
I'm confident in saying that the minister was quite impressed with the strength
and resiliency of the people of Bay d'Espoir who have come together and who are
now pursuing a new school for that portion of the district, for the Bay d'Espoir
catchment area. We look forward to the coming months and years and the eventual
opening of a brand new, state-of-the-art school.
So they
say out of everything bad, sometimes there's always a silver lining. Our
children in the Bay d'Espoir area have been operating out of schools that are 60
years old, so they're going to finally have a state-of-the-art school, which is
going to be absolutely fantastic. We're going to have all the proper art
supplies. We're going to have the proper music rooms. We're going to have the
proper drama rooms. We're going to have the proper tech and science rooms. It's
going to be absolutely fabulous and we will get there, hopefully, in the
not-too-distant future, Madam Speaker.
Now I'm
going to join where my colleagues have left off, the Member for Mount Pearl –
Southlands and the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, in terms of the
budget and the impacts it has had. I have to say, last year in 2016 when I went
into the budget lockdown my attitude was this: It can't possibly be as bad as
they're saying. No, they've really been putting a lot of messaging into she's
gone b'y, she gone. So, no, we're going in there and sit down and – they've
oversold us on how bad they're going to bring it down. It's really not going to
be that bad.
Well, I
sat in my chair and I didn't know that I was going to be able to get up to walk
into the room for Budget 2016, Madam
Speaker. We went into shock and we stayed in shock for months: 300 new taxes,
the worst of the worst of the worst that I could ever have imagined in a million
years. And we're seeing the impacts of that budget today.
We've
seen our bond rating drop. It dropped shortly after the budget last year and
we're paying higher interest costs as a result. We're seeing the highest
unemployment that this province has seen in quite some time. We're seeing a
record number of bankruptcies. People have no choice but to file for bankruptcy
because the money is no longer in their pockets, Madam Speaker. The feeling of
doom and gloom was permeating across this province, but I'm telling you now, I'm
seeing a change in that because we, the people, believe in ourselves. We, the
people, have confidence in ourselves and we are going to turn this province
around. We do have strong entrepreneurs across this Island. We do have a lot to
applaud and be thankful for.
The
taxation measures we're under now are regressive. They're stifling the economy,
they're turning us backwards and, hopefully, we're going to see some change in
the direction that government has moved us in and we're going to see things
start to turn around.
Again,
going back to Conservative ideology when it comes to taxation, you usually lower
taxation to stimulate an economy. We have increased taxation to the point that
our economy is stifled and businesses are closing down at an alarming rate and,
again, I say people filing for bankruptcy at an alarming rate – terrible policy
decisions that have hurt this province immensely.
We're
two years away from the people being able to make a decision as to what kind of
a future we want going forward. In my opinion, I certainly will be looking to a
future and to leaders that have optimism about our future, and believe in our
potential as a people and know that we have the capability to be just as strong
as anywhere else in this country or in this continent, Madam Speaker. And that's
where we're going.
So what
do we now know? Prior to the election of 2015 going in, we had been in
government, our government, for 12 years. And you know how they talk about
cycles of politics. Some were saying, well, it's just the cycle is what it is
and people are ready for a change.
We were
told at that time as a people that there was a plan. Well, what do we now know
two years later? We now know there was never plan. There's still no plan. We now
know that the decisions that have been made have hurt the economy and in fact
made things far, far, far worse than they needed to be.
Other
provinces in this country and other economies that were dependent on oil rode
through the oil crash far better than we did because they took a different
approach in their decision making; they took a different approach in their
policy direction. Even the Liberal government in Ottawa has taken a completely
different approach and has gone down the road of spending to stimulate the
economy.
Now, I
don't condone that entirely, being a fiscal Conservative. I'm somewhat concerned
about the rate of increase in spending in Ottawa, but I will say somewhere in
between I do think lies the better answer. We're seeing other provinces weather
this much better than we have. And hopefully the government of the day can look
to the successes that the other provinces are having and implement some of those
in the next budget to come, Madam Speaker.
Some of
the things that I will talk about later today are those opportunities and those
ideas that I think government can pursue to help put our province in a much
better position than what it is today.
Oil is
the resource that is indeed very valuable, but at the end of the day we need to
have renewable resources that will continue to provide us with an economic base
for all time. To that end, I strongly support renewal of the traditional
fishery, which is really the very reason for our being.
In my
former life, I worked as an executive director with the Coast of Bays
Corporation, a community economic development board. We did a lot of work on
fishery issues in the area. I have a lot of fishermen in my region. In fact,
nearly 1,000 people were employed in the fishery down my way at one time. We had
a large number of plants. We had them in Belleoram. We had them in Gaultois. We
had them in Hermitage. We had them in Harbour Breton. They all closed down
actually and only one struggled through; Harbour Breton managed to struggle
through, with a lot of down time. But because of the aquaculture industry today,
we now have three plants back up and running in the Coast of Bays region and we
anticipate more to come as the industry continues to grow.
So is
there a way to turn things around? Absolutely. Is there potential for the
future? Absolutely. I truly hope that we, the people, continue to remind
government that there is a lot that we, the people, are capable of and can do to
turn this province around, and we have to do it together, Madam Speaker. We all
have to work together to achieve that, I have no doubt.
When we
see things happening like what we saw this weekend with respect to the
appointment of Bernard Coffey to the position of clerk and in a conflict of
interest, it's very alarming. I spent the whole weekend scratching my head
because a day in politics can sometimes be quite interesting. Every day when you
get up, you never know what you're going to hear. This is astounding, this whole
situation. The fact that a person who was known to be suing government would
even be hired for a position of clerk of Executive Council is astounding. It's
absolutely astounding. I'm interested in seeing what the Democracy Watch people
are going to have to say and I'm certainly interested in seeing how this is
rectified as we move forward.
We
brought in a bill in this House, last year in 2016, Bill 1, the Independent
Appointments Commission. I said what I had to say during that debate, and I'm
more convinced than ever of what I said in that debate at that time. Government
should not be about who's working on my campaign and who's supporting my party
and who's doing this for me and who's doing that for me; it should very much be
about who is the best person for the job. I believe in that entirely.
Even
watching the Twitter feed today, some of the things you see, our temporary
acting clerk is a person with 32 years of experience – female. Probably should
have been appointed in the first place, Madam Speaker, is what I will say to
that.
Just
because of a person's political connections it does not necessarily make them
the best person for the job. We've obviously seen that time and time again, and
I fear we'll continue to see it time and time again over the next two years as
we see other positions get filled by people that will in some way, shape or form
– I have no doubt – have some kind of connection to the Liberal Party, barring
people really standing up and saying we're tired of this, we're not going to
tolerate it anymore, and Bill 1 really needs to be strengthened.
So I'm
going to talk a little bit, Madam Speaker, about why I find this whole situation
unsettling. Premier Ball made a special arrangement with the Mr. Coffey to
continue to practise law. He's saying it wasn't a secret arrangement, but it was
an arrangement that was kept secret from the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, from his caucus and from his Cabinet. The former clerk is leading a
lawsuit that's suing the Crown corporation, Nalcor Energy, and Western Health,
which is clearly a conflict of interest, and very inappropriate.
Premier
Ball had a responsibility to come clean with the people of the province and
provide an explanation of his secret arrangement that he made when the clerk was
appointed. For the Premier to have reached a secret arrangement with the
province's top bureaucrat to continue to practise law while collecting over
$180,000 acting as a clerk of the Executive Council is clearly inappropriate and
in conflict of interest.
The fact
that Mr. Coffey is lead counsel in a statement of claim against Nalcor Energy, a
provincial Crown corporation, needs explanation. It's clearly a misuse of
authority. Mr. Coffey has stated that government is aware of the cases. It
appears that the Premier and his Liberal team support the clerk suing the
provincial Crown corporation and Western Health, and on profiting on a legal
case against the province.
Madam
Speaker, if there are two people in this province who know more than anyone
about what's happening in this province, it's the Premier and the clerk of
Executive Council. They see and are aware of everything, or at least they should
be.
Why
would Mr. Ball make an arrangement which clearly –?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Why would the Premier make an
arrangement –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
My apologies; I withdraw.
MADAM SPEAKER:
I recognize the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I appreciate that the Member
opposite is reading from a script, but they have to make sure they recognize
Members by their seat or their position.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Member to withdraw the comment.
MS. PERRY:
Yes, I will refer to the
proper title, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I
certainly will use the proper title.
So why
would the Premier make an arrangement which clearly violates the impartiality of
the office of the clerk and is in a clear conflict of interest? Madam Speaker,
there are a lot of positions in this House that are impartial; the Speaker for
one.
The
position of Speaker, they have a legal duty to be non-partisan and to be fair to
all parties in this hon. House of Assembly, and to treat all parties and apply
the rules the same to all parties. It's something we expect of the Speaker and
it's something we expect from the office of the clerk.
