April 19, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 15
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Prior to
starting our proceedings today, I wanted to recognize and I guess pay tribute to
some extent, to an individual who was feared by some Members of the House of
Assembly but certainly respected by all.
Our
beloved David Cochrane has accepted a job in Ottawa and
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As everybody in the House
knows, especially the Members who have returned after the election, the Members
who have been here a while, David Cochrane has covered the Legislature here for
a number of years. He has a very keen political nose, as we can all attest to.
We've all at some point been a target of Mr. Cochrane's, but certainly by all
Members of the House, I know he's very well respected and his position in Ottawa
was very well deserved indeed.
So,
congratulations, Mr. Cochrane.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
We have some welcomes today.
I'd like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery relatives of Lt. Ken Goodyear, a
former resident of Ladle Cove and veteran of the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel. This
Newfoundland Regiment Officer had his elbow shattered by a bullet near the
'Danger Tree' on the 1st of July, 1916. Despite his injury, went on to become
the Newfoundland Heavyweight Boxing Champion and was inducted into the Sports
Hall of Fame.
As many
of you may have read, David McFarlane's book,
The Danger Tree, describes both the
promise and loss that befell the Goodyear family during World War I. There will
be a Member's statement today providing some detail around the loss to this
family, 100 years ago.
I would
also like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery the members of the Goodyear family
who are relatives of two soldiers being honoured today: Terry Goodyear, Geoff
Goodyear, Noelle Goodyear, Alison Goodyear, Caroline Hong, Sean Goodyear, Ken
Goodyear, Seamus Goodyear, Claire Goodyear, Aiden Goodyear and Brittany Pomroy.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
To our public gallery, Dec
LaCour, who is the subject of a Member's statement today, and his wife, Marg
LaCour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have Members'
statements for the Member for the District of Lake Melville, who I understand
has leave of the House, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl Southlands,
the Member for Labrador West, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main and
Cape St. Francis.
I
recognize the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to ask for leave officially in the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Leave.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize a family of heroes. Josiah and Louisa Goodyear
of Ladle Cove had seven children when war broke out in 1914.
Hedley
was studying at the University of Toronto and was the first to enlist. He joined
the 201st Canadian Infantry Battalion. He would have been the leader of the
family business, but he was killed near Arras in 1918.
Ken, the
father of the gentleman you just were introduced to, was wounded with the
Newfoundland Regiment at Beaumont-Hamel. Oswald was killed three months later at
Gueudecourt. He had been too young to enlist but he convinced his parents to let
him go.
Josiah
was wounded near Rouen in November. Stanley was a skilled horseman and served as
a transport officer. He was killed at Langemark in October 1917. Kate, the only
girl, served as a nurse in the Canadian Forces' Voluntary Aid Detachment.
Finally,
Roland attempted to enlist late in the war, but was turned away. The recruiters
deemed the Goodyears had already paid too high a price. This price includes two
names on today's honour roll and one other memorialized with Canadian losses at
the Somme.
I ask
all Members to join me in recognizing the Goodyear family's sacrifices.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous success which
was the 34th Annual Frosty Festival in the City of Mount Pearl. Once again, this
year's festival included various activities for citizens of all ages and
interests, including a concert featuring Newfoundland and Labrador's own
Masterless Men, along with the Navigators and the Irish Descendants; two
community breakfasts; an Irish Pub night; a lip sync contest; seniors' bingo;
Jiggs' dinner and a variety show; and a dinner theatre, just to name a few.
Mr.
Speaker, as I'm sure you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude would
not be possible were it not for the hard work and co-operation of a number of
community partners.
I would
therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the
City of Mount Pearl, the Frosty Festival Board of Directors, the various
community groups and organizations, the corporate sponsors, and all of the
community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great success story which was
Frosty Festival 2016.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize Mark and Joanne Lush of Wabush for
organizing the fifth annual Shane Mercer Memorial Fishing Derby in Wabush on
April 9, 2016, which I attended.
Shane
Mercer was a victim of a drunk-driving crash on December 5, 2010 at the age of
30. His girlfriend, Leisa Penney, is survivor of the same crash.
Mark was
employed at Wabush Mines and was both Shane and his dad's supervisor at the time
of the tragedy.
In
Mark's own words, the year after the needless accident, we decided to do the
fish derby to give back to the town we now call home. After discussing the idea
with the Mercer family, it seemed fitting for the proceeds to go to the local
chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
The goal
was a fun-filled family event in the hope of keeping Shane's memory alive and to
send the dark message of drinking and driving to the kids. This year's event
resulted in $3,200 being donated to the local chapter of MADD.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in thanking Mark and Joanne for their hard work in
organizing this very worthwhile event.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador annually presents the
Manning Awards for Excellence in the Presentation of Historic Places.
The 22nd
Manning Awards were awarded on March 17. The winner in the community category
was the Basilica Heritage Foundation for
Fleming, a one-person theatrical performance presenting the history of the
Basilica Cathedral of St. John the Baptist and the historical figure Bishop
Michael Fleming.
That
one-person show was written and originally performed the multi-talented Paul
Rowe. Bishop Fleming conceived of the Basilica and oversaw most of its
construction with a rare blend of negotiation, cajoling, threats and willpower.
The performance guides visitors through the Basilica, highlighting its
architecture, art and history, via a lively representation of one of
Newfoundland and Labrador's most colourful characters.
Paul
Rowe himself is well known as both an author and an actor. Last summer he handed
the role of Bishop Fleming to someone else because he was performing at the
Stratford Festival.
I am
thrilled to invite all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Paul Rowe and
the Basilica Heritage Foundation for their Manning Award and to thank them for
helping preserve a piece of our history in this very engaging fashion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize Dec LaCour. Dec began volunteering with
hockey in Wabush, Labrador. He started in 1974, when his oldest son started
playing the sport.
In 1977,
due to health reasons, Dec and his family returned to Harbour Main. Since that
time, he has held many positions including coach, manager and president of the
local association. Mr. Speaker, for the last 26 years, he has held the position
of Eastern Area Director for Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador.
Recently
Dec represented Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador with the St. John's Hitmen of
the Irving Oil Challenge Cup in New Brunswick. They won gold. Irving Old
honoured him as he attended all 25 Irving Oil Challenge Cup tournaments.
Ron
MacLean from Coach's Corner acknowledged Dec's accomplishments while in New
Brunswick.
Mr.
Speaker, he has received multiple awards for his volunteerism, including the
Governor General Award of Canada in 1992.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join with me in recognizing Dec LaCour for his
long-time contributions to the sport of hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I rise in this hon. House
today to thank a local business in my district for continuing to contribute to
their community and for helping the Torbay local library to remain open.
District
Drugs was opened in 1963 and has since been a huge part of Torbay and the
surrounding communities. When schools, sports teams, local service groups and
any group was in need, District Drugs has been there to support their cause.
Recently, the owners stepped forward to help the local library. Jack Hogan and
Keith Hogan, owners of District Drugs, also owned the building where the library
is located. When the library was in danger of closing, they offered it rent free
for a few months.
Jack and
Keith Hogan recognized the importance of the library to the community. The
library has been a huge part of Torbay and many members of the Hogan family have
taken advantage of it. The library is named after Libby Morey, a good friend and
one of Mr. Hogan's first customers.
Please
join with me in thanking District Drugs and the Hogan family for their support
of the local community and their local library.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR. SPEAKER:
Today for Honour 100, we have
the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.
MR. TRIMPER:
I will now read into the
record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First World
War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve,
the Newfoundland Forestry Corps, the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine, or the
Royal Flying Corps. This will be followed by a moment of silence.
Lest we
forget: Philip Gillett, Job Gilley, Charles Gillingham, Thomas Ginn, William
Ginn, Edward Francis Gladney, James Glover, Nathaniel Gooby, Robert George Good,
Augustus Goodland, Stephen Goodwin, Oswald Goodyear, Stanley Charles Goodyear,
William Bertram Goodyear, Gilbert Thomas Gordon, Julian Joseph Gorman, Samuel
Goss, Eldred Gosse, Ira Joseph Gosse, Thomas Joseph Gosse, Walter Gosse, George
Goudie, Chesley James Gough, Martin Joseph Grace, Charles E. Granger, Edward
Peter Grant, James Bernard Grant, William Hoyes Grant, Matthew Greeley, Albert
James Green, James Green, John Henry Stanley Green, Moses Green, Robert Green,
Barton Greene, Walter Martin Greene, James Greening, John Griffin, Thomas J.
Grouchy and Daniel Groves.
(Moment
of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to announce that our province will welcome the Princess Royal, the
Royal Newfoundland Regiment's Colonel-in-Chief, to participate in commemorative
events for the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme on July 1, 2016.
Invited
on behalf of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Advisory Council, her visit spans
June 28 until July 1, and includes going to Corner Brook to present the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment's 2nd Battalion with new Colours, and unveiling the Forget
Me Not Committee's Danger Tree sculpture at Grenfell Campus.
The
Princess Royal will attend the Ceremony of Remembrance at the National War
Memorial on July 1 and open the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Gallery and Fortis
Courtyard and Amphitheatre at The Rooms. She will also visit with veterans and
with organizations that she supports.
Mr.
Speaker, Memorial Day is a time to commemorate veterans, past and present. It
signifies a deep sense of pride for the important role Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians played in the First World War, and the particular efforts of the
Royal Newfoundland Regiment at Beaumont-Hamel. Their sense of duty shall never
be forgotten and we are honoured to welcome the Princess Royal to Newfoundland
and Labrador to participate in Honour 100 commemorations.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. Mr. Speaker, the
Opposition also welcomes the visit of Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal, to
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme is one that is of extreme
historical importance and one that I am pleased to see the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment's Colonel-in-Chief will participate in. As with any visiting dignitary
to our province, I hope they will be able to experience our remarkable province
and its people.
Commemorating our fallen soldiers and current veterans is something that all
Members of this House rightfully support. Our veterans, many of whom are
seniors, deserve the utmost care and respect from their province and especially
their government.
Mr.
Speaker, I find it curious that this government would claim to make veterans or
seniors a priority when the actions and decisions they've made
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
Member's time for speaking has expired.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I thank him for the
announcement that he's made here today. These ceremonies are so important
because they remind us of the terrible price we have paid in the past. They
remind us how important it is that tragedies like the First World War or any
conflict must never happen.
Canada
is a country of peace and these occasions serve to reinforce our commitment to
peace at home and around the world, something which I'm sure those who lost
their lives would agree with it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased to rise in this House today to inform my colleagues and the people of
our province that a spring training program has been launched for drinking water
system operators.
Mr.
Speaker, it takes serious commitment and dedication on the part of water system
operators to ensure their communities have safe and sustainable drinking water.
Operators shoulder great responsibility and they rely on regular training and
education to ensure that they have the latest knowledge, which is necessary for
them to do their jobs in the best possible way.
Nearly
300 of these operators took part in the Annual Clean and Safe Drinking Water
Workshop in Gander last month, and this classroom schedule expands on the
training they received there.
Remaining focused on operator training is a priority for our government and one
I was pleased to discuss with my colleagues on the Ministerial Committee for
Safe Drinking Water when we met last week.
My
department is working with the Departments of Health and Community Services,
Municipal Affairs and Service NL, on a water quality action plan that will
further our efforts in ensuring safe and sustainable drinking water for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Ongoing
training opportunities for operators are a critical part of that future plan
which I hope to share with you in the coming months.
I
encourage municipalities to check out the classroom schedule on the department's
website and avail of training this spring so that together we can ensure our
communities have the best possible drinking water systems.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I also want to
thank department officials for providing this training to water system
operators, especially those in various municipalities around the province.
As a
province we face huge challenges with drinking water infrastructure. Our
province has a large number of boil orders. In some communities, Mr. Speaker,
there is infrastructure in place and municipalities have either turned it off
for a variety of reasons. I encourage the government to work with municipalities
to find solutions, many which require little to no cost. Training will help, but
we all need to do more.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Covering the cost of
basic services like safe drinking water is really challenging for
municipalities. Often, they have to turn off their drinking water systems for
lack of money and trained staff. Boil water advisories are a major public health
problem. For years, communities have been asking the government to provide more
help.
I
support the water quality action plan promise today and I hope it does in fact
provide the needed resources for regular training.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
The people of Newfoundland
and Labrador deserve no less.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Maclean's Magazine wrote an
article immediately following the Liberal budget which stated: the script that
the Finance Minister wrote for Newfoundland's fiscal crisis is sure to make
matters worse, driving away the young, hard-working people she desperately
needs. The minister, in her own admission, stated their plan would reduce
growth, shrink the population actually. Yesterday in Question Period, the
Minister of Finance stated we will not budget on hope.
I ask
the Premier: How can you and your government continue with your actions of
shattering the hope and opportunities for hard-working people of Newfoundland
and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
there has been a lot of commentary around the budget of last Thursday.
Maclean's was one article;
The Globe and Mail had some other
articles and said that given the situation the province was facing, there was
very little choices that we had to make to get the province's financial house in
order.
One of
the things about the budget I will say too, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a lot
of information that are being shared with the public right now that is really
not reflecting what some of the facts are within the budget. If you take the
personal income tax, take the levy, take the HST and add those impacts all
together, the range is somewhere between in some cases, people will benefit by
as much as 1.44 per cent. Then the impacts on the high end will be that of
around 3.5 per cent. We are still very competitive, even with our Atlantic
colleagues.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
hearing from hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are certainly not
going to benefit but are going to be burdened by this new budget. I haven't
heard from anybody who's going to benefit, I can assure you of that, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, only hours after delivering her budget, which attacked the lower-income
and middle-income families, the Minister of Finance gave an interview to NTV and
stated that her Liberal government, and I quote, would not make decisions based
on who cries the loudest.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you, many tears of fear and worry are being shed because of
the broken promises made by this Liberal government. Their own party insiders
are turning on them. This is not the stronger tomorrow that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians were promised, and clearly is a blatant disregard for the impacts
it will have on hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
So I ask
the Premier: Will you listen to the people of the province and reverse these
choices you've made?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you
look at the situation that we currently face within the province, when you look
at the transition that had to be made, the information that was not available
prior to transition to what we have today and I will say, too, Mr. Speaker,
not all of it on the previous administration. There are things that are
happening globally right now with the uncertainty around oil pricing as an
example, but primarily largely as a result of information that was not shared
with the people of our province.
The
transition's been very difficult. But if we do not address the situation right
now, when you look at the debt situation in our province, within the next five
years, not taking action, the net debt in our province will actually double. It
is then Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will lose their say and their
opportunity to collect their future and save their future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the question for the Premier was: Will he listen to the people, as they so
proudly say they do on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker? Because the Liberal
government has stated repeatedly and repeatedly that it listens to the people of
the province, and it consults with the public 500,000 advisors. Because of
this budget many are considering a one-way ticket to a better future, which is
another province.
So I ask
the Premier: Will you be true to your word, will you listen to what the people
of the province are saying? Will you listen to your own party insiders about
this budget, scrap the budget and introduce one that's fair and balanced for the
people of the province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do
listen to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we're sharing the story of where
our province exists as a result of the mismanagement and the poor planning, the
lack of preparedness by the previous administration.
Now, if
we talk about the facts, we talk about the infrastructure spending that's in
this budget, there are a lot of good things within this budget that will impact
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is a budget that will spend $8.48 billion,
I say, Mr. Speaker, and when you look at the tax increases that are there
which I will say that people want to engage in and have that conversation in
when you paint the picture on how competitive our province remains, even with
the tax measures that have put in place, the levy, the increase in HST and
personal income tax, taking us back to 2006 and 2007 levels, Mr. Speaker. That
is the actual picture that we face today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we know the Premier was very quick to chastise us in the past and he
likes to talk about the past. The question was about listening to the people
today. We're listening and we know that this government is increasing spending
by almost half a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. The choices that they've made are
affecting every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and it's affecting them hard.
The tax
burden that the Liberal choices have placed on the people of the province will
push many to the poverty line. The Liberal gas tax will make commuting,
travelling, access to services the cost of food and other commodities is going
to increase significantly. It may even deter tourists from coming to our
province this year.
I ask
the Premier: How does forcing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay more for
food how does that provide them with a stronger tomorrow?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You give
me access to $25 billion over a 10-year period and we'll show you how you can
plan for the future of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
That is something that they
ignored. I heard the previous premier on many occasions talk about (inaudible)
and talk about infrastructure investments that they would have had to make, but
they did not prepare. What they did not prepare based on the commodity
environment and situation that we're into they did not prepare when they had
the opportunity.
