May 15,
2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 18
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Today
I'd like to wish the Member for Exploits a happy birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I understand that today, in
addition to our Members' statements, the Member for Lake Melville has leave of
the House to present a private Member's statement.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of Ferryland, Mount Pearl North,
Stephenville Port au Port, Mount Pearl Southlands, Labrador West, St. John's
East Quidi Vidi, and Lake Melville.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today and recognize a 12-year-old boy from
Witless Bay in my district for providing assistance and first aid to his friend,
and ultimately saving his life.
Stephen
Coffey and his friend Jamie Coombs were in the woods on April 6 building a fort
when Jamie had an accident and a severe cut with an axe. Jamie's knee began to
bleed heavily, the boys quickly headed for home. Jamie started to get weak and
was unable to walk. Stephen had to carry him out of the woods. Once the boys
arrived at home, Stephen applied pressure to the wound until medical help
arrived. Without the quick thinking of Stephen, the outcome of the accident
could have been a lot different. I would like to acknowledge the strength and
courage of Stephen in doing such a remarkable act and bringing his friend to
safety.
Stephen
will be receiving a Life-Saving Award from St. John Ambulance at Mobile Central
High School on Monday, May 29.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask all Members of the House to join me in
congratulating Stephen Coffey in receiving this award and for his strength and
quick thinking.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize a business in my district, Green Rock
Electric Vehicle Solutions. Green Rock E.V.S. is Atlantic Canada's only 100 per
cent electric vehicle dealer and service centre.
In the
spring of 2013, Green Rock opened its doors to provide a new outlook on electric
transportation. With electric cars and charging stations, this innovative
business is here to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector. Electric vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions, and in jurisdictions
where most electricity comes from clean, renewable sources, they generate next
to no emissions at all.
I
commend Green Rock for the green innovation that they provide to Newfoundland
and Labrador. Since opening, they have over 40 vehicles on the road which have
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over 500 tons. They are also working closely
with businesses and municipalities to incorporate electric vehicles into their
fleets, and help with public education about electric vehicles and their
economic and environmental benefits.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in recognizing the team at
Green Rock E.V.S., John, Sarah, Johnny, Dennis, Jennifer and April, for being
leaders in environmental protection and entrepreneurial innovation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I stand today to recognize John St. Croix of Stephenville. John is a
Level III student at Stephenville High who currently holds the schools top
academic average at 98 per cent and has held the top academic average in the
school each year since grade nine. In addition to his high academic achievement,
John is an extremely talented multi-sport athlete, a coach, pianist, mentor to
his peers and a dedicated and passionate community volunteer.
John has
represented the province the past two years on the provincial cross-country
skiing team competing at the national level and recording back-to-back top 20
finishes. He has also represented the province at the Canada games as a member
of the provincial squash team.
Always
willing to help others, this humbly young man spends time volunteering with the
Special Olympics, coaches young skiers, tutors his peers and volunteers at St.
Stephen's Parish.
John
graduated this past weekend and will be attending Queens University in Kingston
this fall having recently won a $60,000 scholarship to study geological
engineering.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating John on his remarkable accomplishments
and wish him well in his post-secondary studies.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, it's my
privilege to recognize an event which has become a showcase for some of the best
young talent this province has to offer. Etcetera 31, entitled Dancin in the
Street, took place at the Glacier from May 9 to 13 where all in attendance were
treated to amazing instrumental, vocal and dance performances from numerous
musical genres.
From
Disney's Moana to Led Zeppelin's
Stairway to Heaven, from selections from the movie
Grease to Damian Follett's No Place
Like Home, from Fame to rock-and-roll legend Meatloaf, Etcetera 31 had it all.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Musical Director
Carl Goulding, Production Manager Jackie Goulding, Artistic Director Justin
Goulding, Stage Manager Rebecca Goulding, corporate sponsors, the parent
committee, the coaches, choreographers, set and costume designers, volunteers,
and most importantly, the members of the Mount Pearl Show Choir, Junior Show
Choir, The Company, and the Musical Theatre Camp, as well as the many other
performers from Mount Pearl Senior High, Mount Pearl Intermediate, Morris
Academy, Paradise Elementary, Elizabeth Park Elementary, Laval High School,
Newtown Elementary, St. Kevin's High, and St. Peter's Junior High on yet another
tremendous Etcetera show.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And so
the adventure begins! That's the theme the graduates of Menihek High School
adopted for their 2017 graduation held on Saturday, May 17, in Labrador West.
Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to
congratulate the 110 young men and women of the Menihek graduation class of 2017
and thank them for including me in their graduation ceremonies.
Valedictorian, Emily Benson, gave a very inspiring speech, reminiscing about
their school years in Labrador West and challenged her fellow graduates to
strive to be the best they can be as they pursue further education and training
opportunities. I want to personally thank the teaching staff of Menihek under
the guidance of Principal Fraser Drover, and Vice-Principal Eugene Costello, who
continuously provides quality education to their students.
Over 800
proud parents, grandparents, caregivers and invited guests attended the
ceremonies as they watched their sons and daughters achieve this great
milestone.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the 2017 graduation class of
Menihek High and wish them well in all their future endeavours, wherever this
great adventure may lead them.
Let the
adventure begin!
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.
This
year marks the 25th anniversary of Conservation Corps Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am happy to rise to congratulate them for the invaluable work they do in the
District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi and indeed in districts throughout the
province.
The
Conservation Corp's Green Teams give students meaningful employment
opportunities focused on local environmental and cultural projects developed in
partnership with communities, organizations and corporations.
This
summer, a Green Team in St. John's will be working in partnership with Northeast
Avalon Atlantic Coastal Action Program on a stream water quality project, and I
understand a community gardening project is in the works as well. I look forward
to visiting the Green Team project sites to see first-hand the positive
community work they're doing.
Congratulations to Conservation Corps on 25 years. I ask all hon. Members to
join me in thanking them for the Green Teams and other important work they do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Lake Melville.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
On
Friday, Lake Melville experienced a challenging combination of problems. Trouble
began when a structured failure on the transmission line, east of Churchill
Falls, led to a wide-spread power failure. At the same time, an ice jam on the
Goose River caused water to back up, flooding Route 520 between Happy
Valley-Goose Bay and North West River. Many people were cut off from their homes
and/or were without power for 24 hours.
Staff
with Transportation and Works and their contractor, Grey Rock, escorted
emergency vehicles until water levels were too high. At that point,
Labrador-Grenfell Health mobilized helicopter transport for patients. The
Salvation Army helped secure accommodations on Friday and prepared meals for
over 400 affected residents on Saturday. 5 Wing Goose Bay was also in contact to
offer support, if needed. Several departments were involved in coordinating the
response.
Municipal and Band Council leadership were hands on as the situation unfolded. I
would like to especially recognize Mayor Montague of North West River and Chief
Hart of Sheshatshiu who worked closely with their isolated residents to ensure
everyone was looked after.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to acknowledge those who came together under the
adversity of this past weekend. During a difficult time, the community spirit of
Upper Lake Melville shown through.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to inform the House of an increase in the hourly wage rate of a very
deserving group of Job Trainers and coaches throughout the province.
Mr.
Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is renowned as a leader in helping people
with intellectual disabilities integrate more fully in the community by securing
and maintaining mutually beneficial employment. The Supported Employment Program
is run out of 18 community organizations throughout the province and helps these
individuals more fully particulate in their communities and in their own lives.
A key contributor to that success is the one-on-one support provided by Job
Trainers.
With $1
million in additional funding, the provincial government has raised the hourly
wage rate for Job Trainers from the current level of $12.25 an hour to $14.80,
effective April 1, with a further increase to $15.55 per hour which will come
into effect of July 1, 2017. Mr. Speaker, this brings the wage rate more closely
in line with similar occupations.
This
increase will help employers throughout the province recruit Job Trainers more
effectively. It will increase the opportunity for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians with intellectual disabilities to secure employment and will be of
benefit to each and every one of us and the communities we represent.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The 18 community
organizations throughout the province which are engaged in Supported Employment
Programs are to be commended for their efforts, and this side of the House
supports their success.
Any
incident in action by the government which increases the opportunity for those
with intellectual disabilities is a positive one, and the overall support of
these individuals involved in these important organizations are a progressive
move in our society.
These
additional supports should enhance this important network and provide
enhancements to the community as a whole. We will always encourage making more
opportunities available for persons with disabilities, and we will be closely
monitoring this program to ensure that it functions to the best of its ability.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to see
this long-overdue pay increase finally put in place. Job Trainers have been
underpaid for too long, considering the important work they do.
The 18
organizations providing this important service may now be better able to retain
Job Trainers, which will benefit their clients. But I wonder: How long will it
take the minister to realize the obvious logic of this decision applies also to
the province's minimum wage earners?
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize a historic milestone the 50th anniversary of
the Bay d'Espoir hydroelectric generating facility. First power flowed on May
12, 1967.
The Bay
d'Espoir plant was constructed to provide the Island with a large source of
affordable hydroelectric power. Bay d'Espoir remains a key part of our energy
infrastructure as Hydro continues to improve and develop our electricity sources
for future generations.
The Bay
d'Espoir system today comprises of a string of reservoirs which, connected
together, extend over 150 kilometres, starting at Victoria Lake, near the road
to Burgeo, and running to Long Pond in Bay d'Espoir.
The
system has a generating capacity of more than 600 megawatts of power which is
produced from seven generating units at the Bay d'Espoir hydroelectric
generating facility, as well as the hydroelectric facilities at Upper Salmon and
Granite Canal which were developed later. Combined, these three hydroelectric
generating plants provide about 75 per cent of the hydroelectric power generated
on the Island.
Currently an additional 188 kilometre high-voltage transmission line running
from Bay d'Espoir to the Avalon is under construction and is expected to be in
service this fall. This line ensures stability and reliability of electricity to
the Avalon Peninsula.
Almost
100 people work at the Bay d'Espoir plant providing the power that serves
hundreds of thousands of people across the Island of Newfoundland every day. I
applaud them for the work that they do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I certainly, too,
join the minister in recognizing those individuals who work for Newfoundland
Hydro in the operations of the Bay d'Espoir hydroelectric generation facility.
As the
minister said, this facility has been operational for 50 years and continuing to
provide reliable electricity to many residents on the Island portion of the
province, as water continues to flow. I know in my own district, we have the
first-ever generating station in Petty Harbour, which was opened in January of
1900.
With the
current construction of the transmission line from Bay d'Espoir generating
facility into the Avalon, the stability of electricity system in our province
will certainly be enhanced. I also wish to note the liability and sustainability
of electricity system in our province will be further enhanced when the Island
portion of the province is connected to the North American electricity grid
through the Labrador-Island Link and certainly the Maritime Link as well.
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.
As we
celebrate the Bay d'Espoir project, which was needed at the time and which has
successfully provided affordable power for the past 50 years, one question
stands out. It will take the next 50 years for the people of this province to
get out from under the financial burden of the Muskrat Falls hydro project. It
wasn't needed; there were other choices. The power will never be affordable and
possibly not be reliable. I ask: Why was that project ever started?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, through the 300 taxes and fee increases that the Liberal government
introduced last year and maintain this year, people are feeling the heat. People
are being forced into deciding which bills to pay and some, more than ever
before, are being forced into bankruptcy.
Now that
the government has seen the light and the importance of reducing taxes, like
they're doing with the gas tax, I ask the Premier, will you move immediately to
eliminate the 15 per cent tax on insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can't
say I'm happy today, but the fact that I get a chance to speak to this is
important for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As the PC leader and the
Leader of the Opposition would know, it's a result of the mismanagement and the
poor planning they've done for 12 years, Mr. Speaker, not planning for where we
are today. Indeed, they governed by oil; made decisions that are impacting
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the next full generation, saying that oil
would never go below $100 a barrel.
Mr.
Speaker, when you make a decision it must be sustainable. We've seen many
examples of decisions that have been made by the prior administration that were
simply not sustainable.
We don't
like those taxes, Mr. Speaker, but last year at this time we were facing a $2.7
billion deficit as a result of the incompetency of the management of the prior
administration. It was ridiculous. We don't like it, Mr. Speaker. When we can
get to reduce those taxes in a sustainable way, we will do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Not a
totally unexpected kind of response from the Premier that we've heard so many
times. The truth and the fact is, Mr. Speaker, in recent years the RNC are
reporting, from 2013 to 2016, a 25 per cent reduction in accidents in their
jurisdiction.
Mr.
Speaker, we know Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the highest taxes on
insurance premiums anywhere in the country. The taxi industry is screaming for
help. They were prepared today to park their cars and to focus on looking for
some way for the cost to be alleviated by government, but we haven't seen that
yet. We know they're working with them.
I ask
the Premier: What will you do to ensure that the taxi industry remains viable?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much for the question.
First of
all, and to inform the House, I've just concluded my second rather broad meeting
with stakeholders from the taxi industry; a very productive meeting. For the
last couple of months I've been working closely with them.
There's
no question that the rates that some taxi companies are paying per individual
car for example, I just saw some bills in the vicinity of some $7,000 to
$10,000 per car. Clearly, this situation has really gotten to a very serious
state.
I would
reference back, however if I look back and look at some of the decisions made
by government some 10 years ago and key policy moves which have actually helped
to create this situation. On the other side, the industry does need to address a
lot of the professionalism, a lot of the claims. We're finding very high claims.
So it's going to be a combination of working together. I look forward to working
with this industry association very closely.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
evidence-based decision process followed by this government, last year when they
put this additional tax on vehicles and on homes, all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are really impacted by it.
I ask
the minister: How many fewer vehicles are on the road today are uninsured as a
result of the insurance tax being put on by the Liberal government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
In terms of answering the
question directly, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the number of cars, I don't know.
But I can tell you that having met with the industry representatives, it's no
question that they are considering that option. Some have already had to
consider that option.
I would
point out, and as the Premier just alluded to it, we had to take some serious
action, such as the 15 per cent retail tax on insurance. I look forward to the
day when we can take action on that; however, when you're talking in the
vicinity of some $7,000 to $10,000 per car, there are a lot more serious issues
going on.
I just
sat with industry reps and we went through some 17 different action items that
they have asked of us that we have offered to the table; and, if you like, we
have formulated sort of a mandate letter for my department and my role to
address this problem.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
know of anything more serious that the minister could have commented today, but
not knowing how many vehicles or uninsured vehicles may be on the road today.
How many homes
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
How many homes are no longer
insured because of the taxes, the new tax that the Liberals put on
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
So I ask
the minister I'll ask the Premier: Will he ask the Public Utilities Board to
conduct a full review on insurance costs which are directly hitting every
Newfoundlander and Labradorian?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure the
Member opposite knows, within the mandate for this department that is indeed the
obligation of Service NL, which is to initiate a review of the automobile
insurance system. That is to occur this fiscal year. I look forward to
proceeding with that as soon as possible.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance was giving a talk this morning to a particular
group and gave somewhat of an update in regard to public service negotiations.
I ask
the minister: Could she give an update to the people of the province today on
current negotiation status?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, for the Member
opposite, I'd be happy to provide an update to Members of this House on the
status of collective bargaining.
We have
spent the month of April working through with a number of our unions,
particularly NAPE and CUPE, on conciliation processes. We are at a position now
where we have reached out to NAPE in particular, and asked them if they would
consider agreeing to a tier 2 table.
We feel
that's an appropriate step to continue to try and have meaningful dialogue about
the very serious situation that we have with regard to a significant deficit in
this province and the fact that we spend over $3 billion worth of our entire
budget on employee salaries and benefits, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll ask
the minister: Could she expand more on her reference to a two-tier negotiating
system.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd just
like to correct the Member opposite. What I said was a tier 2 table, which is a
description that we have used to describe a full group from NAPE, their
selection, as well as a group of our negotiators and leads on this particular
project, an important conversation that we have to have so that we can have a
conversation about the issues that both sides of the table have currently on the
table.
We have
been very clear with our public sector unions that we continue to want to try to
achieve meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately, at this point we have seen very
little progress happen, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Is your government
supporting the 9 per cent rate increase to electricity prices when Nalcor
reported just last week its profits doubled to $57 million in the first quarter
of 2017?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
It's a very important question.
The rate
increase that was recently announced by the Public Utilities Board has to do
with the rate stabilization fund. This fund is all around fuel prices.
Mr.
Speaker, each year it's the normal process of the Public Utilities Board to ask
the utilities for information on the fluctuation of fuel prices. Some will
remember they just recently got a rebate for those fuel prices. Others will
remember there was a decrease last year because the price of fuel was down.
The
Public Utilities Board under great review, which is what they're supposed to
do, Mr. Speaker, of the utilities considered the information provided and made
their assumptions and have told hydro what their rate increases will be for the
rate stabilization fund this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, revenues that are generated by Nalcor, the intent is to assist in terms
of overall cost of the entity.
I ask
the minister: Will you direct Nalcor to use profits to eliminate the rate
increase which hit taxpayers' pockets beginning in July of this year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I think the
Member opposite is referring to the fact that we will be rate managing because
of the exorbitant costs of the Muskrat Falls Project.
This
government has been very clear, that because of the Muskrat Falls Project there
will be increases. The former administration talked about those increases. We do
have money in the budget to deflect and reduce and make sure that rate increases
coming forward because of their decisions around the Muskrat Falls Project. He's
referring to the rate stabilization fund. He's referring to a report of the
Public Utilities Board. It is completely separate from what we are doing to
ensure that rates are managed in this province because of the decisions of the
former administration.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, is the minister telling us that the rate mitigation through the sale of
excess energy is not an option that's available to her; the savings that they
have on securing the loan guarantee and the interest savings of that is not
within her mandate, her ability to reduce rates? Is that what the minister is
saying?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I think the Member opposite
is misinformed, Mr. Speaker. He's confusing the two issues. The Public Utilities
Board, every year, looks at the rate stabilization fund, looks at the rising
fuel prices and makes a determination as to what's reasonable to the fluctuation
of prices.
When you
look, Mr. Speaker, at the exorbitant cost the people of this province are going
to have to assume because of the Muskrat Falls Project, he can rest assured that
this administration, this government, will rate manage. It's too bad they didn't
put anything into effect when they were considering the Muskrat Falls Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Recent
changes to public exam requirements have been described by the Canadian Hard of
Hearing Association as discriminatory to students with hearing loss.
Minister, why did your government make these changes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, there's a very
good reason why the previous PC Party administration decided to include a
listening component on the public examination for English 3201, a very good
reason why the previous administration decided to take us down this road, and
that's because listening is one of the six key categories in the kindergarten to
grade 12 Language Arts curriculum.
Most
students accomplish that through listening, through hearing. Students who are
deaf or hard of hearing utilize other cueing strategies like American Sign
Language, assistive technology or speech reading. So that's why the previous
administration brought this policy into effect.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, just over a year
ago the minister himself noted in a letter in response to the Hard of Hearing:
Accommodations for assessing listening are expected to be in place for a deaf or
hard of hearing student long before the exam is administered. Well, obviously,
we know that hasn't happened. That's why there's an outcry now from students and
the Hard of Hearing Association.
In 2016,
the Liberals slashed almost $100,000 in support for students who are deaf or
hard of hearing. In their 2017 Liberal budget, the government removed the line
item dedicated to support for students who are deaf and hard of hearing.
Minister, how much support are you cutting for these students this year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, those
accommodations are supposed to be in place for Kindergarten to grade 12 students
long before they get to the public exam. It's true now, it was true last year
and it was true all the years before; they are entitled to get those
accommodations.
We are
working with the school districts to ensure that happens. The province is
spending approximately $120 million on special support services for students.
That includes American Sign Language, assistive technologies, other assistance
to ensure that students have all the tools that they need through the
curriculum, through the public examinations and other examinations they write.
Those accommodations should be there because we are paying for them to be there.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, what the
minister forgets, it's a change in policy last year and this year that they've
implemented, where they don't have the supports in place to accommodate those
who are doing public exams, who have a hearing impairment here.
So, Mr.
Speaker, they're not addressing that need and it puts a particular student at
risk of not being able to achieve the goal that they wanted to in their
academics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Did the minister meet face to
face with the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association before making decisions that
directly affect these individuals?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, as is the norm
here in the House of Assembly, the Education critic for the PC Party continues
to demonstrate not just an ignorance of the decisions that were made while he
sat at the Cabinet table, but a complete and utter ignorance of the Kindergarten
to grade 12 system and all the supports and accommodations that are provided
therein.
Last
year, when this issue was reported by CBC, around exactly the same situation, I
asked staff to meet with the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. They did meet
with that group. I thought this issue had been resolved. We explained very
clearly that when the previous PC Party Education minister brought this policy
in, specialists for deaf and hard of hearing students, other people who are
involved in the provision of special accommodations, were involved in the
development of their policy.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you.
Minister, so obviously the answer is no. And if you talk to the program director
of the Hard of Hearing Associations, they have acknowledged that these services
had not been put in place to accommodate students this year doing their public
exams.
Minister, can you tell this House, and those listening at home, what is the
minimum number of students required for programs at CNA?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable
to expect that before a class would be offered that there would be either a
reasonable complement of students. Having no student supply for a particular
class or very, very few students apply for a particular class would not be a
reasonable basis for a class to proceed.
I will
tell you what is also unreasonable but has been done year after year after year
for the last number of years. When the PCs were in charge of the government, the
College of the North Atlantic spent down cash reserves to the point where the
College of the North Atlantic nearly went into insolvency. That was not helpful
to the advancement of post-secondary education in Newfoundland and Labrador, and
it will not happen while this government is in charge.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, as a former
graduate of CNA, and I know the tens of thousands of other graduates would say,
that the college system has been great. It wasn't insolvent. The professionalism
was always adequate and exemplified the student process and the quality of
education that we had.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Minister, it was recently
reported that a reprieve may be given to CNA Bonavista campus, which will allow
them to continue with their college program.
Will a
reprieve also be extended to the campus in St. Anthony?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Let me correct the hon.
Member. Mr. Speaker, the teaching at the College of the North Atlantic was never
adequate. It was superior. He may refer to it as adequate, but it was superior.
We will continue with that tradition and we will advance it because now we're
engaging in professional development. We're increasing the opportunities for our
instructors to become more professional, to be able to get further
certifications.
Let me
be clear, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is arguing that where there are no
students requesting to be enrolled in a class, or there are one or two or three
or four students asking to enroll in a class, it is his position that the class
should continue. Why then, Mr. Speaker, were four academic programs shut down in
2013 and several classes cut?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So the hon. minister is at
seven programs already cut down, and counting. We were talking about comparing
Bonavista and St. Anthony, which my understanding, talking to officials there,
an equal number of students have been enrolled in both of these programs or have
applied for it. So if you're going to make chalk of one and cheese of the other,
there is something wrong here with your assessment of the education process for
people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
the minister: Will he commit to not changing the delivery model for the ABE
program without reviewing all data, sharing it with the public and holding
stakeholder meetings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, the programs at
Bonavista, the programs in St. Anthony, the programs in Baie Verte, the programs
in several campuses, the seven classes I'll differentiate between classes and
programs. That administration over there shut down permanently four programs,
including the Adult Basic Education program.
Newfoundland and Labrador is now the only public college system, that I'm aware
of, that does not offer Adult Basic Education. In fact, the decisions that were
taken in 2013, now upon review, it has become abundantly clear there was
absolutely no financial data which was available then or now to have supported
the conclusions that were reached.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, before any changes are made to the Adult Basic Education program, I can
assure you there will be a thorough review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I need to clarify to the
minister that the information was accurate, and it did justify it. And not only
that, but in your own briefing notes that you got when you became minister it
states, the review of the 2013 assessment of the ABE outlined that it was more
efficient financially and more successful if the private not-for-profit sector
offered the program, which has happened in the last three years and been very
successful. We've gone from 17 offerings, 17 campuses through the CNA program,
to 24 now in the private not-for-profit sector. So, Mr. Speaker, the evidence
speaks for itself that this has been very successful.
Why is
the minister continuing to promote he is moving the ABE program back to CNA,
when he is aware that the present delivery model offered by the private
not-for-profit sectors are much more cost effective and successful?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Interesting line of
questioning, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that was the government that shut down ABE at the
College of the North Atlantic system. That was the government that did put
forward the numbers that suggested that a cost per student was at a certain
rate.
Well,
let me explain something to the hon. Member. Shortly after the contract was
awarded to the private training institutes, the private training institutes came
back and said, based on the enrolment data supplied by the government and by the
College of the North Atlantic in 2013, based on those numbers that were
supplied, we cannot fulfill the contract according to the private institutions.
They could not provide the contracts as were tendered, and they required an
additional $1 million per year to fulfill empty seats.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, if that's good financial management, that's a Tory way of managing the
finances.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Asphalt
recyclers are sitting idle in depots. They're an important tool to address the
potholes on our provincial roads.
Why is
this equipment not being used help fill the potholes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the question. I'd like to advise the hon. Member opposite that not all
the recyclers are sitting idle. If you check in Central Newfoundland, they're
actually out and we're mobilizing them. We've had a couple of issues on the
Avalon Peninsula we're working through and these certainly will be available as
soon as we're able to work through some of those challenges.
Mr.
Speaker, I think that was a good investment to have these machines available and
they can be mobilized. We're moving them around and we're actually doing a
significant amount of pothole repairs. As you know this year, we've had a lot of
real challenges when it comes to potholes and we're actually doing the best we
can. We'll continue to do that to ensure that we have a safe highway for the
people that are driving on it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister just confirmed there is some sitting idle. That's the question I asked;
he only answered part of it.
The
Minister of Finance confirmed the elimination of 60 positions in TW this past
year. The roads are in horrific state. What impact has the elimination of these
60 positions had on our provincial roads?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Mr. Speaker, just in case the
Member opposite doesn't understand, I thought I answered the question. I said we
mobilized in Central, which answered that piece of the question, and I said we
had issues in Eastern. I thought it was clear.
Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the positions we went through the organizational
chart, we looked through managers and directors and those positions. One of the
key things I want to make mention to the Member opposite that front-line workers
are not impacted by the changes that we made and, as a result of that, we will
continue to do the operations this summer as we done in previous years. It's a
managerial change we've made, Mr. Speaker, obviously looking at trying to find
better ways in which we can fit within the fiscal framework that we have.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Does your government have any plans to help clean up the garbage
in the surrounding area on the Outer Ring Road?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister for
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Mr. Speaker, the garbage
that's on the Outer Ring Road, in addition to the garbage that's on Pitts
Memorial, that's in addition to the garbage that's across the Trans-Canada
Highway both east, west, central and all over is absolutely deplorable, that we
are in 2017 having to deal with these issues. It's an education piece that we
have to make sure that people do not litter.
I worked
very closely with Service NL over the past weekend. Before we actually take
actions, we must be in a position to enforce the regulations that people cannot
throw garbage out, enforce the regulations that people that are going to the
Waste Management Centres must have their garbage covered.
My
understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that Service NL had enforcement out during this
past weekend and were actually issuing tickets. I think it was probably in
excess of 30 this past weekend. We will continue to do that to address the
issue, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Finance Minister continues to conduct public sector bargaining away from the
bargaining table, as evidenced by her public remarks this morning to the
Chartered Accountants Association.
I ask
the minister if she has received any written reports from conciliation officers
dealing ongoing public sector collective bargaining.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, for the Member
opposite, I want to correct her preamble. The information that I shared this
morning is the same information I've been sharing with everybody in the province
who asked, which I shared on March 2.
We have
been talking about the issues that we are wanting to have a discussion about at
the bargaining table. We have seen little to no progress, and the discussions
that have been happening through the conciliation process have yielded nothing
different than the bargaining process to date, 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.
Obviously, this minister is really new to negotiations and doesn't understand
the process that people are used to being part of in this province and
elsewhere.
I ask
the minister, why does she continue to discuss collective bargaining matters in
public while the conciliation process she initiated is ongoing.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the
Member opposite is not suggesting that the considerable group of public service
employees who are working to support government's effort on collective
bargaining are inexperienced. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, my experience as the
minister has been that the advice from officials has been very effective.
When it
comes to the conciliation process, the process is designed to enable both
parties to have a meaningful dialogue and make progress. And, Mr. Speaker, our
government, at the conciliation table, will do what we need to do, and has done
what we needed to do; but, as of yet, I am not aware of any progress that has
been made at the tables.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
remind the minister that, in fact, it is not the public servants or the
negotiating team who are speaking publicly but the minister herself.
Mr.
Speaker, at least six provinces are amending their legislation to include the
presumption that PTSD among first responders is a workplace injury. Whereas, in
this province, the first responder has to prove the job caused their PTSD.
Consequently, many workers have compensation denied and treatment delayed,
making the PTSD worse.
I ask
the Minister of Service NL: When will he amend the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act to include PTSD as a
presumptive work-related illness for first responders?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much for the
question.
I must
say, I think this is a very serious matter. I would note that while the process
of government is proceeding, I can assure the Members of the House that I am
very much focused on that, including a meeting this morning.
We will
be signalling that review. I look forward to entering into the House the
recommendations from the previous report which, frankly, has been sitting around
for way too long. I'm looking to carrying on and finally getting on with it.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
I ask the minister: Will he
also commit to expanding presumptive PTSD coverage to corrections officers who
do incredibly difficult work and all others who repeatedly work with traumatic
events and are at risk for PTSD?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly glad to stand up here today and speak to the difficult work that our
correctional officers do. In fact, last week I took the opportunity to visit our
correctional officers at HMP to talk with them and learn more about what they
do. Something I would note was criticized heavily by the NDP who did not care
what the correctional officers do on a day-to-day basis. They didn't want to see
what was going on.
That
being said, I have had discussions with union leadership on this issue. I look
forward actually, we're going to sit down soon and discuss this issue and many
issues as it relates to the safety and well-being of our correctional officers.
They are a group who do challenging work 24-7 in this province. Certainly, I
support them in the difficult job they do.
I'm
willing to have this discussion; I just wish that the NDP would support them as
it relates to their work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
accordance with section 56 of the
Automobile Insurance Act, I rise today to table the 2016-17 Annual Report of
the Board of Commissioners of the Public Utilities on Operations Carried Out
under the Automobile Insurance Act.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'd like
to move the following private Member's resolution:
BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of Canada and the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to establish joint
fisheries management.
That's
seconded by the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
accordance with our Standing Orders, the private Member's motion just read by
the Member for Cape St. Francis will be the one that we'll request to have
debated on Wednesday, Private Members' Day.
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
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
Last
week in this House the Members opposite asked for the EY costs for the Muskrat
Falls report on review of the project cost schedules and related risks, interim
report, and I am pleased to table a letter from the Oversight Committee as to
those costs.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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
Members of the House of Assembly are elected to represent the interest of their
constituents; and
WHEREAS
recall legislation would increase democracy in our province by making Members of
the House of Assembly more accountable to their constituents;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to introduce recall legislation into the House of
Assembly.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, last year I had an opportunity to present a private Member's motion on
this very issue and, unfortunately, it was defeated by government Members.
Recall
legislation is not a new concept. In fact, it was on the books in Alberta in
1936; one of the US states as far back as 1908. It's not a rare idea. Many US
states have had recall at some level of their democracy. Alberta has had it in
the past. British Columbia has it today. It doesn't destabilize a democracy, and
many would argue that it actually strengthens democracy. There are a number of
models of recall that are working elsewhere in Canada and around the world that
could absolutely be considered here.
I think
when we talk about democratic reform and it's a concept that all three parties
in this Legislature have talked about. We've done some things to move in that
direction. This is one example of low hanging fruit, so to speak. I think recall
legislation is an easy one and one that should be pursued.
I think
government should be more open to suggestions from people and to the Opposition
parties. I think introducing recall legislation is a way to make our system more
responsive to the public and more adaptable as well. We all know that public
input can lead to better decision making as well.
I think
recall legislation will shift the balance in favour of the people of province. I
can understand that there are Members in this House of Assembly on the
government side who may have an unsettled feeling in their stomachs when they
think about that, but I think we need to look to recall legislation as a way to
improve the democratic process in our province and in our society. None of us
ought to believe that we're so smart that we're incapable of being shown better
choices by the people who elected us, and I believe that can happen and does
happen.
How
arrogant would it be to believe that a Member is wiser than the voters who
elected the Member? Over the years we've taken all sorts of shifts in favour or
giving voters greater control over the way things work in our House and our
government. There were referendums on constitutional change regarding education.
There have been free votes in this House of Assembly from time to time. We now
have fixed-term election legislation that restricts a government's power to call
an election when it is most politically advantageous to the governing party. We
have whistleblower legislation, and I could go on and on.
This is
just the next logical step in democratic reform, Mr. Speaker. I'd encourage
government to seriously look at it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has removed the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books which
will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; 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 this is probably one of the easiest taxes to reverse, and we
know in fact that it's a rebate, a point of sale rebate, but this is in fact
the way people talk about it is that it's an imposed tax on books. It would be
one of the easiest ones to reverse.
The
other issue is that taxing books sends a message that books are a luxury, that
they're not a necessity, because there are a number of necessities that are not
taxed simply because they are a basic necessity to life.
When we
look at the fact that we have the lowest literacy rate, one would think that the
logical conclusion is, therefore, books are absolutely a necessity, and to tax
them not only sends a negative message about that but it also makes it harder
for people to be able to buy books.
We're
the only province in the country that taxes books, provincially. Nova Scotia and
PEI recently looked at doing it. They were going to look at doing it, but they
dropped the idea after the public really resisted. Our public is resisting, but
this government is not listening. They're not hearing their people.
In Nova
Scotia in 2015,
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In Nova
Scotia in 2015, there was a petition and a whole social media campaign by
publishers, booksellers, students and librarians to tell the government they did
not want to see taxes on books.
Now, our
taxes are a collective thing that we do as citizens of the province to say we
fairly and justly pay our taxes so that the province can run and that the people
have the basic necessities in order to thrive.
Mr.
Speaker, this s not honouring that.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
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
Marine Atlantic ferry rates continue to rise, becoming increasingly more cost
prohibitive; and
WHEREAS
increased rates have an impact on the cost of goods being shipped into our
province, as well as those products being exported out by local businesses; and
WHEREAS
the ever-increasing, cost-prohibitive means of ground transport into the Island
portion of our province has a negative impact on tourism;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to open a line of communication with the federal
government and begin to advocate on behalf of the residents and businesses of
this province, not stopping until results are finalized.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, it's very unfortunate that we have to rise in this House and present
this petition because we hear on a regular basis in this House about the
wonderful relationship between our current provincial Liberal government and the
current federal Liberal government. So one would think this is already a done
deal.
We're
certainly, as residents of this province, are going to continually call upon
both levels of government until something is done to address this situation.
Because here we are in this province now, we can barely afford to live given the
measures of Budget 2016 and the
regression and stifling that have happened to our economy as a result of these
policy measures. We're being gouged at the gas stations. We're being gouged at
the insurance rates. We're being gouged with fee after fee after fee after fee.
We feel it is incumbent upon government to really take this situation in hand
and do something about these fees and ensure that there are no more increases.
In fact, we would like to see the fees we're currently paying be reduced.
Thank
you so much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the US Center for Disease Control now estimates that autism spectrum disorder
affects one in 68 children, which represents a 30 per cent increase from the
estimate two years ago; and
WHEREAS
early diagnosis of ASD is essential because there is a critical developmental
period when early intervention is vital for future success of children with ASD;
and
WHEREAS
in other provinces an ASD diagnosis can be made by specialists certified and
trained in ADOS;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to allow other specialists trained and certified
with ADOS to make the autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Once
again, Mr. Speaker, members of the community of children and adults affected by
autism spectrum disorder, as well as members of the general public who really
understand how serious this situation is, continue to send petitions in to us to
stand up and speak on their behalf here in the House of Assembly.
Obviously, they continue to try to get government to hear what they're saying.
By standing and reading their petition, we support them in that effort to have
government listen to what they're talking about. Because the issues still goes
on, Mr. Speaker, and as the petition says early identification and intervention
is important with children
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
important for children on the autism spectrum. Most diseases and most conditions
are like that; the earlier you recognize the situation, the faster you can deal
with it. It is especially true when it comes to the development of children on
the spectrum.