The
clerk is a member of the Oversight Committee on Muskrat Falls. He is the top
bureaucrat in the provincial government and engaged in the operations, budgets
and issues related to every department within government. He provides direction
and advice to the Premier.
What
happened to impartial, non-partisan conduct? I will say as the person sitting in
this House and as a person representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and a person who continues to reside in this province until I take my last
breath, I certainly will call upon government on a continual basis to adhere to
the rules of impartiality and non-partisanship. Where they apply, they must be
honoured.
Madam
Speaker, once again, the actions of the Liberal administration are appalling and
they're astounding. When they should be focused and acting in the best interests
of the people that they represent, they look the other way and make a decision
which could have negative implications for Nalcor and on the integrity of the
government. It's astounding. It's another example of the Liberals operating in a
secretive, controlling culture. It was a clear conflict of interest for the
clerk to be involved in a court case suing a government entity.
And here
we were with a Premier who didn't have any concern. In fact, I think he said he
would do it again. It's mind boggling, Madam Speaker, and I'm glad that the
people of the province have spoken up and voiced their opposition to it. People
are outraged and so they should be is certainly how I feel about that because
it's wrong and we cannot tolerate that type of behaviour in this hon. House.
We're here to raise the bar, not to lower it.
I have
so much more to talk about. I have great concerns about this budget. Again, like
my hon. colleagues have already stated,
Budget 2016 was regressive and Budget
2017 continues the regressive measures and continues to impact negatively on
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who voted for what they thought was
going to be something better. What they got was something 10,000 times worse.
I would
like to move, as the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, and seconded by the
Member for Conception Bay South, that the amendment that was previously
presented, the non-confidence motion, be amended by changing the period at the
end thereof to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
“and that this House also condemns the government for its failure to demonstrate
sound leadership and compassion by addressing the needs of Newfoundland and
Labrador's most vulnerable: its children, its youth, its seniors, its families,
its communities, or its many others who are impacted by its approach.”
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune has submitted an amendment to the
previous amendment. So this House will take a brief recess to consider that.
Thank
you.
Recess
MADAM SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Whips are ready.
The
Speaker has considered the amendment to the amendment put forward by the Member
for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune and found it to be in order.
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Madam
Speaker.
As I
stated in the first bit of my budget speech, I truly do believe in our potential
as a province and as a people here in Newfoundland and Labrador. While I talked
about some of the negatives in my last speech, most of which have been brought
on by the Liberal administration, I'm going to focus for the next 20 minutes
that I have in terms of talking about some of the great things that are
happening in our province and some of the potential we have for growth
opportunities.
In
particular, my colleagues, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, in particular, I think will find this next little bit
of economic opportunities that I'm going to talk about quite interesting.
There's a real, real opportunity right here in Newfoundland and Labrador for us
to diversify our economy and build upon both tourism and aquaculture in
conjunction with the hydro development that is now underway.
I'm
going to tell you, when I was home for the last two weeks, it is absolutely
booming in my region, and it is booming because of the aquaculture industry.
We're seeing a new entrance there and people are getting up and going to work
every day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
The other boom we're seeing in my district is related to hydro and Muskrat
Falls. We are now constructing and we're going to save the Avalon Peninsula of
the province. We're going to provide you with a backup route for power. The
power from Bay d'Espoir, currently we power about 60 per cent of the Island but
we can't get past Holyrood.
Well, as
part of this whole Muskrat Falls venture, a transmission line is now being
built. We have about 150 new livyers in my district for about a year or two.
It's great to see all the activity, the booms at the gas stations and the
grocery stores and the restaurants. It is absolutely fabulous to see.
In
particular, now as this transmission line goes across, there's a new opportunity
that we can avail of. I have talked informally about this with some Members of
government opposite and I have talked at great length with ministers in the
former administration and the former Minister of Transportation about this
opportunity. The opportunity that I want to officially put on the record that's
been talked about in the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune for at least 20
or 30 years but we've never been able to get there for one reason or another,
our biggest impediment being the Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve and 10
kilometres of a route that went through that, is the fact that we now have a 72
kilometre road being constructed from Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune to the great
District of Fortune, Mr. Speaker, and that road is 72 kilometers across.
That
road reduces the travel from my district to St. John's, which now takes about
seven hours, should that road be in place we'd get there in three. We'd get our
aquaculture product out of the district to the airport in St. John's in three.
We'd get to the Argentia ferry much faster. We'd create a tourism loop such that
as people came to visit Fortune, they could loop right around the Coast of Bays
and come out in Central Newfoundland, in Grand Falls.
I would
like to formally put on the record right here in the House of Assembly today –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
– a request to the Premier,
to the Minister of Transportation and to the minister of aquaculture to study
the feasibility of maintaining this road which is now being constructed by hydro
for purposes of erecting that transmission line, but we are told the road is
going to come up, the culverts are going to come up and the Bailey bridge is
going to come up.
Well, we
now use a hydro access road because of power plants that were built in Upper
Salmon. They took a little bit of a beating this year in Hurricane Matthew, but
for the last 20 or 30 years, or longer than that certainly, since the '70s
people have been using that road for fishing, for hunting, for building cabins.
We're only 10 kilometres away from Buchans actually on the opposite side of
Upper Salmon.
Certainly, the road to the Burin Peninsula would add so much economic benefit
for the people throughout the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker. It would also give us an alternate route for the ferry which now
services Rencontre East. They would have road access, 72 kilometres across;
whereas, right now we have to drive 567 kilometres to get to St. John's.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. PERRY:
The road comes out in your
district, indeed it does. I want you to work with me to lobby your colleagues as
well to try and get this road brought from a class C road up to a paved road.
And do you know what? I'm going to put it on the table right here in the House
of Assembly. It's been talked about for 30 years, and as I said in my last
speech, I worked in community economic development for 12 years with the Coast
of Bays Corporation.
We
actually did a study at that time. The Industry Adjustment Services committee
was put in place, chaired by Mr. Churance Rogers, former president of MNL. In
that study we identified the road to Burin. The issue we've always had with
getting this new road constructed is: How do you ask for 72 kilometres of new
road construction when the province can't maintain the existing roads that it
has.
Well now
we're in a different place, Mr. Speaker, because that road is being put there.
It's being put there by Hydro for purposes of a transmission line. So the
additional incremental cost to the province is not high, especially in relation
to the economic benefit and the new economic opportunities that could result,
Mr. Speaker, in return from it.
I would
say ever since I was a child, I've heard talk of this road and now we are in a
real opportunity to make it happen. I call upon my colleagues in the House, and
those who are sitting in the Cabinet seats that can make the decisions to
allocate the money, to give this very serious consideration. All jokes aside,
this is a real opportunity for significant growth and potential for expansion of
both tourism and aquaculture in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It
may also help us realize some cost savings, Mr. Speaker, in relation to
operation of some of our services that we provide in this province, like health
care and ferries.
The idea
of a new route is not new, as I said. It's been discussed by many people for
many years. Under the former administration, actually, and I was working with my
colleagues, as I said. Work began via Nalcor to create an access route for
transmission lines.
On
September 18, 2015, it was announced that the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves
Advisory Council would host public hearings in the Town of Milltown, Head of Bay
d'Espoir to discuss proposed changes to the Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve. The
discussion was around removing a parcel of land from the reserve to allow for
construction of a new transmission line.
Mr.
Speaker, the former premier and the former Minister of Transportation and Works,
who sit here with us today, can attest that this project has always been one of
my top priorities, and the time for action is now. With the development of the
hydro road underway, the time for action is now.
I am
proud to state that in my district we've been the gold standard for economic
diversification, I think, in the literal sense. You see a rural community that
is not shrinking but growing in some cases. In the 2011 census I had one
community which was growing, Conne River. In the 2015 census, I have two. Pools
Cove and Conne River are both growing and all the rest of us are holding our
own. In a time of rural decline, that speaks loudly to the potential we
certainly have, but we need to continue to look at opportunities that are out
there.
The
former government's investments in aquaculture and rural development have
resulted in growth in an area that was ignored for so long in years previous. It
really was. We were the forgotten coast. A lot of people called us
Newfoundland's hidden secret, but there was never really a lot of attention paid
to our coast. We're nestled on the Southwest Coast. We're kind of remotely
removed from everybody, fabulous place, but people are starting to discovery
what we have. I'm not suggesting by any means that we ignore the fiscal
situation that our province is in, but what I am stating is that now is the time
to plan. We know that this potential is there; let's plan for it and let's try
to achieve it.
We need
to research and review our options, whether that is a public-private
partnership, self-funding by way of paid access like a toll bridge, partnering
with the federal government and possibly indigenous communities, that would open
up the South Coast and make it accessible to tourists and businesses. The
opportunity is there for government to put their money where their mouth is as
it pertains to economic diversification right there in the Coast of Bays region
and in the districts of Fortune and Marystown.