Now that
they're not in office and they find themselves in this situation that this
province is now into as a lack of preparing for this. They make commitments to
people of this province that were not sustainable.
Does the
former premier is he prepared to say and support that the net debt in this
province should double in the next five years because they did not plan for the
future of our province? Are you okay with that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Fourth
question today and the fourth time the Premier fails to answer the question and
utilizes the time for his rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. So I'm going to ask the
Premier, in a budget where cuts will be felt in rural communities and it will be
more expensive to live, programs and services will be challenged and reduced
throughout many rural communities, where is your concern for rural parts of our
province? Where is your plan for a stronger tomorrow for rural Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
been about 120-odd days plus right now since we've been in office, four months.
I think the previous administration had many more years of that. I ask the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador where rural Newfoundland has gone within the
last 12 years
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
when they failed to invest
in economic diversification.
We're
just starting, Mr. Speaker. We're going to do what needs to be done to get this
province back on track, to diversify the economy and help support rural
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
That is our job and that is
our mandate, and we will do exactly that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
you mentioned diversification because there's one thing we never saw in this
budget and that was diversification, that's for sure, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
So I ask the Premier: Well,
how is your budget encouraging business? How does you budget support business
when taxes are going up, funding is being cut, support for business and
start-ups are being cut, and Newfoundland and Labrador will become a more
expensive place to live? How is that going to help diversify the economy and how
is that going to help support business?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
How you
support business in Newfoundland and Labrador and how you support people in
Newfoundland and Labrador is to prevent, is to put mitigating things in place
that will prevent in the next five years, or seven years, we would have been
at a $27 billion deficit. That would have been about equal to where we see our
GDP in our province. That is how you protect businesses in our province and that
is how you protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, you prevent it from
actually having debt servicing being the biggest industry in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's not
only rural parts of the Island that are being impacted by this terrible budget
brought forward by the Liberals, but it is also Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The
Liberal choices in the budget include closure of the Wabush court. We know the
next closest court is about 500 kilometres more away. Cancellation of the Air
Foodlift Subsidy for Labradorians; elimination of sport and recreation grants
for Sheshatshiu Innu Nation; reductions in health care in Black Tickle, in North
Coast and South Coast.
So I ask
the Premier: Can you tell the people of Labrador what are you doing for them?
What's in this budget for the people of Labrador? How does this help them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wonder why the former premier just left out the significant investment, which is
the biggest piece of infrastructure that's yet to be completed in Labrador
that's the Trans-Labrador Highway. It's the biggest single piece of
infrastructure, and if you go to Labrador, you speak to people in The Straits
and you speak to people across Labrador, they you tell you it's the
Trans-Labrador Highway that they feel will connect them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
So, Mr. Speaker, we are
engaged with the people in Labrador. The Trans-Labrador Highway is a big
investment, and, probably to the disappointment of the Members opposite, but
we're in great discussions with our federal colleagues and they are going to
come in and support our investment in the Trans-Labrador Highway as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
the Premier raised the Trans-Labrador Highway, because we made significant
investments and partnered
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
We actually partnered with
the previous federal government over six
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
struck a chord today with them now.
Over six
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Over
$600 million spent on the Labrador Highway, the Trans-Labrador Highway that we
built, Mr. Speaker, when we were government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the executive
director of the Women's Centre in Western Labrador has expressed concern about
the safety of the people with the impending closure of the courthouse in Wabush.
Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite and the government was very proud last week
they set a precedent by allowing parliamentary secretaries to answer questions.
I ask
the Member for Labrador West, the parliamentary secretary, if he supports the
closure of the Wabush courthouse.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an
opportunity to answer my first question in the House and talk about the closure
of the court in Wabush, which I would remind Members was actually a circuit
court up until 2007. Fortunately, since that time, there has actually been a 48
per cent decrease in the number of cases heard there.
We are
in consultation with the judiciary. Obviously, it is still a tough decision to
make when you have to talk to individuals that are affected by this. We've had
those tough conversations. We look forward to working with the judiciary to
ensure that there is still access to justice, certainly access to justice that
existed up to till 2007. So we look forward to continuing to have that
discussion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
they neglected to contact and consult with the Women's Centre in Western
Labrador because they have a very strong feeling about what's happening in the
Western Labrador court.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday it became known that the Premier has a personal interest in a
condo project known as Sundara, which is being repurposed as a seniors' assisted
living complex. The Premier has stated publicly that the business has not yet
been placed in a blind trust.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: We are hearing from people throughout the province
who are concerned about this
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier if the project has benefited in any way from any decisions that he
has made or his government has made since coming into power. Has it benefited in
any way financially, anything budget related, HST related or any other
discussions or expect to qualify for any programs in the future?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question actually because it gives me an opportunity to tell
exactly what we've been doing since the election. First of all, I met with the
Commissioner of Members' Interests on this very issue. The establishment of the
blind trust is being done right now.
We
currently have a number of operating businesses. The professionals, the lawyers
and people that actually deal with this are dealing with this, I will say, a lot
faster than many other Members in this House of Assembly, maybe even some
Members opposite. The blind trust is important. I can tell you, we want to get
this established as quickly as possible.
This is
not a personal care home. It is a condo development right now that is being
repurposed to rent to people. There is no government money put into this. It is
not a personal care home. It is not a long-term care home.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the answer from the Premier. I understand that these things can be
complex and take some time to do, but people have been contacting us and asking
us wanting to be sure. I know that the Premier wants to be open and transparent.
I just
want to ensure because the Premier hasn't answered the question. Can he assure
that there's been no benefit to the project or anybody interested in the project
as a result of any decisions he or the government has made since he came into
power?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
assure the former premier of any of those calls that he's getting, he can
forward them directly to me. I will deal with it. I certainly don't mind at all
people asking questions about any of those things that impact me.
Mr.
Speaker, right now, in terms of anything from funding from this government, not
at all. It was a condo building that was built for condos.
As you
know, now it's being repurposed not for a long-term care site at all, not for a
personal care home. They will be rental units. People will move in there, and
actually services will be provided to those individuals. The long-term care
individuals that were talked about yesterday in the news story, these are not
the individuals that would go into a facility like that at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Health said that the Masonic Park long-term care facility was in a
state of disrepair and its living conditions were deplorable. Then this morning
we hear the Mayor of Mount Pearl, a political staffer on the Liberal
government's payroll on a radio morning show, echo those same talking points.
I'm not sure if the minister or Mr. Simms has been in the facility lately, so
I'm not sure what they're basing their opinions on.
I ask
the Minister of Health to please provide the information and data that
demonstrates that the Masonic Park long-term care facility is in a state of
disrepair as he says.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
Recently, Masonic Park was re-roofed. It is in need of renovations and repairs
to the tune of approximately a million dollars, I'm informed. Even with that,
the layout is now less than optimal for best practices in management of
long-term care patients.
We have
available federally funded beds through the Veterans Pavilion. Eastern Health is
in negotiations with the appropriate department to move those clients into newer
and better accommodations. It is our aim to proceed with that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, lots of our
facilities are less than optimal, given the age of the facilities. Whether
you're talking about St. Pat's or St. Luke's or Agnes Pratt, Masonic Park would
be no different.
Mr.
Speaker, Eastern Health has an operating agreement with Masonic Park, the
non-profit organization that owns the nursing home. Eastern Health has an
obligation to maintain the building and protect Masonic Park's asset. I know the
facility is well maintained. The owners of the building know the facility is
well maintained. The residents know it's well maintained. In fact, the roof was
replaced just last year. But the minister and a political staffer say otherwise.
I ask
the minister: Can he provide the list of items that have caused him to conclude
that the building is in a state of disrepair?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The move
from Masonic Park to the Veteran's Pavilion will save Eastern Health at least
$1.5 million per year. This decision has been an option available to the
Department of Health for in excess of 18 months, and because of local influence,
that was never actioned at the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the minister is
correct. I did stop the closure of Masonic Park. I stopped the closure of 40
needed long-term care beds in this region.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I refused to close long-term
care beds in this province while seniors and families desperately wait for
long-term care in every region of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
So I won't apologize for
that, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask the minister to provide the detailed
information that shows how moving these seniors from their homes at this stage
of their lives will save $1.5 million. It's simply not true.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
It seems the gentleman
opposite is getting quite excited about this subject. It is a subject of
importance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HAGGIE:
These folk in Masonic Park
deserve the best care we can provide. Those beds are vacant and unused in a new
facility with adequate staffing and are able to avail of the best optimal
staffing ratios according to Canadian best practices. I will not deprive them of
that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. This will go ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
It is shameful, Mr. Speaker,
that the Minister of Health and Community Services in this province would try
and justify the closure of 50 long-term care beds in this region.
So I'll
ask the Premier I say to the Premier, you're closing 50 badly needed long-term
care beds in this province just months after deciding to cancel a solid plan to
create an additional 360 new beds. That serious shortage of long-term care beds
has a profound impact on the people who need them, not to mention their
families. As a result of this decision, surgeries will be cancelled, people will
be waiting in hallways on stretchers waiting in a personal care home, or maybe
they'll even wait in an assisted living apartment, maybe even in Mount Pearl.
I ask
the Premier: How can you justify eliminating long-term care beds when there are
so many individuals and families in need of long-term care?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you, I've been in this House of Assembly now for about five years and I can
honestly say that is probably as low as it gets. This is a former Minister of
Health that seems to be willing to take people that need long-term care and put
them in a facility, which it seems what he hopes to do put them in a facility
that's not even licensed or not even equipped to do so.
The
facility that he's talking about will not take and cannot service long-term care
patients I say, Mr. Speaker. It is not a personal care home at all.
So let's
take this off the record once and for all. There is no government funding going
in at Sundara and it's not connected at all to the decisions that were made by
Eastern Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier
didn't answer the question that I asked. I'll move on.
Numerous
residents of Masonic Park Nursing Home have spouses that reside in nearby
cottages or apartments, or at Hillcrest Estates which is two minutes away. They
make numerous trips to the facility every day to help care for and support their
loved ones. Now that relative convenience and peace of mind has been stolen from
these families.
What
does the Premier and the Minister of Health have to say to those families who
will now be unable to provide the same level of support and care to their loved
ones?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
desired aim is to move folk from Masonic Park to the new beds at the Veterans
Pavilion. However, working with Eastern Health and the families, if they come up
with other options that are viable, those can be entertained too. This is not a
question of railroading people into accommodations that don't suit them.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Eliminating beds.
MR. HAGGIE:
We are not eliminating beds.
I would suggest the Member opposite check his math.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
mayor of Bay Roberts says he's lost confidence in the Education Minister and is
asking him to step down in light of the Liberal horrendous budget.
I ask
the minister, the man who argued so passionately for the need of a new school
when overcrowding and age becomes an issue: Why did you axe Coley's Point
school?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Education for a very quick response.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
interesting that the Member's interest is now piqued in this issue now that they
are out of office. They had lots of time to replace this school; they did
nothing about it. There are about a dozen schools in the province that are of
similar age as Coley's Point. It remains a priority for us, but because of the
damage that was done to the provincial Treasury by the previous administration
and the horrific deficit position that we're in, it's something we can't do
right now.
Officials in my department are working with the English language school district
to try to find a solution. We'll find one if we can in the interim. If we can't,
we'll build the school when the funds are available. But like I said, because of
the damage the crowd opposite did to the Treasury we simply don't have the funds
this year.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member has about 15
seconds for a question.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, not only are
people upset in Bay Roberts, but all across this province with the recent cuts.
The minister himself has flip-flopped on his decision and his comments about how
schools should move forward.
I ask
him: Give us a reason why you're cutting the schools in this province and why
you're putting the risk of education and the students here at risk for the
people of this province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the reason is
last year this crowd told us we had a $1.1 billion deficit but that has
ballooned to more than double to $2.7 billion. We're not going to keep putting
funds on the credit card of the next generation of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. We're not going to charge back to the next generation like the
other administration wanted to do. We're not going to do that. We're going to
have responsible management of the Treasury. That's the platform we ran on.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the Member
for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I would ask the House for order and decorum.
The
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
During
the November election campaign when asked about his many business interests, the
soon-to-be premier said he was committed to transparency but could not say
whether tougher blind trust rules were necessary or not.
I ask
the Premier, who does not yet have a blind trust in place: Can he now tell the
people of the province whether or not he believes the current conflict of
interest rules are tough enough?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
current conflict of interest rules and what we do as Members in this House of
Assembly first of all, there is a public disclosure of the activities that
you're involved in. These are things that we do on an annual basis. In my case,
these things are done. The blind trust situation is really the first time that
I've gone through this process. We are currently going through that, as I said,
right now. All the activities that will go inside of that blind trust will be
delivered and the activities will be carried on by the trustees in that blind
trust.
Mr.
Speaker, I tell you what, from my own point of view, it couldn't happen soon
enough to please me, and it will happen, it will get done. There is a time frame
that's put in place for that to be established. I can assure you that we are
doing that in a timely fashion, and much faster than many other previous leaders
or Cabinet ministers would have done in the past.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As we
know, blind trusts are only needed by Members of the Cabinet.
So could
the Premier tell us: How many others in his Cabinet need blind trusts, and are
they set up as yet?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you
know, those with business activities that feel a need to set up a blind trust,
the responsibility on any conflict of interest lies within the Members that are
included in those activities. So I don't go around and ask Members, and I don't
think the former Premier would have done that in the past I'm not sure but
Members, as you know, they put blind trusts in place. It's their responsibility
under the conflict of interest rules to declare their business interests and
their personal interests.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday we learned that the minister is cutting crucial mental health and
addictions services for youth. Government sat on the same All-Party Committee as
I did, and we heard the desperate, desperate pleas from parents trying to get
help for their children. We all knew we need a strong, robust day treatment
program for our youth like the Rowan Centre.
So I ask
the minister: Knowing this program needed to be strengthened, how could he
support the closure of the Rowan Centre when in fact it should have been
strengthened?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
opportunity to answer the question from the Member opposite, who is an active
Member of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health.
The
Rowan Centre is actually a program, not a physical building. In 2015 it had less
than one referral a week. The staff that are there are being redeployed to other
mental health areas where their skills will be better employed helping a larger
number of people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: How could these decisions be made without consultation with the
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions and without consultation
with the Minister's Advisory Committee on Mental Health? Is this how he uses our
expertise? And exactly what will the minister put in place to provide the gaps
left by the closure of the Rowan Centre?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
It's unfortunate, Mr.
Speaker, that I should have to remind an active Member of the committee of the
terms of reference of the All-Party Committee. It is essentially to provide a
snapshot of current mental health services to establish best practices and the
gap, and then to report back to this House who actually set up the committee.
The
committee is active, as the Member opposite knows, and will be meeting shortly.
It has activities planned and it is hoped that we will be able to submit the
report before this sitting ends.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre for a very quick question.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions was not at all consulted on
this decision or any of the mental health decisions and cuts that were announced
yesterday.
I ask
the minister: Why not?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
issue of fiscally responsible use of money by Eastern Health has to take
priority at the moment. We have been left in an appalling situation with the
single biggest department, in terms of government expenditure. We had money
frittered away and unfortunately we are having to deal with the realities.
The
Rowan Centre was underutilized. On an operational basis, Eastern Health made a
very prudent fiscal decision to reallocate the staff to areas where the need was
far greater and they would not be sitting there underemployed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing a higher
tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS
surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently
demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very pleased once again to stand here today with a petition from
the people in our province. This time a petition with regard to this terrible
levy that has been included in the budget for 2016-2017.
I have
many names here in my hand, but I want to let the government know and let the
Premier know and the Minister of Finance know that I haven't been able to go
anywhere public since last Thursday without people stopping me and saying: Ms.
Michael, this has got to end. People are calling it a poll tax. Even at quarter
to eight this morning in the supermarket a man stopped me to say: Ms. Michael,
keep speaking out against the poll tax, this is absolutely unjust. Everywhere I
go.
I have
hundreds of emails that have come in. I have more than just these petitions.
People are letting us know they are out there getting names. There's going to be
name upon name upon name brought into this House.