We
continue to have unacceptable wait times for a diagnosis. Yes, some steps were
taken. Wait times were reduced to six months in 2015-2016, with the addition of
another pediatrician doing the ADOS diagnosis, but there continues to be a long
wait time, longer in areas with larger population.
Families
outside the Avalon Peninsula, for example, and outside the Eastern Health
region, it's not just the wait times that are difficult for them; they also have
to travel away from home and sometimes outside of the province in order to
receive a diagnosis more quickly. So you have a financial burden on these
families that just continues. Again, government does not seem to be listening.
What we
need are more people, as the petition says, Mr. Speaker. We need more
specialists trained and certified with ADOS in order to do the diagnosis.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
smaller class sizes, adequate learning environment and effective curriculums are
paramount to success of our youth; and
WHEREAS
recent budget decisions have negatively impacted student supports, educational
resources and teacher allocations; and
WHEREAS
the provincial education system should ensure each child has the ability to
reach his or her full potential;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to enhance the education system in Newfoundland
and Labrador; introduce initiatives which ensure smaller class sizes which will
provide more sufficient personal space per child and allow more individual
learning opportunities; develop efficient curriculums which enable youth to
develop both life skills and optimal academic achievement; provide resources to
ensure a fully beneficial inclusive model is in place; and to ensure all
children in our province have equal standard of education in their learning
environment.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken to this a number of times about some of the challenges in
the education system. I did note a couple of petitions ago about looking at and
following CBC did a three-part documentary with teachers, counsellors, even
some administrators around the challenges in the school system and how they've
seen things evolve over periods of time. There have been peaks and valleys when
it came to challenges in the system, and points when there were resources put
in, but they've identified what these are parents, these are average citizens
in the communities who have come up with these petitions. They are echoing the
same thing that the teachers and counsellors and administrators have said, about
the need to invest in our education system.
These
are trying times. Things have changed in our society. There are challenges
around inclusive education, as was noted by my colleague here from St. John's
East Quidi Vidi about some of the issues around how you deal with learning
disabilities within a classroom setting and some of the resources about being
identified and diagnosed so you can get the proper supports.
We've
talked about mental health in our education system and how we'd be proactive
versus reactive by having programs in that. We've talked about preparing our
young people and our students for life skills and their ability to be able to
handle situations from a financial point of view, to an integration point of
view, to an empathy point of view, to an understanding of how they further
choose their careers.
We've
also talked about having the proper environment. We say a conduce environment:
space, so people can be counselled at a proper level, so that the teachers
themselves and counsellors within the school system have the mechanism, the
resources to be able to deal with situations.
We've
also talked about, and it's been identified and it's becoming more and more
prevalent, when you have a larger school and larger classes, when you have some
students who may have some challenges, we're now noting there's violence in
classrooms which disrupts their whole learning environment. It puts kids who
normally weren't facing any of these stressors, under stress. We've seen that.
We've
had counsellors identify there are kids at a certain age will not go to class on
certain mornings because they know there's a disruption going to happen in their
class and they come up with an ailment to be able to stay home. That obviously
tell me we have something wrong with how we're addressing our issues. If it
means we have to address things in a different manner, we have to do that.
Mr.
Speaker, I will get an opportunity to speak to this again and outline some of my
concerns.
Thank
you.
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
government has not implemented curriculum to teach the basic monetary skills
needed by our youth; and
WHEREAS
the government of our province has a responsibility to act in the best interest
of our youth; and
WHEREAS
the youth of our province deserve the greatest level of respect and
consideration;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to introduce financial education into provincial
curriculum to prepare youth for the monetary and financial challenges of life
upon entering the workforce.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've raised this issue in the House of Assembly on behalf of
constituents a number of times in the past. I've had an opportunity to tell the
House about a group called FLY financial. FLY stands for Financial Literacy for
Youth. It was founded, I guess about a year-and-a-half ago. Its purpose is to
teach basic financial and money management skills to high school youth through
their career development classes.
This
group of volunteers has been to a few of our high schools in this region.
They've presented to hundreds of students. The team is made up of alumni from
Memorial University and they present to high schools, primarily in this region,
as I said, but they're looking to expand across Newfoundland and Labrador.
They
believe, and I believe, that the lack of financial literacy is causing people to
be taken advantage of by credit card and lending companies, for instance. I
think the lack of financial literacy can have a huge impact on people's
financial futures.
There
was a survey that indicated 34 per cent of Canadians said they're relying on
hoping to win the lottery in order to finance their retirement. Obviously,
that's not a viable strategy.
Young
people are not being taught enough about debt or savings. Teaching young people
about debt and savings could help future generations. We live in a time when
bankruptcies are on the rise in our province. The current state of our economy
really does call for increased awareness of personal finances, and individuals
can find themselves in trouble by acquiring too much debt which is all too
common this day in age.
Lending
institutions are making lots of money from charging interest and people need to
understand exactly how those arrangements work with financial institutions, with
lending companies, with credit card companies. I think Albert Einstein said
compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. Those who understand it
earn it, those who don't pay it.
This
group that's doing work in our high schools is looking to positively impact the
career development curriculum to teach youth valuable skills. This is something
we shouldn't have to rely on a group of well-intended volunteers to do. This is
an issue that needs to be addressed in a much more I guess with greater
emphasis placed on it within the high school curriculum.
There
are lots of financial personal decisions that we all have to make. We need these
life skills taught in our school system. I think the work of FLY financial is
great, but I join them in calling on government to actually imbed some of that
right into the high school curriculum.
Thank
you.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 3, Concurrence Motion, report of the Government
Services Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise here today and speak to is it 15 minutes or 20 minutes that I
get?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
So 15 to Concurrence. This is
my second time getting up speaking to the Budget, the first being on the
non-confidence motion.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Oh, I get 20. Thank you.
First
off, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to echo your comments earlier today where you
congratulated the Member for Exploits on his birthday. He's 58, and I don't know
if I should say that, but he doesn't look a day over 57, Mr. Speaker. All jokes
aside, he's been a great friend to me sitting here. We bounce ideas back and
forth to each other and it's an honour to sit by such a distinguished person.
The last
time I got up to speak, Mr. Speaker, I touched a nerve with some people out
there, the Internet trolls especially. They didn't like the fact that VOCM gave
me a bit of media coverage calling a backbencher says MUN can take a page out of
CNA's book. You know you're doing a good job when you upset the Internet trolls.
They hurl insults at you. They attack without merit. They attack you personally.
One of
the things I had the biggest laugh out of, because that story that came out of
VOCM was based entirely on a Facebook video that I put up on the Budget Speech,
and you had one of those Internet trolls get up there and say: He never speaks
to anything about his district. He talks about polar bears and upside down
flags, but never speaks to anything about his district. Well, if that person who
made that comment actually listened to the 20-minute speech, he would have known
I talked about the gas tax, which benefits the reduction in gas tax which is a
benefit to the District of Bonavista.
I talked
to a commitment to our communities through the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund;
I talked about the multi-year infrastructure plan with the roads. That's another
big thing for the District of Bonavista. I talked about tourism; I talked about
the fishery. So if they're going to make a comment about me, at least they
should be accurate.
Mr.
Speaker, enough time wasted on those clowns.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Probably.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Facebook's alive now.
MR. KING:
Facebook's alive now.
I have
no issue with anyone making constructive criticism but when they attack you at a
personal nature and with no merit, there's no basis to it whatsoever.
Getting
back to the backbencher says MUN can take a page out of CAN's book. This gets to
my first topic, Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic, the Bonavista
campus, there's been quite a bit of discussion over the last number of days,
weeks with the suspension of the cook and baker program.
I want
to clarify one thing said in Question Period today by the Member for Conception
Bay East Bell Island. It's not a cancellation of a program; it's a suspension
of a program for one year.
Last
Tuesday I was fortunate enough to meet with the present CEO of the College of
the North Atlantic, the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, and I
spoke with stakeholders from the community. My goal at that meeting was to get
the program back in the campus for this coming fall. However, as of last Monday
there were three students registered, Mr. Speaker, and a cost of $250,000 to run
that program. It's a shame that we're suspending it for this year, but we are
focused on getting some enrollees at the college for that program last year.
I'm
going to get back to more media coverage and I'm sure my critics wouldn't like
that either MHAs encouraging college graduates to come forward. These are very
successful graduates who left the cook-baker program; they're out doing great
things right now.
I helped
form the post-secondary advisory committee at the College of the North Atlantic
in Bonavista, which there are stakeholders all across the district in different
fields. I like this saying: Success breeds success. So if we can work with the
College of the North Atlantic to promote our successful students, it goes a long
way in growing our campus and growing that program.
Mr.
Speaker, the Opposition and others decided they were going to fear monger about
a closure of the Bonavista campus, but what came out of that meeting and what's
coming out of Modernization Plan 2019 is a commitment to our rural campuses. We
had a firm commitment at our meeting on Tuesday to do good things at the
Bonavista campus, to work and grow that campus so that anyone who questions our
commitment to our rural campuses has absolutely no merit in their statement.
What we
talked about was distance learning, modernizing the College of the North
Atlantic so we can offer more programs in our rural campuses. It's very similar
to the CDLI program that they have with the Department of Education, where you
have the students in the class and you take a program like office administration
where they can do it online. There will be an instructor in the classroom and
they can do all their work online. That offers more programming for the campus,
gets more bums in the seats, grows our campus, straightens our region, Mr.
Speaker, because we can base those programs on the needs of our region very
exciting, very forward thinking.
We also
look at other ways that we can grow our campus, through contract training. If
there's enough interest in a particular program, you get that program offered.
It helps stimulate the campus and our rural economy.
One of
the biggest things and the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island, I
don't agree with him on this. I like the fellow, but I certainly don't agree
with his comments on ABE. He talked about the cost associated with the private
colleges versus the public system. What he neglected to mention is the campus
cost of losing ABE. Bonavista campus was hit very hard when we lost ABE. What
ABE would do in the Bonavista campus was have your students there, they would
have a career counsellor and then they would transition to another program at
the campus. That kept our numbers strong. That got people who are in the ABE
program into another trade and got them employed much quicker in a higher paying
job. That's my comment on CNA.
There
are four big industries in my district, Mr. Speaker. We have the fishery,
forestry, agriculture and tourism. I'm going to speak to the fishery a little
bit near the end of this speech, but I want to talk a little bit about the
forestry. I had a great conversation this morning with Kevin Sexton of Sexton
Lumber. He is doing some great things in Bloomfield-Lethbridge when it comes to
innovation, when it comes to hiring full-time employees, to getting a really
good product into the market.
What we
talked about is challenge he's facing right now. Like I said, he's very
innovative, Mr. Speaker. Last year, he upgraded his plant to allow for
finger-jointing of lumber. If you don't know what finger-jointing is, I'm just
going to give you a quick brief on it. So you have two small pieces of lumber,
which would normally go to waste, what Kevin is doing and what they are doing at
Sexton Lumber is take that, finger-jointing it, using adhesive, bonding it
together and it's actually stronger than your normal piece of lumber.
So
they're able to take short pieces, which they would have to throw away, and make
it into lengths that can be utilized here in Newfoundland and Labrador and
throughout Canada into the US. One of the issues that he talked to me a little
bit about was the fact that people are a little uncertain about the product.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I did the Marine Engineering program at the Marine
Institute and I'm not going to be like the Member for Conception Bay East
Bell Island and say it was adequate; it was outstanding, the program that I did
up there.
One of
the things that we did was strengthen materials. I can tell you with this
finger-jointing of these boards when it's tested, it breaks, not at the join but
somewhere else on that board. You have a quality product that's actually
stronger than your regular piece of lumber. But right now, there's a bit of
hesitation within the industry and within municipalities to approve that sort of
lumber.
Mr.
Speaker, I've got a piece of paper here and it talks about the stamp that's on
the and I don't want to use a prop but it talks about the approval, all the
specifications for approval that are industry standard for lumber.
Unfortunately, what we have to do now is educate the inspectors within the
municipalities to talk about yes, this piece of lumber is adequate to borrow a
phrase actually better to build your homes with, to use within construction.
We've
had CBS, Paradise, St. John's and Mount Pearl kind of questioning the merits of
this. So we have to do a better job of saying to their inspectors, no, this is a
good product, and we need to work within the construction industry to get that
out there.
I want
to give a shout out to Kevin Sexton and Neil Greening who I spoke with this
morning. It's just not the innovative things that they're doing; they're also
working with government, Mr. Speaker. Currently, we're working on forest
management agreement and Sexton is one of the industries that are providing
advice to us on a management agreement, so this is going to be a long-term
tenure type of a program that's going to see stability in the industry.
Under
the previous government, you'd see small allocations and then they had to
reapply. You'd see the lumber yards shut down for weeks at a time and then
they'd slowly get more allocations. This year, we started off initially with
40,000 cubic metres of lumber and increased that to 140,000. That's going to
give them long-term stability for this season, Mr. Speaker.
The
former member for Terra Nova I saw on Facebook said: Why don't they just let
them have access to the Abitibi land? Well, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources said last week they didn't want the government of
the time didn't want
AN HON. MEMBER:
The PC government.
MR. KING:
Yes, the PC government didn't
want Newfoundland industry to get that lumber because they were waiting for the
next great thing to come by. In fact, people like Sexton couldn't even get a
phone call answered. Their MHAs, who they would deal with, would argue with them
and fight against them. So what we're seeing is collaborative approach to what
we're doing in our forestry industry.
I'd be
remiss if I didn't speak to the fishery because it is one of the most important
industries that we do have, Mr. Speaker. One of the issues that we have in our
district right now, the District of Bonavista, is that both Bonavista and
Trinity Bay are blocked with ice. So it's something I've been working on with
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, expressing the concerns that I've
been hearing on behalf of my constituents. I've reached out to my federal
counterparts again.
The
latest email I sent today, Mr. Speaker, because I do want the people at home to
know I am on your side, I am fighting for you. Good afternoon, Ministers Hadju
and LeBlanc so the minister responsible for Employment Insurance and the
minister responsible for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as MHA for the
District of Bonavista in the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature, I'm writing
to express my concerns regarding the ice condition in the Bonavista and Trinity
Bays and its impact on my constituents.
For the
past several weeks, ice conditions in both bays have prevented fish harvesters
from getting to their respective grounds and catching their crab quotas. This
had an adverse effect on plant operations at the OCI facility in Bonavista, and
thus has caused a number of people not to get called back to work. Normally,
both harvesters and plant workers would be well into their season; however, the
ice conditions have prevented this. Many of these have had their benefits run
out or close to running out. I'm requesting that EI benefits be extended until
such a time when both harvesters and plant workers get back on track with their
employment.
So
that's what I sent as early as today. I've been talking to Minister Crocker
quite a bit about this, my federal counterparts, but I feel it very important to
keep pushing this issue because it is important. People are running out of EI
right now and it's getting very serious. Ice is something that they cannot
control, and unless we get a good strong wind to push that ice back out,
sustained over several days, that's going to be very much the case for the
foreseeable future.
Getting
back to a little bit of the fishery; some good things we're doing in our fishery
is our Seafood Innovation and Transition Program. This is geared toward focus
areas of revitalization of the groundfish sector, innovation technology,
industry research and development, and strategic marketing initiatives.
What we
realize as we transition from shellfish to groundfish is we need a new approach.
Days of cod block being shipped out or salt fish being shipped out are gone by
the wayside. We have new fish that has replaced cod as the cheap white fish.
What we want to do is create a better quality product.
One
thing that I'd like to see, Mr. Speaker and I don't think I'm speaking out of
turn when I say it is a focus on our processing facilities. We have Icewater
in Arnold's Cove which is doing amazing work. I'll give a shout out to my
colleague from Placentia West Bellevue because he's got a great facility
there. What we'd like to see, I'd like to see and what I get from fish
harvesters, is we'd like to see more processing locations here on the Island so
that fishermen can get their fish to market in a timely manner. What that also
does, Mr. Speaker, is create more jobs in secondary processing.
I would
advocate for the OCI plant in Bonavista to have that opportunity. They've got
enough space; they got the licence. So I'll be reaching out with OCI to see if
they can take advantage of some money within the $100 million fisheries fund
because I think that's a great opportunity. We have fishermen who want to ship
locally. We have people who want to work locally in both the shellfish and the
groundfish industries. So I think we're poised for that good transition right
now.
One
thing that often comes to question is the management of our fish stocks, and
it's always controversial. You know what, sometimes you have to step into the
controversy because there's a good point made about how our fishery has been
managed over the last number of years. The easy answer is to always pick a fight
with Ottawa, which I don't agree with.
I look
at DFO right now where we are hiring more scientists. Stephen Harper cut DFO
science to the bone, but we're focusing on groundfish initiatives, groundfish
science and doing it on a yearly basis. We have to get more science based, put
more money and effort into the science, but while doing that we can't forget
about the harvesters and the processors, all the key stakeholders in our
industry.
I think
that's kind of where we went by the wayside over the past number of years.
Instead of being all individuals fighting against each other, what we need to do
is actually work together to grow our fishery, especially in the groundfish
sector, and protect our resources, our dwindling resource in the shellfish such
as shrimp and crab.
Mr.
Speaker, finally and that's my thoughts on the fishery, because you think of
the District of Bonavista you think fishery and it is very, very important to my
district, to the people.
I talked
to a group of fishermen on Friday afternoon. In a small community, such as Old
Bonaventure and New Bonaventure, they're pretty close together, but there's $2
million of raw product that gets shipped out of there every year from 14 fishing
enterprises, Mr. Speaker. That's very, very significant.
Finally,
I want to talk a little bit about agriculture. I'm not going to get much of a
chance because I only have a minute and 20 left. I'm hoping to get another
chance to speak on this budget because I do have my opportunity in the main
motion, but seeing how our time goes. I want to give a shout out to all the
farmers in the District of Bonavista.
In a lot
of places you see a region where there are a lot of older farmers. There's no
secret that the average age of a farmer in our agriculture industry is quite
high, but in the District of Bonavista, I see a number of young farmers getting
into the industry. That was very prevalent at the College of the North Atlantic
on April 20 when there was a livestock production seminar held.
There
were about 20 people there from as far away as Mobile and Wareham in Bonavista
Bay, to people in my region. If you get into meat production, it's great, but
what I also see is a younger group of vegetable and dairy farmers in my district
as well, Mr. Speaker.
I see my
time is running out. I will be supporting
Budget 2017. I'm happy to stand here to speak to it on behalf of the
constituents of the District of Bonavista.
Thank
you for your time, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a privilege to rise and speak in Concurrence for the Estimates of
Government Services. Through the Estimate process, we went through a number of
areas through this Committee and through the Estimates. I just want to recognize
the staff who participated, along with the ministers for particular departments
and recognize the work they do as public servants.
Being on
the other side and being involved in the Executive and being involved in
Cabinet, I have a great understanding of the amount of weeks and months they put
in in terms of preparatory work and the type of work they put in. So I certainly
recognize the work that was done by the public servants in the Estimates to get
us there, to get the budget done and to come to Estimates and to assist the
ministers in providing the information.
We went
through Finance, a significant portfolio obviously; the Public Service
Commission; Human Resource Secretariat; Women's Policy Office and OCIO as well,
we touched on. We'll do the Consolidated Fund Services here in the Legislature
in the coming days, I suspect.
One of
the things with Budget 2016 and
Budget 2017 and some of the things
we've seen and some of the confusion in regard to some of the vision or
direction of the current administration in regard to reducing expenditures, the
one they looked at and often reference is positions; the positions of the public
service.
We've
been asking over the past year, even looking for 2016 numbers in regard to what
that actually means to the public service and what it means to individuals out
there in regard to what the future holds for them. One of the things we saw last
year with 2016 is that there was a lot of confusion, a lot of mixed messages in
what was happening, what the direction was, if you will.
When the
budget was brought down in 2016, there was going to be a budget to generate
revenues, then there was going to be a mid-year update, then there was going to
be in the fall a second budget to deal with expenditures and layoffs, and then
preparatory work rolling into 2017.
Obviously, as we know, that didn't happen. There were significant fee structures
put in place. Almost 300 were put in place, which the response to that was that
it was too much too quick. I think we're seeing the results of that in the
economic indicators. You look at the budget document that was provided this year
in 2017, The Economy, and you look at
some of those economic indicators what occurred last year in the slowing
economy, and even more so what's predicted this year. Which indicates that the
plan that was brought in by this current administration in 2016 hasn't worked
and looking forward to 2017 it's very much status quo, and status quo in regard
to we've got a huge grab for cash through revenue with, I mentioned, 300 fees
and various taxes. I think there was one modified in this current budget this
year, which was the gas tax. Which I understand there's an enabling piece of
legislation we'll have to discuss here in the Legislature as we move forward
over the coming days and weeks to deal with that.
So that
has caused concern and has caused huge indicators in the economy in regard to
the results it's had, in regard to slowing our economy, certainly from all our
demographics in our society: middle-class families, seniors, young people
looking for that first job. All of those have been affected by some of the
choices that have been made. That's what it's about, too. We can all differ on
various approaches, but what was done before, what's done today, is all about
choices. There are choices you can make in the approach you're going to take to
deal with any fiscal situation. It can be balanced approach; it can be an
approach where you tax and fee to the point of having negative consequences and
not reaching where you want to go. So it is about choices.
I
mentioned when I started about some of the positions in regard to the effects in
the public service, and recognizing that because of the fiscal situation there
had to be decisions made and expenditures and we need to look at those
expenditures. There were 650 full-time equivalents announced that would be lost
in the 2016 budget. A full-time equivalent, it's not an actual full-time
position for an individual, if you will, or a position for a person. It would
equate to a unit of work, which would be reflective of a 40-hour week, eight
hours a day and there could be half a unit actually in a particular department
or particular division which would equate to an FTE.
So very
early on after the budget came down in 2016, we were asking here for the
Minister of Finance to tell us what does that equate to, what are the savings
that reflect those 650, and how many jobs are we talking about here. Because
obviously if you bring this in, you must have done your analysis in terms of how
does that 650 FTE break out into jobs in particular departments, and what are
the savings for that particular year, annualized out. Because that's what you're
looking at, you're looking at the full envelope of operating revenues that are
required for that particular department.
We
continued to ask and we received very little in terms of response to it, but
eventually we put some questions on the Order Paper, asked to get some feedback
on that. It was just recently we got some information in regard to and we are
not even talking about this budget, we're talking about last budget in regard to
those numbers. Based on what we could tell when you broke out those 650 FTEs and
they mean in regard to positions, we still question whether there's not even 200
more positions that would come out of the public service to reflect those 650
FTEs.
Again,
we asked that question here in the House and I don't think it's been given to us
in detail if that's concluded. There were some estimates given in regard to
March of 2017, what's been concluded in that, yet it hasn't been made quite
clear if that's the conclusion of it and that's important, recognizing
operations in the public service and recognizing what's reflective and going to
be laid out in Budget 2017, because
they would combine. One fiscal year would flow into the other if you haven't
done what you said you were going to do in that fiscal year.
So we
certainly need that from the current administration and government to let people
know. That factors into your overall budget; that's annualized in regard to
savings and different issues that you're through on.
Some of
the other items in the Estimates we discussed with the minister in regard to the
particular budget and what's reflected in it, certainly one of them in Finance
we talked about was revenue generation, one of the things that was brought in
last year by the current administration with regard to the fluctuation in oil
price and internationally in terms of how you predict that fluctuation in
prices, what information you use, all those kind of things.
We had a
discussion about that. One of the reasons we had that was because in last year's
budget, the minister brought in a risk adjustment related to a barrel of oil. At
that time she referenced the fact that their government would take a prudent
approach and budgeted $125 million in risk adjustment to protect against adverse
impacts from commodity price fluctuation and volume.
In
regard to the revenues generated, this year there was certainly a windfall that
helped the current administration. I think it was almost $400 million that was
related to increased production from our oil-producing facilities offshore, as
well due to a higher than what was predicted value for a barrel of oil that was
predicted last year. So that helped them in terms of certainly getting and
hitting their targets.
One of
the other things that helped too was that for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, with
this oil risk adjustment the minister referenced, they had $125 million in as an
oil risk adjustment. If it had to have been drawn down, it would have been an
expense that would have been shown. Because of what happened, as I said, in
regard to production, in regard to the price of oil, that wasn't used. So
obviously, from a deficit reduction target, it showed us much better because
that $125 million didn't need to be leveraged in regard to if the barrel hadn't
come in and what was predicted, if production had fallen off for some reason. So
we are certainly in a much better state.
The
interesting thing when it was presented was that it's volatile, internationally,
in terms of predicting this. I know there were 14 so-called experts, I think we
call them if they are or not, I'm not really sure in regard to predicting
that data and analysis as to where oil prices were going to go in the future, in
the current year and certainly future years. That's used by all governments in
terms of predicting what you're getting in oil revenues, how you factor that
into your budget and where it goes.
Interestingly enough, I think we ATIPPed who was being used by the current
administration, and I think basically it's the same. So there were 11
international folks, firms that do this work. Basically it was the same firms
that were used by our administration that is used by the current administration
in providing that highly technical data to predict where oil prices would go.
Last
year in the budget forecast 2016-2017, they had $125 million in for oil revenue
risk adjustment. In 2017-2018, there's no oil risk adjustment for this
particular year. You go to 2018-2019, there's $50 million; 2019-2020, $80
million; and it continues to go further into those years to that five-year
period.
So the
question would be and as they say, details have been scanty. Last year they
had $125 million in. This year they budgeted nothing, but for the next five
years there's a risk adjustment for oil in the budget. Nothing has magically
changed in this particular year in regard to the volatility of oil, in regard to
production, in regard to OPEC, in regard to non-OPEC members and whether they're
going to produce more or going to produce less, whether shale gas and oil is
going to affect it; but, amazingly, in this particular year there was no oil
risk adjustment put in. Even though there was one last year, and after this
current fiscal year there are ones put in for the next five years.
Obviously, we know that, if you put it in, it's going to affect your deficit
target. So if you had to put in $125 million this year or had to put in $50
million, it would certainly affect your deficit target that you're setting.
We're just wondering why that would be. It's hard to figure because the world
price of oil and the variables that affect that and change it haven't changed.
They are what they are. The world is what it is and oil and gas pricing
certainly is what it is.
That's
something that we wonder about in regard to why that would be and what the
economic strategy is there. It seems hard to understand why you would budget an
oil revenue risk last year, $125 million, and this year nothing, and the next
five years you're going to budget it again. That's certainly an issue that came
up as well.
One of
the other things I wanted to reference as well is I heard the hon. Member up
earlier and he mentioned the fact of relationships with Ottawa and that type of
thing. At times, we've had in our history since '49 good relationships. Other
times not so good, but it was always about putting the interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first.
It
doesn't matter what political strip was in office. Most Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians support leaders and parties that approach the perspective that
we're Canadians. We're part of this great federation, but, as well, as a
provincial jurisdiction and one of 10 provinces in the great federation, we
certainly deserve to get the benefits for being part of Canada.
We've
given a lot to Canada and we expect our fair return back. No more than anybody
else in this federation, but that we get our return and what's important to us.
Whether it's the fishery, whether it's development of our offshore resources,
whether it's things like the Atlantic Accord that there were negotiations with
to make sure that the revenues to us is similar to if they were on land in
Alberta. That was the whole intent of the Atlantic Accord.
There
were difficult days with that, but at the end of the day it was negotiated and
the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I believe in the long
term, were served. Because we had the start of a new industry that continues to
bring great wealth to us today and I believe will in the future as well.
One of
the things we've heard in the past while from the current administration is the
extra input we're getting from the federal government in regard to dollars. Now,
I recognize that the current administration in Ottawa has put vast amounts of
dollars into various programs. We'll be getting that on a per capita basis I
assume, as any other envelope that we would get, and that's important.
One of
the things we talked about in terms of our fiscal situation was equalization,
and asked the question, why haven't we even had the discussion? We hear on the
other side, you didn't do anything about it when you were there. Well, that's
inaccurate because there was always a First Ministers' Conference.
In 2012,
I think it was, Prime Minister Martin at the time asked Finance Ministers from
across the country who were meeting somewhere in Canada for input into the
renewal for the equalization which was coming up in 2014. That input was given,
and the government of the day at the time brought in, I think it was Minister
Flaherty at the time who was Finance Minister in the Harper government,
basically rolled over the current equalization program, adopted pretty well what
was in place with very few minor changes and rolled forward.
That's
the prerogative, I guess the way it works with the federal government because it
is their program. They can ask for input from provincial jurisdictions. They can
listen, they cannot listen, but at the end of the day it's up to them to roll it
over and that's what they did. There was representation made, but they decided
they were going to pretty well keep it the way it is and roll it over.
Much
like what happened with the Health act or the Health and Social transfers that
the current administration were involved with just a little while ago with the
federal government, where traditionally it had been 6 per cent renewal in regard
to increasing health and the Harper administration said 3 per cent. The current
Trudeau administration said they weren't going to go with 3 per cent but at the
end of the day they did, and they basically decided.
All the
First Ministers went up and had a meeting. They were all pretty adamant they
weren't going to sign on for 3 per cent. They didn't want it. Well, guess what?
The federal government decided this is what we're going with, you're getting 3
per cent, they signed off, here you go.
Now, a
lot of the First Ministers, ours included, decided they weren't going to buy
into that. They were going to stand strong. They were going to fight the federal
government. Lo and behold, a few days after they were out of the room. They were
all lined up, they were signing up for 3 per cent.
So I'm
just making the comparison, equalization is the same thing. Representation is
made, you hope they listen, but if they don't, well, it's the federal
government's call.
Now, in
regard to the overall equalization policy and formula and how it's I think
most recognize that changes need to be made when you look at the demographics,
when you look at the fiscal cap, the fiscal capacity, various components and how
when it was originally designed it doesn't meet the needs of the various regions
of the country today.
In
particular, a region like Atlantic Canada where some of the indicators, you look
at demographics in regard to for us, one of the fastest aging populations,
what that means. If it's on a per capita basis and on population, if the health
care and services which equalization is supposed to balance out across the
country, if you have a higher sector to your population, as you get older, age
65, 70 and 80, and there's greater per capita expenditure on health care, from
an equalization point of view that needs to be recognized and tied into the
formula in regard to how you deliver that service. Then you look at demographics
and all of those kinds of things.
I just
want to go back and talk about for a second, before I clue up here the
expenditures we're getting from Ottawa and where it's coming from. The budget
document, Exhibit I: Where the Money Comes From, there's a pie chart that shows
where it comes from.
If you
look at 2015, it was about 11.7 per cent was from the Government of Canada. In
2016, it was about 12.8 per cent. In
Budget 2017, it's about 12.6 per cent. So it's probably gone up point nine
of a per cent; yet we continue to hear that over and above the per capita
spending, which is really not even reflected there, that we're getting this
enormous influx of cash from the federal and maybe we are, but it's not
demonstrated in these documents that are part of the last three budgets when you
look at them and compare them. That was something as well as we went through the
Estimates and looked at what was important in regard to getting our fair share
and what that amount would be.
Before I
clue up, I just want to mention I think the hon. Member mentioned, too, when
he was up and spoke about the fishery and some of the challenges we have.
Unfortunately, when we look at some of the allocations in the current budget,
this administration, I think under DFA, I think there's about $7.4 million that
we're expecting from the federal government, but that's only coming if we're
able to get an agreement. That $7 million is part of a, supposedly $100 million,
which there was supposed to be more, that was the Atlantic Canada Fund.
Mind
you, the Atlantic Canada Fund was nothing we were ever part of. We had, through
CETA, recognized what was coming. What we're seeing today is the downturn and a
transition needed to shellfish to groundfish and had a $400 million shared fund
to help us do that.
What we
see this year in the budget from the current administration, from 400 we went to
100, to $7 million that we may get if we get some agreement as part of this
process we're talking about here. In addition, we know there's a reduction in
CFER. With the Marine Institute. There has been reduction there. We've heard
about monies for science. We haven't seen any of it on the ground. I think
they're talking about almost 10 years to get a baseline, even though we invested
out provincial money into the Celtic
Explorer to give us that base information and we're not even sure where
that's to.
So,
Madam Speaker, it's been certainly good to speak to Estimates, and I look for
further opportunity to speak in this hon. House.
Thank
you very much.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte Green Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to rise here today and speak on behalf of my colleagues
here on the government side and represent the good District of Baie Verte
Green Bay, and always a pleasure to do so, Madam Speaker.
I
mentioned I think at the beginning of this sitting that I would continue to read
a piece of writing that I read a while ago, and that was to produce a healthy
province is to realize that success depends on us, as a people, possessing a
real willingness to change and a desire to fight for success. One of the hon.
Members had mentioned in my last opportunity to rise that she didn't want to
hear that anymore, but I'll continue to read that for as long as I continue to
stand.
I know
that we're debating the Estimates on Government Services today. I didn't get the
opportunity to rise in my chair to speak to the Estimates on I sat on both the
Social Services Committee and the Resources Committee. Certainly it was just a
real opportunity to learn as a new MHA, an opportunity to see the inner workings
of how these Estimates Committees meet and to discuss, and the openness and the
opportunities to ask questions on behalf of our Official Opposition and the
Third Party, and us sitting as Members on that side as well.
From my
own perspective, I wanted to thank the Committee who sat on our Resources
Committee. They were: the MHA for Conception Bay East Bell Island, the MHA for
the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis, the Member for St. John's East
Quidi Vidi, the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels, the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port, the Member for Exploits and the Member for Harbour
Grace Port de Grave. I had the opportunity and the privilege, obviously, to
Chair that Committee.
We sat
with the following departments: the Department of Natural Resources; the
Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour; the Department of Fisheries
and Land Resource; and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation.
Again,
Madam Speaker, I want to recognize and thank the Table staff, the Clerks and to
the staff of those departments. They put in a lot of hard work to prepare these
Estimates for the ministers of those departments. When you have an opportunity
to go through those books, it gives you an indication of a lot of hard and good
work that goes in on behalf of people who work in this great Confederation
Building.
Before I
get into a couple of items that I wanted to speak to, again, not having the
opportunity to stand last week, I certainly wanted to recognize last week, being
Municipal Awareness week. I think there are lot of us in this House who probably
got our start in politics from the municipal politics and town councils. I know
for me, Madam Speaker, as a young deputy mayor of the Town of Springdale, I
learned very early about the good work that happens in some of our town halls
and local service districts as well.
I have
42 communities in my district, of which most of them are incorporated towns but
we do have some local service districts. I want to commend anybody and everybody
who gives up of their time to put back into their communities.
I know
in my own district, I'd like to recognize we're losing a couple, actually two
or three mayors who've spent in excess of 20 years in municipal politics and are
leaving. Like is said, I want to throw out a bouquet to these people for giving
of their time. Certainly, I want to encourage people to take a serious look at
municipal politics and give back to your communities, as we all have as well.
I wanted
to recognize this week, Police Week, and thank the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety for inviting me to the opening of that today. I have all the
respect in the world for the police services of our province, Madam Speaker,
with two provincial police forces in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I want to recognize municipal police forces, as
well as military police, anybody who are in the police field.
It goes
back personally for me, Madam Speaker, as I've had the opportunity and the
privilege to spend some years of my life, early life, as a member of the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary. A very proud and time-honoured police force and I'd
be lying to you, Madam Speaker, if I didn't tell you that I miss it just about
every day. Going back and seeing those officers, some of them who I had the
opportunity to train with, seeing them again today in full uniform brings back
great memories for me. Obviously, I certainly treasured those.
I want
to talk about my meetings with the community councils that I've had an
opportunity to again, I talked about the fact that we have 42 in the district.
In my 16 or 17 months in politics, I've had the opportunity to sit down with
every one, I think, besides one, and that community is Brent's Cove. Actually, I
had a date to meet with that council and it got cancelled on my behalf, Madam
Speaker. I had an incident that happened that I couldn't miss.
But it
is interesting, as we travel throughout our districts and getting sort of a feel
for where we are as a district just coming new into government. We certainly
listen to our friends and colleagues across the way who speak about we are
always talking about the overspending, the $25 billion worth of oil revenue that
they had come in over their 12 years of reign. I guess until you know the full
story, sometimes it's hard to argue. I just go around my own district, Madam
Speaker, and looking at some of the infrastructure that's in place.
We still
have four communities throughout the district that are still operating with
gravel roads today: Snook's Arm, Nippers Harbour, Perbeck's Cove, Tilt Cove.