It has
always been a matter of slight contention for me when I hear the South Coast
referred to as Central Newfoundland. Areas across this province have been
regionalized, and this is understandable, but my district is not Central; it is
on the Southwest Coast. Now there's an opportunity to capitalize on the scenery
and resources that rival any region in our great province.
Creating
routes such as these enable people to access the aquaculture product, the
tourism product that we have. It would transform our region. I believe it would
transform the districts of my colleagues for Fortune and Marystown as well.
We have
the ability to alleviate stress, even from Central Health, because we can avail
of the medical services over on the Burin Peninsula and the hospitals there. We
have the ability to allow the province to explore even more mining and natural
resource development. Because, as we are vast in natural resources, opening up
this access will certainly open up new opportunities for mining exploration as
well.
So I
have on the table for you, on record here in
Hansard,
that the Coast of Bays region would very much like to see this government
undertake a study of a permanent road to the Burin Peninsula from the Coast of
Bays region, 72 kilometres across. It's well underway and, with some additional
investment from government, you can make it a reality. We certainly, as people
of Fortune Bay –Cape La Hune and as people I'm sure from the districts of
Fortune and Marystown, would be very willing to work with government to make
this happen.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I've used up way too much time; I'm going to run out. The other
initiative that I want to talk about that I see as having potential and that I
want to see us talking more about in a positive way is our hydro resources. Talk
about renewable resources that you have forever and a day. Our fishery, if
managed properly, this is a renewable resource you can have forever and a day.
Our water resources, if managed properly, a renewable resource that we can have
forever and a day.
I have
to tell you, again, going back to 2015, I was very, very alarmed when I saw the
new administration take over and start immediately to condemn Muskrat Falls –
and I realize it was part of their political platform in 2011. I realize it was
something that gave them legs and momentum, and they did a lot to condemn the
project over the years, and it is the role of Opposition to ask questions. But
certainly at least two of them were strong proponents of the initiative and
worked to move it forward in years prior to their landing in a Liberal
government.
Mr.
Speaker, it is wrong for the Liberals to say that it's a bad project, it is
wrong for them to say that there is no potential export markets out there, and
it is wrong for them to be weak in negotiations with Quebec. What does Muskrat
Falls do more than anything else for all of us? It gives us a second route to
export our power. You can serve this Kool-Aid to your supporters, but I, for
one, and many other people like me in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
are not going to fall for it when you say that there are no markets out there.
All one
has to do is just go on to the website for Hydro-Quebec, their 2015 annual
report, their 2016 annual report. They're not saying no, b'y, there are no
markets out there. They're getting ready. They want more facilities. They want
more infrastructure to sell more power to the Eastern United States. They
clearly state in their documents that their growth avenues are in pursuing
export markets, for investments beyond our borders, or in marketing our
technologies. They are key to achieving our goal of doubling our revenue by 2030
and increasing our net income.
Boosting
the capacity of our generating fleet is another promising growth avenue. Through
all our initiatives in the coming years, we will a make a greater contribution
to Quebec's prosperity.
Well,
guess what? Nalcor Energy can do the very same thing for Newfoundland and
Labrador, with the right leadership. I can tell you I, for one, will not stand
by and allow the people of this province to be bamboozled into thinking this
project should be sold. Because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the
shareholders of this project and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are
going to reap billions in benefits for years to come.
Please
God, when the time comes to negotiate with Quebec, the government of the day
will be strong enough and know they don't have to bend over anymore; we have an
alternate route to send that power. So if Quebec wants to do business with us,
fine, let's do a fair deal, but we're not stuck or beholden to them. We have
other options. I think that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a
responsibility – it's incumbent on them not to walk in and act weak, but to walk
in very strongly and say we can do it alone. Because we can; we have proven it.
This project will be beneficial to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to talk again about what other provinces who believe in their
people and their capabilities can achieve. I tell you that our party certainly
believes in the people and the capabilities of our citizens here. But this
again, in looking at the way Quebec looks at its hydro power, a major
contribution to Quebec's government's revenue. For a fourth consecutive year –
this is from their 2016 report – Hydro-Quebec's contribution to the revenue of
its sole shareholder, the Quebec government – the people of their province – has
exceeded the $4 billion mark. This amount includes the company's net income of
$2.861 million, $667 million in water-power royalties, $284 million in public
utilities tax and $218 million in guarantee fees related to debt securities.
This contribution, combined with economic spin-offs from the company's
operations in all four corners of the province, will benefit all Quebecers.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, the other thing I call upon the Liberal Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to do for the people of this province is to start believing in us,
to start believing in our potential and to do what other governments are doing
and develop our resources in the best interest of the people as a whole. That, I
believe, is absolutely crucial to our moving forward as a people in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Before I
wrap up, I also want to thank the Liberals for finally admitting that rates are
not going to double because of Muskrat Falls. It worked for you; I acknowledged
that in the House in a former speech. It worked for you; it got you political
attraction. But it was never true. It was never true when you said it then and
it's not true today. There are options to reduce the rates. Stop fear mongering;
stop having the seniors of our province worried that they won't be able to turn
on the lights because it's wrong, it's not true and you know it.
We have
the ability to earn revenue because of our shareholder stake. We have the
ability to earn revenue because of excess sales, and if we get on the ball and
start exporting like the other provinces are doing, promoting our export
capacity, we'll do even better, and the third option we have to lower rates is
the interest savings that we're going to realize on the loan guarantee.
The
people of this province will not be facing a doubling of rates because of
Muskrat Falls. If managed properly, Muskrat Falls will be, in partnership with
the Upper Churchill, the key to our sustainability and our well-being and our
wealth, unlike we've never seen before in this Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We just need to get there, Mr. Speaker. It takes some strong
leadership to get us there, and please God we will realize it in the very near,
foreseeable future. I look forward to working with you on the road to the Burin
from the Coast of Bays.
Thank
you so much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and speak to the sub-amendment to the motion.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to continue on where my colleague for St. John's East – Quidi
Vidi left off. She was talking about sort of more of the macroeconomic issues
and economic indicators, and I think she did a great job of that, looking at
seven specific points' indicators.
Again,
those are available in the government documents; the indicators that show us
where we are with GDP, where we are with unemployment. We know unemployment is
one of the rare things that is actually increasing. All the indicators that you
would want to increase are decreasing and all the indicators you would want to
decrease are increasing. For example, like unemployment.
What she
talked about was: what's really happening economically and fiscally in the
province? What is really happening? How do we talk about that in real terms and
what does that mean for the people of the province? So I'd like to continue on a
bit from there.
She was
speaking about those broader macroeconomic issues and I'd like to drill down a
little bit and look at what are some of the decisions and how they affect the
lives of the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian who is depending on this
government to help them make it through this really tough economic time. Because
there's no doubt about it, it's a tough economic time, mostly because not only
this administration but the previous one really did nothing to diversify the
economy, really did nothing to build sustainable economies in communities across
the province.
What we
have is a very vulnerable population, not in terms of whether somebody is old or
not, or whether their health is strong or not, but our communities are very
vulnerable because there hasn't been real, solid economic diversification across
the province, really looking at what are our strengths? How do we capitalize on
those strengths? How do we ensure that we have a province that can prosper,
where we have growth, where we have stability in the job market? None of that's
been done for a number of years, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what we have is a really
vulnerable province.
What we
have seen is we have a government right now who is solely depending on oil
revenues, which we have absolutely no control over, which is a volatile market
right now. We see that we're in this economic situation, this downturn because
of the drop of oil revenues, but also because of the unfair and lack of
progressive taxation that we have in the province as well. So those are a few
factors that really make our province quite vulnerable right now.
This
budget has done nothing, as my colleague for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi has
stated, has done nothing to mitigate that vulnerability. That this government's
plan is basically resting on a wing and a prayer and a hope. They're just hoping
oil will go back up and praying – they have their fingers crossed – that oil is
not going to go down. They have no control over that. We have no control over
that. So we're still left in an even more vulnerable position.
Because
what we're doing is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are still reeling
from the decisions made in budget '16-'17, where the economic downturn, the
economic pressures and the economic crisis that the government spoke about so
often before they brought their budget down in 2016, and then all through that
budgetary period they kept saying basically that the bottom was out of it. That
in fact it was all doom and gloom; yet, have done nothing to mitigate that
except put it on the backs of your average working Newfoundlander and
Labradorian. So I'd like to talk a little bit about that, Mr. Speaker. There are
other things this government should be doing, could have been doing and kind of
missed the boat on it.
So the
Budget Speech from the Minister of Finance, which was delivered last month, is a
bit of an exercise in political obfuscation. What we need now more than ever is
absolute clarity, absolute clarity and accountability and transparency, because
the people of the province are bearing the burden of the economic situation that
we face as a province. We are not all carrying that burden equally, and not all
people can carry that burden equally, but not all people are asked to carry that
burden equally. The Minister of Finance, in her Budget Speech in the previous
year, talked about now we're all going to have to roll up our sleeves, we're all
going to have to bear part of the economic burden, but it wasn't shared equally,
Mr. Speaker.