Not only
did this government do this levy, which is bad enough because it's unjust, it's
unequitable, it puts a heavier burden on lower income people than it does on the
very wealthy in our province, besides that, those people, people who have a
taxable income of $25,000 having to pay an extra $300 a year, on top of that
they are having to pay 16.5 cents more per litre for the gas in their vehicles.
On top of that they have to pay more for their income tax, period, because the
income taxes have gone up. On top of that they are not going to get the Home
Heating Rebate they have been used to getting. On top of that they are going to
have to pay 2 per cent more HST.
I don't
know how this government can listen to the petitions we are bringing into this
House without paying attention. They say they wanted to consult with 500,000
here they are.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
commend the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi on her speed. She's very
fast and races to her feet quicker than I can some days, Mr. Speaker.
Today's
petition that I'm presenting relates to food security.
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
greater food security ought to be a priority for Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to set targets for improving the food security of
Newfoundland and Labrador by promoting the growing in this province of more of
the food we consume.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition is more important now than ever, given the budget that
came down last week. The price of food, which in many cases is already at
outrageous levels, is now going to go up because of the increase in taxes that
this government is placing on fuel.
Labrador
communities have seen the Air Foodlift Subsidy being removed. The health of the
mind and body is partially a result of the foods that we eat. We get 90 per cent
of our vegetables from outside the province. Because of this, we only have
enough fresh vegetables for several days if there is a problem with the delivery
of food. We also make a lot of fishery food products, but we send 80 per cent of
these products outside of the province. This helps people have jobs and
businesses make money, but it means there is less food from the fishery for the
people in our province.
Our
province has a lot of communities that are spread out. Many communities in the
province don't have their own grocery store. This means that people buy food at
corner stores or drive to nearby towns to go to grocery stores. For every 10,000
people in our province, there are 14 fast food stores, eight corner stores, four
gas stations with stores and three grocery stores. There will be a need now for
this more than ever before. With no regard to the health of the people of the
province, this government has imposed taxes without any consideration for those
affected.
There
are fewer farmers and we need more farmers. There's less land being used for
farming. We need to use more of our arable land for farming. Our farmers are
getting older and not many young people are becoming farmers. We need to do more
to attract new entrants to farming. The cost of buying land and growing food is
high. Many of the animal feed and fertilizer used on farms also comes from
outside the province.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll conclude by saying there's a growing interest in food security in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The time is right for all sectors to work together to
achieve food security and to create a healthier food system.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
present a petition. I've presented this before and I will continue on, I guess,
on this one as well.
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 federal government should be reducing, not increasing, Marine Atlantic ferry
rates to drive tourism growth and stimulate the economy of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to press the province's federal Members of
Parliament and the federal government to reduce Marine Atlantic ferry rates.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
As I've
stated before, Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic ferry rates have a distinct impact
on every one of us here, whether it's the grocery shelves, whether you're
travelling or you're coming in off the province. Tourism is a big factor. With
our rubber-tire traffic, as I said before, it will definitely have an impact.
Now on
top of that we have a 16.5-cent a litre tax added to our gasoline. So not only
are the rates at Marine Atlantic increased, but that 16.5 cents will definitely
have a detrimental impact on in-province tourism for sure and, no doubt, it will
affect the prices on our grocery sales.
One
other point to that, as I say about tourism, we have a $13 million tourism
budget. A couple of months ago we were told it was going to be increased by a
million dollars a year for the next three years, but that never happened.
In
closing, I just want to say, you have 16.5 cents a litre on your gas, ferry
rates have increased, there is no new money for tourism, which we have a
successful tourism campaign, but we can always be better. I do encourage
government to press their federal cousins and try to get some relief on the
marine ferry rates, because I suspect we will see a big drop in tourism this
year.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders
of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The
Province, Bill 24, and I further move that the said bill a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 24, and
that the said bill shall now be read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to read the bill the first time?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, An
Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province, carried.
(Bill 24)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act Respecting
Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 24 has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 24 read a fist time, ordered read a second time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I now call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the budget speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to be the first on the government side to speak
on the budget. I would just like to recognize my colleague across the floor
yesterday in speaking on last year's budget and this year's budget, and
certainly took a considerable amount of time and detail to go into some of the
details he had. I'm going to try to respond to some of the items today. I won't
get to all of them, but I will certainly try to get through some of them.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the Member opposite who
yesterday recognized all the civil servants and the amount of work that they put
into helping us prepare this budget. A lot of times we don't adequately
recognize the amount of work and commitment that people who are employed within
government will give to the service of their employ.
I just
want to echo what the minister mentioned and certainly want to recognize all the
civil servants who spent so much time in helping us to prepare for this budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about the seriousness of this budget. I know many of us
have been sitting on this side of the House and we've been listening to what the
Members opposite have been saying. It's very easy to do that. I guess one of the
most difficult things in life that we have to do sometimes is clean up someone
else's mess. I feel like that's what we're doing. We're trying to clean up some
of the mess that's left behind. It's not an easy task.
What
happens then, Mr. Speaker, is obviously when we do that we have to make some
difficult decisions. The decisions that we've made, I've got to let the people
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know, they have not been taken
lightly. We have to realize when we are facing situations that we are now facing
with the unprecedented debt we're left with and also the potential going
forward, that if we did not do anything what we would be faced, and what our
children and our grand-children would be faced with.
So, Mr.
Speaker, none of us, not one single Member sitting on this side is taking this
budget lightly. None of us, if we had a choice, would ever be able to make the
decisions we made. Unfortunately, we've had to make some tough decisions and
these are decisions that we have made, and we will make as we move through this.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite yesterday also mentioned the fact that our expenses
in our expense line this year is going to be higher than last year. One of the
challenges our Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board had to deal
with is the gap that's between the revenue and the expenses. In trying, part of
what we have to do is try to narrow that gap in order to reduce some of the
borrowing that will be necessary.
When we
looked at the numbers this year going forward on the expense side and I know
we're talking a lot about revenue and that we've had to look at the revenue
section, and that is true, we have. There's been a lot of talk about the
increase in the gasoline per litre, and also of course in the levy. I want to
remind the people of this province that these are temporary measures. They are
measures that will be in place for a very short period of time. Somehow we've
got to face trying to reduce this debt.
When the
Member opposite yesterday talked about the fact that actually our expenditure
line next year is higher by over $400 million, that is correct. Mr. Speaker,
$225 million of that, it's my understanding, is going to service the
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Pension unallocated funds. So we're looking
at about a quarter of a billion.
Then we
look at the extra amount of money that's going into the expenses. It will be for
interest on money that was borrowed this year. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about
challenges that we're facing, I've got two grandchildren that are living in this
province. I made mention of them in my maiden speech. I have some of my family
I wish I had all of my family here but I don't.
We are
facing challenges this year that really, when we look at it, $988 million to
service the debt, more money to service our debt than we're spending on
education for our children. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a sad commentary. It's a
sad commentary for me. As a result of that, it's a sad commentary for my
grandchildren who are in the education system.
Mr.
Speaker, I think we have to put these numbers in perspective when we're looking
at the budget. I know it's very easy to sit on the Opposition and to sit on the
opposite side and look at all the negative things in this budget, but there are
some positive things. I think it's important that we look at these.
One of
the other things, Mr. Speaker, that was referenced and I know my good friends
opposite have talked about the fact that they're getting a lot of emails. A lot
of the emails are negative emails. We're no exception; we're getting them as
well. I've had comments made to me that we're not going to gain any votes on
this budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to just be clear, this is not about votes. The decision we made
is not about votes. This is about trying to correct some of the issues we have
and trying to chart a course for the future.
In doing
that, Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that we're not going to get 100 per cent
support from the province. One of the things we have to look at is to realize
this is not a popularity contest. What we're doing is not a popularity contest.
We are representing the people of the province. What we have to do, we are
mandated to try to the best of our ability to present a budget that we will
chart the course for the future of this province and not for the past. I realize
when we do that, there are always issues and always concerns and people will be
impacted. We all know that.
Again,
what we have to look at and realize: How far could we go on the course that we
were on? That's a question we all need to ask. I think when we look at it, I
think we have looked at a future that will provide at least some semblance of
getting us out and back in a positive nature.
Madam
Speaker, I wanted to also reference the comment the Member opposite made
yesterday with regard to our federal government and negotiations and
discussions. I just want to tell the people of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, we have been very successful. I have met with Minister Sohi on two
occasions face to face, and also one on a teleconference. I must say our
discussions have been going very well, very positive, and I think we're in a
good working relationship.
I think
one of the first things that we were able to realize was the $25 million
remission we had on the tariffs for our ferries. That was a very positive step
in the right direction, and it was an area we concentrated on. I had a
significant, as well as the Premier, we had significant discussions with our
federal counterparts to realize that we wanted even though we did not place
the province in that position, we felt it was important. We had two new ferries
that were delivered that we did not order as a government on this side; however,
we have to put that aside and we've got to try to work with the situation we
have. Part of that was trying to get the $25 million remission done on the
ferries, and we were successful in doing that. So I think that's the first step
in building a good, strong relationship.
We have
continued to have further discussions with the federal government, and we will
continue to have them. Right now, Minister Sohi and myself are looking at
there are some restrictions under the Building Canada Fund when it comes to the
small communities portion of the Building Canada Fund, as well as the PTIC
portion as well. We are working to try to get some of the criteria changed, some
of the restrictions removed from the criteria that's there, and we are pretty
optimistic that will happen. I think part of that will be because of our strong
relationship that we do have with our federal members.
Madam
Speaker, we were looking at I think the Member opposite yesterday as well
talked about our roads and how they were done. I think I referenced in the House
before that this year, we have taken a different approach on roads. Madam
Speaker, part of that was to try to remove some of the politics from the roads
and the awarding of contracts to districts. Part of that whole exercise was to
bring in all of the regional directors, and they came to St. John's for two
days, engaged in I guess they were immersed in two full days of discussions on
how to move those tenders forward.
Madam
Speaker, through that discussion, we had a number of criteria that we wanted;
safety was number one. They were all rated; all of the road requests were rated.
Safety was one. Condition of the road was another one. The class of the road was
a third. We looked at economic impact. We looked at bundling opportunities
because a lot of times in the past, you'd do a kilometre in this district and
another kilometre in another district and the cost were always escalated on
that.
What we
tried to do if there were opportunities for bundling, which would bring the cost
down, we did that as well. When that exercise was finished, we had roughly about
$10 million that we were able to do an early tender before the end of March.
That was done according to the information that was given to us by the
professionals in the field.
The same
exercise is continuing and we will have a second group of tendering, a block of
tendering, that will be going out I am hoping before the end of this week, and
the same sort of exercise that we had in the previous one, Madam Speaker, will
happen this time. Some of my Members opposite will be quite pleased to know that
they will be included in some of the road tendering.
That's
been taken out of the whole picture and I know my friend for Ferryland, if I
remember correctly, will be happy with a couple of pieces that I have. He may
not be happy with all of them I have, but at least a couple. We'll work with
that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible).
MR. HAWKINS:
What was that?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It won't take much to make me
happy.
MR. HAWKINS:
I know, I saw that yesterday,
Madam Speaker. I was a bit curious. I listened intently to what he was saying
probably for almost three hours. I was saying to myself because I was next to
speak. I said I have to stick this out. I was just amazed that he was able to
drink that water and still be able to speak for three hours and not have to
leave. That really did it for me. I was wondering if there were any other things
under the table.
Anyway,
Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciated that and appreciated his comments. That's
the new approach that we're taking. We're working through that. It's not easy. I
do have right now about 1,500 requests for road repairs. I had my officials do a
costing on that. If I were to do all 1,500 roads this year, it would cost about
a billion dollars to do that.
Madam
Speaker, those are the challenges we're facing. We will work through it. We're
still looking at about $60 million this year in the roads, but everyone is not
going to be happy with that. We will take it step by step and hopefully be able
to get some of the worst roads done and work on that, and the highest traffic.
So that's a part of what we're doing with that section.
Madam
Speaker, when we complete this next phase of construction, we will be working on
a five-year plan. Part of that will be incorporated into our Building Canada
Fund to try and have a five-year plan for roads so that we can have our tenders
out as early as January. These are some of the things that we're doing.
One of
the things I also wanted to mention because I knew there was no way I could
mention all the facts that my good colleague across the floor mentioned
yesterday. I wanted to point out a couple of things with regard to supporting
low-income individuals and families.
We talk
about the tax structure and we talk about the fact that we're all going to be
burdened with extra taxes. A lot of the seniors are concerned. I just wanted to
make sure that a senior couple that's making $26,000 a year will now be
getting four payments every three months of $455.75, which compared to what they
were getting is an improvement. We know that there are concerns. Obviously, we
want to work with people on that, but I just wanted to point out that these
numbers are not mentioned anywhere from the Opposition when we talk about that.
Madam
Speaker, the other reference I wanted to make is that in spite of what we're
hearing, a lot of the negative things, there are some positive pieces coming out
of this budget and there's going to be a fair amount of infrastructure spending.
I think overall, when we talk about health, education and some of the others,
we're looking probably somewhere in the vicinity of about $570 million which
is half a billion dollars, which is a significant amount of infrastructure
spending.
In TW,
our infrastructure spending is going to be somewhere in the vicinity of about
$226 million. I just want to highlight a few of them. We're going to be spending
$62 million in the provincial roads program I just mentioned that and into
our brush clearing.
We're
going to be setting aside $750,000 this year for a study and a request for
proposals into the fixed link. That's included in my mandate letter from the
Premier, is that we are going to be looking the feasibility of the fixed link,
and we're putting in $750,000 to get that study started. I think there is some
merit in that, and I really want to get into looking at what are the options and
what are the opportunities. I think once we start exploring them there may be
more opportunities there than we really expect or anticipate. So, Madam Speaker,
that's one area that I really want to look at and to get some work done on.
We're
also looking at, even though we are somewhat constrained in our spending, we are
still going to put about $61-$62 million into heavy equipment and into ice and
snow control. We're also looking at $23 million for the continuation of the Team
Gushue Highway, and that's important for us. We're looking at from the Kenmount
Road to the Topsail area, hopefully getting that work done. That's a
continuation of the work from the previous government on that. We're going to
continue putting in about $23 million to do that section this year. So that's a
significant amount.
One of
the big items I want to mention and bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, is
the fact that we're taking $63.7 million to leverage federal funding for
widening and paving of Phases 2 and 3 of the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are
going to be spending a significant amount of money in Labrador to look after
some of the needs that are there. So that's a significant amount of work that
hopefully we will be able to leverage federal funding that will be able to give
us the ability to do work in Labrador this summer.
I want
to also talk about the fact that we're putting $13 million to vessel refits. I
really can never stand and speak about vessels of course; I'm always plagued by
the Veteran. That's an ongoing
discussion that we will continue to have with Damen. I'm going to be a little
more forceful going forward on speaking with this group because obviously the
service we're providing to the people of Fogo Island and Change Islands is
totally unacceptable after having a new ferry. These are discussions that I will
continue to have. They will not be pleasant discussions going forward.
We're
going to spend about $6.1 million for renovation to the wharves at Portugal Cove
and Bell Island in preparation of the
Legionnaire. So that's going to be ongoing. I wanted to also mention the
fact that we're completing the work on the Placentia Lift Bridge. That's another
$9 million.
Madam
Speaker, we're spending a fair amount of money. We're also looking at putting
some improvements in our provincial buildings, including some accessibility for
the Arts and Culture Centres throughout the province.
Even
though we are looking at a budget that is causing us some concerns on that, we
will still have a significant amount of infrastructure money that we will be
putting out during the summer so we can provide employment for people that are
looking for jobs. Hopefully this will be a stimulus as well to get the economy
going. We're looking forward
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
I remind the Member his time
has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to have time in the House today. It's not a pleasure to talk about the
difficult circumstances that we face as a province, and it's not a pleasure to
stand and talk about the choices that the current government has made.
For
those tuning in at home, as Leader of the Opposition, I get an hour to speak to
the budget this afternoon. We'll see what happens as time goes on. I do have at
least an hour, maybe more, depending on what happens later in my speaking time
to talk about the budget.
During
the budget debate and money bills as I know you, as the Speaker, are quite
aware it provides a tremendous amount of latitude for Members of the House to
talk about a broad range of topics or anything that impacts the budget, the
finances, the circumstances of the province and virtually any kind of program or
bill or promise or line in the budget.
Madam
Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to back up in history just a little bit.