Those people are still travelling over gravel roads today. I've had the
opportunity to visit every one of those communities and listen to the people.
Madam
Speaker, I've had the opportunity to sit down with a lot of the ministers and
speak to them about the district and where I see the district today and where
I'd like to see the district in a couple more years. It's concerning to me.
Probably
the most concerning issue I have, Madam Speaker, is water. I know in speaking
with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we've had many discussions over water
issues. We still have way too many actually, one is too many, but we have way
too many communities today that are still on boil water orders. It perturbs me
to no end.
When I
look at having the opportunity to visit the community of Seal Cove, I took a
sample back to Service NL in Springdale. I took a sample of that water. It's
absolutely terrible.
Dealing
with the community of Port Anson over the last couple of weeks; and I realize
the time of year that we're just into a spring runoff. If there's ever a time
that your water is going to be cloudy, it's at this particular point in time of
the year, but there is a difference between cloudy and dirty. I would suggest,
Madam Speaker, we are talking about dirty water.
The
other community that I've had the opportunity to sit down and visit with was the
community of Shoe Cove down near the community of La Scie. That community is
experiencing severe water issues as well.
When you
go home at the end of an evening or at the end of a day's works and you can sit
back and turn on your taps and enjoy clean water, to be able to brush your teeth
and bathe in clean water, Madam Speaker, I look at that today as a God given
right. Especially in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador where we have an
abundance of water and an abundance of clean water, it's unfortunate we still
have communities within our districts that don't enjoy that privilege that I
certainly have.
Madam
Speaker, when I look at the difference and I know one of the MHAs, one of my
colleagues opposite brought that up one afternoon here in the House, about the
difference between being a rural MHA and an urban MHA, and it's huge, Madam
Speaker. It may have been my colleague across the way, but it's a big
difference.
I leave
the House here at 5:45 on a Thursday afternoon when we shut down. We have a 5½
hour trip home. It's late when we get home. Then you're trying to get a business
day in the district, which is Fridays. Then Saturdays you leave for brunches,
and then Sunday it's back on the road, back to the capital city. It's a huge
difference.
When I
represent 42 communities, I think there may be close to 30 fire departments,
community councils, local service districts, it becomes a full-time job trying
to be and there are a lot of MHAs in this House, Madam Speaker, who go through
the same thing every week that I do. You're trying to listen to all the issues
and try and do your best to make sure that those issues that your constituents
have, or communities have, get to the ears of the different departments. I thank
all the ministers within our government. They're doing a great job given the
financial circumstances we find ourselves in front of them today.
Madam
Speaker, you heard me talk about a couple of things in the Resources Estimates,
and a couple of items I wanted to speak to actually were Natural Resources.
Certainly, I'll argue with the Member for Labrador West about being the mining
capital of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are. They've done well, but I
want to speak to the mining community in Baie Verte Green Bay because we've
seen many mines come and go, Madam Speaker.
Even
today, people talk about their districts and the downturn in the economy. Well,
I'd like to talk about the upswing in the economy in the District of Baie Verte
Green Bay. It has to do with the mining activity on the Baie Verte Peninsula
and the prospects throughout our district.
We're
still having a fair amount of work in the area, and a lot of drilling programs
are taking place. Mining has historically been and continues to be an important
economic driver for our province, and certainly for our district. It's one of
the province's oldest leading industries and is a major contributor to the
economy of the province.
Mining
in our province has its origin, I say to the Member for Labrador West, on the
Baie Verte Peninsula, and with the Dorset soapstone quarry in Fleur de Lys
showing pre-European use of the geological resources of the province.
MR. LETTO:
(Inaudible.)
MR. WARR:
I'm just making sure you're
listening to my remarks here.
The
first major mining development in Newfoundland began in Tilt Cove, I say to the
Member for Labrador West, in 1864. Tilt Cove is on the Baie Verte Peninsula.
Actually, Madam Speaker, Tilt Cove at one particular point in time was the
world's largest producer of copper. To my hon. colleagues, I don't know if you
know that, but it's
AN HON. MEMBER:
What year was it?
MR. WARR:
That was 1864. We had major
mines in Betts Cove, and Little Bay soon followed. Then there was Consolidated
Rambler Group with Rambler, Ming East, and Big Rambler Pond Mines. This is
truly, Madam Speaker, the original mining capital of the province. Families here
have made their livelihood from the mining industry for generations and carry on
with their pride within this development.
Today
our mining and mineral companies, many in the province, Madam Speaker, many of
which are international, directly provide high paying jobs to more than 7,000
men and women in Newfoundland and Labrador. Despite lower commodity prices,
mineral shipments are forecast to be $2.9 billion in 2017.
The Baie
Verte region is truly an example of how innovation, exploration and development
of our mineral resources lead to a dynamic growing industry. I look at, right
now on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Madam Speaker, directly and indirectly involved
in the mining sector, I would suggest on the Baie Verte Peninsula, there are
probably 400 to 500 people working within that sector. The nice thing about it,
Madam Speaker, I know for a fact, speaking with my good friend, the general
manager of Anaconda, he talks about the average age in that particular mine is
38 years old. When you look at that age, it bodes well for the future of the
industry and mine at Anaconda.
Madam
Speaker, in talking about the mining sector, I want to remind everybody about
the anniversary of the Newfoundland and Labrador Mining Conference this year, as
every year it's been held in Baie Verte. This is the 30th anniversary of the
mining conference. It is June 2 and 3. I'd like to invite all my colleagues to
the mining conference. If you have some spare time, I'd certainly welcome you on
the beautiful Baie Verte Peninsula to the mining conference.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) not invited this
year.
MR. WARR:
I'm sorry?
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) not invited.
MR. WARR:
Madam Speaker, I think I just
heard the minister tell me that he wasn't invited, but he knows very well that
he's invited.
I just
wanted to highlight as well, talking about the sealing industry, when we look at
our quota this year, we had a provincial quota of 450,000 seals this year. It's
unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that we won't take 75,000 seals out of that quota.
It's unfortunate when we look at our fish stocks. It's been the demise, really.
I
listened to my hon. colleague for Cape St. Francis talk about his passion of the
fishing industry; I do as well, Madam Speaker. Even the community of La Scie is
the second largest long liner port in Newfoundland and Labrador. There's
probably half a billion dollars' worth of seafood that comes up over that road
every year.
Madam
Speaker, my time is concluded. I'll get an opportunity to stand again in my
place to continue the discussion on my district.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I thank
the Member who previously spoke for providing an overview of some of the good
things that are happening in his district. There are good things happening in
just about every region of this province. We tend to focus on the negativity,
some of which has been generated by the doom and gloom messages of the current
government over the last 18 months; but, in reality, there are still good things
happening in our communities and there are good things happening in our economy,
despite this downturn that we find ourselves in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I think it's important from
time to time to recognize that, because people are actually looking for some
hope and some confidence and some reasons to believe, and some reasons to stay
here and to contribute positively to life in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Government has a responsibility to set the tone. While government has neglected
its responsibility in that regard, it's still nice to hear individual Members of
this House talk about some good things that are happening in their districts.
Speaking
of which, the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands earlier today had an
opportunity to give a Member's statement where he recognized the students and
staff and parents and volunteers and community supporters connected to primarily
Mount Pearl Intermediate and Mount Pearl Senior High school. Now, at the same
time, to the project that I'm going to speak about for a moment that he spoke
about earlier today, it does involve several elementary schools in Paradise and
Mount Pearl as well, but the bulk of the students that participate, and there
are hundreds involved, come from Mount Pearl Intermediate and Mount Pearl Senior
High.
The
production that he spoke about and that I'll now speak about is called ETCETERA.
We attended the 31st showing of ETCETERA last week. We were there on the same
evening; I believe it was Thursday night. I thought he might take me to dinner
before or after, but that never happened I'm sad to say, Madam Speaker.
We had a
great night at ETCETERA, as we always do. Hundreds of young people in Mount
Pearl, also many come from Paradise as well, participate in this annual
production. The Goulding family has been instrumental in its success for over
three decades. The amazing part about this musical production that I think makes
it unique is that there is such large percentage of the student population
involved.
It was
inspiring. The energy was incredibly positive. There was a large crowd for
multiple nights. A lot of effort goes into it. The students have been practising
for months. Parents have been raising money for months. It is something that
involves the whole school community but also the greater communities of Mount
Pearl and Paradise as well. Congratulations to all the students, the staff, the
volunteers who make ETCETERA an amazing show each and every year.
So that's one little highlight from my community from the
last week or so. Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to visit Parkdale Manor,
a seniors' apartment building in my district. It's was built by and is still run
by an independent community non-profit board that's connected to the Royal
Canadian Legion Branch 36. There's a big need for affordable housing for all
citizens, but, in particular,
for seniors in my district and in my community. Parkdale Manor has been serving
the needs of a number of residents for a long, long time.
I had a
chance to chat with several of the board members: the current chair, the current
treasurer and a number of other community volunteers, including Sally Seward
who's our current Citizen of the Year in Mount Pearl, who in addition to her
work with the legion and the Seniors Independence Group, also volunteers with
Parkdale Manor. An incredible commitment and I know that the residents of
Parkdale Manor benefit greatly from the work of those volunteers and from the
support that's provided by the legion.
Earlier
this winter, we had the unfortunate occurrence of a flood that happened at
Parkdale Manor. The building is now I don't know exactly how old it is, but it
is several decades old now at this point. Despite the efforts that have been
made over the years to upgrade roofing and plumbing and heating and electrical
and windows and other elements of the building, the building in some ways is
still showing its age. It's an older building.
There
was some copper piping that failed over the winter and led to a flood that
destroyed several apartments. Fortunately, the community rallied and responded.
We had several seniors who were effectively homeless. It took several days to
come up with solutions, but I have to acknowledge that through the office of the
minister responsible for housing, we were able to ultimately get some support
and arrange for temporary housing for these seniors who were displaced and left
homeless for several weeks. It was about six weeks that they were out of their
homes.
I want
to acknowledge Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and the minister responsible
for the assistance that was provided to these individuals who were in need. It
took some time to get government's response sorted out. In the meantime, there
were a number of community groups that rallied to offer some help and support.
The
Mount Pearl Lions Club showed up to cook meals for seniors who had been
displaced. There were other organizations and individuals in the community who
showed up with gift cards, who showed up to help move furniture. A member of
Mount Pearl council, Councillor Ledwell, showed up to help move people's
belonging out of the apartments so that repairs could start as quickly as
possible.
I want
to recognize one resident of Mount Pearl in particular, Joyce Bannister, who is
a resident of the District of Mount Pearl Southlands, but somebody who I've
known for a number of years and is actually the daughter of the late Fred
Bannister, who was a long-time member of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 36, a
long-time member of Mount Pearl council, one of the founding members of the
Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group and a long-time chairman of the board of
Parkdale Manor.
When
Fred got sick and he later passed away, prior to his passing he asked that his
daughter step up and fill his shoes and make sure that Parkdale Manor was looked
after, and she's done that in fine form. She's not the chair of the board. I
believe she's the treasurer currently, but she's very active in making sure that
the building is maintained. She's been able to secure some funding to get an
elevator installed and to upgrade the electrical even further, and the piping I
referred to that was problematic earlier this winter. She's one example of the
kind of dedicated volunteers that make non-profit housing work. We need more of
it.
I think
it's good that government has programs, through Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing and other government agencies, to support that. There's a great need. We
need to do even more in that area to make sure there are a variety of different
options and a variety of affordable options for people who are struggling to
find suitable housing.
I want
to thank Joyce for her efforts, and all the volunteers and community supporters
who rallied to help when Parkdale Manor was in crisis earlier this year. I had a
chance to visit this weekend, as I said, tour the facility to see the results of
the renovations and improvements.
The
apartments that were full of water and not in very good shape when I saw them
last are now in top shape. They look like new. The seniors living there are
quite pleased with the results. While upcoming renovations and improvements will
cause a little bit of further disruption, they're quite happy with how things
have turned out over the last few months.
I will
now shift. Now that I've talked about a couple of things going on in my District
of Mount Pearl North, I'd like to shift and talk a little bit more about budget.
I've had a chance to take part in this budget debate I want to say half a
dozen times. It's probably not a half dozen yet, but it will be before it's all
over. At every opportunity I've wanted to get up and talk about some of the
issues in this budget and how they affect people.
We
received some criticism from the government for making reference to last year's
budget, but, Madam Speaker, I would argue that they're very much one and the
same. There are some things that are slightly different. The communications and
messaging around this year's budget was given a lot more careful thought after
the disastrous performance last year, but the disastrous decisions that impact
people's lives, that impact families, that impacted seniors last year are
virtually all in place once again this year. So I do want to spend some time
talking a little bit about that and the impact of this year's budget on people,
on our families, on our communities as well.
We heard
the Premier making some comments in Question Period about oil and the impact of
oil on our economy. The improved deficit position that we see this year, which
is one of the differences from last year, is actually a direct result of
increased oil revenue and oil production, about $400 million.
While I
would have thought that this government would be eager to tackle spending and to
deal with some of the challenges we face to get us to a more sustainable
position fiscally in light of the current unique circumstances we find ourselves
in, instead we haven't seen any real effort to address the spending issue. We've
got a government that has spoken very negatively about oil but is very quick to
take credit for improving the deficit this year, which is simply a result of
increased oil revenue and production.
Time
after time the Liberals have spoken. Even today in Question Period the Premier
talked about not relying on oil but once again, their actions say differently.
They're leaning heavily on oil revenue to balance the books. We are very
dependent on oil revenue. It would be great and we need to continue to work to
get to a point where we are less dependent on oil revenue, but we are in the oil
business. It does contribute greatly to our economy and we need to manage that
well.
Other
revenue the Liberals have generated was a result of increased taxes that were
introduced in last year's budget. Personal income tax I believe this year, the
increases will have an impact of $182 million; corporate income tax, another $37
million. So the Liberals have downloaded the fiscal burden directly on people.
This hasn't changed. That was the case in
Budget 2016, that's the case in
Budget 2017. In fact, other than
bringing a huge cloud of darkness over the province, as I alluded to earlier,
we've seen very little progress since the Liberals have formed government.
The
budget we saw last year hit every person. The budget we saw last year and again
this year hit every family, every business in the province, over 300 taxes and
fees that were new. In Budget 2017, we
only saw a partial reduction in one of these taxes. Every family pays more to
live and work in this province because of the higher taxes and fees that the
Liberals have introduced.
It was
just this weekend I talked to yet another young family. Two professionals, both
with university education, both with good jobs in this region contributing to
our economy who are in the process of seeking work in another Atlantic province
because they no longer feel there are good opportunities for them here to
continue to grow their family and to lay down roots and to build a future here
in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm hearing that sentiment more and more.
After
all the work that was done to encourage people to choose to live here, to stay
here, to come here, to invest here, to build a career here, to build a future
here, it's really disheartening what we've seen on the part of government over
the last 18 months.
People
are still paying the price for the Liberal's last budget. We see increases to
personal income tax; increases to corporate tax; increases to the HST, which
they promised they wouldn't increase; increases to retail sales tax; tobacco
tax, if unfortunately you're a smoker; increases in the insurance tax, which we
talked about in Question Period today as well; and, of course, the famous
Liberal levy.
For many
of us, those hits some of us are faced by all of those hits, and that's had a
drastic impact on people's household income. That's had a dramatic impact
negatively on people's ability to live here successfully and work here
successfully.
The
Liberals say no new taxes this year, when in fact increased taxes and fees from
last year are still in place. Almost all of them, with the exception of one, the
gas tax which has been reduced partially. The fact is that people in this
economy, and the economy itself, are struggling. The Liberal budget has done
nothing to take off some of that pressure; 299 fees and taxes remain in place,
new ones on top of the pre-existing ones.
Liberals
asked taxpayers to dig deep into their pockets last year and there's been no
change this year. In fact, the full effect of some of those hits from last year
is now being fully felt in 2017.
The
government in its Throne Speech and in its budget likes to talk about difficult
choices; but, unfortunately, this is not a government that's made any. The
people have had to make difficult choices but the government has not. If you
look at the decisions and actions over the last 18 months, we have a government
that can't be trusted. That's a really unfortunate circumstance for people of
this province to find themselves in.
I think
we need this government to somehow realize that taking money out of people's
pockets won't drive the economy; it won't contribute to economic growth. In
fact, we now have an economy, the only economy in the country that's in a
recession, and that was avoidable. There is a better way for government to
govern and provide the leadership that's needed to spark economic growth.
One of
the big concerns I continue to have with this budget, even having listened to
hours of budget debate and followed media stories and listened to ministers
promote their budget and others deliver speeches with the key messaging about
the budget, there are just so many things that are not known yet. There are so
little details contained in the budget documents that it causes us to question:
What are they not telling us?
We've
raised lots of questions, but we continue to struggle to get some of the answers
that we need to be able to know fully what the impact of this budget is going to
be on people of the province.
Just to
give you a couple of examples to illustrate that, Madam Speaker. The budget this
year talks about $283 million in savings but can't provide the details of where
the cuts are coming. Some of them we've already seen, but there clearly has to
be more to come based on those numbers. They identify the $73 million will be
coming out of agencies and boards and commissions, entities attached to
government outside of the line department, but won't provide the details on
that.
The
Minister of Finance on Budget Day stated that they're looking for efficiencies
but was unclear about what that might mean. So we do have reason to be
concerned. It's great that there are going to be some savings, but we need to
see the details on where those savings will come from. Where are the increased
revenues coming from on top of all the increased taxation we saw last year that
continues this year? Where are those efficiencies going to come from?
Unfortunately, the government is unprepared to give us any answers.
On
further reductions, the Minister of Finance essentially said: When we make those
decisions, we'll let people know. A few weeks ago, right after budget, prior to
the Estimates meetings, the minister said just ask your questions in Estimates,
which is insulting, I think, to any Member of the House of Assembly and to the
people of the province.
Well,
we've been through all those Estimates meetings and we still have lots of
unanswered questions. There were some ministers, I will acknowledge, who were at
least willing to answer questions and provide some clarity on their departmental
budgets, but there were others who were evasive and arrogant and dismissive and
condescending, which is tone that we see more and more from this current
administration.
So we
have a lot of reason to be concerned. There's a lot of uncertainty around what's
coming next. We haven't seen the stronger tomorrow or the way forward that the
Premier and the Liberal government keep promising. Trust in this current Premier
and this current government has long been broken. While people are looking for
hope and confidence and a clear plan and a leader they can trust, the Liberals
continue to come up empty time and time again.
Where is
the focus on people? I don't believe people will forget some of the promises
that have been made just 18 or 19 months ago; promises of no layoffs; promises
of no HST increase; promises to be more open and transparent than ever before;
promises that their captains of industry will deliver a LEAP plan; all of which
proved to not be true.
The Way Forward
is actually moving us backward; it's taking the province in the wrong direction.
I recall some of the newspaper headlines in the week around the budget. One was
Throne Speech looks backward, not forward; one talks about job cuts in health
care; one talks about celebrating the small successes in coming out of
The Way Forward document illustrating
that it was nothing more than a feeble attempt at a PR exercise. People deserve
better than all of that.
The Way Forward
that the Liberals describe is taking us in the wrong direction. The Liberals
have chosen to smother business and erode business confidence and make it more
difficult for the economy to thrive. The Liberal government's mandate is to
strengthen the province, not to devastate it and we're seeing the effects as
being very devastating on our province.
It's
time to give people some comfort, some relief and some truth. Give people the
details to support the decisions that have been made in the budget and give us
the full story on this year's budget that we're presently debating in the House
of Assembly.
People
deserve better. We're confident there's a better way. Like many people in the
province, we don't have confidence in the leadership of this government. We have
many unanswered concerns and questions about this budget and we will continue to
ask them, we will continue to raise them as long as time permits in this House
during the budget debate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I had
several pages of prepared notes here about the good things and investment coming
out of Budget 2017, but it's always
entertaining to follow the Member for Mount Pearl North who raises a different
view of the world from that you see on this side. I understand that. That is the
role of Opposition. I have to say one of the things that the Opposition and the
Third Party have managed to do is manufacturer doom and gloom where maybe less
actually existed if you look at the reality.
It's
interesting to study people's speaking styles. I notice we started off with,
what was called in my day, damning by faint praise; a little bit of a
congratulations or a half-hearted compliment to kind of throw you off and, as
you say, suck you in. It's interesting as the thrust of the last 20 minutes
developed, when you realize that there are all sorts of logical inconsistencies
in the world view that was put forward from the opposite benches.
It's
interesting that, on the one hand, we've just come through an Estimates process
which, for some of us, lasted well in excess of the three hours and others ended
fairly promptly on time. I think it would be fair to say that from my personal
view of Estimates, there wasn't really any question on numbers that was left
unanswered.
So when
the Member opposite says we can't find it, maybe you either didn't ask the right
questions or didn't understand the answers you were given. Quite honestly, I
think there are some concept issues that need to be fleshed out. The longest one
that we had in Estimates for Health and Community Services lay around the
concept of zero-based budgeting.
The idea
that you start with a blank sheet and say what is the core purpose of this
person, this department; how much does that cost to provide. I think we went
into some significant detail. We talked of 55 landlines that are gone, 30-odd
Blackberries that weren't needed and voicemails that had been removed from the
system.
I think
it was at that point that there was a glazed look from the opposite side of the
House because the concept didn't register. They could not understand the fact
that we didn't go and say, well, everybody in the department has to have a
Blackberry because they're a government employee. We said: What does your job
entail? Does somebody need to call you or email you at 7 at night or 3 on a
Sunday morning? If the answer is no, why have you got a Blackberry? We
repatriated over 30
AN HON. MEMBER:
How many?
MR. HAGGIE:
Thirty, and that's anywhere
from $35 to $50 a month.
Same
with landlines; we discovered we had a whole host of landlines nobody ever
called. They were never used for outgoing calls, so 50 of them went. This
concept didn't seem to register. I think, quite frankly, we're accused of
arrogance, but because the Opposition, when they were in government, couldn't
register the idea, couldn't get it to work, it could not be done. They couldn't
do it; nobody else could do it. The fact of the case is that we've done it. We
have done it.
Again,
it's the difference between ideas, plans and some action. We've heard that
consistently from the folk on the opposite side. The PC Opposition claims credit
for an idea that this side of the House has actually got off its bums and
implemented, and somehow that's our fault, not theirs.
Again,
their sort of diversity of views there is talk about spending cuts and, on the
one hand, the Member opposite argues there are no cuts and, on the other hand,
he says that simply maintaining existing expenditure in Health is a 5 per cent
or a 6 per cent cut, which depends on which way the wind blows and how his math
works. I don't understand it, and he's never been able to explain it.
Again, I
go back to the fact that we had three hours sitting in this House where
questions around numbers, questions around dollars were asked and answered. If
the information wasn't readily available, which is really unusual for my staff
because I have to say, they are extremely well prepared and know their stuff.
There was no question that that information was then going to be presented to
people. The facts of the case are it doesn't fit their narrative, so you don't
hear about it. It doesn't fit their world view.
Again, I
refer to taxes. On the one hand the Member opposite says this government has
made no hard choices, yet on the other hand we've put taxes there. There are 200
or 300, or whatever the number of the day happens to be, and somehow this is
reflective of us not having a plan or knowing what we're doing.
We made
some very difficult choices in budget '16. We didn't like them; nobody liked
them. You go back to that day and recall how that budget was received by this
side of the House. It was a solemn occasion, but the fact is, we were in a very
sick financial situation and, unfortunately, we needed some fairly nasty tasting
medicine. A bit like that cough medicine: It tastes awful but it works. It has
worked from $2.78 billion our Buckley's has you down to less than $800
million. We set $800 million as a target, we delivered less than that. Those are
the results of responsible, difficult decisions.
That
deals with some of the issues, to some extent that the Member opposite raised.
Again, just to flick to this budget, which is what we're supposed to be talking
about today, we were constrained. Unfortunately, again, they don't want to hear
it, but we were constrained by circumstance whereby we had a huge financial
hole.
I've
said it in this House before and I'll say it again. The level of personal debt
that that government, that PC Opposition when in government, had incurred was
well in excess of $27,000 for every man, woman and child in this province.
That's just to keep the lights on.
By
comparison, Venezuela, with a personal per capita debt of $23,000, and Puerto
Rico with $21,000, have essentially declared bankruptcy. Nothing happens for 12
hours in Venezuela. The lights go off. The patients are left in a hospital bed
with no treatment. Everybody goes home. That's the situation there.
By some
responsible, hard decisions, we have remedied the situation. We've plugged the
hemorrhage, we've stopped the leak. What the folk on the other side refuse to
grasp, arcane as it may sound, is the only way we were able to keep going was to
stabilize with borrowing. The only way we were able to borrow at a rate that we
could afford was actually to show an implementation, a plan that was going to
stabilize the fiscal situation. Facts of the case are that has happened. We've
moved through a year. We have reduced our borrowing requirement for next year
significantly, and we got through it with minimal fuss from the bond-rating
agencies. We don't need to get into the detail.
The
problem with going into the detail is you lose most people, because I didn't
understand the financial situation where governments have to borrow money. But
our math seems to be holding up compared with some of the fictitious numbers
that we've seen generated in previous budgets, 2015 and 2013, about funds that
don't materialize, about money that's written on a piece of paper, about
costings for hospitals which were written on the back of an envelope and then
turned out to be a factor of eight or nine below what any reasonable
construction company would suggest.
I think
really you have to take into account the fact that our manoeuvers over the last
two budgets have been severely, severely constrained but there's been a huge sea
change between budget '16 and budget '17.
The
Members opposite argue that it's steady as she goes and same as. To an extent it
is steady as she goes. We made some difficult decisions. We need to reap the
benefits of those. It's pain now maybe, but the gain will be colossal because my
grandson will not have to pay the debt they generated. That's important.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER:
Except for Muskrat Falls.
MR. HAGGIE:
Well, there's another problem, and we will deal with it because we have an
approach and we're already taking steps, not just to deal with the current
situation but to mitigate problems that anybody with half a brain can see coming
down the road, rather than sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will all
blow over by the time you're voted out of office, which is what happened for the
last five years prior to 2015.
Some
features from the budget, and I'm going to speak from a health perspective. I
always find it a challenge when I do get an opportunity to speak in the House
with some leeway because I do feel sometimes that my portfolio being the way it
is doesn't leave me an awful lot of scope to plug my own district.
So
before I go on to talk about some of the good things that are coming through the
Health and Community Services budget for this year, I'd just like to take a
moment to highlight some of the things that this government is doing for my own
district. It's a different kind of district. You can drive from one side of it
to the other in just about an hour. It's five communities; it's linked by the
Trans-Canada Highway to all except Benton which is a kilometre or so off. It's a
different kind of environment. It encompasses traditional forestry and
non-traditional aviation.
AN HON. MEMBER:
A great mayor.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yes, a great mayor. Not quite
the longest serving, I gather. That, I think, goes to Crow Head. Somebody
corrected me, who's been there for over 50 years or something. Yeah, I don't
think Claude could quite compete with that.
It's a
non-traditional base. It is a military base. It's the largest Canadian Rangers
group in the country. It has the longest airport in Atlantic Canada and if you
look at the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation's plan within
the framework of The Way Forward, this
is destined to be promoted as a centre for excellence for aerospace and for
aviation, building on some excellent threads with the College of the North
Atlantic and its aviation mechanical engineer program, and the entrepreneurs we
have within and around the airport itself.
We have
a business there that has generated significant interest from Air Canada and is
now the Canadian place for Air Canada to have its Pratt & Whitney turboprop
engine serviced across the country. It's also doing all the major teardown and
maintenance for Air Georgian. These are little stories that are generated by a
few people with co-operation from the community, and I don't get an opportunity
really to sing their praises or to highlight those as often.
The big
thing that has actually put Gander more on the map in the consciousness at the
moment of course is the success of Come
From Away. I see that the town has actually got a
Come From Away tourism lady now who is going to start doing
tours around Gander and the local neighbourhood culminating with a free
after-dinner speech from Mayor Elliott as far as I can recall.
It always is a challenge to highlight some of the good
things, there's the birch sap entrepreneur up at Home Pond, and there are all
sorts of other bits and pieces. I wouldn't like people to go away thinking that
I've not been actively involved in a lot of that. Really, I have to say, there's
so much energy in my district in terms of trying to create these opportunities
that it's actually difficult to cram it into a short period of time and cover
all the other things because I think there is a certain set of misinformation that I rarely, as a
minister, have to correct again, building on some of the selective
interpretation of Estimates and budget that I've heard manifest even as recently
as this afternoon.
Health
and Community Services has a huge infrastructure deficit going back over years.
Successive generations of governments have ignored all but critical maintenance.
We're able to allocate $43 million this year for critical projects, but that
again is not where, ideally, I would like to be. But I go back to the fact that
we're constrained because of the abysmal fiscal hole that the PC Opposition dug
us into over the last 12 years. Ironically, at a time when we had the greatest
revenues from oil again, a fact that they seem to omit when they talk about
it.
We have
allocated money both for the new hospital in Corner Brook another promise that
was long neglected for seven years and also for Corner Brook long-term care. I
mention those two together because the route that is gone with that, with a
partnership with consortia actually has a whole series of benefits that relate
to my comment about infrastructure, if nothing else. Contrary to misinformation
put out by the Opposition and the Third Party, when the Department of Health,
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, receives the keys to those
buildings, they will own them, from the get-go.
At the
end of the 30 years, which is the length of this arrangement, that building will
be up to code and, effectively, functionally brand new. So for 30 years built in
to this cost, we actually do not have to worry about major repairs and
renovations. We have guarantees and we have a budget built into it which is
fiscally prudent and sensible.
We are
now in a transition period. We have allocated more money this year, $4.6
million, to look at long-term care for Central. That is the next pressure point.
It's an area where we have longer wait times than anyone would like, and it's an
area that has not kept up with attention, shall we say, in terms of long-term
care. And that will be remedied. It will meet the needs of the Central Region.
I think
once we've done our due diligence and received the advice from experts we will
have a plan to bring back to the people of the province in the near future,
which will address the practicalities, and also the distribution of beds.
Because one of the challenges Central Health has is that outside of the Big
Land, it is actually physically, the biggest geographical area for an RHA. It
runs all the way from Fogo Island to Sagona Island, and from scenic Green Bay
all the way out to essentially the borders of Terra Nova and Clarenville.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Not as big as Labrador.
MR. HAGGIE:
It is not as big as Labrador,
and I will not argue that at all. However, for us, it has a problem with
long-term care and Labrador has had some of that managed to a point.
Outside
of Health, again just circling around, we have been able to leverage federal
funds for a project in Gander which is the much-needed Magee waste water sewage
plant. I was going to say it had become a sore point, but maybe a smelly point
is probably the more accurate descriptor of it, particularly if the wind is
blowing in a certain direction on a hot, humid day.
The fact
is the town has outgrown the capacity of the plant. Whilst the town has done
sterling work to remediate that, which basically consists of sucking the top of
the tanks and dumping it somewhere, that will not last forever. We have, again,
managed to leverage federal funds something the previous crowd seemed to
regard as beneath them and the town will chip in north of $11 million and so
will the province, but with the federal government producing the lion's share to
enable that to continue. Because of the geography in Gander, it's the only way
that development can expand in the town, and that town has grown significantly
according to the recent census.
Moving
away a little bit from infrastructure to talk about program and services, I
think I just got time really to highlight the next investment in those things
that we see coming, and that will be the implementation plan from the All-Party
Committee on Mental Health.
The
recommendation from the Committee was a plan by the end of June. That
recommendation will be met. Government, in this year's budget, has actually set
aside a sum of money, $5 million, for that to be implemented. In addition, we
have some unconditional money from the federal government, just for this year,
which will amount to about a third of their annual mental health money. We have
yet to complete and finalize our agreement with the federal government on how
the rest of it will be spent over the subsequent 9½ years, and that's $2.7
million.
It will
be enough to start and enough to begin to implement. It will not fix mental
health and mental health and addictions. Another of the recommendations is to
shift the funding in health around to make sure mental health gets its fair
share in line with other jurisdictions.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, as my time draws to a close, I would just like to cycle right back
to the beginning and say that really it is disingenuous seems to be the word
for this session of the Opposition to fear monger and make hay out of
information they either refuse to understand or misrepresent in ways that serves
their purpose. I would commend this budget and I will be voting for it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
quite pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to our final Concurrence debate,
the Concurrence of the general government sector and legislative branch. I was
pleased once again to be on that Committee and take part in the various
Estimates discussions that we had with the various departments. We still have a
few left that would be happening in Committee of the Whole, but for the most
part we have covered the general government sector.
I'm
happy to stand again to speak to the doubled-faced budget that we have, a budget
that in the Budget Speech was one thing, but in the reality when you dig down
and look at all of the things that are in the budget and things that remain from
2016 is another reality.
We
actually have a two-faced budget, so I find it rather interesting to hear the
Minister of Health and Community Services talk about people on this side of the
House being disingenuous. If anybody is being disingenuous, it's the government
side of the House, Mr. Speaker, certainly, in the way in which the Minister of
Finance presented in her Budget Speech something that was completely unrelated
to the reality of what we're dealing with. If you want disingenuous, Mr.
Speaker, that's disingenuous.
In her
speech, one of the things the Minister of Finance said was that government was
taking an evidence-based approach to managing the province's finances, the
implication being that anything they were doing in the budget was going to be
evidence-based. That became sort of the buzzword for the budget, the buzzword
that government was using.
Now, I
notice they're not using it quite as much lately, but it's still there. It's
still coming out. What we don't hear from them is: What was the evidence for the
decisions that they made that are affecting the lives of people in this
province? What was the evidence in 2016 for all the cuts that were made by this
government, cuts that have continued?
We
cannot talk about 2017 budget without referring to 2016 budget, because
basically 2017 maintained that terrible budget of 2016. The government says they
found it so hard to bring that budget forward. They knew that people would find
it hard and they weren't happy about doing it, but they kept it. So if they were
so unhappy about what they did in 2016, why didn't they come up with a plan for
2017 that would try to undo some of the damage that they did.
When we
talk about evidence-based, I want us to look, Mr. Speaker, at some of the cuts
that did take place in the 2016 budget and look at where was the evidence for
what government was talking about. Where's the evidence that things they did in
2016 were good things to do. Where was the evidence that these were right things
to do? This is what I want to ask this government.
I'm
looking at some of the cuts that took place under departments that were related
to the general government sector. Under Finance, for example, because the
Department of Finance comes under this, one of the things they did in 2016 was
to eliminate the Home Heating Rebate Program. Mr. Speaker, there was all kinds
of evidence that was a really popular program because there were so many
applications for it that partway through the year, every year, all of the money
was used up. People really needed this program. People really used this program.
I would
like to know: What was the evidence that said to this government that nobody was
going to be hurt by cutting the Home Heating Rebate Program? What was the
evidence to say to them this was an all right thing to do? If they were going to
be so evidence-based, show us the analysis that showed people weren't going to
get hurt by this, or is it they don't care that people are being hurt? That's
what one has to conclude, because no matter what they hear, no matter what they
hear from us here in this House, no matter what they hear from the public, they
justify all of it and call us disingenuous for speaking to these issues and
bringing them forward.
Let's
look at something like the Parental Benefits program, Mr. Speaker. A program
that was brought in before this government, but in last year's budget the
Progressive Family Growth Program and the Parental Support Benefit were the two
things that together were known as the Parental Benefits program. Effective
April 15 last year, they were eliminated.
Now, the
government might say although they haven't said anything, so we don't know.
They might say these programs really weren't effective and that the goal of one
of those programs, one in particular, the $1,000 that was being given to people
when a couple became pregnant, or an individual became pregnant, that really
wasn't effective in helping our population grow. Surely, once this program was
brought in, we needed to look at more than, is it helping the population grow?
Did we have it in place for a long enough period to make the decision whether or
not its goal was being met?
What was
really difficult last year was they made this announcement in the budget, it was
going to be effective April 15, and no evidence, that I could tell, that this
was going to be done without hurting people and really causing grief for people.