The
basic narrative of the speech from the minister for this budget is that things
are looking up and that it is a much better budget than the one which attracted
so much backlash a year ago. Well, the thing is, I'm not so sure how this
government, if they're talking about this budget as a good budget, how do they
measure success? Of course, this budget is a direct result of the last budget
they brought in. It was the first budget they did as the new administration
here.
So what
we need to do is – really, a budget is not about money. A budget is about a
vision and about a plan for how you will bring your province forward. In this
tough economic time, as in 2016, really what the government should be looking at
is how do we strengthen our individuals, how do we strengthen our community, how
do we mitigate the negative pressures and forces that are pushing down on our
economy? It's not about how we balance the books. Balance for whom? How are they
measuring success? So if she's saying she feels that this is a much better
budget, better for whom, better in what ways? Because, again, we're still
reeling from the effects.
Some
people were really creamed in the last budget and there's been nothing to
mitigate that. They're still living with the effects of that. In this budget,
there's nothing to relieve them from the dire situation that many people were
faced in because of the last budget, and there's nothing strengthening them or
strengthening our communities any more than there was in 2016 and 2017, which is
what a budget really should do.
Particularly, in tough economic times the role of government is to strengthen
our communities, to strengthen also private industry, to work hand in hand with
private industry so that we can all weather the storm. That hasn't happened.
So, in
her preamble, the minister said last year government made hard choices and asked
taxpayers to dig deep into their pockets. Well, they sure did – they sure did –
and it was really hard for a number of people who already had been digging way,
way deep in their pockets in order just to put food on the table. So again, some
may have dug a little deeper than others, but really those who were most
affected negatively and were creamed by last year's budget were people who were
lower and middle-income earners.
She went
on to say we are on a path to gain control of our finances and then she went so
far as to claim that Budget 2017
reflects progress. I've looked for it. Then since
Budget 2016, we've had the document
The Way Forward, but for many, Mr. Speaker, it's the way backwards.
They're worse off last year and this year than they were the years previous to
the past two budgets.
There's
no way forward for them. This is not the way forward for them. This is a way
backward. In the same way that this flatter, meaner approach is not flatter,
leaner; it's flatter, meaner for many people again who were creamed in the
2016-2017 budget. This government had an obligation to mitigate the damage –
because it's damaged, and I'll talk a little bit about that, because I'm not the
only one – I know that many MHAs here, many of my colleagues here in the House,
get calls from people in their districts who are really hurting.
Now, you
could say, as once the Minister of Health and Community Services said, what do
you want, a utopia, when we talked to him about the need for over-the-counter
drugs and the need for an Adult Dental Program. He said: What do you want, a
utopia? Well, no, we don't want a utopia, but what we do want is we want people
to be healthy, again so that they can weather this storm.
We're
not looking for utopia, but we're looking for fairness and for justice, and
again to strengthen our communities, to strengthen our individuals so that we
can weather this storm. Unlike what the Minister of Health and Community
Services said when we talked about over-the-counter drugs, that program was cut,
and the Adult Dental Program – I have a gentleman in my district who was trying
to pull out his tooth with pliers, and he still doesn't have the dental care he
needs.
I
visited an elderly woman in her house last week who has no teeth. She has no
teeth and she cannot get teeth. She is not eligible for dentures. She talked
about how much weight she has lost because she can't eat properly. I spoke with
another man, a man in his late 50s, he's on Income Support and he is having a
hard time getting the dental care that he needs.
Now, the
minister said well, you go one by one to the Dental Program and they'll review
the case. People aren't getting through and they're not getting the dental care
they really need. These are people who've already had to dig deep into their
pockets to somehow mitigate the damage that was done by the previous
administration and where we are with our economy now, but they didn't have
anything left down there in those deep, dark pockets. They don't have a reserve
so that they can go to the dentist and get their teeth fixed or get a pair of
dentures.
One
gentleman in my district lost his dentures because he had been moving so often.
His gums are infected now. There's no way he can afford dentures. He simply
cannot afford dentures. Our seniors cannot afford their dental care. They simply
can't because there is no excess. They don't have any nest eggs. They don't have
any nest eggs at all.
I've
gotten a bit ahead of myself because I really want to talk about how do you
measure whether a budget is successful; on what terms; what is success, that
you're going to get to a balance; but if our people are not strengthened, if our
people are weakened, success for who. If their health is affected negatively,
how do you measure that as success? I don't know how you measure that as
success. It makes no sense to me. So balanced for who?
In this
budget, again, there is no relief. There is no relief for the people who were
already hit in that flatter, meaner approach. Again, whether or not you look at
it as a moral obligation or to be nice and to be charitable, the other side of
it as well is that this is costing us more. Because I have people in my district
who end up at emergency which costs way more than getting a tooth properly
pulled and taken care of. It's way more costly. So there are people who had to
make really hard choices, but there are people who could make no choices at all
because they didn't have any reserves.
Mr.
Speaker, it's political spin. Budget 2017
is a slightly modified version of Budget
2016. It's like you know you have the boiled dinner, the hash, the next day,
this is just hash and rehash. What they've done, they've served up hash. We've
had a boiled dinner and now they've served up hash. This is just rehash. That's
all it is; this is hash.
MS. MICHAEL:
Hash tastes good; this
doesn't.
MS. ROGERS:
Hash tastes good, but you
can't live on hash alone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
This is rehash. This is just
rehash is what it is.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
Well, you know, there are all
kinds of hash.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
But I tell you what we're
looking at here is a rehashed budget from 2016. What they've done is they've
kind of mitigated a bit in the taxes for gas, but that's about it.
What
people were faced with in 2016 is what they're faced with in 2017. There is no
relief. As a matter of fact, government is telling us themselves that the
unemployment rate has gone up. So, as a matter of fact, people aren't even
holding their ground. We know that we're going to have more unemployment and
this government hasn't shown us in any way, shape or form what they are going to
do to sustain the economy, to grow the economy, to mitigate the increasing
unemployment.
There's
very little policy here. What we see is we have again a Minister of Finance who
is really proud of her budget. It's an odd thing because it is a rehash of 2016,
with not a whole lot of relief. We see that significantly higher oil revenues
paid for a reduction in the gas tax, but again that is really vulnerable. It's
precarious, because this government has no control over the oil prices. This
government has no control over the volume. It can have control over the royalty
amount that's being paid, but has no control over the price of oil.
There is
a barrage of tax and fee increases that were announced in 2016; all of those are
still intact. The levy is still intact. So people are still digging deep into
their pockets. Again, there's less in their pockets with this budget, a year
later, because the budget from 2016 to 2017 did nothing to help people out who
are already digging so deep that they were at the bottom of their pockets.
So the
minister closed her speech by claiming: “Our focus will always” – I'm quoting
her now – “be on positioning our province to be an ideal place to raise a family
….” And you know what, Mr. Speaker; in many ways our province is an ideal place
to raise a family, except now it's getting worse and worse. It's getting harder
and harder; unemployment up, the incredible cost of child care, the extra fees
and taxes.
Housing
hasn't really gone down; we see a slow in housing starts. And all of us – I know
that all of us – are hearing about young families saying or young people saying,
you know what, I don't see how I can stay, and young families saying the same
thing, I don't see how I can stay.
And then
older people saying I don't see how I can stay in my community as well because
unemployment is growing in my rural community and a lot of people are leaving in
my community. So a lot of older people are saying I'm going to go to the
Mainland. I'm going to Canada to join my children and my grandchildren.
Mr.
Speaker, really what a budget should do – a budget is not just about numbers or
going line by line or doing zero-based budgeting. That's not what a budget is. A
budget is about a vision. A budget is about how we would do this in order to
strengthen our people, strengthen our communities, strengthen our economy and
work creatively with private industry because, again, we all have to bear the
burden; we're all in this together.
But I
see no evidence whatsoever of government maximizing on the potential of all of
us working together. It's not there. There's nothing concrete there. But what we
have is a rehashing, a serving of cold hash with nothing new for the people of
the province, nothing at all. Not only that but real household income is
forecast to decrease every year for the next five years. What is this government
going to do about it? They haven't shown us anything about what they're going to
do about it.
Again,
balancing a budget is not just about balancing money, it's about looking at how
we can sustain our communities. Or you know what; maybe they don't want to
sustain their communities. That's a possibility. Maybe that's part of the plan
that we can't really see, the concrete plan. Maybe part of the plan is that they
don't want to sustain the communities. I don't know. I can't figure it out.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that her speaking time has expired.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I look
forward to speaking again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'll always say it's indeed a
pleasure to get up and represent the beautiful people and the beautiful District
of Cape St. Francis.
The
Member for St. John's Centre got up and she talked a bit about hash. Now that's
probably one of my favourite foods of all time. My mother used to call it
couldn'ts. It was stuff that you couldn't eat on Sunday so you had it on Monday.