Members opposite throughout their campaign in the fall, when they made a
significant amount of very defined and careful promises and commitments to the
people of the province they also utilized much of their time, and we've seen
it in Question Period day after day, when they talk about history. I'm going to
talk about history now, too, while I have the chance to do so.
They
talk about what's happened in the past. They go back in the early 2000s. Maybe
we should go back to the '90s if we want to talk about history, or even earlier,
because remember back in the early '90s I was a public servant when the Liberal
government of the day came to the House of Assembly and had a budget that wasn't
a lot different from today in many aspects. It was crushing to the public
service. It was crushing to the economy. It was crushing to the province.
We see a
budget today that even in the Finance Minister's own admission, during her
Budget Speech she had indicated that this budget was going to have a similar
response. Her Budget Speech itself references the impacts on people working. I
think it's a 15 per cent reduction in the number of people working by 2021. A 22
per cent reduction in real income being earned by the people of the province by
2021. That was in her own speech and her own comments when she delivered the
budget last week. In her own admission and her own delivery of what they've done
here as a budget, it certainly doesn't instill confidence in the future.
That's
very important to the people of the province. When people go to bed at night and
they think about what's going to face them tomorrow, they want to know there's a
chance for them. They want to know that there's going to be opportunities for
them. They want to know if they study hard, if they work hard, if they do their
best to make ends meet, if they do their best to create a better future for
themselves and their family, that there's a chance and an opportunity that
that's going to happen. They've lost all that hope.
This
budget has nothing to do with people or care about people. There's been no talk
about that. Now the government talks heavily about finances, and that's very
important, but I know a former rear admiral of the US Navy used to say, Grace
Hopper hyphenated last name, cannot think of her name off hand, but I remember
learning this many years ago. She said, You manage things; you lead people.
The government is very focused on managing things but it appears they have
forgotten about people. That's one thing that is really missing in this budget
is they have forgotten about who has elected them and why, because people are
looking for an opportunity.
In the
last decade or so through population sorry, about the poverty reduction. There
was an effort by previous administrations, prior to me coming here, prior to the
short time that I was in office as Premier, prior to me being a Cabinet minister
and prior to me being elected as an MHA, there was work and a focus on, how do
we reduce the number of people and the amount of poverty in our province.
It was
very important, because Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians for decades and decades throughout our history were seen as in some
way disadvantaged, who relied on social programs, relied on unemployment cycles.
Well, we have seasonal industries, such as the fishery. Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians were quite seen like that. We know statistically speaking we had a
high level of families who relied on low incomes living in poverty in our
province.
The
government several years ago long before I came here back in the 2000s
started a process in 2005, 2006, 2007 of poverty reduction, a concerted effort.
There were over 30,000 people during that time that went through a transition in
their own lives, who were able to better themselves and reduce and end their
reliance on social programs and to be self-sustaining. Families who worked very,
very hard, most of them very moderate incomes low, middle incomes. Very
moderate incomes for families in many, many ways, but they were able to get a
start in life where they could live independently without relying on the
government for social programs.
Madam
Speaker, we hear Members opposite all the time talk about, oh, they squandered
money and they wasted money and so on. I'm going to talk a lot about that. I'm
going to talk a lot about that in my time. You tell one of those people who we
invested in, who were able to either further their education or had a chance to
work on their own and get a good paying job partners not always with
government. Quite often it was working with a company or with a business that we
helped stimulate and helped create. That was giving them an opportunity to work
there. You ask any of them if that was a waste of money and you'll get a very
clear answer from them. You'll get a very clear answer that the government
provided them opportunity.
What's
being held today, one of the problems today is that people are afraid that
opportunity worked hard for is being taken away from them. We don't want that to
happen. I'm sure Members opposite don't want that to happen.
I'm sure
many of the new MHAs that are here got a bit of a fright on Thursday when they
learned what was contained in their budget. I know we're all facing a tremendous
amount of input from people of province and reaction from the province. We
certainly are. I know Members opposite are as well, but there's a reason for
that.
People
just don't get up in arms. People who have never called their MHA, or written
their MHA, or communicated very personal circumstances through social media and
Facebook and Twitter and so on when people don't normally do that and all of a
sudden they do it, there's a reason for that. One of the reasons for that is
they've lost hope. They've lost their hope is what are opportunities for them in
the future.
When you
hear people saying, I'm going to pull up stakes. I'm taking my family and I'm
getting out of here because there's nothing here for me, they've lost hope. When
you lose hope and when your society loses hope, and people start that slope of
loss of belief in their future, it's really hard to turn that around. Bringing
that hope down from where it was not that long ago, when people believed we can
get through this, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do it all the time.
I was
down to Bay de Verde on the weekend, and I talked to people down in Bay de
Verde. They said, do you know what? We're going to get through this. They
praised Quinlans, as an example. They spoke very highly of Quinlans as an
employer interested in their community. I talked to citizens who said they are
rallying together. They have an awful mess in the entire town to clean up.
We know
they are going to need government support and help to do that soot and pieces
and chunks of ash on people's lawns and in their gardens. Inside people's homes
where there is soot on their kitchen appliances and so on; inside their homes
where you have such a concentration of smoke and so on, but they said, do you
know what? We're a resourceful lot. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we're a
resourceful lot.
All they
want is a chance to make a go of it. The people down there just facing disaster
thankfully, there was no loss of life. I haven't heard of any injuries or
serious injuries that occurred. Thankfully that's the case because they want a
chance to get forward, and they're going to pull together. That's what we do.
If I was
to go down there and say: No, forget it, you're done. No one is going to help
you here; you haven't got a future here in this town. If Quinlans turned their
back on them that would be a problem, and people would feel differently.
That's
the way they feel about this budget. They feel like the rug has been pulled out
from under them. The rug has been pulled out from under them, and somehow the
Members opposite came to the House day after day after day and asked for more.
I will
give you some examples of that. They asked for more, and somehow when we tried
to say, well, that's a good idea and we should try to find a way to create that
program. Let's talk about adult dental, the best program in the country.
Now the
government, the Members opposite talked about today we heard the Premier
reference today in Question Period we have an equal level of taxation comparable
to other provinces. Well, we need to be better than that because we are
geographically disadvantaged for one from where we are with the rest of the
country. We have a huge land mass with a small population and having equal
levels of taxation doesn't give people an advantage and an opportunity for a
better life.
Sometimes you have to find a way to give them a better chance. That's what has
happened over the last decade. That's why there is more than 30,000 fewer people
in poverty today than there was a decade ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
The fear is they are going to
go back to that.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's not funny.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You're right, it's not funny.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Madam Speaker, last year in
the fall of 2014, when I had the privilege and the honour to go to the Premier's
Office, we were facing we knew we were facing very difficult circumstances; we
knew that we were facing very difficult challenges. It didn't take me very long
in the office to know I had to take some actions that were not going to be
popular. I thought about it, I said: B'y, look, here we are going into an
election next year and I'm going to increase taxes, I'm going to reduce public
servants and jobs, I'm going to make things a little bit tougher on
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we're going to tell people there's going
to be more of it over the coming years. That's exactly what we did. That's what
we did; we laid it out. We laid it out and we're in a tough time, and we got a
tough time coming ahead and we've got to start making changes.
Just a
year ago, Madam Speaker, when we did that there was a long list of quotes from
Members opposite who chastised us for increasing taxes. They chastised us for
reducing the public service. I remember back even before that, back in 2013,
some of the Members who occupy the front bench opposite there now were so hard
and critical on us when we cut public servants back in 2013 wrong thing,
should never do it. They stood in a place right here on this side of the House
day after day saying you should never, never put people out the door. You should
never do it; wrong thing, bad thing, shouldn't do it; bad government, bad
government, bad government. What did they do? They turned around and did it
themselves.
They did
it themselves because they're facing circumstances as we did last year, and we
said was coming this year, depending on what happened with the price of oil and
where it was going to go. Then they said oh, bad, bad government for doing that,
for cutting and reducing and trying to find efficiencies and reducing the public
service. We said attrition we came to the House with an attrition plan. Yeah,
they were critical of that. Now, they were a bit cute, because they knew there
were going to go to a similar place. They knew that. They were a bit cute, but
they were still critical. We increased taxes, HST and I mean, so many times
the Premier has spoken on his position on the HST increase.
I
remember, Madam Speaker, last year on budget day and the Minister of Finance was
stood in his place here delivering the budget. The Members of the Opposition had
been in the budget lockup and reviewing the circumstances of the budget. Much
like we do every year; I did the same thing this year. I was in the budget
lockup, I came out and sat in my place, the minister began to speak, media
requested for me to go out and speak to them, which I did, and last year the
same thing happened. Very quickly the Premier went to the lobby and he said:
HST's bad; I will not increase the HST, if I'm elected.
Now, he
talks all the time about taking the politics out of stuff. Well, very quickly he
said: If I'm elected Premier, I will not increase the HST. Not on my watch,
won't be done, job killer it's a job killer. If he said job killer once, he
must have said it a thousand times, that HST is a job killer. We were the bad,
bad government, Madam Speaker, because we were increasing taxes because we
needed revenue because the price of oil was dropping.
In a
time when your revenue is down and it's not only down for a government, but it's
also down for the people of the province, that's when you've got to find
creative ways to be able to inject an infusion of funds and opportunity back
into the economy so people can continue to thrive and have a good go of it, and
have a chance to have a go of it. That's the time that you need to create and
build with people. That's the time you need to stand side by side with people.
That's when you need to do it. That's not the time to cut the guts out of her.
We knew
we had work to do and we had hard decisions to make. We started that last year.
Members opposite sat over here during the Budget Speech, during Question Period,
during petitions and asked for more and more and more, day in, day out. Very
quickly and for times after that the Premier came in about HST and he said and
I have pages of quotes here, Madam Speaker, and I'm certainly not going to go
through them one by one, but stood here in his place and talked about the HST
and how bad it was. Not going to raise it actually when January 1 comes, there
will be no HST increase.
One of
the first decisions he did when he became the Premier is he made a call to the
federal government and said: Can we stop the process? We have to stop it. Wrote
a letter, made the request, let's put this to a halt, we have to stop the HST
right away. I'm not sure and the Premier can speak for himself or Finance
Minister if that was an evidence-based approach as they talk about, we have to
make evidence-based decisions yes, sure you do. Absolutely you do. I'm not
sure if it was evidence based. If it was evidence based, their evidence was
wrong because they've changed it. We know they've changed it, so there was an
err in their ways somewhere.
We know it takes several months for the federal government to turn the switch
back on for changing the HST. The federal government actually collects the HST.
It's collected on remittances at retail outlets on a regular basis, and monthly
they make those remittances to the federal government to process it and return
the revenue back to the province. That's an ongoing cycle that happens in the
province.
They cut
the HST, a very popular thing to do. People were going to support them
goodness, they're not going to put up the HST 2 per cent; we have to vote for
them. My God, they're wonderful. Yes and not only that, we're going to diversify
the economy. Oh, wonderful. We're going to invest in business. We're going to be
smarter with business. We're going to be smarter with industry. Well, guess
what? The budget has reduced spending and investments in business. The budget
has actually reduced the spending and investments in business in our province.
When the
Finance Minister stands in her place and talks about how their decisions are
going to shrink our economy, that really doesn't tell that entrepreneur at home
who is about to invest their lifetime savings in a new business, maybe for the
first time in their lives they want to start a new business or someone currently
in business wants to expand their business, that really doesn't instill the
confidence in them and say yeah, boy, it's a good time to invest in my business.
You heard the Finance Minister. She has a lot of hope for the future; I'm going
to invest in my business. It doesn't.
If a
business is trying to make ends meet and trying to make the best to make their
ends meet, they may say I'm cutting my losses and get out of here. I heard what
the Finance Minister said; I'm going to cut my losses and I'm going to go.
Madam
Speaker, we've seen this movie before. We saw it back in the '90s. Back in the
'90s we had all of this happening: remember 1991, tough budget; 1992, the
fishery collapsed, the cod fishery, the ground fishery collapsed. In 1993 that
big budget came and if you look at all the economic indicators and I looked at
them when I was in the Premier's office and officials, I'm sure, gave me all the
same information they're giving the current administration. You look at all the
economic indicators and when they took that attack on we have to cut, cut, cut,
we have to increase taxes and cut public servants and so on, boom, there it
went. It was gone. The economy went bang and it dropped like a rock. It dropped
like a stone.
We
didn't want to do that. Alberta who has a very similar circumstance as we do
Saskatchewan does too but if you ask Members opposite, they'll say that's my
fault. The 14 months I was Premier, that was my fault. I'm responsible for what
happened back in 2004 and 2005, 2006 and 2007. I was a public servant back in
those days, but somehow I'm responsible for that. I must be responsible for
Alberta.
Alberta
is taking a very different approach. When you look at the actions they're
taking, I think it's much more similar to the approach we took last year much
more similar. They are saying we can't give up on our people. We can't give up
on our province. We can't give up on the people who've invested in businesses
who are hiring people of the province, giving them jobs and opportunity for
their families and so on. They said we have to invest in them. That's what we
have to do; we have to find a way to do that.
Well,
our government has taken a different choice, contrary to the promises they made
last year contrary to the promises they made last year. Let me back up to our
budget last year for a few minutes. Because when we did our budget last year,
there were a number of documents that we made available: one is on
infrastructure; of course there's the Estimates book, as we have every year,
which provides a line by line of Estimates; there is the Budget Speech itself.
We also had a book called Highlights. In the Highlights book and this goes to
some comments we've heard from the Premier. The Premier said: Oh, we didn't
know. We didn't know how bad things were. We had no idea. We had no idea.
Well, I
think that's a pretty weak argument, Madam Speaker. You come to the House every
day, you have committees of the House, you have Public Accounts where you can
call evidence, you can bring in people from departments and say: What's the
status of your department? Tell us where you are? You can bring in the
Department of Finance. Under those circumstances, you can bring virtually anyone
you want in and ask them about different aspects of government. They could have
done that.
I know
they focused on Humber Valley Paving a lot, but they didn't too much focus on
what was contained in the Highlights book. If you look over the Highlights book,
it talks about the circumstances we face. It talks about what projections were
for financial projections. It talks about our five-year plan that we had laid
out. It talked about fiscal targets that were laid out. It talked about
infrastructure investment infrastructure is always a good investment. We know
it creates jobs, it provides opportunity for businesses, and they hire people
and it improves the quality of life and so on. We know that.
Just
over here on page 7 there is a block about fiscal sensitivities: Fiscal
Sensitivities to Key Assumptions, 2015-16. It is written in millions of dollars.
It talks about two key factors that impact the economy. The two most significant
factors that impact the economy, one was oil prices and one is the exchange
rate. It lays out right here that for a $1 change in the price of oil, the
impact is $29 million. Now, that's pretty clear. For one cent on the exchange
rate, the US to Canada exchange rate, the sensitivity, the change is $22
million.
Every
time a barrel of oil goes down a $1, the province loses $29 million. Madam
Speaker, that's not that difficult to follow. While yes, you have to calculate
well how much was it when on what day and so on. But if you know the price of
oil dropped by $10, that's $290 million, roughly $300 million. If you know
you've lost $20 on a barrel of oil, that's $600 million. That's not hard to
figure out, Madam Speaker.
Last
year Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Alberta, every jurisdiction in the
country, saw a significant drop in oil prices. When the significant drop in oil
prices happens, then you know exactly what's happening, is that you are in much
worse condition and you can very quickly do some calculations to determine how
significant that is.
Now, the
other side is that when the dollar drops by a cent, then there's a $22 million
benefit to the province when it comes to exchange of oil because it has a
greater value, so it somewhat offsets. But if the dollar drops five cents and
oil drops $25, you have essentially got a $20 equivalent of a $21 drop in oil
prices which is going to put you at the $600 million mark. It's very simple. I
think it was late December or early January the Premier was asked one time
what's the impact of oil. His comment was something like, well, since we came in
office we've lost $400 million in a matter of a few weeks. So the Premier was
cognizant of that and he knew that.
For the
Members opposite just to stand in their place and say we didn't know how bad it
was. Oh my God, it's terrible; we didn't know how bad it was. All they had to do
was look at the documents and you can very quickly find out the circumstances
that's facing the province. That was what's in those documents.
As well,
we did a document on infrastructure. We said do you know what? We have to lay
out infrastructure. We have to do that. We have to talk about projects we want
to do. Yes, we want to build a new psychiatric hospital for the province, no two
ways about it. Probably one of the single most important, significant
infrastructure projects that we talked about as a government. Members opposite
talked about it on a regular basis. We know the importance of it all too well. I
know the importance of it all too well.