Now, they did make a decision that eligible births and placements for adoption
that took place on or before April 14 would remain eligible for both benefits in
full. That was something. They gave a deadline for an application for people
whose babies were born or adopted before April 14, 2016. However, they didn't
look at what the impact of the loss of $2,200 in that first year of having a new
child, what the impact was going to be.
When
this came out last year, we had many calls in our office. We had many calls from
people who were really, badly impacted because they had made plans based on this
$2,200, but did that matter to this government? No, it did not matter at all.
These people were doing long-term planning based on those benefits being in
place.
Maybe to
people on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, $1,000 doesn't mean
anything. Maybe $100 a month doesn't mean anything, but I'm telling you that
$2,200 meant a lot to people; $2,200 to the average person is a lot of money.
When you
were talking about couples who were looking at having a second or third child
because this was there for the first year to help out, during that period of
time as well when one of the parents initially, especially with the birth, the
mother staying home and then after that perhaps the other parent staying home as
well that having that $2,200 in the first year is a lot of money. Maybe to the
people on the other side of the House, they've forgotten what that is. They've
forgotten what the worth of $2,200 is for the average family out there. Maybe
they've forgotten, I don't know. All they could talk about was how much money
they were saving.
Apparently, $10.4 million was going to be saved annually because of dropping the
parental benefits. What was the reason they gave, Mr. Speaker? Looking for
evidence-based, what was the reason they gave? This program is not offered in
other provinces. Nothing about what is the difference in this province. What is
the socio-economic reality in this province? What do these parental benefits
mean for people in this province? It was just: oh, it's not offered anywhere
else, therefore we're dropping it.
Wow,
that's tremendous evidence, Mr. Speaker. That's real evidence-based decision
making, I have to say. Nothing about finding out how it helped people, nothing
about interviewing families who had received a parental benefit, nothing about
looking at long term was this going to be effective down the road.
What
would it mean to a family, what would it mean to the development of a child,
even, for the family to have that $2,200 in the beginning none of that, Mr.
Speaker. No, it wasn't happening anywhere else, therefore we're just going to
drop it. I love that kind of decision making, to put it facetiously. What kind
of decision making is that? And don't tell me it's evidence-based because it's
not evidence-based.
Let's
look at another thing that has just happened, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with
family daycare and the money that was there for program start-up grants for
people who were going to have family daycares in their homes. It was going to be
$5,000 for regular family daycares and $7,500 for infant only. They dropped the
program. They dropped it without any analysis, or if they did one, they
certainly haven't made it public. They dropped it without looking at what the
impact was going to be on daycare needs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in
particular, because that's where daycare centres in homes are more common rather
than in the urban centres. No analysis of any of that. They seem to think, oh,
it didn't matter to anybody.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we've learned that there were close to 10 people in numerous
locations around the province who had filled out the initial application and
were in the process of meeting the requirements, getting a home visit, doing
home renovations, buying equipment and arranging municipal and provincial
inspections.
Ten
that means 10 centres; if you have four children in each centre around the
province, that's an impact in the province with our small population. So all of
a sudden, here they were, they had begun the process. They had filled out the
initial application. Some of them were different stages along in the process and
they find out that they were no longer eligible for the start-up grants.
Did they
realize, Mr. Speaker, the impact of that, the hardship, the money that had
already gone out of some people's pockets, expecting that they were going to get
some start-up money? I can't get over the callousness of it, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, talk about disingenuous, talk about caring about child care and then
pulling this kind of a stunt. If you want disingenuous, that's disingenuous.
Some of these people who were facing costly renovations to bring their home up
to the provincial standards for the family daycare homes will most likely pull
out. Some might be able to keep pushing through and make it happen, but we're
hearing that they all will not be able to and it's creating a real barrier. So
then what happens is it's also going to stop new people from looking at the
possibility of doing this. So what's the impact on child care especially, as I
said, in rural Newfoundland?
Now, the
department has decided to keep the monthly infant stimulus grant for family
daycare providers, but it's only in the homes that provide for infants only. If
you have a mix, if you have some who are infants and some who are a bit older,
then that home will not be able to make an application.
Mr.
Speaker, what sense does that make? What sense does any of this make, Mr.
Speaker?
MR. KENT:
None.
MS. MICHAEL:
None thank you very much, I
say to the Member for Mount Pearl North no sense whatsoever.
Where's
the evidence? There is no evidence or if there is, they would have shown it to
us. If there is evidence, they would have shown us to us. All they did, Mr.
Speaker, was put cutting programs so that they could save money ahead of the
good of the people of the province, without looking at the impact on the people
of the province.
I think
doing an economic analysis that was very, very short-minded, especially when it
comes this second one well both of them, the parental benefits and the family
daycare. When it comes to both of these, what about the long-term impact with
regard to population growth? What about the long-term impact economically of
parents who would have been depending on having more daycare in their area?
Maybe a mother who was going to be able to go back to work, and now saying we
don't have enough spaces. So no evidence base, Mr. Speaker. It's very, very
disturbing.
Let's
look at some of the other things that was in this budget and again, decisions
made with no evidence base. I'm going to speak now to something that my
colleague for St. John's Centre has been touching on in petitions, because she
has many petitions with regard to the tax on books. Again, they eliminated the
HST point-of-sale rebate on books; they imposed a provincial book tax. What was
the evidence that said that was a logical thing to do? I really would like to
know where the evidence is for that.
There
are many aspects of this one could look at. There's the whole aspect of the fact
that we have a literacy problem in this province. There's the fact that we have
low-income people who really cannot afford to buy books, and if they can manage
to get some, having an extra tax is now going to stop them from doing it. But
let's look at the impact on our post-secondary students. Let's look at the
impact on our students at Memorial University.
I've
spoken to students who this year alone, in the fall, paid $400 and $500 tax
$400 and $500 tax, Mr. Speaker. We know that we have such an impact on students
right now at MUN because of this government's budget, because of the
disingenuous way in which they took more money away from MUN in the budget than
had been expected, that there was a plan in place between Memorial University
and this government, an attrition plan that had been agreed to, and the
university had done its planning based on that, and then this government reduced
more than had been expected.
Talk
about disingenuous. So now we see the students in our province, and we see
international students and students coming from outside of our province, but
especially the students in our province having to wear the decisions of this
government on their backs, having to bear the extra burden because while the
tuition is not going up, they have an extra levy. Maybe that's what this
government wanted. They love the word levy. They still have the levy. That
still exists. They made a slight change to it. They think people are forgetting
this. Mr. Speaker, that levy is still in place and people really are not able to
bear it. We have people who the impact of taxes and the impact of extra fees is
still being felt. What did we have happening here today in this building, with
tax drivers meeting with the Minister of Service NL because they can't bear the
burden of extra taxes?
Of
course insurance got taxed. Everything got taxed. So talk about disingenuous,
Mr. Speaker, I just love the government using
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
that phrase.
Let's
think about some other things, Mr. Speaker. I just want to get my thoughts
together; I'm missing a sheet, I think. Yes, here we go. Let's talk about Health
and Community Services, let's talk about that because while it happens under the
ministry, it happens because of the pressures from the Department of Finance and
from the Minister of Finance with regard to this budget.
What was
the evidence that removing drug coverage for over-the-counter drugs wasn't going
to hurt the health of the people in this province? What kind of analysis did
they do that would have shown them, as anybody who knows anything about health
care could have told them, that would have shown them this kind of action can
affect the health of people who need those drugs?
If their
health is affected, guess what's going to happen? More of them are going to be
getting sick down the road. So, Mr. Speaker, what kind of evidence-based
analysis went into that decision? What kind of evidence-based analysis went into
imposing the diabetic test strip limits below the standard in most provinces for
type two diabetics who are not on insulin? If they really want evidence, the
evidence says we're going to have greater health care costs because of that. The
evidence says we're going to have greater health care costs because of removing
the drug coverage for over-the-counter drugs. That's what the evidence says, Mr.
Speaker.
What
about the evidence with regard to what they did to the Adult Dental Program? The
evidence is sicker people
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
and greater costs for
health care.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. Member that
her speaking time has expired.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly glad to have another opportunity to speak to the budget. Mr. Speaker,
a couple of things beforehand. First of all, I just want to say there was a
petition earlier today brought forward by my colleague, the Member for Mount
Pearl North, on recall legislation. Just for the record, I want to say I do
support what he's saying there and I really think we should be moving forward
with that.
The
second point, Mr. Speaker, I want to address an issue that came up today. I want
to commend the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, I think is the
department, today for that announcement on job coaches for supportive
employment. It's something that's long overdue, certainly in our area of Visions
Employment.
I've had
conversations I know my colleague for Mount Pearl North has as well about
the concerns around the low wages for job coaches and the difficulty in
recruiting and retaining job coaches. This is going to go a long way, I believe,
in helping with that and in providing meaningful employment opportunity for
persons with intellectual disabilities in, not just my community but certainly
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Minister, good job on that; I'm glad to
see you're listening on that issue and I support that announcement.
Sticking
to Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, I just want to throw a few things out
here just for the record, I guess. On the CNA issue, I would just say that I
agree with the position that's been taken. If we have courses or programs and so
on and we have low or zero enrollment; it makes no sense to continue on. Nobody
wants to see any programs cut or courses cut, I'm sure, but we simply cannot
afford, as a province, to be offering courses for one or two people. So, again,
I would concur with the decision by the Minister of Advanced Education.
The last
point I'll make in that department in terms of MUN. While it's unfortunate we've
seen such a public spat, if you will, back and forth with Memorial University,
again, I would have to concur that Memorial University is receiving significant
subsidy from the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. They should be held
accountable. There should be more openness and transparency as to where our tax
dollars are going. They should be looking from within to find savings before
they start putting it on the backs of students and so on. So I would, just for
the record, say I do agree with that.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, in terms of the budget, and I've said this before when I've spoken.
There were some good news announcements in the budget. There were some good
things there, and I will certainly acknowledge the good things that were there.
There was some money for transition houses, student assistants, child care
subsidy increases for low-income families, legal advice for victims of sexual
assault and there were some investments in mental health and so on. Those were
good things. I support those initiatives and I commend the government for
bringing those initiatives forward.
That
being said, as has been said now numerous times, the big issue is the taxation.
That is the big issue, it's all the taxation. We can't pretend that
Budget 2016 didn't happen. We wish we
could pretend it didn't happen. I'm sure there's an awful lot of people in
Newfoundland and Labrador wish that Budget
2016 actually didn't happen because they were hit very substantially by all
these increased taxes, and everybody knows that.
The
Members opposite know it. They've all gotten up themselves and said these were
difficult decisions. I know it was difficult decisions and they didn't like what
they did and what they felt they had to do. I'm sure they didn't, but the fact
of the matter is that I think where both sides of the House disagree is on the
degree to which it was done.
I don't
think anybody over here is going to be naive enough I don't think we will, I
know I'm not, I don't think any of my other colleagues are to say we would
have done nothing. We would have just said status quo, we're not going to raise
any additional revenues. Nobody in their right mind would say that, I don't
think if we're being realistic about our situation, but it was a matter of
degrees. It was a matter of how far it was taken and it was a matter of how that
impacted the everyday person.
There
are certainly some people who can absorb it more so than other people could
absorb it, and it impacted people in different ways, there's no doubt about
that. For some people who are struggling as it is to keep the lights on in their
home and to heat their home and there are people going to food banks and
everything else for those people it was devastating.
We've
seen increased food bank use. That's a fact. That's been put out there by the
Food Sharing Association and so on. They've seen increased food bank use and
that's for the people who were already on the edge, or even over the edge to
some degree, who this here just hurt them even more. We've seen no relief from
that in this budget. We also know there were people that perhaps could suck it
up, for a better term, but it's still hurting them financially.
We've
seen bankruptcies gone up in this province. We continue to hear from industry
that housing starts are down and home repairs are down and vehicle sales are
down and so on. That's because people's expendable income was taken away, much
of it. Some people, all their expendable income was taken. Other people, a large
portion of their expendable income was taken. That's only going to result in
issues in terms of businesses trying to survive. Whether it be in the
construction industry or whether it be in retail or whether it be in the service
industry and bars and restaurants and so on.
I've
talked to people who are in that industry, have told me that business has
dropped off significantly as a result of those cuts. Unfortunately, none of them
were reversed. It's fine to say there are no new taxes and fees, but if you
raised everything last year to, one could argue, an unsustainable level for many
people and then this year you did nothing to change that, then this is just a
continuation of what you've done. That's what people are upset about. That's
what I think the Official Opposition and the Third Party and I am objecting to.
That's why we can't support the budget.
That's
not to say that everything in the budget is bad because it's not. There are some
investments there in Crown lands for municipalities and Crown lands for farming.
Those are all good initiatives. Nobody is going to argue any of those things, I
don't think they are, but the fact of the matter is the core issue is the taxes.
That's the core issue.
Now that
said, again, I will commend government on taking some actions, maybe small
actions but still actions. I heard the Minister of Health and Community
Services, I think is the name, talking about the fact we had people with
Blackberries who had no reason to use Blackberries. We had land lines that
nobody used and all those types of things.
Going
through that exercise of they're referring to it as zero-based budgeting. I
think it's a good idea. I think it's a great idea. We should have been doing it
forever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Absolutely, we should have
been doing it, and it makes sense. I support it. I'm sure most Members over here
support it too. I think they do, because it only makes good common sense.
Nobody's going to argue that, I don't think.
Some of
the other things that were done, looking at the management structures and so on
and trying to find efficiencies. Nobody wanted to see anybody lose their job,
but at the end of the day, examining it and finding ways to do things in a more
efficient way, I think the general public would argue that that was something
that needed to be done as well. Even though it wasn't, obviously, for those who
were impacted not a good thing, but I don't think anyone would argue in general
that going through that exercise to streamline things and make things more
efficient is a good idea.
Now with
that said, as long as it's done properly and fairly. Now, the fact that you get
rid of somebody at a deputy minister's level or whatever, you get rid of say six
but then you sneak in three of your friends and former candidates, now that's
not good. That's not good. People do object to that. I can guarantee you, people
object to that.
I'm not
saying it's never been done. I'm not suggesting this is something new, because
we all know those types of things have gone on for years and years and years,
but the big difference is this government said we weren't going to do it. We're
taking the politics out of appointments. They weren't going to do it. They were
going to change things. So when it happened, it's disappointing. It's
disappointing, but the fact they're going through the exercise and finding
savings, that part, that's a good thing. I think, once again, people will
support it in general.
What we
have to get down to here, we have to keep thinking about the ordinary person who
has to try to work and live, pay taxes and pay their bills, and the impact the
taxation has had on them because if you think about it, it's not just this
taxation. You have to remember, people got hit with all these taxes. Now they
just got hit with 9 per cent, and that's got nothing to do with Muskrat Fall.
That's 9 per cent going on their light bill on top of that.
Plus, if
you talk to anybody I don't know if anybody has talked to constituents or
heard from constituents about insurance costs. I certainly have, not just the
taxi industry either. I'm after getting several messages from people who said
when they went to renew their insurance, and they've been driving for 30 years
and have no tickets, no accidents, whatever, yet their insurance rates went
right through the roof overnight. Nobody can seem to understand why or get an
explanation why, but it's after happening nonetheless.
On top
of all the taxes, now you have 9 per cent coming on your light bill, then you
have all these insurance increases. Insurance is going up through the roof. No
doubt, I suggest that pretty soon the banks are going to be standing in line
with their hand up looking for their turn. Just wait and see, at some point in
time they're going to start raising more cost now to use the ATM machines and
service charges and everything else because they have to get their profits too.
It's only a matter of time, their turn is coming.
We know
as the cost of everything goes up, in terms of fuel, HST and everything else,
then businesses are going to start passing that on. So the price of groceries is
going to be going up and the prices of other goods and services are going to go
up. Everything is going up except paycheques. That's the only thing that's not
going up.
If we
look at the civil service now, and they're in contract negotiations, chances are
I don't know what's happening there, but it's not looking too good for them to
get any increase. Usually then the private sector starts to follow suit as well.
They'll say: B'y, we're in tough times and whatever, so we can't afford to give
our employees a raise either.
The cost
of living is going up, the cost of goods and services are going up, the light
bill is going up, all the taxes are up, the insurance is going through the roof,
banks are standing in line, they want to get their piece of the pie: everything
is going up except the paycheques. How are people supposed to absorb it? How
they are supposed to survive? That's a legitimate question. How are people
supposed to survive? How is the average person supposed to survive? They're
finding it extremely difficult now and it's getting worse. Somehow we have to
come together and start trying to mitigate some of this stuff. We really do. We
have people going bankrupt, we have more people going to food banks and we're
getting people moving out of the province.
Sometimes you hear about people moving out of the province. You hear about that
and you say, nah, that's just people saying that, there's nobody really going to
move. I can tell you, I'm after getting a number of emails and messages from
people who are actually gone, people that are gone. They are gone to the
Mainland and other people that are packing up and leaving. They're in the
process of getting their homes up for sale and everything else; they're getting
out of here. They're getting out of Dodge. They really are.
The more
people that leave, the more our population dwindles. That's less people to pay
taxes which means now the rest of us have more to pay. It's a vicious cycle
we're in to, and we have to really start to look at ways to start mitigating
this.
Insurance would be a good start. I think I heard the Minister of Service NL talk
about they're going to be looking at the insurance system. I hope they do. I
hope to God they do. I think we need to take a serious look at the insurance
system.
I think
the former administration at one time, many years ago, talked about getting rid
of this putting a cap on soft tissue injuries and then it kind of died on the
vine. I think perhaps the legal community got all upset and started lobbying
because they wanted to be able to sue people and so on. That was good business
for them. I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but it's time to have a look
again, to start moving to a new system of insurance to try to get the rates down
because that's another big burden on the average person.
We have
to start thinking in terms of the average person and their survival. It's fine
to look at a budget, fine to look at a balance sheet, fine to look at the
lenders and those institutions and bond rating agencies, that's good. Government
has to do that, without a doubt they have to do that, but somewhere in that
balancing act they have to also look at the financial well-being of the people
of the province, the people we're supposed to all be here to serve.
Particularly the most vulnerable amongst us, like our seniors as an example. You
look at the seniors, not only are they getting hit with all these increases that
I've just talked about, but then they were hit with other things as well. They
were hit with other things.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Yes, the Member is talking
about the seniors' discount, the Enhanced Benefit. Yes, that was a good thing.
For the very lowest end of seniors, yes, they got a little increase. It wasn't a
big increase because you took away the Home Heat Rebate and you already had a
program, but it was an increase. It was a slight increase, and that's a good
thing, but it doesn't come anywhere close to making up for all of the other
things. Like home care costs and all this kind of stuff, it was something that
went up, over-the-counter drugs and stuff.
These
are things I think is important that we have to realize. These are things we
have to work to try to mitigate against, because this is having an impact on the
average, everyday person in Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly our most
vulnerable.
The last
thing I want to just talk about I've got a couple of minutes is the PPPs,
public-private partnerships, and the PPPs that are being proposed for long-term
care and the Corner Brook hospital, and possibly HMP and the Waterford and so on
at some point, if they continue to go down that road.
I'm not
against it in principle, for bricks and mortar. I don't agree with privatizing
the services, but in terms of the bricks and mortar, in principle, I'm not
against it. The only part, though, is that as it was proposed unless I'm
missing something. To my recollection, it said that you would look at the
options, you would look at the traditional option and then you would look at the
3P option. You would weigh both options, and you would go with what option made
the most sense.
That's
fine, but the part that's missing is that you said that information on those
options would be presented to the public before you made the decision, to be
able to demonstrate that this is the right option. I haven't seen that part. It
seems like the decision is made; we're going ahead with the 3P model. But the
part about presenting it to the public, demonstrating to the public this is
option A, this is option B, this is why we're doing it, here's our
justification, I haven't seen any justification to the public. And that's
something you said you were going to do that hasn't happened. So that's the
biggest problem I have.
It's
almost like we're going to take their word for it and I'm not accusing anyone
of going to do anything that they would feel is not the best decision. I'm sure
if they think it's the best decision, they're going to do it. But just because
the Minister of Health and Community Services says, b'y, we looked at Corner
Brook hospital and long-term care, and we believe, I believe that the 3P is the
way to go. That's the best option; that's better than the traditional option.
Well, no
offence to the minister or the Cabinet or the Premier or anyone else, but that's
not quite good enough, and that's not what was promised. We need justification;
show us the numbers; answer the questions as to why this is the best option. If
it is the best option and it can be demonstrated that it's the best option, for
bricks and mortar only, then I would have no problem supporting it if it could
be shown. But it's kind of hard to support it when you don't know. Just take our
word for it, that's the best option.
We know
what's happened in the past. We know what's happened with the Muskrat Falls
Project when people are saying, trust me. Take our word for it; we're the
experts. We know where that's gotten us. We've got to be able to learn from our
past, and that's a classic example of where trust us gets us. So I'd like to
see those numbers and that justification before we move forward with those
projects.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What an
honour again it is to rise in the House of Assembly on behalf of those who I
represent, have the great privilege to represent, in Placentia West Bellevue.
It's a busy time of year in my district, as many would know. If you watch the
news, and I would hope most Members do, you see that the Hebron platform is
awaiting tow out now out of Bull Arm, out of Sunnyside area. We're very proud of
all the work that is undergone there and by all the people of the province.
I was
there not long ago, myself and the Member for Terra Nova, along with the Premier
and the Minister of Natural Resources. We had a wonderful pre-tow out
celebration. That is indicative of the positive things that are happening in the
province, Mr. Speaker. As I look across the way, all I see is negativity, all I
see is mismanagement and negativity, I should say, because I'm brought to
recollections of the previous administration when so much was squandered.
In any
case, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to stand here again today. I was up for the
main motion of the budget just a few days ago last week. I only had five minutes
because of course the debate was adjourning. Not to repeat myself but I just
have to emphasize the points that I was making and I didn't have time to finish
on.
I was
talking about the ferries, Mr. Speaker. We know that my district has such a rich
history of ship building. I heard the Member for Conception Bay East Bell
Island last week bragging about the ferries and defending the fact that they
were shipped off to Romania. I just have to reiterate again, because I didn't
have time to finish what I wanted to say last week, I think it's an absolute
shame that Marystown was not even given the opportunity to compete and have an
opportunity to build these ferries.
We saw
the exorbitant costs associated with the
MV Veteran and the MV Legionnaire,
otherwise known as MV lemons because they're both lemons. We know now that we
spent all this money going over to Romania to build these ferries that could
have been done in Marystown, that could have been rendering benefits to the
province and the local economy, jobs on the Burin Peninsula.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Harbour Grace.
MR. BROWNE:
They wouldn't have been done
in Harbour Grace, I say to the Member, but you could have had some ancillary
work associated with it. That's part of the package, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave is so right. Because when you have a
major project in one area, there is spinoff. You take Hebron, which I just
mentioned; the drilling support module was built in Marystown. The flare boom
was built in Port aux Basques. The helipad was built in Bay Bulls. You see all
these pieces coming together. That is the benefit, Mr. Speaker, in building
local and ensuring that our local Newfoundlander and Labradorians have jobs.
It was
clear from the start that there was no game plan to involve Marystown in the
discussions. We see this with the joint supply ships with the Navy. The former
administration completely walked away from the table, Mr. Speaker; didn't want
to engage the Harper government who they cozied up to
MS. HALEY:
Did not know how.
MR. BROWNE:
Because they didn't know how.
They were stuck on the corner of Wellington Street, Mr. Speaker, I say
MS. HALEY:
Perished.
MR. BROWNE:
Perished in the cold. That is
unfortunately the strategy that was in employed.
To go
back to the ferries, Mr. Speaker, we have the
MV Veteran. We have the
MV Legionnaire. The
Legionnaire is tied up in
Lewisporte, as I alluded to last week
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) spare parts.
MR. BROWNE:
Spare parts for the Veteran, Mr.
Speaker spare parts for the Veteran.
And how shocking is that.
We have the former minister over there sat today and his
former executive assistant sat as an MHA today, they took a big trip to Romania,
$10,153.40, to negotiate terms with Damen about the servicing of the ferries.
Not to belabor my point, Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point but if that was
the intent of the trip, to negotiate the servicing of the ferries, then why are
they sending pickup trucks down to Lewisporte today to get panels out of the
Legionnaire to bring up to Farewell to
put in the Veteran. Mr. Speaker; I
have to ask these questions.
I also have to touch on the tariff again, not to belabor
the points that I made last week, but to reiterate because they're important.
The poor planning that went in to those ferries there was a $25 million tariff
that was expected to be paid. We heard many defences from the previous
administration saying that because there was a sunken ferry out in British
Columbia that that would be forgiven. Well, I will just reiterate to the House
that without Judy Foote and our federal colleagues in Ottawa, we'd be facing a
$25 million bill.
Now, imagine if the previous administration
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
had known, Mr. Speaker, that there would be an extra $25 million on to the price
tag, why not just add the $25 million on to it and build it in Marystown, create
local employment and spin-off benefits? No, there was no planning went into
this. As someone who lives in Marystown, represents Marystown, I find it a very
unfortunate train of history that comes from the previous administration on this
file.
It's just one more piece of the revisionist history that we
see coming from the party over there these days. I also want to make mention of
something that you'll often hear me talk about here in the House of Assembly,
Mr. Speaker, but we never want the other side to hear talk about this.
It's called Humber Valley Paving.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What is it?
MR. BROWNE:
Humber Valley Paving.
It was a
$19 million contract for the Trans-Labrador Highway and it was cancelled. March
31, 2012, the tender call for the project was made and by March 21, 2014, there
was an offer to cancel the contract, Mr. Speaker. It's an amazing turn of
events. It was a $19 million contract.
This is
a copy of the Auditor General's report into this, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to
the inquiry that is put into Humber Valley Paving because the taxpayers of this
province were absolutely fleeced by this, Mr. Speaker.
On March
13, 2014, it was a monumental day in the history of the Humber Valley Paving
contract. At 8:45 a.m. there was a call put in to TW about Humber Valley Paving,
and by 4:12 it was cancelled.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I was just talking about ferries, which is a pretty important file in
terms of jobs in the province. It's not every day you're building ferries, and
they were shipped off to Romania. Marystown was not in the mix. Marystown wasn't
considered. Marystown was ignored. The wonderful shipbuilding history that we
have, totally not looked into, but that didn't matter, Mr. Speaker. We got a
contract at 8:45 in the morning. There was one call made and by 4:12 p.m. a
letter from the department was sent to Humber Valley Paving offering to
terminate the contract.
Who was
involved with that? The leadership contender for the Progressive Conservative
Party this is ridiculous. This is banana republic level, Mr. Speaker, and I'm
shocked. Not only did they cancel the project, but there was a decision made by
the former administration not even to call in the $9.5 million bond that was
available to them. We had small businesses left on the hook, many in Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair, Mr. Speaker, that were left on the hook because of political
expediency and a desire to seek a termination of this contract because it was
politically convenient at the time because they couldn't scrape together anymore
leadership contenders.
I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, I won't belabour this point either, but this is something
we're watching very closely, that the people of the province are watching very
closely. I can assure you we will continue to watch this closely as we move
forward.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't want to talk about the past too much here today. I want to talk
about the future. We know there is a revisionist history emerging from the
Opposition benches. We know we have to combat the misnomers coming from the
other side with facts and truth.
We heard
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands just moments ago talking about seniors
in the province, neglecting to mention, neglecting to celebrate the Seniors'
Benefit, the increases to the Seniors' Benefit and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Income Supplement. This is $120 million investment that I fully support, that I
fully believe is right to do, Mr. Speaker, because the seniors of our province
are those who built this province and now it's up to us to support them.
This is
something the Opposition apparently doesn't support. We know the Seniors'
Advocate, another measure we have taken to strengthen the role of seniors in our
society, it was labeled a luxury by the Opposition at one point and this is just
the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker. It is concerning to say the least, but I
can say with all honesty that when I travel through my district which I do
every weekend when the House is not sitting I can tell you I'm very proud to
look senior citizens in the eye and say that we are supporting them, we are
bringing measures forward to support our low-income families, seniors and
persons with disabilities because that is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.
I also
want to take some time today to talk about jobs because jobs are extremely
important to me. I know it's important to my colleagues. I know last week the
Premier made an announcement on it to convene a Cabinet committee on jobs. This
was a very welcomed announcement. We are going to focus on job plans for here at
home, not Romania, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you that; and we will ensure
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are put back to work.
Just a
few moments ago I was sat here in my chair listening to the constant negativity
that I hear emanating from the Opposition side, particularly the Third Party,
who revel in negativity. I happened to log into my Facebook page and I saw
someone who was a very excited constituent of mine, who just announced to all
his Facebook friends that he is about to start a job in St. Lawrence at the
Canada Fluorspar mine, Mr. Speaker.
We hear
the negativity. We hear those who say there's no hope, there's no future, but
then I look at the average, normal people who are very excited about the
investments we have made.
This is
a file that's been going on for 20-plus years. The previous administration
passed it around like a hot potato, brought the whole Cabinet down actually, if
I recall, in 2011 for a big announcement, the reopening of the mine. Well, it
wasn't until the current Member for Burin Grand Bank got in, along with our
Premier and the minister responsible, did that file get off the ground.
Now we
have people, ordinary people, who are seeking employment, very proud to be
seeking that employment on the Burin Peninsula. But, no, it's all negative, Mr.
Speaker. It's all negative. There's nothing happening. There's no future.
They're all negative, and it's a shame because we have so much potential and we
have to celebrate that potential. We have to ensure that there's progress and
that there's prospect for employment.
I also
want to make mention of the fact that project ultimately and the Member for
Burin Grand Bank can correct me if I'm wrong was made successful by
government's $17 million repayable loan. That would not have gotten off the
ground couldn't get off the ground for 12 years, I say to the Members
opposite, until the current Member for Burin Grand Bank and I were elected. I
can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of that investment. Although
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
Although it is not in my
district, Mr. Speaker, I will not be confined by lines on an electoral
boundaries map. We all need to work together and pull on the same oar to create
economic growth and jobs.
I also
want to talk about the Grieg project, which is something we have also worked
very closely on. Once again shelving our own political ambitions for fame and
fortune, Mr. Speaker, and working together for the benefit of the people we
represent. We're not in this for credit, we're not in this to see who can get
the credit; we're in this to work for the people who need jobs. We're going to
carry that file forward. It's something I'm very proud of and it's something we
will see to the end. We're going to work our hardest to make that a reality.
We also
have tremendous opportunity at the Marystown Shipyard. As the public would know,
Mr. Speaker, there's an interest on Kiewit's part to sell the Marystown Shipyard
assets that they have and they would retain the Kiewit Offshore Services in Cow
Head, which would be their major oil and gas industrial development site.
Why not,
Mr. Speaker? Why not, so that we can no longer be plagued by the trials and
tribulations of the oil industry in terms of its ups and downs? Why not have a
functioning, stable, strong shipyard again? What is wrong with that? That's
something that hasn't been paid heed to in the past but it's certainly something
we're going to look very closely at. I believe it's part of our overall approach
to government.
I also
want to touch on when I talk about ferries, there was just so little homework
done, Mr. Speaker, so little homework, no homework at all in fact. Part of what
we have tried to do as a government is to bring forward better management. It
was a low bar to meet compared to the previous administration, a terribly low
bar, but we are bringing better management to what we are doing.
In fact,
I'll give you an example. The Minister of Transportation and Works is here with
us today. Last year we paved 256 kilometres for $47.7 million and last year we
paved and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but I know I'm not. We
paved 90 more kilometres of road for $5.6 million less, Mr. Speaker.
That is
a terrific accomplishment but it was not by luck, Mr. Speaker. It was brought
about by positive decision making, with evidence-based approaches and better
management. That is something our Premier emphasizes. It is something he brings
to every decision that he makes in government, and it is something we're going
to bring forward, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly not akin to Humber Valley Paving, Mr. Speaker, a $19 million contract
that was let out within a matter of hours. That's something we will return to a
$19 million contract $19 million. It's shameful. They were all over there,
most of them.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I want to say there is hope and there are things on the
horizon. I believe we have a responsibility as legislators to carry forward that
message of hope because when we have confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador and
our economy, that will translate into confidence, both consumer confidence and
business confidence. I believe very strongly that we have to remain confident.
What
legacy, I ask, do we want to leave behind, unparalleled debt from the former
administration or a solid, fiscal house in order that protects the future
generations. What message does our province send to my generation, Mr. Speaker,
and generations after me? By passing along this debt that is insurmountable,
what legacy is that leaving behind?
Last
year when we came into office, I remind Members of this House, we were spending
more on interest payments than on the education system. Mr. Speaker, that's a
startling statistic. We were shipping more money out the door in interest than
we were on investing in the future of our youth and our young people. To me,
that is a very concerning fact.
I will
read one quote from Hansard from last year, from the Member for St. John's
Centre, in fact. I marked this down when she said it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BROWNE:
The people of the province
are willing to take tough medicine if there is a plan forward. Well, there is a
plan forward. We have outlined what we are setting out to do to put our fiscal
house back in order and we are certainly going to put a focus and a spotlight on
putting the people back to work, and jobs is the forefront of our agenda.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
move Motion 5, that pursuant to provisional Standing Order 11(1) that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2017.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
do not adjourn at 5:30 today.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to, hopefully, be the concluding speaker to this Concurrence Motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
I
reverted to the Government House Leader for the motion, but I recognize the hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South for remarks.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak to our Concurrence here in the House today and our
budget debate. One thing I'd like to bring up, because it's entertaining to
listen to Members opposite have their commentary, which is fair play, I guess.
We have
a new document that has been released by this current government. It's called
The Way Forward, but there was a
document that was released in 2015 called the Red Book. You can't find the Red
Book any more, now we have The Way
Forward. It took 14, 15 months for them to supposedly find their way
forward. I don't think the general public of the province feel they have found
their way forward yet, but they're trying to convince us that they actually
have.
The jury
is out on that one, Mr. Speaker. It's a document that is out there and they like
to bandy it about. I guess that's fair, and that's something they would do as a
government to try to change the conversation, but in the public domain I don't
hear that from the people I talk to, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a work in
progress and there's a lot more work to be done.
Mr.
Speaker, there's a couple of points I have lots of material I could talk on
but there are a couple of notes I jotted down when Members opposite were
speaking. One of the comments was the Opposition give inconsistent views;
somewhat arrogant responses come on the other side. We made reference sometimes
with our Estimates debate.
The
Opposition has a job to do, Mr. Speaker. I guess government opposite should
respect what we have to do because at one time Members opposite were on this
side of the House actually doing what we're doing. Opposition is a very
important part of our Parliament. Everything we say, every comment we make is
not really on the other side they don't really appreciate our commentary.
We're meant to show opposition to government to challenge them on their
decisions, to make better decisions or more in keeping with the population, the
people's voices.
One
person said to me one time: Government is elected by the people, yet the
Opposition are the real voice of the people because in government, it's party
politics, you toe the line, you vote as a block. That's how our Parliament is
assembled.
On
Opposition side their voices are heard loud and clear. It's a very important
function of our Parliament and it's a role that we take very seriously. If some
Members opposite get somewhat offended by some of our commentary, that just
comes with the territory because there was a time before this was flipped over
the other way and Members opposite did their best to keep the former
administration to task. It's a job that we take seriously and we will continue
on to keep this administration to task.
Mr.
Speaker, I just was listening to the Member for Placentia West Bellevue. He
had a lot of commentary. I only wrote down a few points that had jumped out at
me.
He went
on to this big lecture on how the shipyard in his own district in Marystown, the
Marystown Shipyard didn't get an opportunity to vote on the new ferries that
were built in Romania. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think he should go
back and probably look a bit further. The former administration encouraged that
shipyard to bid on it. They were very forthcoming. They met with the
administration of that shipyard; they met with the top brass. The province
wanted them to bid on this contract but they could never get to an agreement
from the Marystown Shipyard.
The
Member likes to make a bit of hay with the Romania piece but he doesn't have all
his facts straight. To get up here in this House and to be critical of my
colleague for Conception Bay East Bell Island and the former administration,
he doesn't have his facts right. He doesn't have his facts straight, Mr.
Speaker. He does have a shipyard down there but he maybe needs to talk to
officials within that shipyard and maybe they'll explain to him.