It was called couldn'ts in our household.
Mr.
Speaker, we're going to get lots of opportunities to talk on the budget. Today,
I'm going to get into a couple of areas where I'd like to get into and talk
about my district and stuff like that. I know the Member for Fortune Bay –Cape
La Hune, who did a fantastic job today in speaking, she mentioned volunteers. I
had the opportunity last week, and I'm sure all Members in this House had the
opportunity, to go to different functions in their district because it was
Volunteer Week.
We are
so fortunate in Newfoundland and Labrador to have so many people that are
willing to step up and do things for others because that's what volunteers do.
Whether it's a volunteer fire department or a soccer association or whatever it
is, people do things to help others. I believe living in the best province in
Canada that we're very fortunate to have so many people that are willing to step
forward and volunteer.
I had
opportunity last week to attend three functions in my district; one was in Pouch
Cove where the town council did a fantastic job recognizing their volunteers. I
went to one in Flatrock. They had a great thing, they presented to each –
Flatrock is a community of about 1,600 people and there are 14 different groups
in that community. So they presented them all with a nice little plague. It just
showed the town, showed how much they appreciate it. For the first time ever
they did a thing that's going to be in the community centre from here on in
where they recognize two volunteers.
Now, the
selection that they had was wicked but they got it down to two names and I'm
sure it's going to continue for years. Nancy Gosse was the female and Danny
Kavanagh was the male. I don't know if any of you remember, Danny used to be the
fellow that used to be on for Sobeys in the morning talking on VOCM all the
time. He's a real nice guy. I want to congratulate the two of them. Torbay also
recognized all their volunteers. Pete Soucy, who's the honorary chair this year,
was down and gave a few words. It was a really nice time.
It's
really good to see our municipalities come out and to show appreciation to
people that keep our communities going. I mean it doesn't make any difference
what size your community is, whether it's the City of St. John's or it's the
Town of Bauline, everybody is appreciative of what people do for us. So it's
very important that we recognize them.
On
behalf of all of us here on this side, and I'm sure all Members of this House of
Assembly, thank you to all the volunteers in this province that do so much for
all of us. Thank you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, on Friday also I
had opportunity to go to Pouch Cove. The Minister of Municipal Affairs wasn't
available to go but the parliamentary secretary went along and we had an
announcement in Pouch Cove about the water.
The
council that's in Pouch Cove right now, when they were first elected, two weeks
in they called me and they wanted to go to a meeting. Always, from years gone
by, it was a problem in Pouch Cove with their water and stuff like this.
But this
new council said let's have a meeting; we want to make it the number one
priority for our town that we fix the water situation in Pouch Cove. In all
municipalities there are so many needs. Over the years there were roads needs
and there are all kinds of municipal needs and recreation needs and stuff.
But this
council said we want to make sure that we fix the water situation in Pouch Cove.
So they put a committee together who were members of council and they started a
water committee. And we came in right off the bat. I believe the first one we
met with was – the minister of Municipal Affairs at the time was Minister Kent.
The committee came in and we met with him and we started the process.
MR. KENT:
We came up with some money,
too.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You did come up with some
money, too.
And the
process basically started that first of all, the problem in the town was the
amount of water they were using. At that time, they were using about 650 gallons
a minute, which probably would have been able to do the size of Gander, and the
actual water said that they should be down to about 250, 220 and stuff like
that.
So the
very first thing we had to do was get some funding to find out where all this
water was going. So we got the funding and we found some big leaks, and they got
the water usage down to about 220 gallons a minute. So that was one stage of the
whole thing.
Then
when we went back and we met with the Department of Environment and we met with
Municipal Affairs, they came up and said you're going to have to do some pilot
projects. Go and get three companies to come in and find solutions to the water
issue. That year, under all of us, we used to know how much money each district
basically was getting and stuff like that. And this was very important to my
district.
The
other towns in the district, I said, you know, everybody's looking for a little
piece of the pie, no matter if it's a recreation need, roads needs or whatever.
But the other towns – which was the amazing thing – in the district agreed to
give up the money that they were going to get that year to give it all to Pouch
Cove if it meant getting them water.
That
year they were fortunate enough to get around $900,000 and that was amazing
because what that did, it took care of all the engineering costs that we needed
to do. It also took care of all the costs of the pilot projects to get these
companies in to be able to do the process.
The
problem with the pond down there that they're using is during the winter months
the water is not too bad because the ice is on the water on top and the water is
just running through. But come the spring of the year when there's a lot of
runoff and in the summer months when there's rain and stuff like this, the pond
rises. So the water quality is not that bad but the colour, if you saw the
colour of the water, it turns right brown and it looks really, really, really
bad.
So what
they needed is this filtration system that goes in front of the thing, in front
of the pump house. So anyway, through the jigs and reels and everything, they
had the pilot projects come in. I'll thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
thank the federal government for coming through on Friday with almost $4
million. We got a new system that's going to be put in on –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah, and I thank everybody
that were involved. I hope that the people in Pouch Cove really appreciate the
amount of work that their council and everybody did to ensure this comes true.
Now, we still got a ways to go to get all the money put in place and get the
tenders out and stuff like that, but it's an exciting time for a town like Pouch
Cove, so it's great to see.
The
thing about it, I got to thank the parliamentary secretary for giving me the
opportunity –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
– to speak at the announcement. I really appreciate it. It meant a lot to me, as
he knows it did.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, it wasn't guaranteed that
I could speak, but they did let me speak after a while.
The
other thing I want to mention – and, again, sometimes I talk too much about one
thing; I was only going to talk about that for two minutes. Anyway, I want to
also mention the new school that just opened in my district last week.
When I
was down to the announcement in Pouch Cove on Friday I said, this has been a
banner week. Being a banner week, we opened a new school in Torbay. Again, the
thing about everything and how we work together, I mentioned volunteers earlier,
it's a combination of everybody working together to be able to get results.
We were
very fortunate in our area that the school councils started this, and it started
probably in 2010, getting together to do a proposal to go to the school board
for a new school in the area. And we all knew that the area like Cape St.
Francis Elementary was full to capacity; Holy Trinity Elementary, way over. The
school itself probably had 300 more students than it should really have in it,
and the high school was at a level that was really high also; it was full to
capacity.
So the
school councils got together, and I have to give them credit because they all
got together and they came up with a plan to fix all three schools in the area
and make it work. And finally this week, with a lot of hard work from a lot of
people, when I went down into the school – I had the opportunity on Tuesday. The
principal called me and said: Kevin, if you want to come down on Day 1, we'll do
a tour and go through the classrooms. To see the smiles on students' faces and
the teachers' faces, the beautiful new school they have. It's absolutely
beautiful. It's something that I think all our students in the province should
have, is have the opportunity to have a school as beautiful as the new one we
have in Torbay.
I really
want to thank all the people who put a lot of effort and a lot of time into it.
Sometimes our school councillors take a lot of flak, if things are not going
right, if it's busing or whatever, they – you're on the school council, you're
representing me and sometimes it's a hard and thankless job. But I really have
to say they really stuck together, they did the job and the results are
unbelievable with the new intermediate school in Torbay. So a good job for
everybody. Like I said, it was a great week last week with the two of those
things.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, today I really want to talk a little bit about budgets. I've been here
for, I don't know, nine budgets now, eight or nine budgets and this year's
budget is a little different. Every other time we were in budget and we were in
the lockdown, we could see where changes were made. You could always look at the
budget and say, okay, there's an increase in this or there's a decrease in this,
but this budget got so many hidden things in it. It's terrible; it really is.
We went
down on Friday and had a briefing down at the Finance Department and I'm sure
everyone that was there came out shaking their heads, just like I did. It was,
oh, you got to find it in here. I love Estimates. When we were on the government
side, if somebody didn't want to sit in on Estimates – because government
Members usually sit here in the back – I always used to sit in because you find
a few things out and stuff like this, but the questions – you'd see how they're
spending money and it would be interesting watching ministers answer it.
I did
Estimates already. I did one set of Estimates with Fisheries. There was so much
in it that wasn't there and so many questions not answered. Where's this? Oh,
we're going to find this or we're going to find that. The people of the province
are asking us about the budget. What effect does this budget have on us? The
answers that we got the first week we were here – now, we were only here – they
came down with the budget, we had two days and we went on break. So, for two
days, we were here in the House of Assembly and every minister over on the other
side got up and said: You'll get that answer in Estimates.
Madam
Speaker, the people of the province want the answer here in the House of
Assembly. They want to be able to hear it when a minister is asked a question.
Too many times in this House of Assembly – and I know people who watch the House
of Assembly. They say they don't answer the questions. Nobody answers the
questions. People watch because they want to know. They want to see what's
happening with their government. They want to see what's happening in different
departments, whether it's through Service NL or it's through Fisheries, or it's
through Transportation or it's through Health. People want to know the answers
to questions.