Overall
health for our population, including mental health, is so, so important. It is
so important for all of us and so important for the people of the province and
being able to provide a location, a building, a facility that allows for the
best services possible within that. Because it's about service; there's no doubt
that's a very important piece of infrastructure that needs to be done. We said
yeah, when we get to it. When we get the money, when we turn the province around
because we knew we couldn't.
The
other big one that was facing us was long-term care. We don't want to just
blatantly go in and gut public service or do anything like that. We don't want
to do that. I have a high respect for public servants. I was one myself for 25
years. The Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island was in the public
service for many years. It's not unusual. Some of us had parts of our lives
where we worked in the public service as well as private business and so on.
I have a
high regard for the public service; there's no two ways about it. One of the
problems with much-needed long-term care is when we thought about it, when I
became premier and we had discussions about it and just to sum it up very
quickly to try and bring it together for people watching at home and for Members
of the House, we have a certain amount of long-term care beds. We have fewer
today because yesterday there were some closed. I'm going to talk about that. We
have a certain amount of long-term care beds and we have the fastest aging
population in the country the fastest aging population anywhere in Canada.
Madam
Speaker, that means the need for long-term care is going to grow in the decades
to come. It's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger in the decades to come.
We said we got a problem. We've got to deal with this problem or else we're not
going to have anywhere for our seniors, our mothers and fathers, and our
grandparents and our aunts and uncles, our siblings, our spouses, our partners
we need somewhere where they can live out their lives with dignity in a
circumstance where they can be properly cared for. There's a significant
shortage of long-term care in our province today a significant shortage of
long-term care.
Now, we
have personal care homes, which are generally level 1 or level 2. They are the
people with the least amount of complex problems. We started a program where we
would provide additional health care professionals in the personal care homes so
people could stay in the homes longer as they got into what they refer to as
2-plus, which is not quite full level 3, you're 2-plus. Then level 3 is your
health is now getting to a complexity where a longer and a larger amount of
care, more intensive care is required. And when you get into level 4 and into
level 5, there is a significant amount of care required for our seniors, our
aging population. Not always seniors, quite often they're younger people who are
in a health circumstance where they need that extra assistance and support.
We have
a problem in health care today where acute care hospital beds the most
expensive room anywhere in the province is an acute care hospital room, and we
have a large percentage of long-term care patients who have nowhere else to go.
They can't go home because of the level of care they need and expertise they
need, and our long-term care homes were filled, filled to capacity. It doesn't
matter what part of the province you're in, this impacts you. Now, some are
less; some cycle in and cycle out of having waiting lists. You get smaller
populations. You might have a hospital that has one or two or three long-term
care patients. There are hospitals where there's a combination of both there
are long-term care beds and there are acute care beds very close by in the same
facility. Larger centres, quite often they're separate facilities.
But
there's a wait-list. There are people waiting for long-term care homes who can't
get in there. So they're occupying acute care hospital beds. We've all heard the
stories. We've all had constituents contact us and for the newer Members in
the House who haven't yet had those constituent calls, you will of a family
member or a loved one who is now lying on a stretcher in an emergency room. Went
to hospital sometime through the night or in the daytime, or the afternoon or
the evening, whatever the case may be, and the health care professionals at the
hospital say you can't go home; you need to be hospitalized. I trust you, good
care and we've got great health care providers in this province. Well, we
don't have a bed for you. We're going to leave you in a stretcher now in a
hallway in the emergency room.
I
remember talking to a lady last year whose husband was a cancer patient. He's
since passed. It was about a year or so ago, I remember talking to her. Her
husband was like three days lying in a stretcher in an emergency room because
there was no bed available for him. That's no joking matter. That's a very
serious matter. We said, how do we fix this? How do we find a way ahead?
Well,
for us to build long-term care, it's going to mean significant investment in our
infrastructure. It's a huge cost to build these kinds of facilities. Then we
have to staff them and operate them and so on. To be perfectly honest with you,
some private businesses can be better employers than sometimes what government
agencies, boards or commissions can be. Sometimes we struggle we all heard
lots of stories about nurses who can't book their holidays, licensed practical
nurses who can't get a day off, personal care attendants who are being
constantly called to work. We've heard all those stories and we've also heard of
private businesses who do it a little bit better than us.
We know
there's a private business here in town that government buys beds off today for
long-term care. They do a pretty good job of caring for their families. I've
experienced, when people have called and said my mother is in hospital, lying in
a hospital bed and needs to go to long-term care, can you try and see if my
mother can go to the privately-owned centre versus one of the government-owned
centres? Because people feel and their perception is sometimes that's a better
level of care.
Madam
Speaker, we dealt with that. The ministers and our Cabinet, we talked about it.
I don't know how many times we met and discussed, how do we fix this problem? We
went through a number of scenarios. We talked to different industry experts,
construction and infrastructure, and partnership and public-private partnership.
The federal government has a whole branch, department of public-private
partnerships. Ontario has done some, BC has done some.
Every
other province has done partnerships on long-term care as a regular way of
delivering long-term care. Every other province, except for Newfoundland and
Labrador, who's done it as a one-off, in one circumstance but every other
province has done that. We said let's have a look at it.
Yes,
there are provinces that have had challenges in the delivery of the service and
how the program is established and how it operates and how they form it up and
so on. We know Members opposite remind us, Auditors General in Ontario were
chastising public-private partnerships with long-term care. Yes, there are
provinces and there are examples around where they never got it right on their
first go around, but there are also examples around of where it has worked
really well.
BC has
had great success. As a matter of fact, other provinces utilize Partnerships BC.
Partnerships BC is a Crown corporation of British Columbia where there is a
Liberal government, by the way. A Liberal government in British Columbia, and
they have Partnerships BC they do lots of projects with. They do schools and
hospitals and clinics. They do all kinds of stuff with public-private
partnership.
That's
the road we went down because we have so many seniors in hospital beds that
shouldn't be there, that are backing up emergency rooms. They have impact on
surgeries from time to time. I've heard the stories.
I heard
from a lady a while ago it's a few months ago now. She showed up at surgery in
the morning and said, I'm here for my surgery. We were trying to get you, your
surgery's cancelled. We don't have a bed for you. She was turned away and had to
wait for a reschedule.
Now, I
don't know how often that happens. Hopefully it's rare, but obviously it
happens. It happened in this case. That's what she was told, there was no bed
for her.
We know
of lots of circumstances where people are occupying acute care beds who should
be in long-term care. It's a better quality of life for them, and the acute care
bed can be utilized for an acute care patient as they're needed; sometimes the
ones who are lying in those emergency rooms. So we had to fix it.
Now with
a public-private partnership, one of the things that happens is that if you
engage in a partnership with a company or a business and they have to build a
new building, well, they have to hire contractors to do that, much the same as
government does. They have to hire skilled trades to build the building. The
same as government would hire a company to build it. Well, in public-private
partnerships, the person, if a business is partnered with government for a
project they decided to do all of that. So that drives the economy, growth and
so on.
The
problem was, of course, is that us as a government the same as the problem the
current government is facing didn't have the capital to go do that. You don't
have the hundreds of millions of dollars you need to go build all the long-term
care that you really need. So where do you go? Our plan was to build 360 120
in Western; 120 in Central, divided between Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander; and
120 in Eastern.
Madam
Speaker, I tell you, I couldn't believe the criticisms we faced with a plan like
that. I had expected Members of the House would have said, well, thank goodness.
Government's going to build long-term care. They found a way, they're going to
build it, thank goodness. I expected to hear from them: It's about time, boys
and girls, ladies and gentlemen. It's about time you went and built that
long-term care. We never heard that. All we heard was, bad government, bad
government, bad government, don't do it.
One of
the very early decisions the process was well along, and if we had to have
rushed it and hurried it we could have finalized it before the election. I said,
let's not do that. I'm not rushing it to get to an election. If we don't get
elected on November 30 and there's a new government, then it's there for them to
go ahead and say, let's do it. Look what we did, we've created long-term care.
I
expected the new government would say something like, oh, the Conservatives
couldn't get it done, but we came in and we got her done. The Conservatives
couldn't do the deal and get it finished, but we came in and got it done. I
couldn't be more honest, Madam Speaker, that's what I fully expected to happen.
The new government would celebrate the same as they've gone to open schools.
They
were up in Southern Labrador recently and opened a school. I always kind of
think, yeah, it's too bad we never had the chance to go down and do that. I
would have liked to have gone to Southern Labrador. I didn't want to go down
just to open a school, but I did want to have that opportunity.
We did
have chances and there are other openings and celebrations that have happened as
well, and I'm glad they did. With long-term care, I expected that's what was
going to happen. They're going to come in one day there was going to be a big
health announcement, 360 long-term care beds.
Madam
Speaker, they didn't do that. They just cancelled it. They just cancelled 360
long-term care beds. I can't think of an investment that government could have
made and a partnership they could have done to have a significant positive
impact on people's lives more than long-term care. I can't think of it. Along
the way
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
I hear my colleague behind me
saying, and along the way you would have been creating jobs, stimulating the
economy. Money would be injected without government having to lay out hundreds
of millions of dollars. Money would be injected in the economy. Businesses would
be doing business. They'd be hiring people. Then they'd be hiring employees and
they'd be creating work. They'd be caring for our most vulnerable population,
our seniors who deserve it and need it. They decided not to do that.
I've got
to tell you, I was pretty disappointed and I know other people were as well.
People don't realize sometimes the importance of long-term care until you have a
loved one who needs it, until you have a loved one who's in a personal care
home, a level 2, level 2-plus.
I know
of cases of personal care homes where clients are now really level 3 but they're
trying to keep them below level 3 as long as they can or considered to be
because there's no place for them to go. We know people in hospital beds who
should be in a long-term care home but they have no place to go.
Madam
Speaker, for me, that was a big disappointment. If there was a regret of not
finishing the project or getting it done early, that's one I can tell that I
have. I wish it had gotten done and a disappointment that this government could
have signed the contracts essentially and moved on. I think the minister I
don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think the minister said something
like the scope is very narrow and we're not sure it's best interests of best use
and the best way to do it.
I also
know, Madam Speaker, that when you make those decisions and when those types of
projects occur, your decisions really have big impacts. We know that it takes a
long time to do it. We know when it comes to health care, that the new health
care centre for Springdale was ready to go. Tenders were out, tenders were
called, and the project was moving ahead. It was going to be another great
celebration for the new government. I'm sure the people of Baie Verte Green
Bay District were looking forward to this new health care centre. The minister
rose in his spot here and he said well, it's not cancelled; we are just
re-scoping it. I know the minister is new but when you re-scope a project, you
have to cancel a tender to re-scope the project.
Just
cancelling a tender for simply re-scoping the project, minor changes and so on,
trying to get your cost down, is really contrary to the act. You actually have
to change what's going to be contained within it or what's going to happen to
it, how that's going to be done.
For
example, if you have a health care centre you are going to build and in the
health care centre, say, there is a dialysis unit. Some may decide well, we
can't do dialysis in that unit now in that hospital; we are going to take the
dialysis out. We're going to put a CT in there, for example and I don't know
if Springdale was going to get one or not. I don't want anyone to think that we
had planned to because that wouldn't be right. Oh no, we are not going to put
that in now; we are going to take that. Well, that would be a significant change
in the project and that would be a reason to cancel the tender because you have
to redevelop a brand new plan. I was disappointed to see that the
Springdale-Green Bay health centre has been deferred for two years.
I know,
Madam Speaker, that when you defer something for two years, then you have a
project being put on the backburner and you have to make sure you kick-start
that again in two years' time. Sometimes that's tough to do because two years
from now, there's going to be other challenges, more crisis, other priorities,
more on the plate that has to be done. It's really hard to make sure that stays
on the priority list.
On the
deferred list, the list of deferrals that the government has circulated and
provided to us, they are also deferring the Grand Falls-Windsor labs project for
two years. We heard earlier in Question Period about Coley's Point Primary. I
know this is very important to the Member. We heard her today. We saw her
response today when the questions were asked. I know the Member for Harbour
Grace Port de Grave, it's very important to her.
She has
a stack of petitions she was given to table in the House, to bring to the House
of Assembly. I know she said she stands by the people and I'm sure she meant
it. I'm sure that having the school deferred for three years you know, she
criticized us for doing it, but they are doing exactly the same thing,
criticizing us for deferring the project in the past but now with the planning
being deferred for three years and planning is your first step. Planning of a
school takes a long time. Building these big, huge structures is a big amount of
work but delaying the planning that's what it says here: Coley's Point Primary
planning deferred three years. That's a significant pushback and change in
policy. I know it's not consistent with the Member and I know that she's not
happy about it. I appreciate where she is because I've got similar circumstances
going on in my own district.
In
schools, Paradise, a new five to eight school is deferred for two years. Madam
Speaker, the Paradise, Conception Bay South, Portugal Cove-St. Philip's area is
probably the fastest growing area in the province today. Clarenville has
experienced tremendous growth. We've seen other areas.
The
South Coast has had lots of growth and employment that's happened on the South
Coast as a result of investments and partnerships we've made with the
aquaculture industry. Probably one of the best success stories, business and
employment success stories for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, even though I
suppose that was probably money squandered too. I don't want to go down that
road, but that's what Members opposite criticized us for making those types of
investments.
In
Paradise right now there's a new elementary school being constructed at Octagon
Pond known as the Octagon Pond School. I'm glad to see there's funding in this
year's budget to continue with that project. It's partially constructed; it's
framed up. The walls are up; the roof is on and so on. That really has to go
ahead. I'm glad because students who are going to occupy that school are
currently bused to St. John's, from Paradise through Mount Pearl to St. John's
at the swing school, or the School for the Deaf as it's known as in St. John's,
because it needs space.
When you
have a fast-growing community and a fast-growing region like Portugal Cove-St.
Philip's, St. Thomas Line part of Paradise, Conception Bay South east end,
Topsail, Chamberlains, Manuels and so on
AN HON. MEMBER:
Torbay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Even Torbay. Yes, absolutely
Torbay, a fast-growing region as well. They can't see through the fog down there
most days, but it's a fast-growing region.
Conception Bay South has the most sunshine anywhere on the Northeast Avalon. Did
you know that? It has the highest temperatures and most sunshine. It does. It
really does. It has the best. It has the most sunshine, the longest growing
season and the warmest temperatures.
When
they get that school done, Madam Speaker, there's a need for more. You can't
stop there because we know the demographics; we know the ages. One of the
criticisms that the current government, when they were in Opposition, have said
to me and I've talked to Members opposite, I know they mean it in all
sincerity is you've got to try and get ahead of these growth areas. You have
to have the schools ready. When it comes time for a child to go to kindergarten,
you have to have a seat in a classroom in a school for that child to attend.
In
Paradise there was a plan. We had a plan for Paradise, a new five to eight
school. It's in the infrastructure plan, the one I referred to earlier, in the
infrastructure documents from last year's budget. A five to eight school
deferred for two years. A need for a new high school there's no high school.
Paradise is a community of probably now the population, Madam Speaker, is around
21,000, 22,000 people in Paradise and it doesn't have its own high school.
Students currently the town is kind of split. Some students go to Conception
Bay South, the east end of Conception Bay South to Villa Nova and Holy Spirit,
and the rest of them go to Mount Pearl.
One of
the problems of them going to Mount Pearl is that on the other side of Mount
Pearl is Southlands where there are no schools and the students in Southlands
also go to Mount Pearl. Many of them go to Mount Pearl for school. People in
Mount Pearl go to school, so the schools there now are being filled by students
coming in from both areas essentially into Mount Pearl and we know that can't
last. So the new Paradise high school is deferred indefinitely.
I think
two years ago Villa Nova had some pieces of Villa Nova Junior High, more
additions put on last year because of the growing population. You have to have
seats for students to sit in, have seats in classrooms classrooms have to be
in schools and they built portable, temporary accommodations. The plan was to
build an extension of Villa Nova, phase one, and one for phase two; all deferred
indefinitely. That's really sad for a growing community. That's going to be
difficult and the government is going to have to deal with that in the years
maybe they won't have to deal with it in years to come, maybe another government
will, but they are going to have to deal with that in the future.