We hear
on the other side all the time that we don't understand, we need to listen
better and we don't do a good job as Opposition and they want to say stuff
slower to us. Maybe we'll offer a bit of advice opposite. Maybe they need to go
and listen up better and go down and get their facts together instead of just
throwing false accusations across the House, which I have to say some Members
opposite do a great job of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, another point he
mentioned; there were a lot of great things happening in his district. I agree
with him, I'm sure there are. One of them is the Hebron Project. Well, I guess
Members opposite, for Members of the former administration will say thank you,
because that was a project this former administration took on and heralded it.
So we
take your compliment seriously, and appreciate the investment we did. Sure, it's
happening in your district, but it's going to be a great economic boom for the
province. It's going to generate a lot of revenue, and it's where we need to be
in our oil industry. Hopefully, as the commodity markets stabilize somewhat and
they increase, we'll see a great value from the Hebron Project. But, as I say,
we want to thank you for the compliments, to the Member opposite.
Another
point, in reference to his own district I guess the question I have is the
Sound of Islay had a $9 million refit,
but that wasn't done in Marystown. The last report we got it was done at Newdock
here in St. John's, which is fine that's fine; it's a fair market. But a $9
million refit I'd like to know why that wasn't done in Marystown. Why did it
end up down to Newdock if the Member opposite is so quick to point out that the
ferries couldn't be built there? After the Premier of the day tried to encourage
the CEOs of the shipyard to we really wanted those ferries built in
Newfoundland. So this is one of our ferries going to Newdock, why is it not
going to Marystown? So maybe the Member opposite can answer to his own people
why that's happening. I don't know if they're fully aware of that.
Another
point of contention, I hear it opposite and I get somewhat dumfounded by it. You
get up over and over and you talk about certain things happened when this
administration were in power. The Member for Placentia West Bellevue, who
likes to talk out loud while I'm trying to talk on another note I was just
looking at the clock I'd like to make a motion, seconded by my colleague for
Conception Bay East Bell Island to adjourn debate at 5:30. Is that in keeping?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
believe there was a motion put that the House would sit beyond 5:30. So you can
continue with your remarks.
MR. PETTEN:
I was unsure of that, Mr.
Speaker.
So the
Member for Placentia West Bellevue likes to make a great point of talking
about decisions made by the former administration. One of his favourite topics
is the political I don't know what you call it, the little bit of we got
something and we're going to pursue, with the Humber Valley Paving. Now, they're
after announcing an inquiry is coming, but ironically they're going to try to
push that as close to the election as possible fair game. They've been called
out in the public on that so I don't know how much that's going to resonate with
the general public when they go to do that, but I guess to each their own.
While
you cry out these sorts of things, maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones, Mr. Speaker. We're just barely forgot about it's not forgot about in
the general public obviously. We have the Bernard Coffey fiasco. That happened a
week or so ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
We do not know what that
cost, the Member opposite likes to point out. We have asked for the information.
We have not received information of what costs has been associated with that.
There's a legal case to settle. We didn't get the information, Mr. Speaker. It
may turn out to be a lot more than Humber Valley ever was. My point is people in
glass houses probably need to be careful when they throw stones.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to go on to another one I'm glad I got this opportunity.
During Estimates, myself and my colleague for Cape St. Francis, we joined up on
doing several Estimates together due to the fact of the reorganization. I had
certain roles, as did he, so two of us teamed up and did the Estimates together.
Under
Fisheries and Land Resources, there are a lot of changes. So much so, it was in
Question Period here maybe a month or so ago, I guess, when we got up asking
questions on
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
We started asking questions
on Mistaken Point. We had three people get up before they found out which
minister was responsible. That happened. It's on record. Go check it.
We
started asking questions about Crown Lands in Corner Brook and, with all due
respect, the minister, other than the fact he knew it was in his department,
that's all he knew. Which is understandable I'll be the first to say, there is
a lot in their department. I'm not criticizing that.
The
Member for Stephenville Port au Port gets up in this House last week and he
basically calls out me and my colleague. I'll name the names. He didn't say it
in the House but we're going to name it because it was obvious. It was just as
well if he did name the names. We were the ones in the Estimates. We asked for
an organizational chart. To my knowledge, I think most of all us come in here
when there's reorganization, as a curtesy thing: Could we have an organizational
chart?
That
happened on April 5, according to the Member for Stephenville Port au Port.
Just on the record, we still have not received it. So maybe we should have asked
back in February, but his comments, according to
Hansard that was on February 22, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Speaker.
I won't point to the Member's name, but one of the PC Members actually asked for
a developmental flow chart to explain what portfolios were added to Fisheries
and Land Resources. What's wrong with that? If we're going to be critics, if
we're the Official Opposition of this government, we need to know for certain
there are no surprises, there's nothing that we're missing. We pretty well had a
handle on what's moved.
To go
further into that one, Mr. Speaker, he goes now that these Estimates occurred in
April, just for the record so we have PC Members over there criticizing our
every move, yet it took them just about two months to come up with a question
about, well, I wonder what changed in that department. If they were very much
concerned about the department, I'm sure they would have asked the question when
the department was restructured in February, but that wasn't the case.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm glad I got the opportunity to come back about this one because we
still haven't got the organizational chart. During Estimates, we got to a
certain section and there wasn't a person in the Fisheries and Land Resources,
executive members of their minister on down they could not answer our
question. We were very obliging. It was a lot of confusion; it was a lot of back
and forth.
Eventually, they looked at us and they said we can't answer your question. Our
apologies, we cannot your question. There was a lot of confusion. I know my
colleague for St. John's East Signal Hill Quidi Vidi the name probably
eludes me, but she shared the same confusion, so much so they offered us a
technical briefing. We had that last week and guess what? They're giving us
another one. The simple fact of the matter is because they're not even sure that
some of the questions we were asking that we had intended to ask in Estimates,
they're having trouble giving us the answers we need.
It's
fine for Members opposite to get up and to be critical. I mean, I'm okay with
that most times. That comes with the territory. Again, I have no problem, but
keep their facts together, Mr. Speaker. As long as it's based on facts, if we
deserve to get called out if something is said here, I don't know about anyone
else, I'll speak for myself. I'm fine with that. I have no issue whatsoever. It
happens from time to time and it's part of the environment in the House, the
back and forth. I can live with that, trust me.
When I
listen to Members opposite making this commentary and when they're making it,
it's like you listen to it when it's pointed out to you, you're going like
really, is this what they have to spend their time at? I would challenge the
Member opposite most times during Estimates, the quicker we get our questions
asked the quicker we can get out of her, I'd say the happier he is. But then
when it's his opportunity to get up and speak he tries to throw fillers and
throw barbs across the way at me and my colleague for Cape St. Francis.
As a
matter of fact, we like to think we are doing our job and we're doing as good a
job as we can possibly do for the people of the province because that's the role
of the Opposition of this province. That's our role, Mr. Speaker. We're not
meant to be party supporters of the government opposite; we're meant to oppose
their decisions and hopefully encourage them, or put public pressure on them to
make decisions that are in keeping everyone in the province will be happy
with. We know we're not going to make everyone happy but the majority, Mr.
Speaker. That's our role, and we will continue to do it. We're not going to stop
doing what we do.
We'll
ask questions, whether it be on an organizational chart, salary detail chart,
what have you. We'll ask every question because as someone once told me, no
question is a stupid question. No question is an unnecessary question. We'll
continue to ask because that's our role and that's what the people expect us to
do. Even though we may not please the Members opposite by some of our questions,
we're sorry, but that's our job and that's what we're going to do, Mr. Speaker,
as long as we are the Official Opposition of this government.
The last
time, I'd like to bring up some again, I like to use some of these figures
because I think they're worthwhile. To hear Members opposite: the government
wasted money, the former administration wasted money and what did you do with
all the billions of dollars? I guess to anyone who don't really know, it's a
great play when you're listening to it.
Mr.
Speaker, I have lots of information here that I can remind the Members opposite.
In my last few minutes, I'd just like to point out some things that I think are
worth repeating and reminding the public. In the 2015 budget, which was the
final budget of this former administration, there was a
Highlight book that was done. This is
for public information, and it was about some of the spending that happened from
the 2004 to 2015.
Some
spending highlights were listed: $8.2 million for dialysis equipment; $10.5
million, MRI equipment; $10.5 million for X-ray machinery; $13.8 million for
mammography devices; $14.7 million for ultrasound equipment; $15.9 million for
linear accelerators; $20.8 million for CAT scanners.
New
long-term care facilities, $380 million; health care equipment, $425 million;
existing hospitals and health care facilities, $300 million; new hospitals and
health care facilities, $218 million. Now there's lots more in health, Mr.
Speaker, that's just a few. That's just out of our Estimates.
Under
schools, there was over $600 million invested for K to 12 school infrastructure
since 2004 $600 million; 1,900 repairs and maintenance projects with an
investment of over $220 million since 2004; 59 capital projects; 14 new schools;
8 new schools in various stages; 27 major extensions and renovations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Ten more major extensions and
renovations underway. We had the French Shore Academy, Mr. Speaker, in Port
Saunders, $13.2 million; Labrador Straits Academy, L'Anse-au-Loup, $15.6
million.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Keep going, keep going.
MR. PETTEN:
I'll keep going. Oh yeah,
I'll keep going.
The
point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is they were all really great
investments. They were needed. We had an infrastructure deficit when government
took over in 2004. People needed improvements, people needed this stuff. There
were roads, there were schools, there were health issues, hospitals. It was a
lot of infrastructure. We had a real infrastructure deficit.
At the
time when the former administration was spending this money, you could go back,
and I'm sure you could check through a lot of Hansard documents and public
commentary, the Opposition of the day which are a lot of current Members
opposite or some we weren't spending enough. They wanted more money spent.
They never stood up as an Opposition and told the government opposite, you're
spending too much money. On occasion you might have heard it said on a
particular project. Overall, they never said that.
Over and
over they wanted the extra school. They wanted that road paved. They wanted a
ferry fixed. They wanted more hospital equipment. They wanted 24-hour snow
clearing. Members opposite wanted that; they wanted that in their districts.
Our
adult dental care was inadequate. Even though there was never one before we
brought it in, they cut it; but it wasn't adequate enough when we had it.
You
can't talk out of both sides of your face, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, but as the
Government House Leader points out, I was in the back rooms. I wasn't here in
the Legislature. I heard those same Members opposite. I listened to them every
day. I listened to them every day get up on their soapbox and talk about the
same things day in, day out, day in, day out.
I'm down
here and I'm listening to, all of a sudden there's righteousness across the way.
Why did you do this? Why did you do that? Sure, the Members opposite, we
couldn't spend enough. There wasn't enough money coming in to spend what they
wanted us to spend. All of a sudden then, the province is spent into a fiscal
disaster. It's a nightmare.
If you
turned back the clock knowing what we know now, I don't know if we'd do a lot of
things differently. Based on what's needed in the province, based on the mouldy
schools, based on the infrastructure, the roads were dilapidated, based on the
needs of the social sector, people looking for social programing. Do you know
what? There are a lot of things I don't know if you could retract. There are
obviously some, but for us to turn around the financial fortunes of the province
and say nothing we spent was a proper investment, I beg to differ, Mr. Speaker.
I think
a lot of people in the province, if they were to really sit down I talk to a
lot of them. They don't really feel that way. It's unfortunate with the
financial situation, burden we're facing now, but most people do not look at me
as a PC Member or any of my colleagues or former colleagues and say what we did
was a waste of money.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
motion is that the Estimates of the Government Services Committee be concurred
in.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
MR. KENT:
Division, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the Whip of the Third
Party ready?
All
those in favour of the motion, please stand.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.
Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Warr, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek
Bennett, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Parsley, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Finn, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr.
Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms.
Rogers, Mr. Lane.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes, 27; the nays, nine.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion carried.
On
motion, Report of Government Services Committee, carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Given the hour of the day,
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we recess for supper and return at 6:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we have a motion to
recess?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
No, motion, okay.
The
House stands recessed until 7 p.m.
AN HON. MEMBER:
6:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
6:30 p.m.
May 15,
2017 HOUSE
OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.
XLVIII No. 18A
The
House resumed at 6:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly pleased tonight to be able to stand and participate in the Budget
Speech, Budget 2017-18, that was announced a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, in this
very House.
Before I
begin about some of the comments I want to make tonight, I really want to reach
out and thank the public sector workers that have worked so tirelessly in
support of the Budget and putting this Budget together. This is a lengthy
process that occurs; there are hours and hours, many weekends that people
actually bring all the information together to put together a budget as intense
and as detailed as we have, as we've been debating here in the last few weeks.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to make mention of the people that actually participated in
the public consultations. Quite a few people submitted briefs and ideas to
address issues in their communities with their associations and so on, but also
in this particular case the Women's Policy Office who put in place the women's
perspective on this particular budget throughout the full course of this. So all
of these are important when you put together a budget as detailed as what we
have here.
Mr.
Speaker, much of the debate that we've had has been over the last year. Lots of
the comments that have been made would have been around
Budget 2016 and Budget 2017.
I'm very proud today to be able to stand here and talk about the amount of
progress we have made with Budget 2017-2018. No doubt, no doubt this year we
have spent a considerable amount of time as a government trying to correct the
course of this province.
It kind
of reminds me of a story that was told to me early last week about an individual
said to me and I've relayed this story once before, but I think it's
worthwhile telling it again. It said when you look beyond the election of 2015
it reminded the individual of a situation where you saw people rushing in to put
a fire out, but the group that had set the place on fire, well what they were
doing, they were rushing out. When they got out, the people were there trying to
put that fire out, the group that caused it and started it, what were they
doing? They were throwing rocks at the individuals who were doing their work,
who were trying to secure the particular site.
Mr.
Speaker, that, in some ways, illustrates exactly what happened about a year and
half ago. So this year, there was a considerable amount of time making sure that
we found the correct balance and where we are as we secure the financial ship of
our province and as we put together programs that we could actually control the
fiscal situation.
Mr.
Speaker, we also know once you build a province and once you generate revenue,
we cannot do it on a volatile commodity such as oil. Over the last number of
years what we see in the province that has been managed, been run primarily by
decisions made on what today's price of oil was. We've seen where that has taken
us; nearly $25 billion over a 10-year window that has been brought into this
province related to the oil industry.
Mr.
Speaker, yet we find some-10 years later, massive deficits that were run by the
prior administration, forgetting the fact they would actually put aside, set
aside some money for the future to deal with situations that currently exist
within our province today. That didn't happen. Mr. Speaker, when you just
primarily focus on that one volatile commodity you miss the opportunity to
actually put in place new revenue generating streams, the way we would actually
create economic diversification which is much needed in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, this year's budget is about $7.3 billion in revenue, expense is
somewhere around $8.1 billion which leaves a deficit this year, which is still
significant, of some-$778 billion. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a far cry of where
this province was heading just a year ago.
If took
and lived with the plan the PC Opposition continues to support this province,
last year, was facing a $2.7 billion deficit. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that
again. If you take the Tory plan that was put in place in 2015, $2.7 billion,
that is where it was headed.
Mr.
Speaker, to put all of that in context, some-65 years, if you go back to last
year, we would have seen the per capita debt in our province double in five or
six years. That is what this government was facing just a year ago. That is the
ship we had to correct. Multitudes of people who have looked at the situation we
inherited, said: when I spoke to premiers in other provinces, when I spoke to
leaders in other provinces, they realize the significance of the financial
situation that we inherited in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, on and on. When we come into Question Period, we have debate in this
House of Assembly, many Members opposite would say: you're the government now,
tell us what you're going to do. You deal with this situation. They do not want
to talk about the past, Mr. Speaker. Although, the Leader of the Opposition said
last week that maybe we should remember the past, but when they get up and ask
questions they do not want to accept the responsibility for the past.
Mr.
Speaker, you can go around this province, you can go anywhere you want, when
people try and distance themselves from their past if any individual wants to
distance himself from their past, that tells me one thing, Mr. Speaker. They're
ashamed of it. They are ashamed of their past. They have no record to stand on.
What are
they going to talk about? How they put in place budgets primarily based on the
price of oil. That, they cannot talk about. It wasn't successful. Do they want
to talk about doubling the debt in five or six years within our province? Do
they want to talk about record setting debt reduction measures? Mr. Speaker,
they simply can't do it. The reason why they do not want to talk about their
past is because they are ashamed of it.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, a major project they made a big commitment to in this House of
Assembly and for this province would have led to doubling of electricity rates
in just a few short years. So they don't want to talk about that either.
Mr.
Speaker, this is the record of the previous administration. We will remind the
people of this province of the situation we're into. We will not let people who
do not want to accept the responsibility for their own actions; we will not just
simply dismiss this. We will do the heavy lifting that's required. The courage
is on this side of the House to put in place a future that is secure for the
next generation, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
We will not mortgage the
future of the next generation.
An
example is how you plan for the future, Mr. Speaker, and there are lots of them.
Just a few minutes ago a Member from the Official Opposition said to me: Let's
talk about ferries. We all want to talk about ferries.
I want
to talk about a very important ferry, and that's the one that connects to Bell
Island, Mr. Speaker, a very important piece of infrastructure. The fact is they
built the ferry. What did they forget to do?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Build a wharf.
PREMIER BALL:
Make sure the appropriate
wharf was in place, Mr. Speaker. That's the level of planning and management
we've seen from the previous administration. Go and order a ferry but forget
about the wharf. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. Ordering a ferry from Romania and
forgetting a wharf in Bell Island and Portugal Cove. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker.
Just imagine going out and spending millions and millions of dollars on a ferry
and you don't have the docking facilities in place to do it.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, the ferry is actually stored and waiting for this government to finish
the wharf job. That's what we're doing right now so the people of Bell Island
can actually have the connection. That's the type of management and the
situations that we've had to deal with in the last year and a half.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
PREMIER BALL:
Yes, that's a good question.
One of the Members just reminded me of the tariff that they forgot to include in
the cost, Mr. Speaker. We worked very diligently with the federal government to
make sure that tariff got reduced, so it was not left as another burden on the
people of our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
So, Mr. Speaker, when you
talk about it I want to get back to the budget for a few minutes, because we
have made some significant progress this year. As I said, last year, some $2.7
billion is the situation we inherited from the previous administration. We got
that down this year, after some considerable work, to some $778 million.
That was
done with a tremendous amount of work. We've had to reduce expenses. Just back
in the summer of last year, when you look at the structure of government in
Newfoundland and Labrador, we had the same number of deputy ministers in
Newfoundland and Labrador as they did in the Province of Ontario Newfoundland
and Labrador, the same number of deputy ministers as they did in Ontario.
That's
the situation this province was allowed to grow. Mr. Speaker, that is not the
fault of those great deputy ministers. That is not the fault of the public
sector. That is a result of the leadership that came from the previous
administration. They made those decisions, not the people that were sitting in
those chairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, when you look at
the progress that has been made this year and you compare the work that's been
done, so many people have looked at the current situation and so many people who
were in government in the '90s have looked at us and said it kind of reminds us
a little bit about Newfoundland and Labrador in the mid-90s.
It was
actually one of the leading financial institutions in the country that had a
quote when they looked at the situation and the budget that was put in place
just a few weeks ago. The quote goes something like this and I want to read
it, because it is a very important quote. It said: Indeed, had the province not
taken some of the action it did over the past year, next year's debt levels
would have been pushing the 1990s and they would have done that in very short
order. They went on to say that some swift and aggressive policy action have
quickly stabilized and this is the key, Mr. Speaker the swift action
quickly stabilized a fiscal ship that was taking on water. The province compared
to the fiscal ship was taking on water.
We know
that a ship that is taking on water is not a safe environment to be in. A ship
that is taking on water ultimately sinks, Mr. Speaker. We were not prepared
people on this side of the House to see Newfoundland and Labrador sink.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
We were not prepared to do
it.
Another
institution that did some analysis of this year's budget last year, Mr.
Speaker, the budget in 2016, it was graded at an E, and rightfully so. The
decisions that we made last year were very difficult decisions; responsible to
actually salvage this province. This year, it was a B rating, so it went from an
E rating to B rating in one year. That's because of the decisions that were made
by this government, and some very good decisions.
We
realized last year that some of the revenue-generating measures that were taken,
the decisions, like the gas tax, would have an impact on the economy in our
province. So this year, when we saw the opportunity, when the window was there,
we knew that we needed to do something; we did. So in June 1 of this year, some
12½ cents will come off that gas tax, Mr. Speaker. That will put money back to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's the approach we're taking. It's very
methodical, it's sustainable, that money will be there to go back into the
economy.
But we
didn't stop there because in December, again, we know now we will be able to
give back another 4 cents of that. So that will be some 12½ cents from June to
December of this year that will directly go back as we reduce that gas tax.
Mr.
Speaker, if the opportunity is there to actually further reduce that, we will do
that too. We realize that these decisions that we've had to make to generate
some revenue for this province last year, we're now in the position to get those
taxes back and give back to the people of this province, but we can only do that
in a sustainable fashion.
So we
went to work and, over the last year, there was a considerable amount of work
that was done to actually help us. I know from the Department of Finance, the
staff there did a tremendous job, very focused, very disciplined in making sure
that this work got done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I would say, Mr. Speaker,
that this year there's very little that hasn't been analyzed. We put in place a
zero-based budgeting this year and many people of our province right now are
becoming aware of the impact because simply that's how they would run their own
household. You go back and see where you've spent every single dollar to make
sure that it's relevant to where you are today.
So
that's what zero-based budgeting has done for our province. It saves some
millions of dollars that will go back in now to support other services. Mr.
Speaker, it didn't stop there. All our departments worked very hard with our
federal colleagues. We put in place a federal loan guarantee to help support the
Muskrat Falls Project.
Mr.
Speaker, I will speak to that in just a little bit, because that's a project we
had some significant debate; we led a filibuster in this House of Assembly when
we were in Opposition. Ironically, after the government changed, we were left
now in a position to actually manage that very same project. So we scrutinized
we did a big piece of work on where we were with that project, the amount of
commitments that were made, and really, to go back with the contracts that were
put in place, the agreements that were put in place on a number of fronts, that
would have been a sunken cost to the people of this province.
We are
now managing our way through that. One of the things that we did was to
negotiate the federal loan guarantee, amongst some other measures, to actually
help reduce the cost with federal support. That is where we are. The other
thing, there was a this is ironic, because I understand a Member opposite
might have been talking about something like an equalization. They had forgotten
about it for 10 years.
Just
imagine, in some of the largest amount of revenue that we ever had in this
province, they had completely forgotten about a repayment commitment they had to
make, which was some $27 million a year. So that was another thing that was
dropped in our lap immediately after taking office. Just imagine, ignoring some
$27 million a year. Just ignore it. It was an overpayment that occurred earlier,
you just ignored it. So, Mr. Speaker, we were able to work with the federal
government to actually address that issue.
Things
like the Core Sciences Building, almost $100 million that the previous
administration had made a commitment to. We were able to work with them to get
money from the federal government to replace the money that was put in place by
the province. So that money really comes back for use within our province, now,
Mr. Speaker, to support a project at Memorial University.
The
Atlantic Fisheries Fund, they asked lots of questions about that, and talked
about a fund and an agreement that they thought they had in place, never had in
place. I've talked to many people, including leaders within Atlantic Canada,
that made it quite clear in the negotiations that they were having with them
that that fund was never finalized. We've worked hard, and we know now there's
$100 million that will be available to the fishing industry in our province. I
will guarantee you we will not be showing up at announcements that include the
federal government, without the federal government there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
We will not be doing that.
We've
seen that all too often. Blame someone else. We don't need Ottawa; we'll go it
alone and so on. They've asked a number of questions about where we should be,
Mr. Speaker, but I will guarantee it now, if we make the announcement and the
federal signature is supposed to be on it, we'll make it when the federal
government is there to support the announcement. That's the way we work.
Another
thing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about are the significant investments that
have been made within infrastructure. We've leveraged a lot of federal money.
There is some community money that gets leveraged in that. I would say, when you
look back over this budget, and especially when you look at infrastructure
investments, it includes leveraging almost, in every single instance, some
federal money involved in it.
Mr.
Speaker, that wasn't just dropped in our lap. There was a considerable amount of
work that had to be done in getting criteria changed. I know the Minister of
Transportation and Works and Municipal Affairs, everyone on this side of the
House did quite a bit of work in making sure the criterion was changed. Nothing
is probably more relevant, and probably one of the best examples we can have is
the money that's spent on the Trans-Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
We know the previous federal
government had put a cap on the amount of money that would be spent on the
Trans-Labrador Highway. Mr. Speaker, we've worked hard to get that criteria
changed. Now, we get 50/50 dollars and it's now cost shared. So we can actually
get this work done for the people in Labrador.
Added to
that, even with our own provincial roads, criteria that would have normally
based on their relationship with the federal government taken some 10,000
vehicles a day to actually qualify, we were able to get those numbers down so
people in Newfoundland and Labrador can take advantage of federal money to
leverage provincial money, Mr. Speaker. Bring it together and get more work done
for people in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a
few minutes to actually talk about some of our most vulnerable people in our
society. We have many families that often struggle. In a lot of case, some of
those individuals would be seniors. We all have them in our communities.
We
should never forget that it's the seniors in our province who actually built
this province through some of its difficult times. It's our seniors, and we have
not forgotten that. If you go around those communities today, it's those seniors
who are actually volunteering on just about every single association we would
have in many of our small communities. This government has not forgotten the
work our seniors have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
We will never call a Seniors'
Advocate a luxury. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the previous administration called
the Seniors' Advocate a luxury. Imagine telling the people of our province, some
of the lowest income earners that we have, some of them seniors, many of them
living alone, if you want a Seniors' Advocate, well that's a luxury. Not with
this government. It's important and we're putting in a Seniors' Advocate. It is
not a luxury.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
This also gives me an
opportunity to speak about the supplement and how we provided some extra
subsidies for the people in our province; some $120 million, Mr. Speaker, when
you look at low-income families and our seniors, some 155,000 people that are
impacted. That's a big portion of our population. We're happy to be able to
support them with $120 million for this program.
Mr.
Speaker, they deserve it. They helped build this province and we will never give
up on those seniors. When we can support them, where they live, keeping them in
their own communities and their own homes as long as possible. That is important
for us. It's a priority for us as a government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, this in some
ways helps bring us in to the discussion that we had last December, just before
Christmas, about some extra health care money from the Health Accord. In some
ways, it helps target our seniors in home care. That was a big part of this new
Health Accord that was negotiated with our Minister of Health and Community
Services, some $87.7 million over 10 years.
It was
important because, as I said, when you talk to seniors and their families they
want to stay in their own homes and in their own communities as long as
possible. These initiatives like the recent agreement with the new Health Accord
with the federal government, Mr. Speaker, helps seniors stay in their own homes
longer.
A few
minutes ago, I talked about the importance of infrastructure and how do we deal
with some of the major infrastructure deficits that we would have in our
province. We made a commitment through our election platform that we would do
things smarter. We would use the taxpayers' money of Newfoundland and Labrador
we would take a different approach. It would be evidence based. It would be a
smarter approach.
Working
with industry, and many of those I would have met when we were in Opposition,
Mr. Speaker, we put in place, for really the first time in the history of this
province, a five-year road plan, Mr. Speaker. This year some $77 million so
people in our community will get an understanding, they will know where they fit
into the infrastructure and the road work over the next five years.
Added to
that, it was important that we get tenders out early. We know that if we get
tenders out early, we do it over a multi-year approach, we're going to get
better value. Mr. Speaker, that is working to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Tenders
are our early. They are multi-year funding. People know in advance what the
Provincial Roads Program will be, Mr. Speaker, and we are getting better value
for people in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Also, Mr. Speaker, some of
the challenges we face in how the work gets done in our province has always been
a question. This year there is a pilot: Can we do work in the nighttime? It's
not unusual. It happens in many jurisdictions. So we've taken it upon ourselves
to actually try this out in Newfoundland and Labrador. There's a nighttime pilot
that will occur in our province.
Everyone
who travels the roads, no matter where we go I see it in my own district. I
have many rural communities, Mr. Speaker. As I travel in my own district as an
MHA representing the District of Humber Gros Morne, people have asked us
often: What is the asphalt mix in our roads? Why don't they seem to be lasting
as long now as they did in the'70s and the '80s?
We're
going to take a look at that and find out what the appropriate asphalt mix
should be for the conditions and the environment that we have in our province.
These are just some of the things we are doing differently, some of the things
we are doing smarter, Mr. Speaker, all with the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador in mind so that we can get better for the hard-earned taxpayers' money.
Mr.
Speaker, we also know that as the mega projects within our province come to an
end we've seen Long Harbour, Hebron and the Muskrat Falls Project. As they
come to an end, it's important that we look at jobs; jobs for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We put
in place a multi-year infrastructure plan. This is a $3 billion plan. It will
provide employment for some-4,900 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through this
infrastructure work that will need to be done. Mr. Speaker, all of this will
lead to jobs.
We have
then taken the focus and put a Cabinet Committee on Jobs. We're working very
closely with the industry like the aquaculture industry, like the agriculture
industry; many of the industry leaders in our province who already have the
ideas. They've been through their strategic plans. They know where the
opportunities are in our province to create employment, Mr. Speaker, in all our
communities and we are committed to working with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Many times in Question Period
or in debate we get comments from the Opposition saying: Well, these are things
we were talking about. These are things that we would have had in our plan.
These are things we were talking about. Sure, we were discussing that. We were
putting a strategy in place for that.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind the people in our province there's a difference
between motion and movement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
We are moving things for the
benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. So while they talk a lot, Mr. Speaker,
this government is making movement. We are moving things along, but we will do
it with evidence-based decision making and we will do it with the people of our
province in mind.
An
example of that, Mr. Speaker, is how much Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will
pay for electricity rates. In this particular budget, when you look at the
forecast of where we are, they had made a commitment to the Muskrat Falls
Project. We know now that based on the schedule that we have in place right now
this will be a significant factor in doubling of electricity rates in our
province.
Mr.
Speaker, we know that the people in this province, seniors, our associations,
our communities, our recreation centres, cannot afford doubling of electricity
rates. They just cannot do it. So we felt this year it was important that we
signal quite early to the people in our province that we understand this and we
are going to deal with it.
When you
look at the forecast that you see in this budget, in 2020-2021 you'll see
some-$210 million that is there to offset the increasing electricity rates in
our province, Mr. Speaker. That is making a decision. That is a demonstration
that we understand this problem and we are going to put in place measures to
actually deal with it.
Mr.
Speaker, the following years
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Added to that, Mr. Speaker,
when you look at the Muskrat Falls Project, we've seen a new CEO at Nalcor,
we've seen that company turn around to some degree. This year it's making some
profits. Last year it was a loss that was in place.
Last
year, it required over $1 billion in borrowing to support Nalcor. This year, Mr.
Speaker, it's a significant reduction to some-$485 million. We are moving things
along for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr.
Speaker, I touched a little bit about the Health Accord there a few minutes ago,
but I also want to send out a thank you to the All-Party Committee on Mental
Health and Addictions who did some remarkable work. They did some great work as
they went around the province and spoke to many people that have been impacted
by mental health and addictions.
This
seems to be a story, Mr. Speaker, that we have to deal with on a daily basis;
the face of our young people and our young adults as we deal with mental illness
on a daily basis. People find themselves struggling with addictions. The
All-Party Committee made some excellent recommendations. We put in place an
implementation plan that will be announced now in a few weeks. It will quickly
deal with some of the most extreme issues that we face in our province, Mr.
Speaker.
Added to
that, back in the mid-1800s there was a facility that opened up in our province.
Just think about all of this, Mr. Speaker, how the face of this province has
changed over that period of time. Back in the mid-1800s the Waterford Hospital
was opened up to be the mental health facility in our province and that's still
the facility that's used today.
Mr.
Speaker, when you think about that, it's really hard to understand why it is
we're even talking about this today. But we have made a commitment it starts
in this budget to actually replace the Waterford Hospital.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
It doesn't end there, Mr.
Speaker. We understand that the people who deal with this on a daily basis will
need supports around the community as well. The face has changed and we have
made a commitment to work with those individuals, to work with the health
authorities, to work with the association to actually make Newfoundland and
Labrador a better place to get access to those services.
Mr.
Speaker, on the West Coast I couldn't tell you, maybe seven, eight, maybe nine
times, it seemed to be every weekend when a former premier or when someone went
to Corner Brook one of the things that they always did was announce a new
hospital for Corner Brook. It seemed to happen on a regular basis.
I can
remember this being issue some-10 years ago on the campaign trail: Oh yeah,
we're going to replace the Western Memorial Hospital. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker,
if you're living out there today, if you're living in Western Newfoundland today
and you have heard this story so many times.
Our
story, the story of this government, will be quite different. We will be
replacing the Western Memorial Hospital. It starts with a long-term care centre,
Mr. Speaker. The previous administration, when they announced long-term care in
Corner Brook and other areas of the province, what they wanted to do was
privatize the whole thing. The government would never own the building; it would
be run not by public sector workers. And we find them now asking questions about
all of this when they were the group that were actually going to privatize all
those services.
We went
out; we did the request for qualifications. That's step one. Those reports will
come back. We will pick a company that is best qualified to actually do this
work. They will put the building up, Mr. Speaker. The government or the people
of this province will own that building and it will be staffed by public sector
workers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
That starts and we also
recognize, Mr. Speaker, that long-term care is just not an issue in Western
Newfoundland; it is an issue in Central Newfoundland as well. There is provision
made in this year's budget to address the long-term care needs of the people of
Central Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, when you look at
health care, people ask questions why it is that you're putting such a big focus
on long-term care for people in our province. It is really about outcomes.
For
years, we would talk about a government that spends this much money on health
care. Well, 40 per cent of this budget goes to health care. Mr. Speaker. The
previous administration spent a lot of money on health care. They spent a lot of
money on health care but outcomes just weren't there.
We also
know, as I mentioned earlier, people should receive those services at the right
location. What we find, Mr. Speaker, is that we have so many of our acute care
beds in our hospitals right now that are tied up with people that are medically
discharged. Really what they need are long-term care services. This is the
reason why we are taking the approach that we are taking, put the long-term care
site in and get the hospital going so people receive those services in their
rightful place.
I just
mention about job creation. One the things I think that is often lost on people
in our province and particularly in some of the smaller communities that we
live in is the impact on Alberta. We've seen the three major projects as they
begin to wind down, but also we see Alberta that doesn't have the requirement or
doesn't have the they just really do not need as many employees to support the
industries in Alberta. People would say: Why is it you're raising that issue? I
raise the issue simply because for 10 years the previous administration did
nothing to help diversify the economy in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, that is why it was important to us to really get focused on working
with our industry leaders, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago, about the
agriculture industry and the aquaculture industry. When you speak to those
associations and you speak with people that are actually working there right
now, especially in agriculture, and I've talked about this quite a bit, it's
important for a number of different reasons. It's important for the jobs that it
creates in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it's also very important when you look
at food security.
Mr.
Speaker, when you drive around our province there's one thing that you will see:
lots and lots of land, lots and lots of area that we could actually support the
agriculture industry. So what we've done is we've carved out the best
agriculture land that we have in our province. We're going to make that
available to that industry so that they can actually help diversify the economy,
grow things here in Newfoundland and Labrador, create food security for people
in our province, but actually stimulate the economy and create jobs for our
province as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
In doing so, Mr. Speaker, we
realize the aquaculture industry also can be very important to the future of our
province and is one of the reasons why we put in place
The Way Forward which is a vision document for sustainability and
growth in Newfoundland and Labrador. We laid that out and it gives me an
opportunity now to just speak to that for a few minutes.
In
November of last year, we laid out The Way
Forward document which was a vision document for sustainability and growth
for our province. In that we addressed where we would like to see the
aquaculture industry in the future. It would create employment for our province,
doubling its capacity. Already, we've helped support investments into the
Stephenville area with a hatchery that will then go out and support the
aquaculture industry in our province. There are a number of different
opportunities that we have to create employment in Newfoundland and Labrador and
we are going to continue to work with those associations.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to reiterate and just point out quite clearly, there is another
fishery and that's, of course, the wild fishery, the traditional industry in our
province that we will never forget. Right now, people in our province, some
17,000 people that are attached to the fishery, in many places are going through
some difficult times. We're seeing this on the Northern Peninsula; we're seeing
it on the South Coast of our province, throughout the province. There are a lot
of challenges in our fishery right now, but I can tell you that we will not give
up on the wild fishery in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I also want to
talk a little bit about I had the privilege this weekend, on Saturday, to
spend some time in my district, in the Rocky Harbour area. We had a federal
minister down.