This
government is so secretive, so secretive that they just won't come out – until
somebody finds it, until we get a reporter or somebody that comes out – I don't
think it's very funny, the Member for Bonavista; I don't know why you're
laughing. I don't think it's very funny that you're hiding things and won't come
out. Until the media told us about Bern Coffey this week, you weren't going to
come out with none of that. That would never happen; he'd be still clerk of the
House.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member to direct his comments to the Chair.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, Madam Speaker, I'd
rather direct it to you than direct it to him, I tell you that right now. You
got no worries about that, Madam Speaker, I guarantee you. It's an absolute
pleasure to direct them to you rather than direct them to the Member for
Bonavista, I guarantee you that, because he doesn't have a clue what he's
talking about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Anyway, Madam Speaker, what I
really want to talk about is the effect that this budget is having on families.
I had the opportunity just a couple of weeks ago to sit down with a gentleman
and we were talking about grandchildren and I was telling them that pretty soon
I'm going to become a grandpa, and I'm really excited about it and I was telling
him that. I told the story the other day. He's thing to me is – he got five or
six grandchildren, and he told me how he's losing three of them because they
have to move away.
This
budget last year – even when the minister read her Budget Speech this year, she
talked about going in and reaching into the pockets of people in Newfoundland
and Labrador. Well, they reached in last year and they took out $6,000 out of
the average household. Now, for all the stuff this great budget that you did
this year, what did you do? You still reached in; there's another $6,000 coming
out this year. You did absolutely nothing. What, you reduced the gas tax by
eight cents? The 300 bills, all the fees and everything else that you brought in
last year is still there.
Talk to
seniors, talk to families in this province and they'll tell you that they're
finding it hard because of the increase in their insurance, increase in gas, the
cost of food. All this stuff has a chain effect, Madam Speaker. When people have
to pay more for gas and they have to pay higher insurance rates, someone is
going to pay for it. We see it in our grocery stores.
Someone
mentioned here today – I was speaking to a real good friend of mine last
weekend; he's a roofer. This time last year, he told me, his business, he was
booked right until July. He had enough work, everyone will start – because after
the winter people will say it's time to replace the shingles this year, I'm
going to get it done and stuff like that. He told me just last week, he'd be
lucky if he gets through the month of May.
Do you
know why people are not replacing their shingles? Because they can't afford to,
because they're afraid to. Every cent that they have in their pockets they have
to figure out, listen, something – if an emergency comes up. Now they will
replace their shingles, obviously, if they get leaks and stuff like that, but a
lot of people look at that and do home renovations. They look at their home
renovations and they'll say, okay, I'll do my windows this year; we'll save a
few dollars. But you take $6,000 out of their pockets last year and take another
$6,000 out of their pockets this year; they can't afford to do it.
What
effect does that have on our whole economy? What effect does it have that that
guy is not – you know, this government looks at their figures and they'll say,
oh boy, we're going to lose 30,000 jobs. Well, this guy who does the roofing, he
probably hires 10 people every summer. So how many people is he not going to be
able to rehire this year because there's no work on the go?
We
always say over here, you had no plan. Do you know what? It's obvious that you
had no plan. You didn't plan on all these taxes and all these fees, what it was
going to do our economy. I really believe it. I don't think you looked at it and
said, okay, this is what this is going to have. This is the effect that this is
going to have on our seniors, on our families, on hard-working Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, and I really believe it.
I
believe that you just never looked at it and said, okay, if we jack up these 300
fees and charge this much for this and charge that much, or increase this,
increase that, what effect it would have on our economy, what effect it would
have on people doing renovations. I mean what effect –
MR. KING:
We didn't blow $25 million.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The Member for Bonavista is
saying blew $25 million. Well, I'll tell you what they blew down my way. They
built a school in Torbay, they built another road and they built recreation
facilities everywhere –
MR. KING:
Point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista on a point of order.
MR. KING:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis is accusing me of saying something I didn't say. It was made by another
Member.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Madam Speaker, that's the
same Member that got up a couple of weeks ago and accused me of saying that he
was afraid – the same Member that got up.
MR. KING:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know you're not afraid, I
didn't accuse you.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm sorry. That's it.
Anyway,
Madam Speaker, my whole point to make is what they've done to the economy and
what they've done to people in this province. They've done so much to hurt
people in this province and they just don't realize it.
They're
over on the other side laughing and having a great time, but they don't realize
that there are seniors out there today and families in this province that are
having a hard time. They're having difficulty paying their bills. They're trying
to figure out where they're going to get the money to do renovations on their
home.
The more
you take out of people's money it has a snowball effect, Madam Speaker. It has a
snowball effect. People don't spend money, they don't hire carpenters, they
don't hire plumbers, they don't hire electricians. By people not having work,
that affects our economy because people are not spending any money. If you look
at our budget and saw what our GDP is going to be this year, people are not
spending money and the reason why they're not – retail sales are down. The
reason retail sales are down is because people don't have the money to spend
anymore.
Again, I
go back to the point that this government started off and they said – I'll
always remember it too – we'll have a plan. We have a plan and you're going to
like it. We got a plan and you're going to like it, because we were saying give
us your plan, show us your plan.
Well,
I'd like to know how many people in this province like the plan of that
government over there. I don't think there are very many. I don't think there's
very many that like that plan. The plan they're all going to like, where they're
going to have no increases, taxes are not going to go up, there'll be no
layoffs. We got a plan. That's great to say when you're running an election.
It's great to say it when you're on an election but when you get elected, you
come through and say, well, we didn't mean that, or that wasn't the way we
wanted to do things. No, we're going to change things all of a sudden, but
people gave you the opportunity. They gave you the opportunity to go and be the
elected officials for them, and you let them down.
You made
promises that you knew you couldn't keep and here today you wonder why people
are feeling like they do about this government, because people want a government
they can trust. People want a government they can look up to and say, okay,
that's what that guy promised and that's what he did. That's what people in the
province want from elected officials. They want to be able to look at us and say
I trust that fellow. I trust that he can do a good job for me, but this province
has absolutely no trust in this government across the way and there's a real
good reason for it. There's a real good reason for it because they were sold a
bunch of goods that you knew you couldn't deliver. You couldn't deliver it, you
told them you would, and people in the province, you wonder why they're upset
with you.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I am
happy again to stand and speak to the sub-amendment. It's obvious that the
government side, my colleagues on the government side, the Liberals are refusing
to stand and speak in defence of their budget. I don't know what that's about.
It's an odd kind of thing, Madam Speaker. One would think that in fact they
would hop to it and speak in great defence of the budget because they all think
it's pretty good.
They all
think it's very, very good, Madam Speaker, and now I can hear them cackling over
there when, in fact, they had lots of opportunity to stand and to speak in
defence of this budget, and they're not doing it. So I'll happily speak to the
people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and talk to them about the
budget and the shortfalls that I think are in this budget.
That's
shameful, Madam Speaker. One would think – their Minister of Finance was so
proud of this budget. She talked about how it's such a good budget and that it's
going to bring us forward. They got their
Way Forward –
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– although everybody feels
that things are going backward.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member for St. John's Centre that she has spoken once to the
sub-amendment and she can only speak once.
Seeing
no further speakers, I will call the vote.
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MADAM SPEAKER:
Well, Mount Pearl North was
on his feet first and that's who I saw and I recognize you.
MR. KENT:
Okay. Thank you, Madam
Speaker.
Surely,
government isn't interested in rushing the budget debate. I thank the House
Leader for recognizing that we still have speakers on this side. If government
Members choose not to speak – and I honestly can't blame them – that's their
prerogative, but we will continue to speak. We have lots of concerns about this
budget that need to be raised.
When it
comes to this budget, I heard a lot of people say – and I've spoken on the
budget already but I'll just sort of pick up where I left off. I'll talk a
little bit about why – despite the noise in here, Madam Speaker, it's
interesting that's not being called.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
It's interesting what I'm
hearing since the budget. Of course, people are now focused on other challenges
facing this government today. We've heard lots in the last 24 hours or so about
conflict of interest with the former clerk of Executive Council, political
appointee, former Liberal leadership candidate Bern Coffey.
I don't
want to say too much about Mr. Coffey. Obviously, he was in a clear conflict of
interest, but the real issue, when it comes to that story and all that's
unfolded in the last little while, is what it illustrates about the Premier's
judgement or lack thereof. It's understandable that people are focused on that
story at this point in time because we have a situation where somebody who was
clearly in conflict of interest, somebody who makes a living suing the
government was put in charge of being directly involved in running the
government.
So it
really raises questions about the Premier's judgement, and that's deeply
concerning. I understand why people are concerned; I understand why there's been
much public discussion about that in the last few days, particularly in the last
24 hours, but it's important that we take time in this House as well to talk
about the budget.
What I
heard some people say following the budget debate was well, you know, it could
have been worse I suppose. Well, I suppose it could have been, but it's
important to keep in perspective what we saw in
Budget 2017. It was basically – as the Member for St. John's Centre
pointed out earlier today – just a rehash of
Budget 2016.