Shoal
Harbour, Riverside Elementary deferred indefinitely. Ambulatory care in
Carbonear deferred indefinitely. Now, ambulatory care is a very important aspect
of health care. I know ambulatory care at the Health Sciences Centre is a busy,
busy place. Probably in the last year, it was identified as one of the most
efficiently operating units in the Health Sciences Centre, and ambulatory care
sometimes is that nature. They move like clockwork, super staff, well organized
and other hospitals need, especially a hub area like Carbonear, the same type of
thing.
We know
the Medical Laboratory Science Program at Grand Falls-Windsor has been
cancelled. We know the Protective Community Residence in Burin is cancelled and
the Goulds Bypass cancelled. They are all projects that have been cancelled, not
deferred or deferred indefinitely, but they are just not going to be done with
this government. Burin is not going to get a Protective Community Residence.
That's just cancelled, not postponed but cancelled.
We saw
in Gander Academy, reconstruction of K-3, continued planning, construction
deferred there for one year. I think I talked about Grand Falls-Windsor and
Coley's Point. On the Colonial Building, there are some deferrals there.
Riverside Elementary, Shoal Harbour, I mentioned that one as well.
So
that's the deferral list, Madam Speaker. Those things always cause pain and
disruption, but there's a reason why they're on the list. They're on the list
because these things need to be done. These projects need to be done and get
done. They're important to the people of the province.
All of
those projects represent infrastructure development. Infrastructure development
means spending the money, hiring skilled trades, labourers. It means engineers.
It means a whole host of skills that need to come together to build such a
project.
I didn't
mean to go on that long, Madam Speaker. I know Members opposite are hoping I'm
going to move on to something else, and I will, but they are very important.
They are very, very important to what's happened in the province and the change
in the province today from what was part of our plan last year when we laid out
what we were going to do over five years.
I know
they had announced some road infrastructure recently. We've seen the list. We
were provided with the scores of the programs that were awarded, but what we
didn't know was because we asked for the evidence-based decision process. What
we don't know is the next road on the list that got left off the list or didn't
make the grade? We haven't been provided with that information.
Ministers talked a little bit about how more work is coming and so on. We look
forward to that, and maybe at that point in time we'll have the chance to say,
well, why is this project underway now and already being done why was this
being a priority when some of these other projects were left to a later point in
time? So hopefully we'll get that information and we'll have a chance to have a
discussion about it to see what happened.
Now,
Madam Speaker, last year in our budget I talked about HST a little bit
earlier, and we had committed to increase HST. We also increased income tax. I'm
going to talk about income tax first for a couple of minutes, because the
current rate for income tax for what's known as the first bracket, which is
people who earn zero to $35,000, the current rate is 7.7 per cent. We left it at
that. The second bracket is $35,000 to $70,000, 12.5 per cent. We left it at
that. The third bracket, $70,000 to $125,000, it's at a 13.3 per cent tax rate.
We've left it at that. Then the fourth bracket is when you earn $125,000 to
$175,000, that was also at 13.3 per cent. Those who make over $175,000 a year,
they are at 13.3 per cent.
We found
that other provinces had more tax rate categories, more tax brackets than we did
as a province. There is a belief that if you earn more you can afford to
contribute more to the Treasury and to the province. That's what happened. So we
increased, we created a fourth bracket and a fifth bracket. There used to be
only three.
A fourth
bracket of $125,000 to $175,000. For the 2015 tax year, with a half-year
implementation, we increased it to 13.8 and for the 2016 tax year we increased
it to 14.3. The fifth bracket, for those who make over $175,000, 13.3 per cent
is what it used to be because it was for everybody who made anywhere over
$70,000 then we increased it to 14.3 for a half year of 2015, and 15.3 for
2016.
The
reason why I point that out is because we believed that if you make more, then
you have the ability to pay more. What's also interesting when it comes to
income tax, federal income tax and provincial income tax, is the tendency always
is that the more you make the more likely you are to be able to avail of what's
known as tax shelters, deductions. Deductions in the amount of tax you have to
pay.
People
have the income and the flexibility to be able to find ways to invest or place
their money, place their earnings into protected savings accounts, tax-free
savings accounts, retirement funds, or make contributions to charitable or
non-for-profit organizations. In some cases make political contributions because
there are tax reductions for all of those types of things and you don't have to
pay tax if you move something into a retirement fund. You pay it when you
collect it or use it as an earning later in your life.
It's not
always the fact that those who earn more actually pay more, because they have
the ability to shelter a lot of their revenue, a much better ability to shelter
it than someone who earns $25,000 a year. If someone earns $25,000 a year, it's
a good chance they're using most all of their money to make ends meet, to go
from paycheque to paycheque and live from paycheque to paycheque.
It's
important that we understand how these people live. It's important to understand
how so many people in our province rely on that paycheque every second week. If
they lost their job it would be devastating for them. They need to have that
constant revenue because they do want to take their child to a dance class or
swimming lessons or hockey or soccer and have extracurricular activities for
them so they can enhance their quality of life, or maybe they need tutoring and
assistance in school which can be very expensive.
They may
need help with a certain subject sometimes. You can have great wonderful kids
who just struggle with a certain aspect of a certain program or a certain year
they have a problem with math. We know kids quite often will have problems with
math, and it might be a year that a child is really well at math but all of a
sudden there's a real snag and you have to find a way to help and you have to go
find a tutor. Tutors are going to cost you some money. It's going to cost you
sometimes a lot of money for help for your child.
I know
people who have taken their kids to tutoring and all of a sudden they have
soared. They invested more because they wanted their children to do better and
have a chance. The tutoring really helped them out and drove them. You can't do
that. If you rely on your paycheque from payday to payday, and now all of a
sudden the hand is out and you've got to pay more, well, you're going to have a
problem. It's going to cause you some grief.
We know
the Premier and the Minister of Finance are on the record as saying the rich,
they pay enough. That's essentially what they've said. They said they pay enough
and we don't think they should pay any more. They did put income taxes for those
higher income levels. They did that. They've also put up income tax for lower
income levels.
For a
person in the first bracket, zero to $35,000 it was at 7.7 per cent. We selected
to keep it there last year for 2015-2016. The current government has increased
it in 2016 to 8.2 per cent and in 2017 to 8.7 per cent. Also, there's an
increase then in the second bracket for $35,000 to $70,000. So if you earn a
salary of $70,000, you're going to pay more taxes in 2016 and more taxes in
2017. The third bracket you're going to pay more taxes, which is up to $125,000.
Then from $125,000 to $175,000 you're going to pay more and over $175,000 you're
going to pay more again.
Usually
what happens with taxation is that the people who have the highest wages pay the
higher amount. Madam Speaker, that's quite often how that transpires, that the
people who can afford it pay more. We know the Premier and the Minister of
Finance are on record of saying that we believe they pay enough. That was their
response to the Liberal levy which they have put in place. They utilize this
levy as a way to create more revenue.
As
they've done that created more levy there's going to be a cost to every
family. Everyone who earns over $20,000 a year is going to have to pay more.
They're going to have to pay more, but it's disproportionately taxed, burdened,
put upon those who earn less.
I talked
to a gentleman yesterday who earns a good income. He told me that his children
are doing okay; they're trying to make a go of it. He said one of his children
and spouse make a fraction of what he makes and will pay more because they
both work to the levy than he will when he's a very high-income earner. Yet
this hard-working, young family, who are hoping to have a child in the future,
lost $2,200 on the infant supports and new parent supports and now have to pay
this levy.
That's
causing a significant amount of hardship and difficulty for families, and
they're trying to square it. It wasn't in the platform; it wasn't in the
promises made. When we were saying yes, we have to increase taxes, we have to
reduce public service, we have to find more efficiencies, and we were being
chastised for doing so Members opposite were saying, no, we're going to increase
the HST. We're not going to increase taxes. We're not going to lay off any
employees. I was shaking my head saying well, the price of oil is dropping. If I
was in power today, I tell you, we got to look at our public service, we do
and they're doing it.
The
problem with them doing it, versus us, they said they weren't. They're on the
record saying we're not going to do that. They said we're not going to do it.
Now, they said they liked the attrition plan, they still liked that attrition
plan and we did too; but we also said was over the coming years we have to have
a plan that can be flexible, and we were quite clear to say that every year we
can review the plan and we'll offer the plan depending on the financial
circumstances of the province. I mean that's as clear as you can get, clear as
that. How much clearer can you get that we're going to have to do things
differently?
Someone
said to me a little while ago, you're honest with the people; that's your
problem, Davis. You told them the way it was; you shouldn't have done it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, I know; maybe I
shouldn't have done that.
But
that's what we did. That's what I did. I told them where it was, I told them how
it was, and we did that and we saw how it turned out because the people elected
a new government. I was the first one to say I accept and I respect the decision
of the people of the province. I do, yet the people of the province gave us a
job and I'm not going to stand here and not do my job because I happen to be a
former premier or because I made decisions in the past.
You want
to pick out a decision or something I did as premier, well let's talk about it.
I will be more than happy to talk about it, but don't talk to me about 2006 or
2007 when someone reduced taxes. I was a public servant, I wasn't even here, but
somehow that's all my fault too. Talk to me about what I did last year or what I
tried to do for the short period of time, because I was in office about the same
amount of time from when I got elected to when I brought down my budget. There's
not much difference in the amount of time from when
MR. LANE:
(Inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, we're hearing from the
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands. He's been hiding the last few days, but
we're hearing from him now, Madam Speaker, he's been hiding away.
So,
Madam Speaker, in the same amount of time this year and budgets are about
choices the Premier brought forward his budget. I did it last year. We make
choices; we make decisions.
Madam
Speaker, my time is running out for my first hour, so as the Member for Topsail
Paradise, I move, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North, that all words
after that be deleted in the motion before the House and the following words
be substituted therefore: This House deplores the government's failure to deal
adequately with the real problems facing our people and its failure to provide
competent management to our province. So moved, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Member for Topsail
Paradise has put forward the motion and the House will take a brief recess.
Recess
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker rules that the motion submitted by the Member for Topsail Paradise is
in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For
those tuning in at home, I just spoke for an hour on the budget. Towards the end
of my speaking hour, almost an hour
AN HON. MEMBER:
Great job.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, thank you. Thank you
Members opposite as well.
I laid
down a motion, amendment and now I get to speak to that amendment for another 60
minutes. I know it's a good time, if you're tuning in at home and you're sitting
in the House of Assembly. What a great opportunity to listen to me talk for
another 60 minutes. I know some people who would love to be in your space.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Not very many, but I know
lots of people some people would like to be in your place.
Mr.
Speaker, I was talking about the budget. I was making comparisons earlier in the
approaches that we had taken as a government last year. We had reflected upon
the volatility of oil and the potential impacts it would have on the province
and on the budget.
Everywhere in the world got it wrong last year. There might be a few one-offs
that found a way to say, oh yes, this is exactly what I said was going to
happen. They may have been predicting it for the last 20 years and now finally a
day came that they were right. The predictors, the ones that we utilize, which
are the same people that the government today utilizes for their expertise
because none of us are experts when it comes to oil or many aspects of
government. We have to rely on officials in departments, we have to rely on
consultants and we have to have relationships with the financing industry, the
bond rating agencies and so on.
We
relied on them and the oil dropped and it dropped and it dropped and it dropped.
As I talked about my first hour, for every dollar that oil drops, it's a $29
million loss to government. So when you go from $100 a barrel and I think the
lowest it went down to, if I remember correctly, was somewhere around $26, $27.
I think it was down below
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
How much?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) $27.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Twenty-seven dollars? Thank
you, Minister. He tells me it was around $27 a barrel. That's a big hit when you
put $29 million for every dollar that it drops. So yes, we know that the current
government had decisions to make, but that's certainly not what they promised to
people.
I know
as well that MHAs knocked on doors and carried those promises door to door to
the people of the province. I know that and I know it's a tough circumstance
you're in because you don't have control over some of those decisions. Cabinet
does it, the Premier, the Finance Minister, Members of the Cabinet, they're the
ones who finalize and decide what the budget is. Members of caucus generally
don't. The Premier has said they had a say, but I'm sure I know the Cabinet
responsibilities are sworn responsibilities and it's up to them to bring forward
the budget to the people of the province.
They
brought forward one of the most controversial parts of their budget and there
are several. We know that there were people who disagreed when we proposed last
year in the budget that effective January 1 of this year we would increase the
HST. There were people who were adamantly opposed to that. There are some of
those people, many of them today say, oh, that was a good thing, we should have
done it. Now it has been done, but there were some people who have held over,
no, bad, wrong, should never have done it. There are still people who believe
that.
The
Premier announced in December that he wouldn't increase the HST. A few months go
by, things happen, during January, February, March, April we get to the budget
and now he's going to put the HST back on in January. The loss of that HST
revenue the thing about HST, HST is collected, as I referenced earlier. A
person goes to a store, goes to a business, they make a purchase or procurement.
They obtain a service, and they pay it and they pay HST. The HST is collected on
a daily basis throughout the province.
We had
anticipated, and it was budgeted by officials in the Department of Finance who
said, look, with the 2 per cent HST you're going to create $180 million in
revenue during the year. Half a year is about $90 million. From not putting the
HST on from January to July, it is a $90 million revenue loss, that, very
interestingly, is paid by those who spend the most. The people who spend the
most are the people who have the most. The people who have the most are the
people who earn the most, our highest earners.
Our
highest earners would likely contribute the largest amount to that HST and the
HST increase, that $90 million. The Premier saw fit in December to announce: I
made a promise, I'm not putting the HST on. I'm going to stick to my promise. My
evidence-based decision is, it's wrong, it's a job killer, not on my watch, it's
not going to happen.
As I
said earlier, if he said it once he said it a thousand times: not going to
happen, not going to put up the HST and cancelled called the federal Liberals
in Ottawa and said, what do we need to do? We need to put the brakes on this. We
can't have an HST increase in our province, it's a job killer, it's terrible.
Now
interesting, at the same time well, actually last year New Brunswick was
looking at their HST. Nova Scotia put theirs to 15 per cent. The Liberal premier
of Nova Scotia was actually talking over the last few months and saying Atlantic
Canada should all be 15 per cent. I think their 2016 budget is probably being
delivered as we speak, or it was earlier today for Nova Scotia.
The
premier of Nova Scotia last year I know the premier. I've met him several
times. I had lots of discussion with him. He is a firm believer I talked to
him about HST that 15 per cent was right. The premier of New Brunswick was
interested in it and they moved their HST to 15 per cent. Before they did it,
the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia said it's right for all of us to do that, but
our Premier said: Not, a job killer.
For some
reason he felt it was a job killer for Newfoundland and Labrador, but he was
offsides with his Liberal colleague, the premier of Nova Scotia, and it turns
out the Liberal premier of New Brunswick, who also consulted for a full year, 15
months I think. In New Brunswick they went through a consultation process for a
15-month period. It started in January 2015 to inform their 2016 budget.
The same
process that our new Liberal government is doing, they started in January 2016
to inform in 2017, but they had a lot of pressure and a lot of pushback on that
same you have to take action now. People were getting tired of saying, look,
start doing something. Freeze hiring. They didn't do that. Stop travel. They
didn't do that. They travelled lots and government Members travelled. They have
work to do, I appreciate that. I'm not criticizing them for any particular
travel or anything, but they continued they didn't do that.
The
Minister of Finance stood in the House here one day in Question Period and I
asked how much have you saved in discretionary spending. She very proudly got up
and said we've saved $100 million so far. In a short period of time they've
saved $100 million. This very day we don't know what that $100 million is, but
we're hopefully going to find out through the budget process where that $100
million worth of savings were. From the fiscal update in December through
January, February, March, that's three months that she said. She went outside
the House, gave a little different answer. I had hoped the next day she was
going to clarify it here, but apparently I was chastised and criticized for it
again.
That's
what governance is and leadership is. It's about making decisions. It's about
making choices. One of the significant choices they made in January was not to
put the HST on, a $90 million loss in revenue. So they put the HST back on. It's
going to create $90 million in the second half of 2016. I haven't heard any
numbers to the contrary or forecasts to the contrary. I would suggest it's going
to be less than that now because of the climate created by the current Finance
Minister and current government of taking all hope from people in the province,
taking all vision, all sense that there's a better tomorrow and a future for us.
We had
2,500 public servants who normally are given a year-to-year contract and in
March they're given a new contract for the next year. We had 2,500 of them who
were given a letter saying we're extending your contract, congratulations, only
until September. At a time that we have a tough fiscal circumstance, they're
putting up a flag to these 2,500 people and saying I believe what it spells
out, if I was one of them who received that letter I'd go uh-oh, my job is in
jeopardy and I may lose my job in September.