Yeah,
the federal minister actually came to Newfoundland and Labrador. What an
experience that was. For 10 years, Mr. Speaker, we did not see that in our
province. We actually had federal ministers, and there are two more that will be
here later on this month, coming down because they are interested in helping us
in the situation that we are in.
We were
in the Gros Morne area. We were chatting about things around the impact on
culture, the impact of infrastructure, the impact of the arts community. Mr.
Speaker, I was very proud to say that in this year's budget we were able to
increase the budget by 9 per cent for the cultural and heritage industry in our
province. It's important to us. If you go into those very unique areas that we
see throughout our province, it is creating jobs for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians as well; some-$20.2 million into the cultural and heritage
initiatives in our province.
Supporting that and it gives me an opportunity as I bring up that area of the
province one of the things that we're into this year, which will be a banner
year, will be the tourism industry. As I spoke to people in the Rocky Harbour
area, already you can see the enthusiasm, the energy of people that are actually
there even now early.
Next
weekend we'll see the opening of the Trails, Tales and Tunes, Mr. Speaker, and
that all starts with a very aggressive marketing campaign. This year it's some
over $13 million for tourism marketing. We've got to continue to build on the
momentum.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, some of this work has started quite some time ago. I will
acknowledge credit where credit is due but we've got to continue to build on
that. Never give up; never lose the momentum on things like tourism. We are
seeing accommodations; we are seeing bookings will be at historic levels. We
know that when we made the announcement and made the commitment in
The Way Forward document, I just
mentioned a few minutes ago, to double non-resident spending in our province
from 2009 levels. This is a multi-billion dollar industry that we have available
to us and we will continue to work with our tourism leaders to support their
industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
When you talk about culture
and you talk about the arts community, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's
anything that actually brings it home more than the film industry that we've
seen in our province and the success that we've seen with
Doyle,
Maudie and
Frontier. Now we're seeing
Come from Away hit the streets of Broadway in New York. It makes us all feel
good. But that starts, in some cases, with investing government money to support
that industry. We will be doing that and continue to do that in a more
aggressive way.
Mr.
Speaker, this budget I've talked now for quite some time on, but I want to talk
a little bit about education before I move on. The one thing I'm very proud to
say again tonight is last year we had a group from Memorial University, with
Enactus, make us all proud as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as they
approached the world stage, competed and won. They won.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Well, guess what? This
weekend in Vancouver, guess what happened to Enactus? Mr. Speaker, this is a
group of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They did it again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
They are now the Canadian
champions and they will be going on to London, representing Memorial University
of Newfoundland and Labrador to compete once again on the world stage, Mr.
Speaker. Interestingly enough, their project talks about food security and how
we can help some of the communities in northern climates, and that is the
ingenuity that is so special when you look at Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
and our young people that we are so proud of when we look at the education that
they get right here in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, the K to 12 system; one of the first things we did was put in place a
Premier's task force on improving educational outcomes because we know when we
put in place a good foundation for young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the
world then becomes their backyard, they can compete. We need to put in place a
good foundation of education for them. So, Mr. Speaker, in this budget there are
many millions of dollars to support infrastructure, to support education,
inclusive education, full-day kindergarten, another $13 million that is there
for us to continue to support.
I just
mentioned the Enactus group, and I've talked a bit about the K to 12 system and
the investments that are going to be made on behalf of our province. Mr.
Speaker, let's not forget, education starts at earlier years than that. The
informative ages could be at the early childhood education stage.
In this
year's budget we will be lowering the threshold for people for the early
childhood subsidy, Mr. Speaker, but added to that, recognizing the great work
those educators do, their wages will be increased by a subsidy of another dollar
an hour. They do a tremendous job in preparing people for the K to 12 system.
Also, it actually helps some of our young families get into the workforce again
earlier. So, Mr. Speaker, it's important that we get that foundation in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Not only as the MHA for
Humber Gros Morne and Premier of the province, one of the portfolios I took on
as Premier was around Labrador and Indigenous Affairs. Mr. Speaker, we took it
on because we firmly believe as a foundation to the way we work, that we believe
in working with our indigenous leaders in a government fashion, and we will
continue to do that.
I meet
quite regularly with our indigenous leaders, but, added to that, was recognizing
some of the gaps around the infrastructure. In this year's budget to support the
people in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, there's some $55.7 million on the
Trans-Labrador Highway that is added to the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
over $60 million that went into last year's budget.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
PREMIER BALL:
Over $60 million last year,
some $55.7 million again this year, Mr. Speaker, to complete the Trans-Labrador
Highway.
It was a
Liberal government that started it, Mr. Speaker, and with the support of the
people in Newfoundland and Labrador it will be a Liberal government that will
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I said in an interview that I
did last week, I know for me personally, and as I speak for the four Labrador
MHAs that we work with very closely, in my capacity as looking after the
Labrador Affairs, Mr. Speaker, is that I will not be satisfied until you can get
on a paved road that begins in L'Anse au Clair and ends in Vancouver. It is what
the people in Labrador deserve. They've waited a long time, Mr. Speaker, and
investments that you will see in this year's budget will go a long way in making
that a reality.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
When I look at my colleague
who is sitting to the left of me here, one of the things the Minister
responsible for Justice and Public Safety constantly reminds us is about the
court system in Labrador. In this budget you will see some $370,000 to support
the court system in Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I could go on and on; about our Northern Strategic diesel subsidy that
helps support just over 2,000 people in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, my point is this,
the people in Labrador deserve the investments and there are many investments
you will see sprinkled throughout this budget that will have a profound impact
on that area of our province.
Mr.
Speaker, before I finish up I want to talk about something that's been extremely
important to us and that is how many of our community groups and associations
access some of the $150 million that's available in this budget to support
community groups.
When
preparing for our election platform, many of the leaders within those
associations made it quite clear to us that they have felt for many years that
they have almost become fundraising experts. Really, what they wanted to do was
actually get to the work they enjoy doing; working with front-line people that
needed the supports of those community associations. So what we're doing this
year is to look at this $150 million that's available to those community groups
and give them a single point of entry into applying for this money.
Those
grants for community services make it a little easier so they can actually spend
more time doing what they want to do, is supporting our community groups. So
they would go into a single portal, Mr. Speaker, get an understanding, and in
some cases you would see multi-year funding that goes in place to support those
community associations.
I
mentioned earlier about one of the lenses that was put on this budget and the
Minister of Finance mentioned this in her Budget Speech back in early April
and that was about transition houses and the importance of some added to that,
Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to talk about it, but this government has
demonstrated how important those transition houses are to the tune of some
$780,000 that will go into support those initiatives.
Just
this weekend, when I was in my district a young women came up to me who works in
one of those houses and said: Thank you, it now gives us an opportunity to add
some supports on weekends, as an example. That is what this money will do to
support those transition houses.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to conclude my remarks in just a few minutes, but before I
do, I just want to remind the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, you know
what? We will not forget the past. We will not forget the poor planning and the
mismanagement of the previous administration. We should not do that. We must
constantly remind ourselves that we have hard-working Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who contribute to the economy of this province and we must spend
their money wisely. We must continue to spend their money wisely. We will always
challenge ourselves to do better. We must do that, but spending the taxpayers'
money wisely is important.
We will
take a methodical approach. We will not base our decisions on the price of oil.
I will remind the people in this province that when you listen to the PC
Opposition or you listen to any opposition in this province, they talk about
their plan for the future of this province.
Well, I
will remind the people that their plan that they stand by today, the plan they
stand by today in 2017 suggests the price of oil would be over $80 a barrel.
They stand by that plan today. I challenge every one of them when they stand up
today; do they believe that oil today is at $80 a barrel? Because that's the
plan they put to the people of our province and they have not distanced
themselves from that yet.
Also, I
want to remind the people of this province of the Muskrat Falls Project. For
some 50 years, the previous administration this was their wisdom. This was the
wisdom of the previous administration. Not once did they think that oil would
ever go below $100 a barrel. They never believed that oil would ever go below
$100 a barrel. Well, less than 50 months in the whole history of the world, it
hasn't been over $100 a barrel, Mr. Speaker.
They
made a decision to mortgage the future of our province on $100 a barrel. That is
why today it takes discipline, it takes courage to stand up for our future and
this government will do that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
I have a few minutes left.
When I look back over the last year, and when I look back over the progress and
some of the great moments we've had I go back to July 1, and what a proud
moment it was for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at The Rooms, with a blue sky
and a sunny day. Newfoundland and Labrador was showcased across the country
because of the sacrifices that have been made at Beaumont-Hamel. That was on
July 1, Mr. Speaker.
July 1,
last year, Newfoundland and Labrador was showcased and in streets that we've
seen within the Canadian capital in Ottawa. You saw banners showcasing,
highlighting, reminding the people of the country the work and the courage of
Newfoundlanders at Beaumont-Hamel. We were highlighted, Mr. Speaker.
It takes
that same courage in many of our young people today to stand up for their
future. It's very different than it was. That was a courage that we've never
seen and will probably never see again in history. We certainly hope we will
never find ourselves in those situations again.
On July
1, last year, it was a very proud moment for the people in our province. I was
able to share, Mr. Speaker, at The Rooms that day. Newfoundland and Labrador was
highlighted on that national stage.
Mr.
Speaker, the reason why I raise this is that we should never take for granted
where our future will take us. We have to work hard; we have to work hard to
secure it. Mr. Speaker, many people in our province have paid the ultimate
sacrifice for the challenges and the benefits we have to share with all of us
today.
Mr.
Speaker, I will finish up my comments by saying we should never be satisfied to
pass the tough decisions of today to the next generation. We should never be
satisfied to do this. We have made significant progress today and I will take
comments and ideas and suggestions from any of the Opposition leaders, from any
of them. I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, in some year and a half, do you know
one call that I've never received? It's an idea or a suggestion that comes from
any of the Opposition Members. It will not happen; it just doesn't happen.
Mr.
Speaker, we are here to listen to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will
secure the future of the next generation.
I want
to thank you and the work that's been done on this year's budget. I thank the
group over here and the people who have worked with us as a government for the
courage they've had in bringing those ideas forward. Mr. Speaker, we have made
significant progress. The future is bright for Newfoundland and Labrador. We
will work together to secure our future.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
indeed a privilege to get up here again today and to represent the beautiful
District of Cape St. Francis. I want to thank my colleagues across the way for
the standing ovation for getting up here tonight to say a few words.
It was
pretty interesting to listen to the Premier that time. I listened intently and
listened to what he had to say. Obviously, there are a lot of different views on
how we look at things, and that's what we are here for.
Premier,
I know you didn't receive either phone call from me yet to tell you how to run
the province, but that's your job. That's your job. The people of the province
elected you to it's my job to do Opposition and it's also my job to make sure
that I'm fair, and I always do try to be fair.
If there
are good things that are happening in this province I want to be one to
recognize them, but when there are things in the province that we do have
concerns about, that is my job. That's my job as an Opposition Member in this
House of Assembly, to speak for the people of the province and speak for the
people of my district.
Maybe
since Thursday I have a little bit more jump in my step because it means a whole
lot more to me to be here in this province, to be a poppy for the first time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm very, very proud of my
daughter. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, no, they didn't name him after
you, okay. I'll let you know that right off the bat.
I think
it's all of us; I hope we're all here for the right reasons. I know we may
disagree and we may have a different train of thought sometimes but I'm sure
every Member here wants to represent their district in the best way they can.
When they have concerns, no matter if it's a health issue, if there's something
I can do to help anyone in my district and I'm sure the Minister of Health,
the few times I've called over there I've gotten an excellent response. I thank
the ministers for that, because that's their job. We all should be working
together here to do things the proper way, no matter what it is.
There
are concerns out there. I know that in each one of your districts, just like in
my district, people do have concerns and that's what we're here for. I know
sometimes it's very difficult to be in government. I've been here for
eight-and-a-half years now, so I know a little bit of being there and I know
what it's like over here. It's two completely different jobs by the way and it's
difficult sometimes. Sometimes I think it's more difficult to be over there than
it is to be over here, because you have to go back and you have goods that your
government is trying to promote to sell to your constituents.
Not all
your constituents are going to be happy with you no matter if you're on this
side. Not all my constituents, believe it or not, are happy with me sometimes,
but I try to tell them the truth. I try to be honest and upfront. If a person
calls me and they say: Kevin, can you do this for me or can you do that for me,
I give them the right answer. I don't try to use any bull with them at all and
say this is the way it is, this is how things are and this is how government
works.
The
Premier started tonight and talked about how you have to look at the past and
stuff like that. Since Thursday, Premier, I'm looking at the future a lot more
than I'm looking at the past because I think it's going to be a nice future to
come home and be able to see little ones running around again hopefully. The
future is important too.
I'm not
here tonight to bash anybody. I look back at the past and I look at the past as
a very positive thing. I look at the positive things that have happened in this
province. Some decisions were good and some decisions may be not that good. But
when the Premier tonight talked about going back to $80 a barrel oil and
everything else, I'm sure the Minister of Finance uses experts to predict that.
They use the experts that are out there in the fields no matter if they're
different consultants all over the world. I think there are 14 or something
different groups of consultants that you do use.
I'm sure
while the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation were on the
board of Nalcor when Muskrat Falls was sanctioned, they wouldn't be on the board
and not support it. They wouldn't be out there saying no well, I didn't see
it. I never saw anybody stand up and say, no, that's not a great project and
they were on the board.
Everybody has questions about how things work and sometimes you look at one
thing and things change. I'm sure if you went to Alberta or Saskatchewan,
provinces that do rely on oil as their main source of income and revenue, that
they didn't predict it either. They didn't predict the price of oil would drop
like it did, so sometimes it's just a job.
I also
look at this year's budget and when I look at the revenue last year that was
predicted to be around $500 million for oil and what money we were going to get
out of the oil industry through production and through the price of oil, it went
up by $400 million. I'm sure the Finance Minister, when she saw that, she was
pretty happy to know that the revenue that we received from oil last year
brought us back to listen, we're all in this together.
Probably
the Minister of Finance looks at it a lot more than I do, but every evening I
look at the price of oil. I want to see, I'd love to see the price of oil go up
to $80, $90 a barrel again. I would love to see it because I know it will be
good for our people, it will be good for the province. It will mean that we can
do more with money.
When we
talk about $80 a barrel or $120, there are experts out there who do that for
government. Government just doesn't just sit down and say: What do you think the
price of gas is going to be tomorrow? There are people there who can figure that
out. They look at the long range, they look at how production is in different
countries and they look at production all over the world. They come together and
they say this is the trend we see going now. So they're forecasting
AN HON. MEMBER:
George Murphy.
MR. K. PARSONS:
George Murphy was here.
George was the gas guru. He was pretty good. Sometimes he was off by a bit but
most times he knew what he was at. I didn't know how to do it but George knew
how to do it.
That's
what you use. That's what people in the Finance Department use each year to
calculate what the price of oil is going to be. I dare say they look out and
they go to these experts, who are experts in the field, and they look at it out
over a long period of time. That's how it's done.
It's not
done by I don't think it's done by Cabinet. I would imagine that the Finance
Department has their people there who are experts in the field. They consult
with these different groups all over the world to see which way it goes.
So when
you hear the Premier get up and say: Oh, all of you predicted it was going to be
$80 a barrel; I have to say he's wrong there. I didn't predict it was going to
be $80 a barrel because I didn't know. But if the experts told me that's where
it should be, then I'd take their advice. That's what we do.
The
Premier got up here tonight and spoke pretty good, but the part that kills me
the most is this blame game that's always played: Oh, it's your fault. No, it's
your fault. We should be here working for the people of the province. We all
have to be here working to make sure that everything that's done in this
province is for the children of the province, for the seniors of the province,
for our families, for different areas of the province.
There
are places in this province now that are having a crisis, a huge crisis when it
comes to home care, when it comes to affordable housing, when it comes to
sending their children to school. No matter what it is, people have difficult
times so we all have to work to make this place a better place for everybody to
live. That's what we do.
That's
why budgets are important. Budgets are so important. Budgets are about choices
that we make and how we're going to do things. Like I said earlier, I'm here to
be in the Opposition, I'm here to see what government is doing. If government
does something good, I'll get up and say thank you for what you did. I did it
last week to the Minister of Municipal Affairs who came down in my district for
a couple great announcements; a great thing for the Town of Torbay. They had a
new depot opened up. The money came from our side when we were doing it. They
had a new fire rescue vehicle put in the area.
These
were all good announcements. I really have to applaud the government. Two weeks
before that, there was an announcement in Pouch Cove about water. So we're all
working together and we all want things for our district. There are good
announcements and there are bad announcements.
When we
look at the budget and last year's budget, we saw it here at Confederation
Building. We saw people here at Confederation Building last year out on the
steps. We saw people protest. People were scared, people were nervous. People
didn't know what was going to happen. They were really scared of what was going
to happen. Today we're seeing it. The problem I have with this budget this year
is there's no change. There's no change in the effect it's having on the average
person here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Minister of Finance, in her budget speech, stated it. She said we had to reach
into the pockets, and that's what they did, they reached right in. But they went
down a little bit too deep, Madam Speaker. They went too deep into the pockets
of individuals in this province and they're finding it today. When you look at
projections by this government the Premier got up here tonight and talked
about jobs and 4,900 hours' work on this. Still, their prediction is that by
2020 we're going to lose 33,000 jobs.
How many
people does that mean? How many families are going to be affected by 33,000
jobs? How many young families and how many families that are here are going to
have it's huge. I'm sure that in every one of the districts over there you're
hearing it. You're hearing about tradespeople finding it really difficult to get
work.
I mean
the Premier was right, megaprojects are slowing down. Bull Arm is, I think, just
about finished. As far as I know, the tradespeople are finished out there. Long
Harbour was a great project that put a lot of revenue in. Look, for every job
produced at one of these megaprojects, there were five spinoffs, there were five
other jobs created.
Again, I
speak to people in my district. I talk to young people that have small companies
on the go whether they're framers, whether they have a little small plumbing
company on the go, whether they're roofers and I'm telling you right now
there's a problem in our province. I know that everyone over on the side of the
House, and I know everyone on this side of the House, is hearing from people.
We're hearing people. We're hearing that people are hurting; we're hearing that
people have a problem because they can't find work.
That's
what this tax on people, taking money out of people's pockets, taking it out so
that you have to make a decision on what you're going to do when it comes to
renovations or building new homes or anything else. People get scared. We talked
on this with the public service lately. I don't know how long more it's going to
go on with the negotiations. We're not hearing much on them these days at all.
Again, it's scary times for people that work in our public service.
While
I'm just talking about public servants, I'm going to talk about for the last
number of days I was at the Health Sciences over to the Janeway. I watched the
people over there work. My God, it's unbelievable to know the care and the
kindness that people show you when you go to the hospital.
I really
want to applaud all our health care workers and everyone in our health care
because for families that are going through a little difficult time, to know
that there's that much care and compassion in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
is absolutely amazing. My hats are off to everyone that works and takes care of
individuals because they're a special breed.
I
believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are a special breed. I believe
that we have the passion; I believe we care about each other and I believe we're
concerned about each other. I think that people are concerned about what's
happening in our economy today and what's happening in our province.
The
Premier got up tonight but he made lots of promises during the last campaign. He
made promises that he knew he couldn't keep. Listen, I'll be the first one to
say the polls and everything else were definitely leaning your way. I don't
think you need to tell the people or promise the people what you promised them.
You promised them no layoffs. You promised them their taxes wouldn't go up and
here we are. We even got a tax, the one now that everybody is talking about now
these days, the last month or so, when people did their income tax: The levy. It
was just a line on the income tax showing that there's a tax to live here now.
We pay a
tax just to be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Probably we should because we
do live in the best province in the country, there is no doubt about that, and
we have great people. But that's hard to swallow for a lot of people. That's a
hard tax for people to swallow; hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
that work so hard and people that want to say here.
You know
I haven't met anybody yet that really came and said: I can't wait to move out of
there, I can't wait to go. Do you know what they'll always say? They'll always
say: I hate to go. I don't want to go. I don't want to leave my family.
Then
when you talk to grandparents, you see them and they'll say: Oh, it's some hard,
b'y. It's some hard to know that your two or three grandchildren are up in
Ontario or in Alberta or wherever they're to. I wish they were here with us.
That's what we're all about as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We're about
family. The biggest slogan with the last election and the promise before the
last budget was a stronger tomorrow.
Now,
I'll ask you, and I'll ask everybody over on that side: Do you believe that it's
a stronger tomorrow, what's been happening in these last two budgets that you
put out? I don't think so. I don't think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
think it's a stronger tomorrow either.
Do you
know what? It's devastating. It's devastating to so many people in this
province. Just to give you an example, just talking to seniors, everybody really
is affected by this budget, but I really think in particular our seniors are
really they paid the price years ago for us. They paid the price years and
years ago and they worked so hard. They worked to make sure that they survived
the worst. They lived in hard times.
These
times, what we're living in today, they know harder times than this. They've
been around when things were really hard when they came home to feed their
families. I talked to a guy a couple of weeks ago and he told me they had 14
children in the family. I said my God, I had two. How'd you do it with 14? He
said it was difficult. You worked like a dog.
Can you
imagine though, back then, calling the mother of the home a stay-at-home mom
with 14 children? I bet you she wanted to be out working more than he did to
keep the family going, but that's the way it was back then. They worked hard for
it. They worked very, very, very hard.
What
we're doing today when it comes just for example, the denture program. We
heard from across the way over there, and the Minister of Justice in particular,
he was up all the time talking about dentures and dignity. He talked about I
think when we first brought it in, we either brought in you could get the top or
the bottom. He talked about the dignity that it was to make sure that the person
got a proper set of teeth.
We
understood it, but they cancelled the whole denture program. That's gone now,
altogether gone. Even if they had to go back and say we can't afford a full set,
but that thing is gone.
I talked
to seniors, when they go to a drugstore now to get over-the-counter drugs I
believe I saw somewhere it saves $3.6 million or something like that for
over-the-counter drugs. That's just simple little things that cost $4 and $5.
That costs only a small amount of money but the effect that it has on our
seniors is unbelievable.
The
other one I talk to seniors about is insurance and the price of insurance.
Insurance is hard on everyone because insurance is really, really high. I heard
the minister today say that he's coming in to there's some new legislation
coming on auto insurance. I can't wait for that. I can't wait to hear it. I hope
it's good because I mean everybody the insurance.
This 15
per cent; we're the only province in Canada, other than Saskatchewan, that is
charging this. It's unbelievable that we have to be treated so differently. I
realize that it's revenue, but I think there are other expenditures we can have
a look at.
When you
look at this budget over the last number of years, the taxes and the fees,
people got pounded. Got pounded, got pounded to death, but last year's budget
was an increase in spending. This year's budget is $283 million in the
difference. It's not like we did a lot of cutting or a lot of (inaudible) out of
this budget, but what we did last year, we put it on the backs of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Do you know what we did this year? We took the
gas tax off, half of it. That's not gone yet. It goes June 1.
What we
did to people last year in this province, to our families, to hard-working
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we're doing the same thing again this year.
Don't kid yourself. When they got up and they said there are no fee increases.
Guess what? There was nothing left to increase. They had it all done last year.
People
are finding it hard. Families are finding it hard. Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians deserve better. They deserve to be treated with dignity. They
deserve to be treated with respect and they deserve a better government.
We have
to look at the past and we have to look at the future, but let's look at the
individuals in this province today. If we're going to say that in the next
number of years 33,000 Newfoundlanders are going to be out of work in this
province. Where are we going to be?
Not only
does taxing people and taking money out of people's pockets I don't think the
plan, which I don't know was a plan. I thought they had a plan but now we don't
know if they have a plan, but whatever plan they had, obviously, it's not
working because it's doing I mean their red book that they had, apparently
that's gone offline. You can't find that any more. That was their original plan.
Now that plan is gone.
It's
just that people of the province expected better. The people of the province
wanted better. The people of the province had a choice to make and they made a
choice, but they were sold a bag of goods that just didn't come true. I don't
think that they needed to do it.
I really
believe we all have to look at what's happening in our province today, and as
elected officials in this province, I know we can do better. We can do better
for our people. We can do better for the children of the province and I believe
that we can do better for everybody. I think this budget this year was no
different from what it was last year. It was an attack on Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
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.
I think
I'm actually saddened that this is going to be my last time that I get to speak
to Budget 2017 because we're winding
down. We are winding down in the budget debate, I say to all of you out there
who may be watching this show. I think we're closing in now on close to 70
hours.
As I
listened to the budget debates, in particular those of Members opposite, I kept
hearing a recitation come to mind and I think I'm going to start tonight with a
quote. Tall are the tales that fishermen tell when summer's work is
done, Of fish they've caught, of birds they've shot, of crazy risks they've run.
But never did a fisherman tell a tale, so tall by a half a mile, As Grampa
Walcott told one night in the Smokeroom on the Kyle.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Madam Speaker, that has come
to my mind so much as I sit here and listen to the speeches I hear from Members
opposite. I say to myself, well, Grandpa Walcott would have a run for his money
with his tall tales because I don't think the squid would cut it anymore with
some of the things that we have been hearing here in this House of Assembly, I'd
say, Madam Speaker.
I want
to start out again, I want to talk about some of the key messages, and you hear
in their speeches, they all say the same lines so the key messages become easy
to pick up. One of them was, as we started out last year, we wasted $25 billion.
That crowd opposite in government for 12 years wasted $25 billion.
Well,
I've heard in speech after speech after speech Members opposite get up and brag
about investments in their districts. When it happened during the 12 years that
the PCs were in government, that was a waste of money, but the Liberals are out
doing it and it's a wonderful thing.
Madam
Speaker, we're not allowed to say the word hypocrisy in the House of Assembly
but when you sit here and listen, b'y, you almost come out of your skin
sometimes. You really, really do.
Another
thing that the Liberals would often say, Madam Speaker, is that there was a
spending problem. So I say to myself, and I've been watching closely the last
two budgets: What have the Liberals done to reduce spending? They talk about
this year; they like to tout zero-based budgeting.
Sure, it
did result in some savings and I'm very pleased to see that actually. It's
something I commend the government for; however, all of their savings, and then
some, are been offset by the millions in severance that they're spending to fire
bona fide civil servants, qualified civil servants, experienced civil servants,
move them out of the way so that they can hire the Liberal campaign managers and
former Liberal candidates and Liberal friends.
To me,
Madam Speaker, that's absolutely shameful. If there's a spending problem,
acknowledge there's a spending problem. Do something about it, but don't sell it
to the people as a bag of goods under a guise and then turn around, send people
out the door, pay them millions in severance and then turn around and hire
political friends. It's wrong and I think it's shameful.
One
thing I'm very, very happy about is that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, I don't think will continue
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
to fall for tall tales any
more. We've learned quite a lesson. They voted for a better tomorrow, as my
colleague has so eloquently stated in his speech prior to mine. They voted for a
better tomorrow and what they got was something far, far worse.
In fact,
the Liberal record is one that I'm glad we don't wear a record of having the
highest bankruptcies since we were established as a province, not a great record
to have; a record of the highest taxation policies since we were a province, not
a good record to have; a record of two years into power and still no plan, not a
good record to have.
Like my
colleagues have said when they got up if we see good things happening, we have
no problem commending them and working with government; but it is our job, as
Opposition, to stand up and ask questions on things that are important to the
people of the province, and no one will bully us into not doing that. That's our
job, and we're going to do it and we're going to do it well.
One of
the things that I'd also like to question is when the Liberals talk about a
spending problem, yet they turn around and they're going to move Crown Lands
offices from St. John's to Corner Brook, but there's no money budgeted for that
in the budget.
Now,
zero-based budgeting doesn't allow you to move money around like you did in the
past, so how is the cost of that move going to be covered and is that going to
be hidden from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador until the budget
documents come out next year? Then when the budget documents come out next year,
will their format be changed so that it's all hidden again and you have to work
really hard to find out what's actually in there?
We're
truly hoping that we're going to see a significant improvement in openness and
transparency. Because just the economy has gone backwards, I do believe the
amount of openness and transparency has gone backwards in the last two years as
well.
As my
colleague for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis has just stated, the
people of the province were sold a bill of goods and there have been a lot of
layoffs. Slowly, the information is being trickled to the Table Officers. In
Budget 2016 we see that there was a
reduction of 450 full-time equivalent positions, agencies, boards and
commissions, and 200 positions in core government.
This
year, we see something that they're tabling as a flatter, leaner management
review. We have a chart that outlines the positions to be abolished and it
outlines the positions to be created. I'd like to read these into the record.
The documents do exist. They're available here from the Table Officers, but I
just would like to read into the record so that the public themselves can
formulate their own opinions about what they see is happening, and we can all
keep a close eye as to when these positions are eliminated, how are they being
filled. Are they truly being filled by an Independent Appointments Commission?
Are they truly being filled by the best person for the job? Or are they
positions that were just moved out of the way to make room for friends?
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'd say the latter.
MS. PERRY:
We've seen overwhelmingly it
has been the latter, unfortunately to date, which is so sad. We have encouraged
our young children to go to university, or go to trade school, get an education
and look for jobs. When they see things like this happen, make no wonder they
leave Newfoundland and Labrador and move on to Ontario, British Columbia and
Alberta. It's incredibly discouraging to see politics at play with taxpayers'
dollars in terms of the jobs that are available in the public service.
It's
appalling actually, and I'd heard about it a lot as a child. I'd heard about the
Joey days a lot as a child. I'd never heard so much about Joey as I have in the
last two years because people are saying it's just like the Joey era again. And,
no doubt, all governments have done it, it's the way of politics, but what was
different about this government is that they said they wouldn't. They promised
that they wouldn't. They brought in their signature bill as an Independent
Appointments Commission, yet, lo and behold, we're seeing more political
appointments than we have seen in decades.
So under
the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, they are abolishing
three directors, 25 managers and two executive support positions for a grand
total of 30, and there will be no new hires actually. So in Advanced Education
and Skills hats off to the minister there no new creations, all eliminations
there.
At the
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, there are 17 directors
being eliminated, 11 managers and one executive support for a total of 29, but
three directors and eight managers are being hired in new positions. We don't
know who they are yet.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Are they Liberals?
MS. PERRY:
We're still tracing it, but
the question my colleagues are asking: Are they Liberals? That's the whole point
of why I am reading this out because I'd like the media to keep an eye to this.
I'd like the public to keep an eye to this. We, as Opposition, are going to keep
an eye to this because it's wrong.
These
positions, if they're being created because they're going to make government
better, then put the best person in the job, not the person who ran the Liberal
campaign or who was the Liberal candidate in a former election because too much
of that has happened in the last two years.
At The
Rooms two managers positions are being eliminated and no new positions are being
created. In the next department, CSSD, we have 10 directors being eliminated, 11
managers and three at executive support; however, we're seeing four directors
being hired back. Who would those four directors be?
At
Executive Council, five managers eliminated, one executive support and no new
hires. In the Executive Council, Human Resources Secretariat, one director
eliminated, 20 managers eliminated and one executive support eliminated; two
will be replaced by one new director who is going to be coming in, and three new
managers.
In the
Women's Policy Office, we've seen one director eliminated, but one manager is
being rehired. So who's going out the door and who's coming back in the door
there? Something for us all to keep an eye to.
At
Government House, one manager was eliminated and one manager has been rehired.
As I continue down the list and the chart is small so it's a little hard on my
eyes here tonight. In the Department of Finance, four directors are being
eliminated, 22 managers are being eliminated and two executive supports are
being eliminated.
In
Health and Community Services, we see four directors eliminated, seven managers
eliminated, but we're seeing one new director being rehired and we're seeing one
bargaining unit position actually being rehired. I can keep going, but I'm sure
that this is quite long; you get the picture.
They're
taking jobs out they're taking a fair number of jobs out, but they're putting
jobs back in and we still don't have the position titles of the jobs that
they're putting back in. We do have the position titles for some of the jobs
they've taken back out.
Again,
the reason I raise that and why I wanted to speak about that tonight is because
it's incredibly, incredibly disheartening and it's wrong. It is absolutely wrong
to fire people from their jobs and then, a few weeks later or a few months
later, put someone back in the job that has a political connection. In this day
and age, that should never, never happen.
I hear
heckling over there; you can get up and you can talk about Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing and who ran all of that. I can get up and I can go into a
tirade of everybody who was in a political post in the '90s. I can go through a
tirade of everybody who was in a political post in the '80s and in the '70s.
What's different is you can campaigned to not do it anymore.
Do you
know what? We can all support that. If we could actually see that to be true, I
think that would gain incredible respect, not just from Newfoundlanders but all
across the country and all across the Commonwealth because that is how politics
has worked and you promised to do it differently. But we didn't get that. You
promised a better tomorrow; we did not get that. So it is all very
disheartening.
One
thing I did notice this afternoon was that finally I heard one of the Members
opposite get up and talk about the good things that are happening in the
province. I said well, thank God, because for the two years leading up to the
election and two years since they've been elected, they've been playing a
political game, catering only to our population of 500,000, trying to brainwash
the people into thinking we're into a serious problem when in reality
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. PERRY:
Yes, we were in a serious
problem because you elected a crowd that didn't know what they were doing that
was the serious problem. It wasn't that the sky was falling. Every other
jurisdiction across this country, across North America, and around the globe is
dealing with the oil crisis in a much better way than we are. But finally,
they're starting to talk about the good things that are happening in
Newfoundland.
They got
up today and actually said b'y, the doom and gloom, got to stop talking about
the doom and gloom. We were never talking about the doom and gloom. That was
your message that you brought in when you took government, not our message. We
have confidence in the people of this province. We have confidence in their
skills and in their expertise.
Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed a great place to live. I truly hope I hear
you talking more about the great things that are happening. Instead of selling
us short to our residents for the next vote, sell us strongly to the global
stage because we are very much contenders in the global stage, if we position
ourselves that way.
That was
where our government was positioning us and it is where true leaders will
position us. Please God, we will be back to true leadership before too long.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Madam
Speaker.
Another
thing that I heard in one of these speeches from the Member opposite this
afternoon was talking about debt and the debt load that the province has and not
wanting to pass debt on to your grandchildren. I took note when the Member
opposite was talking about that, the Liberal Member, and I said could you please
have that conversation with our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau because Justin
Trudeau is bringing significant debt, $30 billion and counting in debt to this
country. Your grandchildren's grandchildren will never withstand it, so please
have a talk to Trudeau about your concerns about budgets because he's doing what
you guys get up and condemn on a daily basis and it's kind of scary.
If you
could share some of your insight with respect to managing the books in a more
fiscally responsible manner, that would be great because no matter what we do to
take ourselves out of debt provincially, federally we'll never climb out from in
under it at the rate that the spending is taking place.
Madam
Speaker, I'm quickly running out of time. In terms of the good things that are
happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, I'm going to end by talking about that
tonight. Hydro power, today is the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland and
Labrador's hydro generating facility that exists in Bay d'Espoir and I tell you
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
it's quite a special day
for us. Hydro has been good. Hydro has been incredibly good to the people of Bay
d'Espoir. It has enabled my family, my friend's families, to live there. We all
were afforded the opportunity to remain living there and grow up there, despite
the fact that there was incredible hardship in the province with the downturn of
the fishery. Because hydro created that opportunity for us and it created a
stable employment base where over 100 people still live and work today,
operating that plant in Bay d'Espoir.
In fact,
I've spoken about it in the House just a couple of weeks ago; we're seeing a
particular boom now with the development of Muskrat Falls and the construction
of a new transmission line across to the Avalon. In terms of ideas, I'm sure the
Premier has heard me talk about one idea and his colleagues will tell him one
great idea that I think is worth pursuing, and that the Cabinet Committee on
Jobs could really benefit from exploring this idea, is converting the access
that's being put in place now for the hydro transmission line, which is a Class
4 road, converting that into a proper road that opens up the interior of the
Southwest Coast, opens up new agriculture farmland, opens up the opportunities
for significant expansion in aquaculture and tourism and it would benefit not
just the Coast of Bays region, not just the Burin Peninsula region, it would
benefit the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On that
note, I do truly hope, once we put Budget
2017 behind us, we do all stand up and talk more about the positive things
in the province. I do commend, like I said, the government Members opposite for
taking strides to reduce budget expenditures through the zero-based budgeting.