Last
year we saw 300 new taxes and fees introduced – 300. In this year's budget, 299
of them remained untouched. We also saw an adjustment to the gas tax, tax and
fee increase number 300. So it was more or less a status quo budget.
We
continue to see some tweaking within the public service. In some cases to make
room for more Liberal appointees, appointees like Mr. Coffey, and there have
been dozens of others. We've heard lots of heckling this afternoon from the
Liberals.
This is
a government that talked lots about their Independent Appointments Commission
and how they were going to take the politics out of appointments. I think we now
have a list where just about every department and agency in government has had
Liberal friends appointed in the last 12 months. Dozens of people have been
appointed.
Now, in
some cases, are they qualified? Well, I hope. I hope in many cases they're
qualified, but in some cases it just doesn't really add up. Politicizing the
Executive Council, politicizing the most senior office in the bureaucracy, the
most senior public servant in government, in any government, that's really
troubling.
The
Premier talked at length today about transition period. Well, there should never
have been a transition period required. The man should never have been appointed
to the job in the first place given the clear conflict of interest that existed,
but I digress.
We have
a budget where we saw lots of taxes and fees increased. We saw all kinds of
programs and services cut, and none of that was addressed in
Budget 2017.
Take
health care, for instance. Last year we saw cuts to home care hours. We've had
calls from families all over Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly lots in my own
district and in St. John's and Mount Pearl, but also from people from all over
Newfoundland and Labrador, whose families have been affected by cuts to home
care hours. Well, no changes being made in 2017.
We also
saw a situation where the Adult Dental Program, as I spoke to earlier today, was
cut. So now we have seniors who can't get their dentures. We have people who
were waiting; who were scheduled to get dental surgery and now can't get that
work done. Oral health in so many ways affects overall health, physical health
and mental health. It's troubling that none of those issues were addressed in
Budget 2017.
Members
opposite talked also about my speculation that there would be cuts coming to
health care. Well there were, in fact, cuts to health care. One of the things I
found challenging for my brief stint as Minister of Health and Community
Services is that when you start working on next year's budget, there's a whole
bunch of assumptions that you have to make going into the process. Because of
inflation, because of contractual obligations to many health care professionals,
including doctors and specialists and so on, nurses, and the many other health
care professionals.
When you
look inflation, contractual obligations, when you look at increased demand on
the system due to aging demographics and just the realities in Newfoundland and
Labrador, you've got an increase of 3 to 5 per cent annually before you do
anything. Before you make any budget decisions, before you add anything or
remove anything you've got to factor in that you've got about 3 to 5 per cent of
an increase out of the gates. Interestingly enough, what that translates into is
somewhere between $100 million and $150 million.
If we
saw this year a status quo budget in health care, which we pretty well did. The
numbers are overall, the numbers are pretty well the same as last year. That's
not to say there weren't cuts in certain places and funds added in other places,
but if it's a status quo budget overall, well that means there's been a cut.
That means there's been a cut between $100 million and $150 million. Because
when you look at inflation, when you look at increased demands on the system,
when you look at the annual contractual obligations that have to be met based on
the personnel we have employed in the health care system, then that's an
increase of 3 to5 per cent out of the gates.
That's
exactly why when we talk about negotiations around the Health Accord federally,
there's an escalator clause that's been in place. In the past I believe it was –
I'm going from memory now; I think it was 5 or 6 per cent because health
ministers, governments across the country, recognized that there is an increase
in health care costs every year if you simply do nothing and ride with the
status quo.
A status
quo budget means, in fact, that we've seen cuts in the health care system. What
we don't know yet is what the impact will be. We know what last year's impact
will be because as bad as last year's budget was, you could at least tell from
the budget documents where some of the cuts were. Government, to its credit last
year, even provided us a list and said here are a whole bunch of the cuts we've
made throughout government. Well, this year, smoke and mirrors; no such list
exists. If you read the budget documents, things have been moved around so much
that it's impossible to tell what's been cut and what hasn't been cut.
There
was a much better PR job done this year, but the fact remains that this year's
budget is no better than last year. It could even be worse. If we actually were
able to compare apples to apples, it could be worse; but because of the way
money has been moved around, it's really difficult to tell.
The
Finance Minister likes to talk at length about zero-based budgeting. I
understand the concept of zero-based budgeting, but that's just being used as an
excuse for this moving money around so that we can't really get a full sense of
what's gone on in the budget. We're finding that through the Estimates Committee
process that we're now going through. We can't get ministers to answer questions
in the House of Assembly during Question Period, as we saw before the Easter
break. We'll keep participating because, hopefully, through this budget debate,
we can at least shine a light on some of these issues and even get some answers.
There
have been cuts. For instance, I'm looking at the headline of the paper on March
29, 2017 and the headline on the front page is: 93 jobs cut in health care.
Well, that's only the tip of the iceberg because there's inevitably, based on
this budget that we see in front of us, going to be more changes and more
impacts.
I'd like
to go back to the Throne Speech for a moment. There was very little said,
unfortunately, in the Throne Speech a few days before the budget. The headline
of The
Telegram on Wednesday, March 29, was Throne Speech looks backward,
not forward. That was exactly our assessment as well; extremely light on
content, light on substance, just like the budget that followed a few days
later; very little detail, lots of flowery statements and no ability to really
tell what's been taken out. So could it have been worse? I suppose it could have
been worse, but it was pretty bad as it was.
When we
look at the Throne Speech that came right before the budget, we saw lots of
rhetoric and buzz words, similar to The
Way Forward document that government likes to point to these days. Words
like complete, develop, outline, advance, focus, collaborate and leverage, but
not a lot of detail, not a lot of firm commitments to anything. There was lots
of focus in the Throne Speech this year about the past, but very little about
the future. People are looking for some hope. People are looking for some
optimism. People are looking for some confidence and a reason to believe that
there's a bright future here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Those of us on this
side of the House still believe that there is.
When you
look at the assets that we possess as a province, the future is very, very
bright. But we need a government that will manage those assets in a responsible
way. We need a government that will make sound decisions that will position us
well for the future. Some of the actions that we took in the past did position
the province well for the future. Up until this current downturn, we had several
really strong years of economic growth – over a decade of strong economic
growth.
We're
seeing lots of focus by this government on actions that we took related to
energy development, health care and multi-year infrastructure funding, long-term
care and violence prevention. Speaking of long-term care, that's another
interesting one. The current government likes to celebrate that they're going to
award a contract to build a long-term care facility in Corner Brook. Well,
unfortunately, those beds would be open by now, had the Liberal government not
cancelled our long-term care plan to open 360 new beds this year in 2017. That
was all in place and one of the first actions this government had taken when it
took office was cancelling that plan.
I'm glad
that, finally, there's movement towards new long-term care beds on the West
Coast, but there's still a huge demand in the Central part of the province, in
Central Region. We had a plan that was going to put 120 new beds, split between
the Gander area and the Grand Falls-Windsor area, and there's still a need for
those beds. We had a plan that would have created 120 new beds on the Northeast
Avalon; also desperately needed.
The last
time I checked the numbers, the demand was greatest in Eastern Region. I don't
know today whether that's the case. As I'm sure the minister would tell you as
well, those numbers do fluctuate on an almost daily basis, but there's no doubt
about it, Mr. Speaker, the demand for long-term care is real.
We now
see a plan that will address long-term care needs in Corner Brook in the future.
We're hearing rumblings that there's something more coming for Central. We've
heard very little about the plan for Eastern Region. The wait-list has grown
substantially over the last 18 months on the Liberal government's watch. That is
really concerning and it hasn't been addressed in
Budget 2017.
It's
great that there's now some movement on a long-term care facility for the West
Coast, but it would have been built by now. The beds in Grand Falls-Windsor and
in Gander and in the Northeast Avalon Region would also be operational by now,
had the government proceeded with the plan that was in place in 2015.
This is
a government that also campaigned on being afraid of any kind of private sector
involvement in the delivery of any of these services. Now they've engaged in P3
builds on multiple buildings. Perhaps that's the right decision. The
value-for-money case may actually make sense and may actually say that that is
the right decision in the long run. We'll see that value-for-money analysis in
good time. I hope, at the end of the day, that will save the province money, but
you can't have it both ways. You can't campaign on saying you won't do it and
then you do it, but that's been a consistent pattern with this government. I
think that's why people have lost trust. I think it's why people have lost
confidence.
When you
look at what's going on today in Newfoundland and Labrador politics, when you
look at the scandal involving the clerk of the Executive Council, the highest
office within the public service, it's really troubling. It just speaks to the
ongoing poor leadership, the ongoing mismanagement, the lack of competent
administration, at the most senior level. It's scary. We need to bring those
issues to the House of Assembly and we'll continue to bring those issues to the
House of Assembly.