That
investment I was just going to make in my house where I was going to put in new
windows, I was going to repair my roof, going to paint my house, I was going to
rebuild my patio, maybe I was going to renew my kitchen; I'm not doing that. So
for 2,500 families, they were just signalled you better stop spending. You
better stop spending in the economy. Don't go to restaurants or bars. Don't do
that. Don't buy a new car. Don't take a vacation. Don't take a staycation. Don't
do that. Don't invest in your home. Don't spend any of your extra resources
because in six months' time your job may be gone.
The hard
part of that is, I'm sure the Members opposite or the Minister of Finance and
the ministers don't intend to terminate 2,500 people next fall. I'm sure they
don't. I hope they don't, but if they don't, if they only were to terminate 200
or 300, or 400 or 500, or 600 of them, we have 2,000 people who put their money
in their pocket instead of driving the economy for a six-month period.
For a
six-month period, 2,500 families who are saying let's save every cent we have.
Let's not drive anywhere anymore because our gas just went up by probably 19
cents or so, 19 or 20 cents. It's not 16.5 because there's also 2 per cent HST.
You have 16.5 cents on your gas tax and if your gas is over a $1 you're going to
spend at least two cents or more extra on your HST. So your gas could be up
anywhere from 16.5, 17.5, maybe up to 18, 19, 20 cents, depending on what the
price of gas is. Don't drive your car. Don't go to a restaurant. Don't go to the
corner store or a small business.
What
happens then, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what I'm sure the government didn't want
to happen, and we certainly don't want it to happen. I'm sure if I spoke to
every Newfoundlander and Labradorian they'll say this is a bad thing. There's
only one entity I know of that benefits from an implosion in the economy, and
that's the people who are in the business of bankruptcy and bankruptcy trustees.
I talked
to one today and he can't keep up with the work that's happening. He can't keep
up with the demand on his business, but we don't want to see those guys busy. We
don't want to see those folks busy being bankruptcy trustees. We'd like to put
them out of business. What's happening is now you create that implosion. It has
not just started now. It happened a few months ago when the Premier and the
Finance Minister said it was some bad, it's some bad, it's some bad, oh my God,
it's bad news. There is nothing good in the budget.
I think
there is good stuff in the budget by the way. I do think there is good stuff in
the budget. Anytime they maintain a program or service that is good news. That
is good news for people who require that program or service. That's good news
for the people who deliver that program and service.
Well
it's bad news that they discontinued 24-hour snow clearing. It's bad news
because people are losing their jobs. It's bad news because in the Northeast
Avalon there are thousands of people who work shift work, who travel over our
highways on a regular basis. The Outer Ring Road has up to the last number I
saw was 40,000-plus travel the Outer Ring Road on a day. Do you know the busiest
days? Do you know the two busiest days in the week on the Outer Ringer Road?
Interestingly enough, Saturdays and Sundays are the heaviest traffic days on the
Outer Ring Road. That's people going about their business. It's people going to
the airport. It's people going to work and shift work.
If you
have to go to work at 4 in the morning and the busiest road in the province
doesn't have snow clearing, that's going to create a problem for people. Not
only that, with all of the dangers, fatalities, devastation and destruction
that's happened on the Outer Ring Road, as a former government it was on my mind
regularly. I'm sure it's on the mind regularly of the new government. I'm sure
the Minister of Transportation, it's on his mind.
I'm sure
the Minister of Transportation has had discussions about the safety on the Outer
Ring Road. It should be of the utmost importance. Snow clearing is a significant
part of that. When you live on a rock in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the
North Atlantic, you're going to have snow and rapidly changing weather
conditions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
That creates a significant
challenge. Mr. Speaker, it's the busiest road in the province. The difference
with the Outer Ringer Road versus any other road in the province is simply the
volume of traffic.
Now,
Members opposite can make an argument that you might have a road where there's a
small volume of traffic. You take the Member who represents the South Coast and
travels up and down the highway on a regular basis; it's a fairly small amount
of traffic on that highway relative to the Outer Ringer Road.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
remind Members to take your conversations outside if you need to have them.
I
recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The big
difference is then you start to talk about there's one or two, or 10 or 15
people on a roadway in a period of time from 12 midnight to 4 a.m. That's very
different than having 40,000 cars a day go over another road. That's why
government has to make choices, but you usually start and say I'm going to
decrease where the least amount of demand is.
So they
arguably just did that in aspects of health care. Yesterday, Eastern Health
approved by the minister and approved by this government because the buck
stops in the minister's office and the government's office. Anything an agency,
board or commission does, the buck stops there. That's why they call it the
minister of a department or the minister responsible for. They are responsible
for that, Mr. Speaker. Everyone in the province elects them to be responsible
and do the right thing.
We know
that yesterday, we'll use Bonavista for an example, they said they were
streamlining and I can't remember the word; maybe the Minister of Health might
call it out to me or something. They used a word to say they'd level the playing
field for X-ray services in a number of hospitals: Bonavista, Old Perlican,
Grand Bank, St. Lawrence and Whitbourne is the other one. They streamlined them
to be now, what I always referred to, as banker's hours or office hours, that
there'll be X-ray opportunities for X-rays during office hours.
In the
case of Grand Bank, if a person shows up at the hospital in Grand Bank and has
what's suspected to be a fracture of the arm, leg, bone of any kind and they
need an X-ray, the person has to drive to Burin. I don't think that's a really
long drive an inconvenience, not good, but it's not a long drive; 35
kilometres or 30 kilometres something like that if I remember correctly the
number of times I've been down there.
St.
Lawrence is a bit further. Whitbourne is a pretty busy hub, pretty busy place.
They'll have to travel to either Carbonear or St. John's. I would expect people
may choose one or the other.
Old
Perlican would drive to Carbonear as well, I would expect, and then there's
Bonavista has to drive to Clarenville. That's a bit more of a drive, especially
if you have an injury that could be very painful. That's the hospital I'm told
by officials at Eastern Health that had the largest number of X-rays,
afterhours. In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't a huge number
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
The number, when he gave it
to us, I was a bit surprised because there's only
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People
have to leave from Bonavista now, afterhours, in the case they need an X-ray. I
believe and I stand to be corrected but if my recollection is right I don't
have my notes here in front of me the officials who briefed me from Eastern
Health yesterday advised us that is the hospital that has more frequent and
the numbers are not huge. They're not huge. One or two a day, that type of
range.
I
understand that, but I also understand there's a fair bit of traffic in
Bonavista; it's the hub for that area. If there's an event or an injury or a
serious injury, the person afterhours now would have to go to Clarenville, which
is a bit of a run away.
My point
in bringing all that up, Mr. Speaker, is because that's about choices. You try
and say well, where is it that the smallest numbers of service being utilized
and how do we adjust; we look at the cost and look at the benefit; you do that
analysis of the cost and benefit. Then you determine where we can find savings
and achieve those savings. Snow clearing, the road maintenance and so on is the
same thing. You do the same type of analysis with roads. If you have two roads
that are in bad condition, one has 500 cars a day and the other one has 40,000
cars a day. Well, it makes sense. If you can only do one or the other, you do
the one where you're going to get the most benefit for the spending you do.
That's what choices are about in a budget.
It's
obvious, Mr. Speaker, some of the Members opposite are sensitive about those
choices. Then it's up to them to determine if they're the right choices or not.
It's up to them to talk to their constituents, to talk to the people they
represent and tell them. It's up to them to say, well, I do support this
decision or I do not.
We put
dialysis down in Bonavista probably a couple of years ago now, and I've been in
the unit myself probably two or three times now. I've been in the dialysis unit
down in Bonavista. I tell you, there was a group of people who worked very hard
to continue to keep our feet to the fire as a government to make sure the
dialysis unit went in down there. There were people who worked very hard and
lobbied very hard, and I was quite pleased when it got done and got put in
there, because I know for a dialysis patient it's a hard go. It's a hard go for
dialysis.
If you
live close to a dialysis centre, living life while requiring life-sustaining
dialysis is tough anyway. I've talked about that here in the House in the past.
But when you've got to travel a distance to do that and we're challenged by
our geography, we're challenged by the size of our population, and we're
challenged by the cost of operating such things as a dialysis unit or dialysis
centre, dialysis equipment, then it really makes it difficult for difficult
choices.
I've
always said, when you're in government you learn really quickly. You can sit in
Opposition and throw over, you should do this and you should that, and how come
you're not doing this and not doing that. That's easy to do, but one of the
differences for some of us over here is that, yeah, we've had that experience in
government and we understand when you say, do you know what, I can't do it. It's
a good program, it's a good service, I think you should have it, but I just
can't do it. There could be any number of reasons why you can't. Maybe that it's
you're opening a door you'd like to do it in one place but you'd have to do it
a hundred, or maybe there's not a level of fairness.
We all
want more doctors I heard the Member opposite talking. We want more doctors
everywhere and we do that. There are so many doctors and so much to pay so many
doctors. We have more doctors than we ever had before. We're training more
doctors than we ever had before, and I would argue and the Minister of Health
might talk about this at some point in time, because I know he knows an awful
lot more about it than I do, an awful lot more. He made a life of it himself in
medicine we probably have one of the finest training institutions in Canada
today right here for medicine students. Probably one of the finest, and training
more young doctors than ever before.
That
comes with a cost and a bill and an expense, but it pays off for the people of
our province. Especially, as I talked about earlier, when you have an aging
population that exists throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Because those
people are the ones who elected us, and they want us to make those choices.
There's
nothing harder than being an MHA or being a minister or even being in Opposition
when someone calls and says, I need this, and you say you can't do it. I'm
sorry, I can't do it. That's bothersome sometimes because that's what makes us
people, that's what makes us real. We can't do things we'd like to do, we feel
is a good thing to do, but we just can't do it. You can't be everything to
everybody when you're in government. You have to make choices.
The
government opposite, when I started this whole discussion I was talking about
revenue, increased 300 fees I think it's 300 fees, I stand to be corrected,
approximately 300 fees and created 50 new ones. As soon as I get through my
pile of paper here I'm sure I'll find it here for us so I can refer to it.
That's a lot of new fees for the people of the province. There are still people
who are learning what the new fees here it is right in front of me, just where
I left it. There are a lot of new fees and also this levy, which is by far the
most discussed aspect of the current budget.
One of
the problems of the levy that people have on a regular basis is the distribution
of that levy. I'm glad to see that people under $20,000 don't have to pay the
levy, there will be no levy. Someone who earns between $20,000 and $25,000 will
have to pay up to $300; $25,000 to $36,000, $300. Then when you go from $36,000
to $38,000, you're up to the amount of $300 to $450. There's a range there.
Depending on how much you earn is the way it looks to be set up. Then $38,500 to
$47,000, $450.
Let me
just go to that area. Just let me go to that salary range for a minute. I know a
lot of people who are in that salary range of $38,500 to $47,000. A person in
that salary range would have to pay $450. If you take a person, say a couple of
people or a couple, and they're both making just under $50,000 each. They're
working hard. I can tell you anybody who's got a family like that and that's the
kind of income they're bringing in, they've got work to do to make their ends
meet; of course anyone who is down in the $20,000 to $25,000, even more so.
If you
had two people working say and making $40,000 a year, an $80,000 income, they
have to pay $900 for this levy. Think about that. That's people who don't have a
lot of disposable income, are now going to have to pay $900 for a levy, when
someone who makes a much larger salary, $200,000-plus, $300,000, $400,000,
$500,000, they pay $900. The people are saying it's not fair; it
disproportionately burdens lower-income families. Now, I don't know how much
clearer we can be about it. Someone who earns $36,000 a year is going to have to
pay $300. Someone who makes $25,000 a year is going to have to pay $300 towards
his levy.
Mr.
Speaker, there's lots of those people in the province who not that long ago
relied on social programs. Some of these making those incomes still rely on
certain supports, like through the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug
Program, where the working poor need that assistance. People who are lowest
income earners, middle-income earners, they need that assistance because they
want to stay off social programs but they have a high health bill for their
child. I don't want to rely on the government. I want to make a go of it myself,
but my child has a disease or an illness which would require a high level of
drugs and government assists them on that.
Well,
now we just burdened them with another $300, or in the case, as I said, up to
$47,000, $450 and so on. You get up to $50,000 range and you are in the $600
mark. That's a lot of money for people.
What's
really interesting about this, when the minister was asked I saw little clips.
I didn't have the chance to look at the whole program, but on
NTV Issue and Answers on the weekend
she was asked: How are people going to pay for this? How is it collected? She
said: No problem; they are going to pay on their taxes.
When you
go in and file your taxes next February, March or April, go in and file your
taxes and I know an awful lot of people, Mr. Speaker, who every year when they
go in and file their taxes, throughout the year they go into their employer and
say can you take an extra $10 bucks off my cheque for taxes. Take an extra $10
off my cheque because I know at the end of the year when I file my taxes, it
doesn't hurt so much to get that $10 off but when I go to file my taxes at the
end of the year, I'm going to get a little return.
That
little return is going to loosen up my purse strings just a little bit, give me
a little bit of relief. Maybe you're waiting for it to come in because you have
to fix your car. It is springtime and you need to buy new summer tires. You have
to fix the struts in your car because they got damaged due to all the potholes
and ice and stuff during the winter or whatever the case may be. Or my wife and
I and my kids were hoping to take a spring vacation, a little vacation or
something. We are going to go to Bonavista for the weekend, like I've done many,
many times or down in Twillingate.
Who
knows what it is. My hot water heater gave out. How am I going to pay for that?
Well, I know my tax return is coming. I heard it lots of times. My tax return is
coming; I can't wait to get it because I'm going to have a few bucks left over
in my tax return.
What the
minister said, how this levy is going to be collected, is when you fill out your
tax return next year, when you get to your income line they are going to say how
much income have you had, this is how much income, well this is how much you
have to pay.
Now, a
lot of people when they go into taxation, they go in to pay their taxes or they
go in and file their tax return sometimes they break even or they have to pay in
a little bit. It is not unusual for someone who makes $25,000 a year at the end
of the year, oh, guess what? I'm a $100 short or I'm $200 short. I have to pay
that now to the federal government, or they break even, or you're going to get
$100 or you're going to get $200. It might be a wonderful year that you had and
your taxes worked out and you're going to get $300 back. Well, not anymore
because the minister is going to take that away. If you're even or if you're in
the hole a little bit, now you've got to pay that on top of whatever your taxes
are.
The
minister did say people can go to their employers and fill out I think it's a
T-100 and ask them to take out a little bit more out of their cheque on a
regular basis. Lot of people do that, but they do that now for a completely
different reason because quite often that's the little nest egg they get come
tax time when they look for that little bit of relief from going all year long
from paycheque to paycheque.
Maybe
that's the weekend they take their kids out for a meal somewhere. Maybe that's
the weekend they do something with the family, a little bit special. Round up
the kids, take them to a movie or they do something, because a lot of these
families can't afford to do that on a regular basis.
Now they
are going to be hit with this levy on a time when they expected to have a little
nest egg. When you're going to put it oh, go and fill out your T-100 and take an
extra well, I take $10 off my cheque now to make sure I don't have to pay in
at the end of the year. If I take $10 a payday, $20 a month, I have a couple of
hundred a year extra paid on my taxes so that at the end of the year if I'm
short, if my employer didn't do the calculation right, if my employer didn't
calculate properly how much taxes I'm supposed to pay, I'll be okay. I won't be
stuck with a big bill. That's what people do. Now we're going to add another
$300 or $450 or $600 on to that bill. People are not happy about it for a very
good reason.
What's
really interesting to point out is that government is talking about needing
revenue this year. Members know this; my own caucus, we talked about this. The
government says we need revenue this year, but they won't get it until next year
because people won't pay the levy until next spring. People won't pay the levy
until next March or April or May when people do their taxes. People won't even
pay the levy until next year; $79 million won't be paid to the provincial
government for another year.
Officials in the Department of Finance have told me in the past that when the
federal government collects money like that, it could be 12 to 18 months before
the funding actually comes from the federal government back to the province 18
months. So it could be up to that. It could be late 2017 before the levy even
comes to the coffers of government.
Mr.