It is definitely a commendable initiative and we look to seeing more and, as we
see more things, we will commend them.
Thank
you very much.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I don't
have much time to speak. We're taking part in the budget debate here this
evening and for everyone watching at home I wanted to say that it was quite
inspiring to hear the hon. Premier deliver his comments here this evening.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
As he pointed out, there are
quite a lot of good things in this budget and we're making a lot of progress,
there's no question about that. But I also wanted to respond to some of the
things that have just been said in the last couple of hours by the Opposition
Members here in the House of Assembly.
Specifically the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for Cape St. Francis
and the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune raised issues associated with two
themes I guess as part of the speaking points that have been done up in the
Opposition office because they don't have a lot to say to criticize this budget,
so they're talking about issues of trust and issues related to patronage.
Again,
going back to something that the Premier alluded to in his budget speech a
moment ago, the former PC Party premier pointed out last week in the House that
we should not forget history; we have to remember our past, at our peril. There
are issues associated with trust and with patronage that we have to remember
about the previous administration, especially when they get up one after the
other after the other and after the other and don't talk about this year's
budget but they talk about issues of trust and issues associated with patronage.
I've
been sitting here in my seat for a number of weeks now going over the report of
the Auditor General, the review of the Humber Valley Paving imbroglio, which
seems to be forgotten by the Members of the Opposition for some reason or
another, but this was only September 2014. That wasn't very long ago. So if
people want to talk about issues of patronage and trust, therein lies patronage
and trust, I say, coupled together
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
in a fairly thick report from the Auditor General.
It's
shocking to me that they don't remember their own history. The Humber Valley
Paving situation and I don't want to belabour it but I will just review it
very briefly. In that situation, the individual who was about to be acclaimed
Leader of the PC Party was mysteriously relieved of his obligations by the
minister of Transportation and Works for $19 million worth of obligations to the
people of the province, in just a few hours, in a way that was absolutely
absurd.
The
Auditor General pointed out at the time that he was not able to satisfy himself
at all that all of the questions had been answered. That's why I'm glad we're
going to see a public inquiry into this issue before this term of office is
over. We have to see that done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
There's stuff in here. In the
House of Assembly, I remember the minister responsible and other ministers
standing up and saying: I didn't know Gene Coleman was related to Frank Coleman.
I didn't know he had anything to do with Humber Valley Paving.
Right
here in the report of the Auditor General it says: The deputy minister also
reminded the minister that there may be some sensitivity around this course of
action because of the relationship of Mr. Frank Coleman with the company. He
told that to the minister and yet stands up here in the House of Assembly and
say I don't know anything about it.
Page
after page after page, we have not been able to satisfy ourselves why two
ministers within a half an hour independently contacted the deputy minister of
Transportation and Works to inquire about the status of Humber Valley Paving on
the morning of March 13, 2014. When they were asked about it about here in the
House of Assembly it was coincidental. They just happened to, in the space of a
half hour, both
AN HON. MEMBER:
A different group of
Colemans.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes.
Both
contact the deputy minister and asked about exactly the same project because, of
course, the next day their guy was going to be acclaimed leader and they wanted
him to be relieved of his obligations, his fiduciary responsibilities to the
people of the province. That's just one thing.
I don't
have much time so I'll leave Humber Valley here. There's a lot of reading there
and, like I said, I can't wait for all of that to come back and for people to be
subpoenaed, to speak under oath and to finally tell the truth about what
happened there. You lecture us on issues, trust and patronage; that brings me to
another issue: Muskrat Falls, speaking of imbroglios.
In the
summer, prior to the election in 2015, we were all wondering what was going on
with the fiscal situation of the province. We were also wondering what was going
on with the situation at Muskrat Falls. We were hearing all sorts of rumours.
That
spring there were pictures being posted on the Internet of this Integrated Cover
System, they called it. It was this dome that, in their wisdom, somebody decided
they were going to build in a rugged interior of Labrador, to put a dome over
Muskrat Falls so that they could work during the winter.
Well,
the dome blew down. Tens and tens of millions of dollars, basically, just
garbled up and wrapped up, basically thrown away for scrap. Tens of millions of
dollars of taxpayers' money just tossed away. This is one of the selling points
of Muskrat Falls. So during that period of time, we know now that there were
very serious issues with Astaldi and the contract. They were looking for
hundreds of millions of additional dollars from the people of the province for
their contract for Muskrat Falls.
I will
never forget the day the leader of the Opposition, who is the hon. Premier right
now, stood in his place right there, he looked over, he asked the then minister
of Natural Resources about how the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador would
be left on the hook for all of this dome issue. That minister stood up and he
said: No, the people of the province, the taxpayers of Newfoundland and
Labrador, won't have to pay for any of this. We knew, he knew, at the time
that's exactly what was going on, that Astaldi was looking for additional funds
for compensation for this problem with the dome.
Subsequently, we had to bring in a new CEO who went in and fixed that contract
issue, but all of that was known at the time. So don't lecture us about issues
of trust when people stood up here in the House of Assembly and said things that
were absolutely not the case.
Then the
Member for Cape St. Francis talks about our election platform and the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune discussed the same thing. We wrote, the Premier wrote
he was leader of the Opposition, leader of the Liberal Party at the time. He
wrote to the PC premier, he wrote to the premier of the day, asked what the
fiscal situation was in that September. He never got a response. He never got a
single response and all of these financial issues were piling up and piling up.
After
the election was over, the true nature of the fiscal situation became known. It
was completely a mess. Not what we were sold that year.
Going
back to the whole issue again of trust and political patronage, anybody remember
the public service pensioners? Remember that? The Member for Cape St. Francis
got up and said you have to respect seniors. That's the way they respected those
seniors. They went after retired public service pensioners, on an $8 billion
budget, to get $900,000 or so in overpayments that were made on their watch to
these pensioners.
There
was one woman in her 90s who they went after. Who did they hire to do that?
Speaking of patronage. They hired a guy by the name of Leo Bonnell. This has all
been in the news. I can say this; this has all been reported publicly. They
hired an individual who was a member of the district association for the PC
Party for the PC Finance minister of the day to go after seniors for
overpayments on pensions that they had no role in causing.
In the
end, I have to hand it to the Minister of Finance right now because one of the
first acts she took when she assumed that office was to say: Hey, you know what,
we will respect seniors. We're going to stop this because this is
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
That's what happened there.
Again,
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune said we have never seen patronage like
this before in our life what we're seeing here today. I pointed out the irony
that just five portraits down the wall there is a distinguished Newfoundlander
and Labradorian by the name of Len Simms. He had a distinguished career in the
House of Assembly. He was leader of the PC Party and he was also Speaker. That's
why his portrait is on the wall. He was Speaker while the PC Party was in
government. He had a distinguished career.
One of
the things that happened after the Conservatives, the PC Party, assumed power is
they used the public service to keep Len Simms on retainer so he could run their
elections. Basically, they had another fellow, again another distinguished
Newfoundlander and Labradorian by the name of Ross Reid. He was a deputy
minister. According to everything that's been debated here, the Members of the
PC Party would say, well, that's a non-partisan post.
They
would basically take these two chaps, they would resign or they would leave
their positions in the public service. They would go out; they would run the PC
Party election campaigns. Then a week after the election was over they would
mysteriously be rehired to positions in the public service until the next
election when they would step down again, run the election campaign and come
back. Absolutely, this happened on more than one occasion.
They
seem to forget what happened on their very own watch. Over and over again, we
can recount these things. I have a list here, a lengthy list, of people who
appointed one day the former deputy premier who is now the Opposition Member
for Mount Pearl North, one day he made 40 appointments 40 appointments in one
day.
Another
gentleman who was running for the leadership of the PC Party, was a former PC
Education minister, held a number of portfolios, interestingly enough, which you
probably won't find in the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. John
Ottenheimer was actually principal of St. Joseph's Academy when I was in grade
one another distinguished Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
After he
failed to become Leader of the PC Party in September of 2014, they decided to
appoint him as CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation a
position interestingly enough, previously held by Len Simms who was also
appointed to that position.
To stand
here and to be lectured over and over again about patronage and issues of trust,
you don't have a leg to stand on. It's funny because the Member for Conception
Bay East Bell Island he stood here one day and he was slinging mud at someone
who works on my staff and he made some comment to my running mate. The Member
for Conception Bay East Bell Island, he appointed the fellow who sits behind
him in the House of Assembly to be his second executive assistant during the
hiring freeze, after the hon. Member failed to win a by-election in Conception
Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
It is galling to stand here,
for him to stand over there and accuse me of patronage when he hired the guy who
now sits behind him to a second executive assistant position during a hiring
freeze, after the gentleman failed to win a by-election and get a seat in the
House of Assembly. It's, again, no leg to stand on.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Imbroglios everywhere.
MR. KIRBY:
There are imbroglios
everywhere, absolutely.
I think
we've established the whole issue of the Romanian ferries and the failure to
plan for the wharf on Bell Island but, hopefully, and we are working hard I
know the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works is working hard to make sure
that the people on Bell Island finally get the ferry and the wharf that their
Member was unfortunately unable to deliver on.
I could
go down over and over and over, all of these other issues of trust. Remember the
Fisheries Fund? Now, they claim that we don't have one but, as the hon. Premier
said, he will not have events with federal officials that do not include federal
officials.
This is
what happened. On the eve of the by-election in Carbonear Harbour Grace when
Sam Slade was elected to the House of Assembly, on the eve of that, what they
did was they went out and they announced the fictitious Fisheries Fund as a way,
as far as I'm concerned, to try and influence that by-election.
They
went down to The Rooms and they had
the biggest kind of a party; they cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars. The
Leader of the NDP who is now Leader of the NDP, he was there. They had a grand
ole time; they celebrated this money that was never ever agreed to by the
federal government.
So
again, we have an agreement with federal government. They had none, but they had
absolutely no problem trotting this out and pretending that this was the case. I
could go on and on and on because there's quite a lot to all of this, but I
guess the point is those in glass houses should not be throwing stones. And
there are so many stones that have been thrown here today that I really find it
hard to believe.
The
other thing that I just want to quickly comment on because I know I've been
asked to spare some time for other Members of our caucus to speak
MR. JOYCE:
If anything you said is not
true, get them to stand up and speak on it.
MR. KIRBY:
If anything I say is not
true, stand up.
The
other thing that is really fatiguing is to stand here in Question Period day
after day after day and answer questions, be asked questions why they made
decisions of a certain nature while they were in government. Today again in the
House of Assembly I was asked to explain why it was that the previous
administration, that the PC minister of Education made changes to the public
examination for English 3201. It was like it was my decision. I was not minister
when that decision was made, but I did explain to the Member why it was. He sat
around the Cabinet table, had no idea.
Likewise
the school that they had planned for Witless Bay, they put a $28 million price
tag on that school and I'm being asked where did you get that number where'd
you get that number? We got that number from their materials. That was their
number; I got that number from them. These are all decisions that were made
around the Cabinet table.
You
would assume that ministers at that time, the PC Members, would have known what
it was that was being decided on their watch. They're completely divorced from
those decisions, and you have to wonder. That's why things went on like the
Humber Valley Paving mess. That's why we had that scandal, because people did
not have their eye on the ball, they were not paying attention to the decisions
that were being made, and that's how messes get created and that's how we ended
up with a $2.7 billion disaster on our hands when this government assumed power.
I could
go on and on about this, but I will say one final time, there's enough material
here to write a number of books about and I'm sure people will be doing that
at one point or another. But please don't stand here and lecture us about trust
and issues associated with patronage and transparency when you wrote the book on
this over and over for 13 or so years that you were in power.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Lewisporte Twillingate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
always a great honour to speak in this hon. House on behalf of the people of the
beautiful District of Lewisporte Twillingate. I'm not sure I'm going to
follow that act there by the former speaker. Being a veteran MHA, I must say he
did a great job there. I'm going to focus my time on the budget to talk about
some of the great things happening within the province.
First of all, I'm going to start off I was hoping to
speak last week, Madam Speaker, to talk about Municipal Awareness Week. As a
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Speaker is having trouble hearing the Member recognized
to speak. I ask people for their co-operation.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Last week was Municipal Awareness Week and I just want to
commend all the mayors and councilors and municipal workers who are doing such a
great job in running our province. In my district, I've got 43 communities; 11
of which are municipal councils and the other 32 are LSDs.
Like my colleague for Fogo Island Cape Freels and some of
the other Members in this hon. House, I, too, served within a municipal
government there. I served as a recreation director with the Tourism Department
for 25 years, so I know the great work that's being done by our municipalities,
by many of the volunteers and all the other people that help to run our
communities. I just wanted to say a thank you to a number of the mayors and
councilors in my district that have chosen not seek re-election this year. There
are a number of them. However, I do want to recognize one:
Mayor Johnny Hamlyn from the
community of Crow Head. Mayor Hamlyn has served the Town of Crow Head for 55
years as mayor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. D. BENNETT:
Madam Speaker, to the best of
my knowledge, that's the longest, current serving mayor in all of Canada. I
would think highly that it's probably one of the longest, if not the longest,
serving in all of North America.
I've
spoken to Mayor Hamlyn there on Friday night during the high school graduation
and he's still deciding whether he's going to run again for the next election
this coming September. More than likely Mayor Hamlyn will. God willing, he'll
have the strength and health. I know he's a very vibrant man and he's very
passionate about the Town of Crow Head. I look forward to continuing to work
with him over the coming months, as I do with all the other mayor and
councillors in my district.
I just
want to take a few seconds to encourage new people in our communities to step
up. Far too often people get up and are quick to criticize the work of mayors,
councillors and members of local service districts, but I do commend the work
they do. I know the countless hours they put into running the communities. In
most cases this is all volunteer work, time they're taking away from their
families and taking time away from vacations and things like that.
If
you're out there and you're interested in becoming a mayor or councillor in a
community or local service district put your name forward, see what work is
really involved into running a municipal council. Again, thank you to all the
mayors and councillors in my district.
I also
have to acknowledge last week was another, I guess a special occasion for me
and my family. Actually, my wife on May 11 was 10 years smoke free. I just want
to say congratulations to my wife, Tina, for quitting the bad habit of smoking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. D. BENNETT:
It did not come without a lot
of struggles and a lot of hard work, and I must say a few disagreements between
ourselves over the years, but I have to commend her. She put up with me for 25
years, so 10 years of smoking, not bad.
I would
like to encourage anybody else out there that's listening tonight who do smoke
and would like to try to quit, to contact our Smokers' Helpline at
1-800-363-5864 or also go on the website and visit
www.smokershelp.net. Again, that's 1-800-363-5864 or
www.smokershelp.net. They do provide a great service.
Madam
Speaker, back to our budget; like I said, there are a lot of great things
happening within our government this year. Since we took office there has been a
great change in our position. While we're still financially challenged, and some
of us might say we're in a precarious situation, there's no doubt our province
is seeing light at the end of the tunnel. We're going to be better off for the
direction our government is taking and the choices we are making.
Last
year's budget forecast a $1.83 billion deficit.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. D. BENNETT:
One point eight three billion
dollars.
As a
result of our commitment to restoring financial footing, the 2017-2018 deficit
is projected to be $778 million; $22 million less than predicted last year.
Budget 2017
includes expenses of $8.1 billion and I think the Premier referenced that a
little earlier with a reduction of $283 million over last year's budget, Madam
Speaker. Revenues are only projected to be $7.3 billion.
I'm
proud to say that this year, Madam Speaker, our government will not have any new
taxes or increases in Budget 2017. I'm
also very pleased to say we will be honouring our commitment to reducing the
temporary gas tax by 75 per cent this year, taking off 8.5 cents June 1 and an
additional 4 cents per litre reduction on December 1, 2017.
Madam
Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Low Income and Seniors' Benefit will be
maintained this year through a $120 million investment. These programs benefit
approximately 155,000 individuals and families annually.
Budget 2017
also requires borrowing of
$400 million, which is $2 billion less than forecast last year. That's $2
billion that we are budgeting less for borrowing.
Madam
Speaker, this budget is about building to put a plan in place for future years.
We have to keep our costs in check over the medium term and we have to invest in
our province as we move forward. To that end, there's a lot of investment in
this budget; an additional $73 million over 10 years for mental health
initiatives. Rather than sitting idle on recommendations and legislation, like
was put forward before the previous government, we will be acting on
recommendations put forward by the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. D. BENNETT:
and also moving forward on
a number of other great initiatives for the benefit of our residents.
Madam
Speaker, our government is committed to supporting our communities. We have
invested $115 million to be provided to community groups for operational
funding, as well as support for projects and programs that we deliver to our
residents. This includes a commitment to maintain core funding for 2017-2018 for
the multi-year approach funding to our community grants.
We have
also budgeted $14.4 million for economic and business development; $100 million
for municipal infrastructure over the next three years, with $70 million going
into multi-year capital works, and $30 million for municipal capital works
programs; $22 million for municipal operating grants, which will remain at our
current levels; an additional $23.3 million will be put in place to maintain the
HST rebate for municipalities; and $7.1 million for the provincial gas tax
revenue sharing, which will increase to one cent per litre this year for our
municipalities.
Madam
Speaker, the provincial government is committed to collaborating with the
Government of Canada to leverage federal funding to maximize infrastructure and
investments. Budget 2017 has committed
to $15 million for municipal projects funded under the national-regional project
component for the new Building Canada Fund.
The Way Forward,
Madam Speaker, was launched late last year. This document is guiding and giving
direction to work forward. It has provided agencies and departments with a focus
on saving funds wherever possible and maintaining quality public services. Two
of the key elements used this year to make it possible were the zero-based
budgeting and a more balanced management approach structure. As we proceed, it
is important to manage government benefits and salaries.
Of our
total budget, a full $3.3 million is committed to salaries, which is why a wage
freeze has been implemented for management and non-union employees for this
current fiscal year.
Mr.
Speaker, I would now like to talk about our government's investment in a couple
of industries that play an important part to the economic development and
sustainability of communities in my district. There are a number of commitments
in this budget that are very encouraging from my perspective.
Under
Tourism, we will be contributing $20 million to support cultural and heritage
initiatives; allocating $13 million to continue our marketing on tourism
destination, and increasing the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development
Corporation's equity investment program by an additional $2 million.
The
fishery and aquaculture are also very important to me and my district and our
caucus. In 2016, seafood production value reached a high of $1.4 billion and
directly employed 17,000 people; more than $5 million for investment in wild
fishery and aquaculture industries. This funding will leverage significant
investment from the private sector and the federal government. This includes
$2.8 million for the Aquaculture Capital Equity Investment Fund; $2 million for
the Seafood Innovation and Transition Program, which will support technology and
innovation in harvesting, processing, aquaculture and marketing, with a focus on
recovering the groundfish industry.
Mr.
Speaker, $100,000 is allocated for the Fisheries Advisory Committee, comprising
of stakeholders to provide input to government decision making around the
province's fishing industry; and another $500,000 for the Fish Plant Worker
Employment Support Program.
In
agriculture, which is also very important to me, as we have a number of
agriculture industries within my district, we will be investing $3.9 million to
continue on the Growing Forward 2, which is a five-year, $37 million,
cost-shared project with our federal government.
We will
be investing $3.25 million for the Provincial Agrifoods Assistance Program to
focus on food self-sufficiency, land development and industry growth, and
approximately $1 million into agriculture research and development to crops such
as canola. An additional $500,000 will be invested for the Cranberry Industry
Development Program.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a couple other good things I'd like to speak to regarding my
district. I know my time is getting short and we have few other speakers who
would like to speak. Fire protection is very important to my district, as I'm
sure it is to all districts. Over the last number of months, eight communities
within my district, including the communities of Laurenceton, Brown's Arm,
Lewisporte, Little Burnt Bay, Embree, Campbellton, Comfort Cove-Newstead and
Loon Bay have been all working together to form regional fire services.
This is
probably one of the largest initiatives showing regionalization of fire
departments anywhere in the province right now. They have signed an MOU among
all the adjacent communities and hopefully, within the next few months, they
will be signing a full document that will incorporate the fire services
throughout those eight communities.
The
regionalization of the service is not designed to eliminate any of the local
fire departments but, rather, to enhance the fire services. These eight
communities will work together for training, work together to share services and
to provide a superior service in fire protection to my area.
I must
say, Mr. Speaker, in speaking with these communities and the residents of the
area, we're very excited about this fire protection and the initiative of the
regionalization of services. It's going to make a big difference on fire
protection because many of my communities, although they may have 15 or 20
members in their fire department, many have all volunteers, many of them are
seasonal workers that work out of town either during the daytime or working
outside the province.
So, at
times during the day, although they may have a full contingent of firefighters,
there's a good part of the day they may only have two or three in the community.
Now this regional service will make sure that in the event they're not fully
staffed that other firefighters will be able to come and help out. So it's very
reassuring.
Another
big part of that is the fire training. We all know that no matter what job you
do, as the old saying goes, you're only as strong as your weakest link. By
providing services together, all eight fire departments will be trained equally
and be able to provide the same level of service.
I do
look forward to continuing to work with our local fire department, as I'm sure
our minister is very excited about that, and also Fire and Emergency Services. I
think once this program is implemented, it is definitely going to be something
the rest of the province is going to want to follow. Because, like I said, eight
local fire departments is an exception.
I want
to commend all the firefighters throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. There are
approximately 5,900 volunteers that service our province. So a big thank you to
all the fire departments. Again, I just want to say hats off and congratulations
on what they do on regional service.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to speaking again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly I'm happy to rise to speak to
Budget 2017. Mr. Speaker, this budget is a combination of a lot of hard word
by the Minister of Finance and the Finance staff that worked diligently to bring
forward a budget that helps us pave the way forward.
The
other part of this combination that cannot be ignored is the fact the former
administration caused this province to incur a $2.2 billion debt. Now, in order
to find out where we stand in our financial situation, I think we must first
understand how we got here. The uphill struggle to get our province back on
keel, even when it comes to our financial realities, was not caused by the
current government; rather, it was caused by the former PC administration.
Over the
last 12 years of the former administration's time in government, they negated
through several Blue Books promises that would practise solid financial
management. I'd like to share some of those promises, Mr. Speaker. Here's an
extract from one of the Blue Book promises from the PC administration when they
were power. I quote: Our fiscal policies will keep a tight rein on government
spending and orient new spending to areas that enhance economic growth.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl, in 2012, went so far as to say: Prosperity
is about fiscal responsibility and, once again, we are delivering a budget that
is all about fiscal responsibility. All this time, Mr. Speaker, the people of
the province were being misled and the comments on our financial status in 2015
stating that the deficit was $1.1 billion, which is half of what the reality
was.
More
promises by the former PC administration in 2007, the Blue Book stated: We
made it our goal to chart a far more responsible course: to stop overburdening
future generations with an ever-increasing burden of debt that was siphoning
more and more public money away from the programs in order to pay for debt
servicing. Mr. Speaker, does that not sound familiar?
The only
question I have for the former administration: What happened? What did you do?
How could a government with $25 billion in revenue manage to contradict its own
mandate and put the people of this province in such a financial mess? How could
a government with such high royalty over 15 years leave us with $2.2 plus
billion debt?
There is
more, Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of April, 2013, the Member for Conception Bay
East Bell Island stood on his feet in the House of Assembly and this is what
he said: In 2003 when the new government comes in, the books are open. We get a
reality check. We are in bad shape. We are borderline bankrupt.
He went
on to say: How do you deal with this? How do you get through the first year?
This is how he answered it, Mr. Speaker: You assess, you make harsh decisions
and you move forward.
I ask
again, Mr. Speaker, in 12 years with $25 billion in royalties, what happened?
Where did you go wrong? I remember the Member for Cape St. Francis a few years
ago when he stood on his feet and said, I don't blame the Liberal government;
times were different. They did not have the money that we have.
The hon.
Member went on to say: I just want to take responsibility for what we're doing
and what we have done since 2003. We are making smart investments.
Mr.
Speaker, I can't blame the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis because given the
financial status that we inherited in 2015, the hon. Member was clearly
misinformed. I can't remember the word now.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hoodwinked.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Hoodwinked, yes.
Mr.
Speaker, we checked out the investments made by the former administration, there
was no surprise. Even with the economic indicator showing a drop in oil prices,
the PCs thought that stimulating the offshore resource sector would solve the
financial crisis.
The
Premier of the province went on to say the price of oil would not go under $100.
In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the price dropped to $27 per barrel at one point.
Now the comment about the PC government not being very good at math turned out
to be most true.
In the
face of the downslide in our finances, the Member for Mount Pearl North stood on
his feet and he said this, Mr. Speaker: We are a government that demonstrates
maturity and shows financial responsibility and demonstrates sound planning for
the future. We are prepared to make the necessary tough choices that need to be
made today to ensure we have a strong future.
This is
what the Member for Mount Pearl North said, Mr. Speaker. My question again, what
happened? What were they thinking about?
In 2015,
when this government had a chance to reveal our financial situation for the
first time, the financial situation that was turned over to us by the former
administration, the truth was shocking. We had an idea the debt would be
substantial but to see it more than double what the PC administration said it
was, it was a little hard to comprehend.
Again,
to use the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island's own words, how do you
deal with this? How do you get through the first year? You make harsh decisions,
you move forward. Now it's okay for them to do that but it's not okay when the
reality is that you do have to make harsh decisions.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North also stated when it comes to the civil service, he
said, yes, it seems to be brought to a bloated level I think was the word, a
bloated level. I think 75-plus people of the province agreed with him, Mr.
Speaker.
Now,
that being said, we have a job to do. We have to stave off disaster. We have to
do what the former PC administration said they would do, but they never did. We
have to get this province back on track; and, yes, Mr. Speaker, like the Member
for Conception Bay East Bell Island stated, we have to make some difficult
decisions.
These
aren't decisions that any government would want to make, Mr. Speaker. These are
decisions we had to make. The only other option was to declare bankruptcy, and I
can't even imagine how worse that would have been. For the people of our
province, we have not let the financial burden handed to us by the former PC
government it would have been the end of our province.
Mr.
Speaker, as a government, we didn't have a choice. We had to step up.
Essentially, we have to fix a problem that was caused by the former
administration. Last year we had such a short window to let the people of the
province know exactly how serious the state our province is in financially,
especially when the former premier, current Leader of the Opposition, told the
people of the province the debt was $1.1 billion. The Minister of Finance had a
tough job to do last year, and it wasn't a job she wanted to do, it was a job
she had to do.
I hear
Members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, continuously criticizing government for
doing what they should have done, and more importantly, what could have avoided
if they would have practiced their own preaching we wouldn't be in this problem.
Now our job, Mr. Speaker, is to get this province where we want it to be, where
it should have been when we formed government. Unfortunately, we've been in
damage control for quite some time, and we have to adjust the damage caused by
the former PC government.
I think
it was a CBC reporter that put it in a good description, Mr. Speaker. He said
the PCs are like the foxes that ate all the chickens and are now asking for the
eggs. I think that's probably the best description of the former administration.
Mr.
Speaker, we had to set our own goals to get ourselves back on track. We couldn't
follow the path of the former administration, because that's what caused the
problem. The Third Party doesn't have any plan except to criticize every plan
that's there. I think I could go on as far as they made a plan themselves they
would probably criticize it, Mr. Speaker.
We also
don't have the luxury of running away from a problem and we don't have the
luxury of being provided with a plan. We have set tough challenges to ourselves
in the Way Forward, Mr. Speaker, and
we are meeting those challenges.
Budget 2017,
after just one year, shows ability in taking a crisis and turning the tide and
moving forward with ongoing and continuous improvement as we go forward.
My
colleagues on this side of the House, no doubt, have given many examples of how
we have moved ahead and how we are well underway to fixing the crisis that was
handed to us by the PC government in the past. We have reduced the deficit from
what could have been $2.2 billion to just over a billion dollars. Furthermore,
we set a goal to reduce the deficit to $1.83 billion and we surpassed that
number in one year.
We have
reduced the borrowing requirements from a staggering $2.4 billion that was
handed to us by the former PC administration to approximately $400 million,
which is a difference of $2 billion. I think that's something I'd be proud of.
We've set a goal to return to surplus in the next five years.
The
Premier in his statement said this is not about politics; this is about
repairing our province and not ever again being dependent on the fluctuating
prices of royalties, especially oil. The former administration did this, and
this is why we are in the state we are in.
Mr.
Speaker, in conclusion, I'd just like to say that we still have a lot of work to
do, and we will continue to roll out initiatives; initiatives such as the Job
Growth Strategy that will create prosperity and diversity in our province on the
way forward.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak to Budget 2017,
following my colleague the Member for Torngat Mountains. He certainly set the
context for where the Opposition, the PC administration had left the province,
the state they had left government and the people with $2.2 billion deficit,
onwards of $2.7 billion by their inability to manage and properly make decisions
when they had tremendous, tremendous amounts of revenues coming in to the
province. They had a significant spending problem and I go back and say a matter
of PC math and PC economics and the Premier mentioned a little bit earlier
this evening how they bet the future of Newfoundland and Labrador on $100 per
barrel or more oil. Not just for one year, but for 50-plus years. In the whole
history of the world, that has not happened for more than 15 months.
So when
you talk about their reliability and their ability to plan, their history and
their past dictate they have their fictitious infrastructure, their $5 billion
infrastructure plans that the Auditor General, when went looking, couldn't find
it.
Our
government collectively, as a whole, we work as a team, a team of leaders where
we have a vision to offer a strong future for all of our residents, and we're
realizing our potential for that stronger tomorrow in our budget. That's why
we've mapped out a very clear plan to be able to return to surplus; that in
Budget 2017 there are no new taxes or
fees; that 75 per cent of the temporary gas tax will be removed in this year's
budget; where 8.5 cents will be removed in just a couple of weeks; where we will
see not just 8.5 cents, but the HST that will be stacked on top of it, so that's
almost 10 cents relief to consumers. That is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. That is
a good thing, and it is a responsible thing to do.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit will be
maintained through $120 million investment. When they get up and they talk about
we're not doing anything for seniors that's $120 million investment in the
budget. This is from the PC administration that thinks that a Seniors' Advocate
is a luxury. Well, I will tell you that this benefit is for 155,000 individuals
and families annually that are availing of this.
The
budget this year, through proper planning, we've been able to reduce our
borrowing requirement to $400 million $2 billion lower. If you have to borrow
less money, that means there's less interest that has to be paid in servicing
the debt. When they got into government, they chose to start paying down debt
and lower that debt servicing; but when they left government, they left
government in worse shape than what it was, causing more dollars, more of that
dollar to actually be spent on debt servicing than when they started. That's the
actions of the previous administration, the PC administration, and their
financial astuteness.
When it
comes to our actions, we've been able to find $283 million in savings, a
significant amount from zero-based budgeting; $42 million from reviewing
expenditures at agencies, boards and commissions; looking at removing
duplications and streamlining different structures within departments, agencies,
boards and commissions.
If you
look at just in the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources, the former
administration was offering a $2 million program, but they were making sure that
there was over a half million dollars in administration costs just to administer
that program. If there is more and more for administration it's the same way
when people criticize the Home Heating Rebate being removed. We've removed the
administrative cost of the Home Heating Rebate, which was $2.3 million to
administer.
All the
people who were eligible for the Home Heating Rebate previously are still
eligible for that amount, and more, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Income
Supplement in quarterly payments and the Seniors' Benefit, and they're receiving
more. Whereas the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands gets up and talks, no, but
you took this away you took this away. Well, the facts are the facts. These
people are eligible for more money than they would have previously. By being
able to take that $2.3 million that was used in administration it will able to
go back and benefit more people. These are 155,000 individuals across
Newfoundland and Labrador that are benefiting from this service.
If you
look at strategic investments that we've made for healthy living, for safe and
sustainable communities, education and skills development, industry and business
and infrastructure, the budget has $573 million for infrastructure investments
for roads, schools, health care facilities, municipal infrastructure programs.
There's also investment to diversify the economy, to create more jobs;
committing $8 million for an Investment Attraction Fund, which will encourage
and support foreign direct investment in the province; $14.4 million for
investment in economic and business programs to support communities all across
Newfoundland and Labrador; $19 million for research and development.
There's
significant federal leverage for trade and investment. When we look at rural
broadband, it was something that I raised when we were Estimates, that the
previous PC administration when there was federal broadband program of $225
million, they choose to ignore the federal investment and used the taxpayers of
this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to subsidize Internet through that
capacity, whereas they could have used the federal leverage.
We're
actually reaching out and being able to get up 90 per cent for broadband through
the federal government. We're making the provincial dollars work smarter, Mr.
Speaker, and that is the responsible thing to do. When it comes to trade
missions, they were paying 100 per cent of the cost for trade missions when they
could be leveraging up to 95 per cent. They were paying out unnecessary rents to
the tunes of hundreds of thousands of dollars. We found savings in my department
alone.
So
growing their lease space, growing the footprint and the size of government year
over year over year their ghost telephone lines, there were dozens and dozens
of telephone lines in government departments that they were paying the bills for
but there was no one sitting at the desk. Because remember in 2013 they laid off
2,000-plus employees and they kept the phone lines going for years.
Then
there's duplication, as I said earlier, around the administration cost. When we
look at investments in tourism, they were contributing $20 million, an increase
of 9 per cent for culture and heritage, the arts community. These are
significant.
When we
look at, we've basically doubled the investment in the Film Development
Corporation's Equity Investment Program to $4 million. Film last year was $46
million in production cost alone; 600 direct, full-time equivalencies and
post-production work a lot of great work is being done in film and the things
that lead into artistic and creative and cultural industries; $13 million for
our tourism marketing campaign and to get people to our destination. We're
seeing a significant investment when it comes to tourism; it's 18,000 jobs, over
2,000 businesses.
The
fishery, in 2016 last year, seafood value production reached a historic high of
$1.4 billion, directly employing over 17,000 people, and there's $5 million
investment in wild fishery and aquaculture industries in this year's budget.
There's also money for the Seafood Innovation and Transition Program; plus we've
worked very diligently with the federal government to deliver $100 million from
federal funds for the fisheries investment program. That's something that they
didn't deliver when it comes to the federal government for the fishery.
In fact,
they replaced a lot of federal government funds when it comes to fishery science
and other investments. That was a DFO responsibility, but they decided to use
the provincial government tax dollars to fund those initiatives, and that
continues, go and go and go.
There
was $3.9 million for Growing Forward; it's a five-year program, $37 million,
cost-shared with the federal government. Having a good relationship with the
federal government has leveraged and created benefits for Newfoundland and
Labrador right here in our province.
We've
also seen where we've done a lot of research to look at things like canola, look
at barley. We're seeing a lot of craft breweries start up here, cider companies,
people are getting into these microbusinesses and that will lead to future
employment and job growth.
The
mining and resource extraction: If I look at the Minister of Natural Resources,
7,000 people employed in the mining resource extraction and we're seeing new
mines starting. I've had the pleasure to help extend a loan to Canada Fluorspar.
These are positive things. Junior Exploration Assistance and Prospecting. All of
these things are helping grow the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When we
look at roads and ferries, $77.2 million, a five-year roads program, being very
open and transparent, it's something the previous administration couldn't do.
They wouldn't reveal. They wouldn't release tenders early. It led to less value,
worse outcomes for the people of the province.
It shows
the PC math; it shows the PC economics. But when you have good economics and
when you understand math, you can deliver; you can meet your targets. You can
make a budget that works for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to realize
our potential so that we can create the jobs and build that economy for
tomorrow, so that Newfoundland and Labrador is on the right foot.
This is
the right team to be able to deliver for Newfoundland and Labrador. I will
certainly encourage everybody on that side of the House to vote for budget
2017-2018.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy again to have an opportunity to stand and speak in this House to
Budget 2017, although sometimes I get
confused because the Opposition has been referring to
Budget 2016. They haven't had much to say about
Budget 2017, although it's been
disappointing because there have been a number of positive initiatives in this
budget from various departments that the Members opposite have indicated that
they will not be supporting. I've spoken about those. That's unfortunate that
they won't be supporting Sexual Assault Response Pilot Program and other
initiatives.