But we
can't lose sight of what's contained and what's not contained in this budget. It
is another bad-news budget. It's a budget that is doing nothing to help our
economy grow. If you look at the statistics that are presented in the
government's own economic document that's part of the budget documents, it's all
doom and gloom; it's all negative. We've got a government that has no vision, no
plan and has eroded public trust and public confidence, and it's having an
impact on the economy.
I talk
to so many young families who are now considering moving away. We've spent years
trying to give people a reason to move back to Newfoundland and Labrador, or to
stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and to build a future here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. To see that eroded by a lack of leadership and a lack of planning and
a lack of vision is really, really disappointing because people deserve better.
When you
look at the opportunities that do exist in Newfoundland and Labrador, it isn't
all bad, it isn't all doom and gloom and we shouldn't have a government that
simply stands over and over again to tell people how bad things are and how it
is all doom and gloom. There are reasons to be hopeful.
With
smart decisions, we can improve government, but we can also do things to create
the right environment for economic growth. We can make the right kinds of
investments in regions of this province to stimulate further growth and
development. I believe all of that can be done. But unfortunately, through this
budget and through this Throne Speech, we've heard very little of what's to
come.
There
were many omissions even in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. We didn't see much
reference to the northern parts of our province. There was very little mention
of Labrador. We didn't see anything related to the generic royalty regime. We
didn't see any reference to Mistaken Point, which just achieved UNESCO status.
We didn't see any specifics on inclusion, which I know is a huge issue in our
education system. We didn't see any references – well, I shouldn't say any, but
I don't recall any references to growing rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That
was ignored through much of the Throne Speech.
There
were references to aquaculture, but what about the fish processing sector? There
have been lots of concerns expressed by people who make a living through our
fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is still a vibrant industry, and we
heard very little about that sector in the Throne Speech or in the budget.
The
government's commitment to social policy is really concerning, given the cuts
that I talked about a little while ago. We figure there are more cuts coming,
whether it's in our post-secondary institutions or in Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing. We continue to hear government talking about doing better with less.
That leaves a lot of questions, Mr. Speaker.
I see my
time is up, so I look forward to having more opportunities during this budget
debate to speak to the issues related to the budget, and to speak to the
concerns that people have about this current government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to stand, and I know it's short in the day, but, Mr. Speaker, you have got
to help me out here. When there's information put in this House of Assembly that
is totally inaccurate, totally false, how can you describe it? We need to know.
What the Member just talked about the hospital in Corner Brook is totally,
absolutely false – absolutely false. And for the Member who was deputy premier
on the backs of seniors who are looking for long-term care to stand in this hon.
House and say they're going to start construction is absolutely false. What they
had planned was to get a private company from BC, give them a piece of property
over on the same site, give them the land, come in, set it up, you run it as a
profit, tax the seniors as much as you like, cost as much as you like, make as
much money as you like – that's what they planned.
For him
to stand in this hon. House about something I've been advocating and I've been
very passionate about, Mr. Speaker, you've got to help me, because what the
Member is saying is absolutely, factually incorrect. I got a quote – I'll bring
it in the House tomorrow – the same deputy premier and minister of Health stood
up in 2014 and said the long-term care facility will start in Corner Brook this
year. That was a press release.
The
Leader of the Opposition, who was the minister of Health, stood up on two
occasions and announced the hospital in Corner Brook. There were seven different
announcements on the hospital in Corner Brook. For them to stand up here and say
that we cancelled a long-term care, it's categorically, absolutely false, and
they should not be trying to make political hay on the backs of seniors.
There
are 42 in the hospital right now waiting for long-term care. They promised that
since 2007, it hasn't been done, and played politics on the backs of those
seniors who got to be shipped out of Corner Brook. It's absolutely unbelievable.
It's shameful. That's the same minister, the same minister of Health, the deputy
premier, who made the announcement in Corner Brook that construction was going
to start, and it never started, Mr. Speaker. I can't stand here and listen to
it, I can tell you.
He's
over there laughing. I challenge any of them, let's go to Corner Brook and talk
about how you were going to do the long-term care. Let's go out and talk about
it. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the announcement you made that the
hospital was going to start, let's go out and do it.
Do you
know what the former premier had to do because they wouldn't do it? Members
opposite – there are four of them there in the front that were in Cabinet, the
three back weren't a part of it. The four that were in Cabinet, do you know what
he had to do? He had to dismiss the minister of Health, the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor, to get her moved over there so he could get a study done to get
radiation and CAT scan in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker. That's what they had to do.
The
leader, Tom Marshall, I've give him credit – you can look and say what you like;
I'll show it to you. Tom Marshall had to get rid of Susan Sullivan. He had to do
a study because the information that Tom Marshall was getting was absolutely
false. I even gave Tom Marshall names and numbers of people in Nova Scotia to
call.
I give
Tom Marshall credit. Do you know what he did on a Saturday morning? He picked up
the phone and he phoned this guy in Nova Scotia; it was in Cape Breton. He said:
I'm Tom Marshall, the Premier of the province. He said I'm being told by the
Department of Health, Susan Sullivan – the Members opposite also was part of it.
They've been saying you can't run a single bunker unit. He said: We had it for
10 years. The demand is so much now, we have two.
Listen,
you can shake your head that I'm being low. You don't know how many times the
seniors expected the long-term care facility over there, let me tell you. If you
don't believe me, you ask Tom Marshall.
I say to
the Leader of the Opposition, you can look at me and say what you like; you made
the commitment to the province, to the people of Corner Brook also, you made the
commitment and you never fulfilled your commitment to the people of Corner
Brook.
I say to
the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Member to direct comments to the Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
Well, Mr. Speaker, can you
tell the Leader of the Opposition what he did out there, making the commitments
to the people of Corner Brook, breaking the promise for the home. I say to the
deputy premier, the Member for Mount Pearl North, who's walking around to the
back here now, listening to him talk to the backbenchers there, Mr. Speaker. I
say to him: Why don't you talk about –
MR. KENT:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I ask the Speaker if he's
going to tolerate this kind of behaviour in our Legislature because it's
completely inappropriate, Mr. Speaker. It's completely inappropriate. It's
unparliamentary. It's not factual and it shows disrespect for the hon. House of
Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, there's no point
of order and with this bunch, there was no hospital or long-term care either,
let me tell you.
I say to
the Leader of the Opposition, I know you stood up here –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
Here they go again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition
Leader.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, under section 49
– and I hate to interrupt the Member opposite but, his behaviour under section
49, where he's using offensive words and disrespect for the House. I draw your
attention to House of Commons practice and the orders under chapter 13 under
page 618 where it refers to the use of provocative language, among other things
as well.
Provocative language refers to disrupting the House and creating that back and
forth that's happening here. The Member's own actions here are soliciting a
response from Members of the House which is contrary to the Rules of Order.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask you to rule the minister out of order, ask him to address the
Chamber appropriately and properly, and he abide by the rules that we follow
here in this hon. House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't have much time to
address the point of order. The Member opposite references provocative language
but failed to actually point out one single piece of provocative language.
Perhaps
the Member forgets that we are in a Legislature where there is debate, and
debate involves the cut and thrust and people speaking. So, again, I know he
doesn't like the fact that the Member is reminding him of certain things, but
there's absolutely nothing put forward right then that would constitute a
Standing Order breach of any kind.
I would
ask the Member to give me an opportunity to finish my point of order before he
stands up. He's talking about being disrespectful. I'm actually standing up in
the House and the Member opposite is standing right now and is refusing to let
me finish my point. If he wants to talk about disrespectful, he's actually doing
it right now.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Provocative language is described as describing something that's means to intend
people to react to it angrily or argue against it. That's exactly what's
happening here now. That constitutes provocative language.
The
minister stood today, he just referred to a former minister of the Crown who was
off for a period of time on medical issues as well and making allegations
against a former minister in a very disrespectful way, Mr. Speaker. I see no
reason why the House should stand for such conduct by the Member opposite. I'm
certainly not going to stand for it. It is contrary to the rules –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
– and I ask the minister to reflect on it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We have
literally 30 seconds before –
MR. JOYCE:
I have to say one thing, Mr.
Speaker, and I'll –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
haven't yet recognized the minister.
MR. JOYCE:
I have one thing –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
I understand words are touchy
but I guarantee you –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
I will
seek guidance from the Government House Leaders. I'm going to shut this place
down in a couple of seconds unless there's leave to continue on beyond the hour
of 5:30.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll leave it to the Member
to adjourn and finish his speech tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It's
actually 5:30 at the moment. I'm asking guidance from the House Leaders, am I
shutting this down now and we'll rule on this tomorrow or am I –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Given the hour of the day, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, that the
House do now adjourn. We'll get rulings tomorrow, if that's how this needs to
go.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
According to the Standing Orders, it being 5:30, I take it that the debate is
adjourned and we'll resume with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment tomorrow. I will rule tomorrow.
The
House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.