I'm
going to get to Justice now in a second. I just wanted to take a few moments to
speak to the District of Burgeo La Poile which I haven't had much of an
opportunity, but now is as good as any. It's an opportunity to speak about some
of the things that we've seen and it's an opportunity for me to thank various
people for their support.
When it
comes to Burgeo La Poile, it's a district that there are a lot of positive
things happening, but unfortunately for a number of years it was neglected. I
think purely the reason that it was neglected was due to the fact that it was
not of the same stripe as the administration.
We've
seen this in the past, we've seen how this works, but it's been unfortunate in
situations where Members opposite like and there's nothing that boils me more
than when Members opposite talk about rural Newfoundland and rural Labrador, but
at the same time the fact is that they neglected it. They neglected it. I'm
going to give you one example.
It was
only a couple of years ago that the Burgeo Road and I don't often use this
word, but it's the appropriate one. Sometimes people don't use it appropriately.
The Burgeo Road, Route 480, literally started collapsing. Literally, it
collapsed. Through work done by the dedicated staff of Transportation and Works,
they identified a number of culverts that were in disrepair, were in danger of
collapsing again we already had one collapse where there was actually a
member of Transportation and Works who came very close to losing their life, but
did survive, thank God I've had an opportunity to speak to this gentleman on a
number of occasions. The scary part is that those issues were identified to the
previous ministers of Transportation and Works and they were not addressed
they were not addressed.
When I hear about that, there's a legal term that comes to
my mind, and it's called willful negligence or willful blindness, perhaps. And
it's unfortunate that the previous administration left that road in the state of
disrepair where it hadn't seen any significant repairs for the decade. But you
know what? Thankfully, due to the work of the Minister of Transportation and
Works the current one, not the previous ones who knew the issue was there, it
was identified by bureaucrats and they ignored it. Thankfully, due to this
minister and the dedicated staff, I can tell you due to investments, especially
in Budget 2017, this road is probably
in the best shape it's been in a number of years.
It's a road that deserves treatment, just like every road
in this province does. There have been significant improvements to a number of
roads, but I am very happy about this one. We haven't seen any work done in some
time, even though the fact is we actually had another collapse during
Thanksgiving of 2016 where the road collapsed. People were disconnected from the
rest of the province, having to get choppers, and it's because of repairs that
could have been made, but they weren't. They weren't not because of lack of
money, because this was a crowd that was flush with cash, they weren't made
because they just who knows why those repairs weren't made. I don't want to
speculate, but one can guess.
The other thing I want to talk about is I have a number of
municipalities in my district and they're trying to do very good work. They're
trying to work on their infrastructure, trying to work on water projects and
things like that. There have been a number of investments made especially
again, I have to give credit to the Minister of Municipal Affairs who's actually
taken the time to sit down with the leaders of our communities, whether it's at
conferences, whether it's here in Confederation Building, whether it's out in
the district, they've actually had
these meetings. I'm very thankful for that. We've seen investment in capital
works in the district.
The
reason I'm happy about that, and I would have been happy with a minimal
investment of something and this is where you play
The Price is Right game I would have
been happy with $10, because I actually had years where the investment made in
the district was a big doughnut. It was zero; it was absolutely nothing. This
coming from an administration that was flush with cash, talked about the money,
about the billions of dollars, but couldn't see fit to invest in the district.
I'm not
going to speculate on why that happened; I'll let everybody put it together and
guess. The moral of the story here is that due to the investments made in these
budgets by our government, by this minister and by the dedicated staff, we're
seeing significant work being done in my district. I'm very happy about it
because we've been neglected. In fact, I'm looking forward to the next thing I
want to talk about.
One
thing we didn't see in previous budgets, in previous administrations, was a
working relationship with the federal government. Whereas the previous
administration held their meetings on street corners and out in the cold, we
actually have federal ministers and MPs coming to our districts, coming to this
province and working with us jointly to make announcements.
I'm very
happy about an announcement that's going to be made in my district something
we never saw for ages. We're going to have an announcement next week. We saw
announcements the weekend. It was just a couple of weeks ago that we had the
federal minister of Justice come down here and invest in the Sexual Assault
Response Pilot Program that's going to help victims of sexual assault all over
this province. That's not something we saw before. We're seeing that coming from
a relationship.
We do
have disagreements, we do have opportunities where we disagree, contrary to what
the other side says, but there has already been more delivered in these budgets
and in this relationship than you saw in a decade before that. The positive news
here: It's to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We're getting
past the past petty politics and getting to inclusive politics where we work
together. It's due to the leadership of our Premier, Cabinet, bureaucracy and
our team here, this entire caucus, actually working together positively and
constructively.
One
thing that I've worked on and it's amazing because I've had this is one I
really love. I love how we've tried to make changes here in this House of
Assembly as it relates to how we work in the House. The Members opposite and
this one is near and dear to my heart because it's Marine Atlantic. Marine
Atlantic, the main entry point for rubber-tire traffic in this province, which
we've seen an increase in, the main point of entry, and the Members opposite
like to stand up and enter petitions. They like to talk about Marine Atlantic.
Now, the
fact is it's not something that was discussed by the other side while they were
in government. I can remember a previous premier that stood up, when asked to
list the number one priorities, I can guarantee you Marine Atlantic wasn't
there. I can guarantee you there were no meetings. I can guarantee you there was
no conversation, no letters, no nothing.
The fact
is they enter petitions but if they wanted government's viewpoint on it they
would allow us an opportunity to stand and to respond, which our rules do allow
with leave. Every single time I've tried to stand here in this House and respond
to one of their petitions, they say no. They say no, you shouldn't speak on
behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You shouldn't talk about what your
government is trying to do. They only want to put in petitions but they don't
want to see what action is actually being done, but that's just par for the
course for the crowd opposite. They didn't do it
AN HON. MEMBER:
They let Tom Marshall do it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's right, Tom Marshall
tried to do it once when the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he was in
Opposition put a petition in on the Corner Brook hospital, and don't get me
started on the Corner Brook hospital. I'll leave that to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, no. We don't have enough
time. He'll take care of that, but he used to do a lot of petitions. We all did,
because you know there was a lot of start dates or announcements but no finish,
no follow through.
One day
he put a petition in and when the Premier at the time, Tom Marshall, stood up
and wanted to respond, we let him. I saw that day one of the better debates I've
actually seen in the House, civil, restrained, it was a debate. It was actually
points going back and forth, and it's because we allowed it to happen. When we
now try to do the same they shut it down because they're not worried about
debate, they're just worried about spin. That's all they're worried about.
The fact
is there's a lot going on as it relates to Marine Atlantic. It's near and dear
to my heart, and if they want to have a debate on Marine Atlantic I say to them,
the next time they put a petition in have the guts, when I stand up to speak to
Marine Atlantic, have the guts to allow me to respond. I'll answer any single
question you want to ask and I'll talk about all the meetings that I've had
because Marine Atlantic affects every Newfoundlander and Labradorian; yet, they
don't want to talk, they just want to chirp. That's all they want to do.
I had to
get that out because anytime I've tried to stand up I've been denied the right
to debate by the PCs. I've been denied that right to stand in the House and
speak on behalf of my constituents because they don't want to hear it. You know
what, if they actually want to hear it then I say stand up and have the
intestinal fortitude to hear what the government's viewpoint is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I could speak to a number of
other topics. I've had an opportunity to speak to my department. I'd be willing
again to speak to it if the Members opposite want me to. We did the Estimates. I
stood up during the debate here; I've answered any questions that they might
have.
I could
talk about the correctional officers which absolutely amazes me. I have to put
this out there because this one really amazed me. I find it funny that last week
I took an invitation from the correctional officers to go down to HMP, the first
minister to ever do so to go down, and as they say, walk the beat with them,
to stand up with them.
We stood
in the House that day, actually we had correctional officers' week where we had
a chance to stand up and thank them. Do you know what? I'll give credit where
it's due, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and also thanked correction
officers. Correction officers were here in the gallery to watch. When it was the
NDP's turn, they used it as the soapbox. I don't know if they actually thanked
the correctional officers, they just wanted to go on a rant. Believe me, the
correctional officers know.
I've
received a number of messages from union leadership, from rank and file saying:
Thank you for recognizing us. Then I took the opportunity to go down and work
with them, to talk to them, to talk to inmates because that's what we want to
do. When I did that, at the invitation of correctional officers, the NDP cried
foul and said: Why would you do that? That's a publicity stunt. They didn't take
the opportunity to actually listen to what the correctional officers wanted,
because they took the time to thank me privately and publicly. The least we can
do is show up and see what it is they're doing on a day-to-day basis.
I've
been down there more than anybody probably in this House. Now I hear them
chirping I hear them chirping. That's coming from the crowd that says don't
heckle. I didn't say a word when they spoke.
I say to
the leader I don't know if the House Leader of the NDP or the co-leader or
whatever it is. I say if you have an issue stand up and put it out there. Stand
up, but do you know what, she's not going to. Maybe if we can ask the outside
Leader of the NDP if he has something to say to it. I don't know who the leader
is over there. All I do know and the correctional officers know this is that
they like to play politics.
Today,
they stood up and asked about PTSD, but when I went down there to ask them about
it, they criticized it. I say to the NDP: You can't have it both ways. Do you
want us to go down there or not go down there? Do you want us to support them or
not support them? The fact is the correctional officers know we support them and
we will continue to support them. I've said in this House today that I will meet
with them to discuss these issues and any issues, as I've done ever since I was
lucky enough to be put in this portfolio.
I said
this outside, the NDP likes to talk from the sidelines, we're out here on the
front lines. We're trying to work. It's funny; they're over there laughing now.
They're over there laughing, laughing at correctional officers who want to take
an opportunity to tell us their concerns. What does the NDP think? They're
laughing. I think that's absolutely shameful, and if I'm wrong I'll sit down and
the NDP can stand up and correct the record, but I don't think they're going to
do it. I don't think they're going to do it because they know I'm right.
It's
funny because this is a crowd that gets here and they talk about civility in the
House, but what the cameras they're over there chirping and heckling and
getting on. It's absolutely amazing. Do as I say, not as I do. That's apparently
the motto for the NDP.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I won't get into raises here tonight; I won't get into raises. I'll leave that
for another day. I'll leave that for another day, but I tell you what
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll just leave it at this, Mr. Speaker, sometimes when they talk about
conflicts of interest, I would say to the NDP take a good, hard look in the
mirror. Take a good, hard look in the mirror because the fact is it's one thing
to talk, it's absolutely amazing, holier than thou sometimes, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to continue
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I hear them booing and ahing
over there. Well, if they want to correct me, stand up and tell me how they
didn't. Tell me.
I hear
the Member for St. John's Centre, the one that criticizes me for going to HMP;
she's over there heckling as well. This is the crowd that goes to the
announcement for the sexual assault response pilot program and they're about to
vote against it. They're about to vote against it, and that's unfortunate.
That's unfortunate because the problem is they like to play politics.
They
should support it, but they haven't said a positive thing about this initiative
which is going to help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They can't do it. They
can't let themselves do it, and they should because it's positive news. It's
positive news. Everybody in the community I've talked to says this is the right
thing to do. Thank you to the leadership that we are providing on this issue.
They're
over there now, I thought I heard them just say the word coward, and that's
unfortunate. That is unfortunate because when they spoke I let them speak. I
didn't say a word, even though I could stand there and speak and contradict a
lot of what they say but, again, Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely amazing what I
hear. They say they're not going to heckle and then when I stand up they can't
help themselves. So I say when they speak again, Mr. Speaker, I'll listen. I'll
listen to what they have to say because that's how debate works. There's a give
and take, but unfortunately, that's not how it's working here now.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I could continue on, but there are a lot of people here that want
to speak to this budget. Unfortunately, the other side is not going to speak to
the positive things that this budget contains and there are a lot of positive
things. That's why I look forward to supporting this budget, supporting the
initiatives and continuing the work that we have to do to get out of the mess
that was left to us by the previous administration.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
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 speak for a few minutes because I just want to enter into the debate on
some of the things that I heard tonight, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Burgeo La
Poile just gave a very honest speech about the reactions you get on one side of
the face from the NDP to the other.
I just
want to tell the co-leader of the NDP and I don't know if the Member for
Burgeo La Poile ever heard this story, Mr. Speaker. It was the time when we
were in the Opposition and we were helping out the government with Kruger. The
co-leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, whatever the name
of the seat is now.
AN HON. MEMBER:
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MR. JOYCE:
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
Mr.
Speaker, do you know what she did? She stood in this House to ask questions that
she was speaking to the union asking questions and we made a deal. I went out
and I called the four union people. I said: Who's speaking to her? Do you know
what they told us? Nobody. She tried to ruin the deal from the mill that the
government at the time arranged with the workers and Kruger, just to ruin the
deal; that's what she tried to do.
Mr.
Speaker, I always said this in this hon. House, if I have something to say if
I'm wrong, you can stand up right after me and contradict and say what I'm
saying is wrong. I put that offer out again tonight to anybody across the way
once again.
Mr.
Speaker, I heard a lot of this talk about the hospital in Corner Brook, a lot of
talk about if we had to go ahead with what the government did that we would have
had it built. That is just absolutely, categorically wrong. It's absolutely
false.
If we
had to follow what the PC government were doing last time, we would have had a
piece of the property put on the site on the long-term care hospital. They were
to give them private property give it to a private company, the property on
it. They would walk in, they would put their own building up, they will charge
their own rates, Mr. Speaker, and make the profits on the back of the seniors,
the most vulnerable people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was shameful.
I can
tell you, I can tell anybody here every now and then there are people who stand
up to the plate. When we walked in government, we saw that. Do you know the
first person who took that and threw it out through the door? I'd like to take
credit for it, but I can't. It was the Premier of the province who walked in and
said to our Cabinet seniors in this province will not give the business people
from Nova Scotia profits on the backs of them, the most vulnerable people in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Before I had a chance to say no, the Premier of the
province had said that's off the table; that's gone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, what we are
going to do, what we committed to do, is put it up, let them build and maintain
and we will put public sector workers in the building, and that's what the
Premier of the province committed to and that's what he Premier of the province
said the first day that it came to Cabinet. That's why when he stands up for the
seniors of Western Newfoundland and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
and in Central and in St. John's, that's why I have the confidence in the
Premier because if he's going to do something, he's going to stand up and do it,
face to face. He's not going to hide behind some business opportunity from some
company from BC who's making profits off seniors.
I see
the Member for Cape St. Francis I know; it's hard to believe you were going to
do that. I know you had nothing to do with that; that's your Cabinet had that
all planned. Now if I'm saying anything wrong, let him stand up after I'm
finished and speak. Anything I'm saying let him stand up.
That's
the kind of stuff, Mr. Speaker, that we found ourselves into. You want to talk
about the hospital in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, we were just chatting about
that, the big Stantec doing the big studies. There was one piece of that you
want to talk about a waste of money. We don't even know what was done with it;
$40 million, still no hospital in Corner Brook $40 million, still no hospital.
I know
we hear a lot about the hospital; that I always talk about the hospital. I can
tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, I might be out publicly talking about the
hospital, I know the Member for Corner Brook is out talking about the hospital,
but you know who the biggest proponent of the hospital in Corner Brook, who
supports us, is the Premier of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Do you think, Mr. Speaker
and I said when I was in Opposition and I was asking question after question
after question. Who stood up and said keep it coming because it's so important?
It was the Leader of the Opposition who's the Premier of the province right now
who is, still now, following through on his comments of the hospital in Corner
Brook.
Mr.
Speaker, we heard the Members opposite talking about $25 billion wasted. There
were some good things done. Absolutely there were some good things done with the
$25 billion. I wouldn't deny that. I would never deny that, a lot of great
things, but there are two things you have to remember; one, if you put a program
in place, is it sustainable or is it just for a photo op? That's the problem you
run into when you work at $100 a barrel oil. It's not sustainable.
They
always said: Tell us some stuff you wouldn't do with it. The first thing I
wouldn't do: Muskrat Falls. I heard you talking about it and say, oh, you have
some people over there who talked about it and they supported it. I could tell
you, Mr. Speaker, I challenge anybody out watching this and I challenge any of
the Opposition, when you had a Member for Mount Pearl North stand up in this
hon. House and say I was hoodwinked by my own Cabinet, and you look at four of
them in front, he was
AN HON. MEMBER:
Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mount Pearl Southlands.
Sorry, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl North because I know you did the
hoodwinking and he got hoodwinked.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Sorry about that, Mr.
Speaker. Because you were part of the Cabinet that hoodwinked your Member who
stood up in this hon. House and said: I was hoodwinked. So if the Member of the
caucus who got briefed on this on a regular basis, if he was hoodwinked, who
else would know the facts?
Mr.
Speaker, I said if they want to keep chirping, stand up when I'm finished. You
could speak. Challenge me on anything I'm saying here.
They
look at it and say: What would you have done differently with the money? Muskrat
Falls, as we know, cost a lot of money. It went from $6.2 billion now up to $12
billion. That's just one thing, the amount of cash; they are bleeding in Muskrat
Falls.
We'll
just look at some small things. The $10 million pellet plant, Mr. Speaker, up in
Roddickton. Look at that $30 million, the hole that was dug up in Parson's Pond
somewhere, two drill holes in Parson's Pond.
Look at
the other one, Mr. Speaker. Just imagine when they talk about seniors in this
province, if they should eat or if they should pay their oil bill. Just think
about it. For almost three years that government, four of those Members in the
front benches, voted for it, agreed to it in the budget. They had an office in
Ottawa with not one person in it, paying rent, heat and light up there. It cost
millions of dollars. You know the only thing that was done there? They used to
pay someone to come down to pick up the newspapers every week. You want to talk
about a waste of money. Now I can go on and on about the waste of money; I can
speak here for the next 10 minutes on the waste of money. But I'd be the first
to admit, there were some good things done. There were some good projects; I'd
be the first to admit it. And I always do admit when there are issues going on.
I
remember the Member and I like this Member, the Member for Ferryland; I think
he's a good guy, I have to say. But, Mr. Speaker, when I went to Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador, not one of them knew that there were $34.6 million of
federal money on the table that they wouldn't sign $34.6 million that was
sitting on the table and they wouldn't sign it.
Now if
I'm wrong, stand up after; have your 20 minutes and speak about it. But $34.6
million and they have the audacity
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
You'll have your 20 minutes;
you won't interrupt me.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, he got his 20
listen, I said to the Member for Ferryland you're a good guy but if you're
embarrassed, it is not my fault. When we walked in, one of the first things we
did was sign that and we started to get projects out the door for people in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, you can chirp as much as you like, but how many of them over there are
pleased with the work that we did? How many in the last year and a half here's
another opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I said it before. If there is one person
over there who never benefited from the federal government work with the Canada
build fund, when I'm finished, stand up and say your district never benefited,
talking about working with another. Just stand up. After I'm finished, stand up.
They can't do it, yet they want to sit down and criticize that we're not doing
this properly. That's how bad this is, Mr. Speaker.
That's
the kind of stuff that when you want to go out and promote Newfoundland and
Labrador, you want to create economic development, you want to give the towns
the sustainability and give them some infrastructure so they can create jobs,
Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of stuff you get. This is the kind of stuff.
I asked
all the hon. Members when they talk about Crown lands when we had the Crown
lands, we looked at what was it 74,000 hectares of land now put up for bid
for Crown lands. We're starting to put them all out for bids for Crown Lands.
Right
now, there are over 5,000 jobs in agriculture in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. We're planning on putting that out, matching that, yet we're not
doing anything for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the Leader of the
Opposition, the number one bill in 2012 was procurement, which would save
hundreds of millions of dollars for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Guess what? It never saw the light of day. Procurement, the Member the same
guy who's calling around now and wants to know who's going to support him for
leader, can he run for leader again
AN HON. MEMBER:
Never say never.
MR. JOYCE:
Same guy never say never.
That's true; never say never. It's the same guy. So, Mr. Speaker, that's the
kind of things I have to bring up and I have to recognize.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to speak about the Department of Municipal Affairs and
Environment for a few minutes. The Department of Municipal Affairs has done
tremendous work. I know I have a lot of support around this table and I have a
lot of support in caucus, but it's the staff that does so much work around the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I just want to recognize that. The work
that they are after doing, when we had the Crown lands part I know down in
Service NL, the procurement, the MADD legislation, I know the Minister of
Service NL brought in the MADD legislation.
This is
all stuff that was on the table before. Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest, and we
can't you hear the Member for St. Johns East Quidi Vidi talking about it.
She forgets. The presumptive cancer that was brought in by this government, that
was on the table for years and years and years. It took us one year one year.
We said we would do it not only for career firefighters, but for volunteers
across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What did we hear what did we
hear? All we hear are criticism.
There's
no doubt there's room to if there's some way that we can do something better,
let us know. We haven't heard it yet, but let us know. We can't go back to the
same old ways that you were doing stuff. Just can't do it. If not, the Minister
of Finance, who you're criticizing for doing all these programs and how she's
bringing in the budget, you just remember one thing and I say to the Member
for Cape St. Francis; he said something here tonight. The Member for Cape St.
Francis, I have a lot of respect for you. I think you're a great guy; you're a
great constituents' guy. But you said something here tonight and what you said
here tonight is now you realize you're doing it for your grandkid. That's what
you said; you're doing for your grandkid. Now it takes different light.
So when
you look at that and I got all respect for you; you know that. When you say
that, you should walk over here and thank the Minister of Finance, because
what's she's doing here is for our kids and grandkids in this Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
So when you say it's for your
grandkid down the road and, Mr. Speaker, I got a lot of respect for him. But
when he made that statement tonight, that this is now in this House for my
grandkid, he should walk over, because the Minister of Finance is taking care of
his grandkid to make sure she or he won't have the debt that you and your
government put us in. That's what this Minister of Finance is doing.
Mr.
Speaker, it is like I said before with Clyde Wells. When Clyde Wells said I'd
rather lose with honesty than win with dishonesty; that's what this Minister of
Finance so any time now you think of your grandkid, think of the Minister of
Finance because she's thinking about your grandkid also, and that's why she's
making the tough decisions now. All the things that we enjoy that, somewhere
along the line, we have to pay for if we don't pay for it, now it's your
grandkid who is going to have to pay for it.
I just
wanted to thank the Minister of Finance listen, it's a tough job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I wanted to thank the
Minister of Finance because she's speaking the truth. She's speaking the way
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorian, if you're looking at your grandkids, are
going to look and say we got to make the tough decisions. If not, our grandkids
will have to leave. We will not even have a place sustainable enough to have
them in our province. The Minister of Finance is taking care of all the
grandkids in the province, and I commend her for it. It's a tough job.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you, we do have our little tit-for-tats. She usually picks
on me; I know that. We usually have our tit-for-tats, but she's doing it for the
right reasons. It's for the grandkids of this province.
I say to
the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a more light note, we were at a little
function last week and I stood up and he was nervous about his daughter having a
baby. We were chatting back and forth and he was getting a bit anxious and all
that. I got up and had a speech and I said, the Member for Cape St. Francis,
he's going to make a little announcement here. He said when the baby comes if
it's a boy, he's going to name him Eddie.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis got up and said if she names the boy Eddie, I'm
putting two of them up for adoption. So congratulations on your grandkid and
your daughter; well deserved. I'm sure the poppy is going to be great to them
all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I just want to
talk about the District of Bay of Islands for a few minutes. I have to say,
there were some good things happening in the Bay of Islands under the
administration. I know a couple of fire trucks went there. There was some water
and sewer put out there. I have to admit that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You don't have your road,
though?
MR. JOYCE:
Well, I won't talk about the
road going up to Summerside that we finally got done that the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island took the money for, two days prior I won't
talk about that.
Mr.
Speaker, when he wants to talk about oh, you can't be political. When he stood
up and he said oh, you can't be political to the Minister of Education. Mr.
Speaker, it was in the tender. Two days before it was awarded, he ordered the
department to take the money out on the Plant Hill in Summerside. I say to this
day, I say to the Member and I said it to the minister: Shame on you to put
people's safety at risk.
You can
laugh at it, but I know one of you over there, one of you potential leadership
candidates now this is something else now on Summerside. One of the potential
leadership candidates over there a week ago was going to go to Summerside. Guess
what? When he found out there may be a little protest or two, he decided not to
go to Summerside.
Do you
know why? They all remember Plant Hill. They remember the hospital. They
remember the long-term care. They remember no radiation in Western Memorial
Regional Hospital that we had to fight for. So come over and have a public
meeting, let's talk about the hospital in Corner Brook, let's talk about Plant
Hill, let's talk about radiation where you wouldn't put it in there and you
fought against us to put it in there, Mr. Speaker.
When one
of the leadership candidates had a meeting planned for Summerside, they couldn't
wait for them to come over couldn't wait. No, I can guarantee you. Now that
there are three of them, they may go over together, have a little debate and see
if they will go in some little hall themselves. I can tell you, the people of
Summerside had a lot of reasons to be concerned about your government.
I can
tell you, I know four or five of them personally who had to travel to St. John's
for cancer treatment; four or five of them rang the bell in the last week. When
I was fighting for radiation, I was laughed at. I was scoffed at. I was told
that I'm just playing politics with it.
I can
tell you, the Premier of the province stood by me in Opposition to ask questions
day after day after day. I can tell everybody in this House, and everybody in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there will be no prouder moment than
when that hospital and the long-term facility opens in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I can tell you one thing, Mr.
Speaker, when that radiation unit opens up, I hope the Premier of the Province
is there because without his leadership, without his courage and without his
commitment to allow me to go on for four years, to beat on that door of the PC
Party to say it's needed when you see four of your friends ringing the bell
last week, it was worth every speech that I gave in this House.
I thank
the Premier, as the then Leader of the Opposition, for your courage because down
the road it's going to be some of our grandkids who are going to be needing that
radiation unit. I thank you very much for that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If the
hon. minister speaks now, she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to take a few minutes here this evening to thank the Members of
the House for the budget debate this year. It is an important exercise,
activity, commitment we have as MHAs to come in this House and participate in a
debate about the financial direction of government. I think certainly the
Members of this House, on all sides of the House, have participated in this
debate and I want to say thank you to them for that effort.
Mr.
Speaker, earlier tonight we had the opportunity to hear the Premier of the
province speak in relation to this budget. Certainly, I want to take a moment to
thank the Premier for his leadership and his commitment as we were working, as a
government and as a Cabinet, on building the budget that we would present in
front of this House.
Mr.
Speaker, our Premier, as he indicated, talked about the importance of making
decisions today that are in the best interest of not only the generations we
represent in this House but as was referenced earlier, the generations to come.
I think that speaks to the type of leader he is, and I certainly want to
congratulate and thank him for his words tonight on the budget and for his
comments on the importance of the decisions we've made.
Mr.
Speaker, the budget we presented in this House was a continuation of the plan we
presented last year. As the people of the province have learned, we exceeded our
deficit target for '16-'17. We are on track to achieve our deficit reduction
target for '17-'18 and we are on pace to return the province to surplus in
2022-23, Mr. Speaker.
We have
reduced spending by $283 million. I would remind the Members opposite that when
they did their forecast and their budget in 2015, not only did they forecast oil
for this year at $80, they also forecast spending at almost half-a-billion
dollars more than we have in this particular budget this year, Mr. Speaker.
As a
result of last year's efforts and this year's budgets, we've been able to reduce
the borrowing by $2 billion in '17-'18. I think that should make every Member of
this House take pause when we talk about the volume of borrowing we had last
year, some $4.9 billion, and we've been able to reduce borrowing this year by $2
billion. I think that's an example of the important work that underpins this
budget that we presented in this House.
Mr.
Speaker, as the Premier has mentioned, and as Members of the government caucus
and ministers have mentioned several times, we took a very practical and
pragmatic view when it came to leveraging federal funding. Mr. Speaker, we did
this very purposely because we believe it's going to have a positive impact on
the economy and people in our communities.
There is
some $3 billion going to be spent on a five-year infrastructure plan, and that's
been built from leveraging federal funding, and as has been stated in this House
over the course of the budget debate, that infrastructure plan will create the
equivalent of 4,900 full-time jobs on average every year for the next five
years. That's in addition to the actions the Premier announced earlier this
month from The Way Forward that will
contribute an additional 9,300 full-time positions.
Mr.
Speaker, last year, in '16-'17, we certainly benefited from increased oil
production and increased oil revenue to the tune of over $540 million. Expenses
were down another $81 million last year, which meant the borrowing for last year
was down by $475 million.
It spoke
to the importance of making sure we bring our spending within what is
sustainable when we have a volatile commodity that makes up such a significant
portion of our revenue and it's moved from a high, when the Conservatives were
in power and they forecast oil at well over $120, $130 oil, to as low as $27.
It's an important reason why that money is money that should be carefully
forecasted and also not anticipated to provide sustainable funding because of
the volatility of both production, the US dollar at the US exchange, as well as
the price per barrel.
Mr.
Speaker, in budget '17-'18 we announced as a government that there would be no
new taxes and fees, that there would be no increases to existing taxes and fees.
I'm very proud to stand in this House as the Minister of Finance, supported by
this caucus and supported by this government, to again speak to the reduction in
the gas tax.
Last
year, because of the circumstances we found ourselves in, we had to introduce a
temporary gas tax. As a result of this year's budget decisions, I'm proud to say
that as of June 1 we'll be able to reduce that tax by 8½ cents, and by December
1 we'll reduce it by another 4 cents. Mr. Speaker, that will be a total this
year, this calendar year, including HST, of about 14½ cents for the people of
the province; something that our government, and I as the Finance Minister, are
very proud of.
Mr.
Speaker, the continuation and the enhancement of the Newfoundland Income
Supplement and Seniors' Benefit, which benefits 155,000 families and individuals
in our province with a spend of $120 million is an extremely important
commitment by this government. It was an extremely important commitment last
year when we announced our budget last year, and one I'm proud that as part of
this year's budget we are continuing to maintain so that seniors and low-income
individuals in this province will get the help we can provide, considering the
circumstances we are in and ensure they have the resources they need.
Mr.
Speaker, as part of budget 2017-18, we assumed oil price of $56US per barrel. As
was discussed in this House during Question Period last week, the price of oil
since the budget was announced and certainly through the month of April is
something that we want to continue to monitor.
As of
right now, we anticipate the change in that revenue might be to the tune of
about $6 million. That said, Mr. Speaker, it again reinforces the need for us to
make sure that our spending is sustainable and that every single taxpayer
dollar, every single dollar that we have to go into programs and services is
spent efficiently and effectively to deliver those critical services to the
people of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, as we discussed as part of the budget Estimates and the budget
briefings, we expect there will be a reduction this year in oil production.
That's one of the things we took into consideration with this budget and, again,
makes for responsible and prudent planning when you have a volatile revenue line
such as oil royalties.
Mr.
Speaker, the investments this budget is making has been referenced by many
Members of this House of Assembly, certainly on the government side on a regular
basis. I think it would important, since we're concluding the budget debate, to
remind those listening at home and to remind the Members of the House some of
the examples, and this would not be an exhaustive list, but this would be some
of the examples of the investments we are making as part of this budget.
Under
the area of Healthy Living we are investing more than $4 billion in health and
wellness; $115 million to community groups; $88 million to health care
infrastructure; $73 million over 10 years, one year included in this budget for
mental health, and a specific $5 million to start the implementation of the
recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Mr.
Speaker, I would implore the Members opposite to consider the items in this
budget that they are voting against tonight, should that be their choice.
Mr.
Speaker, on the area of Education and Skills, this government proudly and with
confidence, as the Minister of Advanced Skills and Education has said, is
investing $68 million to maintain the existing tuition freeze at Memorial
University and the College of the North Atlantic. We are also investing $14.5
million in the Child Care Subsidy Program, and a $1.3 million increase annually
for the Early Learning and Child Care Supplement.
Mr.
Speaker, those are investments that will impact families, will impact children
and we are very proud to be making those investments as part of this budget.
Mr.
Speaker, in the area of Industry and Business, we are investing over $20 million
to support culture and heritage; an additional $14.4 million for economic and
business development; and, as the Premier mentioned earlier tonight, $5 million
for the wild fishery and aquaculture, as well as investments in the Film
Development Corporation all designed to demonstrate and yield results in
diversifying an economy that for way too many years was focused only on oil and
not focused on the diversification our province needs so desperately.
When we
come to Infrastructure and the five year, multi-year infrastructure plan, I'd
like to just reference a couple of the areas that those investment dollars will
go to. Some $573 million will be invested in key areas including roads and
schools, health care facilities and municipal infrastructure; $142 million
specifically for municipal infrastructure; $88 million for health care
infrastructure; almost $54 million for new schools, extensions and repairs and
maintenance; and over $44 million for post-secondary infrastructure projects
an investment that not only will improve the public infrastructure for the
people of the province but also, as I've said earlier, will create opportunities
for employment for people around our province.
Mr.
Speaker, in the area of Safe and Sustainable Communities, we see an additional
investment here of $100 million, as I said, in municipal infrastructure over the
next three years. We also see something that I'm very proud of, and that Members
of this House have referenced, approximately $7.8 million for transition houses,
including $780,000 in new funding for transition houses that can provide the
necessary services for women and children when they need it the most and they're
fleeing violence.
I'll
also mention that the budget includes $370,000 to strengthen the court system in
Labrador; again, an important investment for the people of our province. As the
Minister of Justice has so eloquently already communicated again this evening,
we'll see $250,000 for the Sexual Assault Response Pilot Program, an important
program for the people of this province, particularly those who are facing very
challenging and very difficult situations.
Mr.
Speaker, the budget that we presented in this House, as I said, exceeds the
targets that we established last year, puts us on pace to achieve surplus in
2022 and we continue to work to reduce our expenditures. We do that through
expenditure reviews, we also are doing that through shifting the culture and
eliminating waste, Mr. Speaker, and also looking for efficiency improvements.
I think
it's important for those who are listening at home also to know that, as of this
year's budget, after the results and the work that this government caucus has
done and the Ministers of the Crown have done, led by the Premier, we are no
longer borrowing for operations. As I said earlier, there was $4.9 billion in
borrowing that was completed in 2016 and this government is no longer borrowing
for operations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
We are no longer relying on
short-term T-bills to meet long-term borrowing requirements. We continue to have
borrowing commitments and the priority now is to focus on lowering the cost of
borrowing.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing that this budget clearly communicated was our
commitment to addressing and providing confidence and comfort to the people of
the province on what is very worrisome topic around electricity rate increases
in the future.
This
year's budget included the clarity around the rate management reserve that
Nalcor has been directed and agreed to create, where their sourcing opportunity
is to lower rates in the future. Mr. Speaker, this would be an appropriate time
for me to again remind the people of this House, the Members of this House, of
the support we've received from the federal government. One example is the
federal loan guarantee, which has helped this province in the area of
electricity rates look forward to seeing our electricity rates impacted in a
positive way by lowering them by one to 1½ cents, specifically related to the
enhanced federal loan guarantee.
Mr.
Speaker, as I bring my speaking notes to an end, I think it would be appropriate
to thank the officials throughout the departments, throughout the agencies,
boards and commissions who have worked so hard since last September to build
this budget
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
We can be very proud and we
have very talented people that work in the public service. They are committed to
serving the people of this province and providing information to governments to
make choices and decisions. I can assure those that worked on this particular
budget that we have a tremendous amount of respect for them and their colleagues
and are very grateful for the work that they put in pre-budget, as well as
post-budget, to make sure that questions were answered and that the preparation
for the Estimates debate happened in a way that provided the Members of the
Opposition, the Members of this House, through the Committee, the answers that
they needed.
Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Finance, who had the opportunity to speak first to
this budget when we introduced it back in early April, I wanted to add a special
thank you to my Cabinet and caucus colleagues who have supported our work in
making sure, as the Premier has said, that we were able to bring this province
back onto stable financial footing so we can continue and focus on the work
ahead, which is focusing on our economy and the social programs that are so
critically needed for the people of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
It is moved and seconded
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of government.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons,
Ms. Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.
Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Warr, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek
Bennett, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean,
Mr. King.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr.
Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms.
Michael, Ms. Rogers.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 27; the nays: nine.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
declare the motion approved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
move now, seconded by the Member for Terra Nova, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's been moved and seconded
that this House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.