Speaker, that's a big problem for this levy that the government talked about
much-needed revenue and needing that revenue today. I made the comparison
earlier HST is paid monthly, remitted monthly, it's processed monthly and
there's a constant revenue flow happening with HST where the levy is very, very
different. It's going to create $79 million.
If the
Premier had to have left the HST on in January, if the Premier didn't cancel the
HST increase in January from January to July, which would have created $90
million of cash flow coming into government during that six-month period then
he wouldn't have needed the levy. The levy is going to create $79 million a year
or so from now for the government that needs money today.
The HST
would have been paid by the highest earners. The HST would be paid mostly by
those who spend money. Whoever spends the most money are the ones generally who
have the most money. The people who have the most money to spend are the ones
that earn the most money. So our highest wage earners would have been paying
that HST.
That's
not the case with the levy. That's not what happens with the levy. It
disproportionately punishes lower- and middle-income families. That's the fabric
of our province, Mr. Speaker. Those are the people who stay here and work here
every day. Those are the people who try their best to make ends meet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Those are the people who want
to raise their families in Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural parts of our
province, in the coves and the islands and the rural parts of our province. They
want to keep their families here and they want to go to local business and do
business with them.
With
this levy they're saying that little nest egg I'm going to have next year is
gone. What's the point of staying? The businesses are going to close. Our
government offices are going to close. Not a lot of them, but some of them are
going to close depending on where you are.
The
whole set-up of the budget is to create that implosion. We can't survive as a
province and individuals can't survive. That's what happens. In the minister's
own Budget Speech she refers to that. She says our decisions are going to
negatively impact the people of the province. That doesn't work for so many
people.
I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work for me either. It does not work for me.
You're going to have a levy on people that's not even going to create revenue
this year. You cancelled evidence-based decisions. You cancelled the HST which
was going to create $90 million. You're not replacing the HST with $90 million,
now you're requiring people to pay both.
So not
only are you going to have to pay 2 per cent extra on HST starting July 1, but
now on top of that what they missed out on the first six months of the year
they're going to add with a levy. They're going to add, they're going to try and
catch up with the levy that people are going to pay next year. So we're going to
collect HST and we're going to collect the levy.
Mr.
Speaker, when we did the HST last year we looked at the most vulnerable parts of
our population and we said, what are we going to do, because there's an HST
credit that occurs used to be. There used to be an HST credit that an adult
who's eligible, and the eligibility was based on the threshold of $15,000
income. An adult who was eligible got $40; their spouse or partner, $40; and for
each child under 19, $60.
Part of
our HST plan last year, when we increased HST I was very cognizant of those
families, those people who need that extra money. So we changed it. Effective in
2016, the amount for an eligible adult was $40 for the first adult. We were
going to increase that to $300 for the first person, but we were also going to
increase the phase-out threshold rate to $30,000.
So now,
not just those earning $15,000, $16,000, $20,000, $25,000, $28,000 or $29,000,
but people up to $30,000 were now going to be eligible for that HST increase.
For the second, for the spouse it would have been $60, where before it was $40.
For a child under 19 we were keeping it at $60. So two parents and a child would
have received $420 under our HST credit program. Before it was $140.
The one
I was pleased to bring forward, the short time I was in the Premier's office,
would have significantly increased that and it would have doubled the threshold.
I remember asking how many people would that impact, and if I remember correctly
and I'll turn to Members here with me I think it was around 100,000 families
that would have been eligible for some part of the HST credit, if I remember
correctly.
Now, the
new government did introduce the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement.
There's a graph they produced which gives you a range of what's applicable and
so on. Though, they also cancelled tax credits and assistance, like Home Heating
Rebate. I know so many people used to call my office in the fall of the year
and I know Members get this, and for Members opposite, I know the new Members
probably wouldn't be aware of this, but you commonly get the call, where do I
get my application? Can you help me fill it out? Can you make sure my Home
Heating Rebate application goes in. I got to get my Home Heating Rebate and I
need that.
People
who get these credits, come Christmastime, they're huge to some families, huge.
When you get a credit or you get a rebate, you get a cheque in the mail from
government, it's a huge amount to say, that's going to help me buy my Christmas
gifts for my grandchildren for Christmas. It meant so much to them, and you get
that.
Well,
that's gone, but there is an income supplement. The people of the province will
judge that and they'll determine if it's good or not. The analysis and work that
we've done on it, it does not offset the increase in taxes. It doesn't do it.
We're
still trying to figure out and figure through all of the tax increases because
there are 300 of them and how does that apply to families and people's
circumstances. I had someone who wrote me last night and said: I'm trying to
figure out what the implications are in the budget; can you help me? I said:
Well, we certainly can try. We can help share some of the information, but you
really have to plug in your own circumstances to really figure out what is going
to be.
But 300
fee increases. When I looked at the fee increases, I very quickly thought about
because the first section of course in alphabetical order, the first
department is Advanced Education and Skills. There's a savings document that was
available and there is also a fee document that was available; they are both in
alphabetically order. One of the first one is Advanced Education and Skills.
When you
look at the savings that government is going to create, the first one there:
Implement full student loans for NL students studying outside the province in
programs available in NL; about a $29 million savings there. You go down to
Fund Office to Advance Women Apprentices from the federal sources, $200,000
savings. The budget line was $200,000 and the savings was $200,000, so that's to
remove provincial portions, as I understand it right, and allow the federal
portion only.
There's
other savings here, for example, Integrate the Post-Secondary Training Services
Program for persons with disabilities into the Student Loan Program, $1.5
million savings there on the back of students with disabilities. Eliminate
apprenticeship scholarships. Now imagine, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I
know I know so many young people that have worked so hard in their
post-secondary studies. They worked hard in high school and post-secondary
studies. I know a young man I was just trying to think, Mr. Speaker, how much
I'm going to tell you about him because people will know who I'm talking about
before long.
I know a
young man who played very high-level sports; he's an adult today. He's at
Memorial University today. He played high-level sports and he still plays
sports, very athletic, had a very successful amateur career and professional
career. Mr. Speaker, I remember he went off to play junior hockey and he played
in the Q and he won several scholarships and awards. I remember he was a student
in Bay Roberts high school. The high school in Bay Roberts is
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ascension Collegiate.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right on, Ascension
Collegiate.
He was a
student at Ascension Collegiate. The Member will figure out very quickly who I'm
talking about; she probably already has.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I have.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, you would.
He was
going to school. I think in his high school year he missed something like, I
don't know, 60, 70, 80 days of school or something through the year. He
graduated with the highest marks in his class.
He was
away playing hockey. He stayed going to school based at Ascension and he
graduated with the highest marks in his class. He worked really hard. He was
playing for the Q he was playing away in the Q. He was playing in Nova Scotia.
He won awards and scholarships when he played hockey.
I had a
lady call me who had occasion to be there, and I won't get into that had
occasion to be at their awards banquet. She called me and she said you know
these people; you know the family. I said I do. It was long before I was in
politics. I said I certainly do.
She said
I want to tell you what he said at this banquet. He told children he spoke to
children. He used to visit schools and do all that kind of stuff. He spoke to
children and he said my mom and dad told me that if my studies slide, if my
marks drop, I can't play hockey. He said there's nothing more he wants to do
than play hockey. So he told students, whatever you do, you have to balance your
life with what's important in life and keep your marks up.
I can
tell you that young man, because of scholarships and because he worked hard
not only is he a great athlete, but he's also a great person. He was a great
student and a hard-working student. Because he worked hard he was able to get
his education through scholarships. That was the only way for this young man to
get a post-secondary education a decade ago was if he had help through
scholarships and opportunities through scholarships.
I tell
you I don't know anybody, I don't know any student who worked harder than he did
and was more kind to people than he is. He's at Memorial University now. He has
a degree from a university away. He played hockey at a university away. He's
come back here and I won't tell you what program he's doing, but I can tell you
it's a program that's considered to be fairly elite. He's doing very, very well.
When I
look at scholarship reductions, I think about kids like that. One of the things
that inspired that young man to study hard was not only the fact that if he
didn't study hard and do well he wasn't allowed to play hockey, but once he got
beyond high school and even in his later years in high school and he went to
the Q and he played minor, he played pro for a little while and so on. He knew
in college, played in college, got his degree that if he didn't study hard and
do well, he wouldn't get his scholarships. If he didn't get scholarships, he
would not have gotten his education, and he wouldn't be a Memorial University
student here today who's doing so well. I could spend my full hour on it.
When I
saw in the changes, reductions to apprenticeship scholarships, reductions and
eliminate funding for post-secondary scholarships eliminate apprenticeship
scholarships, $25,000. It's a $25,000 savings that in the big scheme of a
provincial government budget means very little to the big scheme of the budget.
I can tell you they might be, I don't know how they're broken down, I don't know
how the scholarships are broken down. It refers here to duplication.
Well, I
know this young man I told you about, he got lots of combinations of
scholarships. There were lots of duplications of scholarships, and it's a good
thing there was, because it allowed him to get his education. But $25,000, that
might be 25 $1,000 scholarships that means everything to a student. It might be
the difference in having her books to study or not having books to study or
materials or travel or accommodations or clothing to wear to school, whatever
the case may be. It may be any of that.
It
reduced and eliminated funding for post-secondary scholarships; $123,800 was the
budget line in 2015-2016, they're going to save that. This year they're going to
save $36,000, and next year they're going to save $123,000. I see that there,
Mr. Speaker. The decision to reduce duplication between programs offered by the
federal government and the private sector and community sector, they should get
all of that.
Cutting
a couple of thousand bucks from a student, from a family who needs the
scholarships and help for their kid to get post-secondary education to save
$25,000. I tell you, if nothing keeps you awake at night or bothers you about
the budget, that's what you call nickel and diming. That's the death by a
thousand cuts that governments and people will suffer from, and that's the kind
of moves that are going to haunt you. You can't do that.
There
are some things in government you really have to say, boys, we have to find a
way to do that. You really do, it's as simple as that. You have to find a way to
do it. You can't do that to people. You can't do it. Well, you can because
you're doing it, but you shouldn't do it. You absolutely shouldn't do it.
At the
same time, that same student who relies on a scholarship when I pick up the fee
changes, the first line, journeyperson exam, apprentices. In 2015-2016 the cost
to do your journeyperson exam for apprentices is zero. In 2016-2017 it's $50.
Trade qualifier application now, I'm not sure what a trade qualifier
application is, but an application, generally, is a process and application
zero cost for it this year. Next year it's $500. Trade qualifier exam, this year
it's $150. It's going to $200. You go down through, if you want to renew your
journeyperson certificate, it's $50. The Provincial Nominee Program, in 2015-16
the fee was $150. This year it's $200.
Mr.
Speaker, 300 fees are going up by that nickel and dime little pieces that
impacts so many people. What's hard to measure is you might impact someone with
their $50 and say, well, that's not really big. You know, probably not. In the
big scope of things, b'y, some kids now, they might go downtown, they'll spend
$50 in a very short period of time. If they don't go downtown one night, they
have their $50 saved. It might not be a big deal it might not be. There are
other kids who don't go downtown. Lots of kids don't go downtown because they
don't have that $50.
If they
have $50 there and $100 here, and they have $25 over here and they have another
$25 here, and not only that but you're taking away something over here from
them. It all starts to add up. Now they have to pay a levy. Lots of students
work part time. I heard comments about that and I couldn't believe what I heard.
Well, it's okay if they working. If they're part-time students, they're probably
working so they're going to be okay. That was the comment. They're part-time
students. They're only part time doing three courses, I think, was the quote
used. Because they're working part time they're working, so they have an income.
So it's okay, it's all right.
Maybe
they're only doing three courses and working part time because they can't afford
to be a full-time student. Maybe that's what the problem is. Maybe the
circumstance is not that they don't want to do five courses or some students
do six courses. Maybe it's not that they don't want to, maybe they can't afford
to. Maybe they have a loved one they have to care for part time and pay some
bills for, or parents they look after and they can only study part time and work
part time to try and make ends meet. Maybe that's the problem.
To say,
all right, they're doing three courses and they work. Yes, they're working in a
restaurant downtown, b'y, they're making a fortune on tips. Well they were, but
the problem is now people aren't going to go to the restaurant anymore. That's
the problem. People are going to stop going to the restaurant.
I tell
you, I know people who own restaurants. I'm sure all of you do. They said last
year when things started to move and the oil started to drop, the first thing
they do is companies involved in the oil industry and stuff, they stop and
they cut off those budgets. They say, we have to reduce our entertainment
budget; a lot of them call it. We have to cut our entertainment budget. That's
restaurants, that's bars. That's meetings that happen in restaurants in our
province and our city here in St. John's and throughout our province happen
every single day.
I bet
all of you have done it. I want to meet you Mr. or Madam, or Ms. or Mr.
So-and-So. I want to meet you and talk about a matter. Sure, let's do lunch.
Lots of people do it. You have busy days, busy schedules, but people like if
you can take a break, you take a break for lunch, you go meet someone somewhere.
Well, it's the first thing that gets cut.
When
restaurants start to lose business, that student who's doing three courses but
it's okay because they're working part time and getting their tips they go
home. They're the ones who quite often work in restaurants and bars, our
students. Some bars and restaurants downtown and here in the city, they have
lots of students working there. Some work a few hours a week; some work more and
some work less.
When
you're nickel and dime and pick and pick and pick at every one of them,
especially when they probably only work part-time, they don't make a lot of
money. They are probably in that $20,000 to $25,000 range; you just gave them
another $300, plus the fact that they have to pay more fees.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Fifteen per cent on
insurance.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, good one.
They
have lost the chance for scholarships to further their education and their
opportunities to make a go of it.
Lot of
them do have cars because if they're out here at the university and they have to
get downtown, lots of them do have cars. So I have to get downtown, I have to
get a new car or I have to go here; or I live two hours out of town, so I go
back and forth; or I live an hour out of town, I live out in Conception Bay
North and I commute back and forth to school and I commute back and forth and I
stay in and I go to work. Your car just cost you a lot more for a young student
because you just put HST back on the insurance.
I talked
to a business owner a couple of days ago. He's a retired gentleman who has some
rental properties. Good for him, he got some rental properties; lots of people
have those. He has a number of them and he told me he spends $30,000 a year on
insuring those rental properties. So he has a few, $30,000 a year. He said for
the first time in a very long time, I have vacancies in my rental properties
that now it takes a little while to fill them. Before, they used to be filled
and people lined up waiting for them, but now that is softening up a little bit.
He said
not only that, now that we have vacancies, now I have to spend $4,500 more a
year on insurance on HST for my properties on his insurance. He said the problem
I have is I have less revenue than I have had in a decade on my properties and I
just got tagged with an extra $4,500 cost of managing my properties. Now, no
doubt, people have properties because it is beneficial and it's profitable and
you can do well with them, when times are good.
As long
as times are good, you can do well. But when times are bad let's just talk
about this a little bit further. So this person is saying I have vacancies; I
can't rent those properties. I have books and records to show I've done well
with them. I think I'm going to liquidate some of these now. I'm going to sell
some of these. I have $4,500 insurance bill additional on my insurance for taxes
that I can't afford to pay. I have a couple of employees who help look after my
properties; it is going to cost me more for my vehicles. It is going to cost me
more for buying goods and paint and maintenance and equipment and supplies and
so on.
I'm
going to liquidate a couple of my assets. As a matter of fact, I'm going to
reduce my staff because I don't need as many as I do anymore and liquidate my
assets. Uh-oh, I have a problem. So are 3,700 other people on the Northeast
Avalon. Recently when I checked, there are 3,700 properties for sale on the
Northeast Avalon. Recently when I checked, there are 3,700 properties for sale
on the Northeast Avalon. One real estate professional told me 500 of those
listings, no one's even looked at them yet. There are 500 listings that no one
has looked at. That's what happens when you start to collapse and implode the
economy. Yes, you criticize us because we spent and we tried to drive the
economy and we spent well, we didn't put it in the bank.
I've
used this example before. When you're leaving work today and the boss calls you
in and says you're doing a good job there, Mary, you did a great job, and here's
a bonus for you. Thanks very much for your hard work; you enjoy your weekend.
You go home and your boss just gave you a little bonus and you're going home,
rainy day and you pull into the driveway and your roof's leaking. Well,
tomorrow, you're not going to take that cheque and go down and put it in the
bank; you're going to fix your roof. Well, in our province over the last decade
we fixed a lot of leaky roofs, and we had a lot of them.
We all
remember the days back and we know the days in the '90s and things were tough
and so on and money was scarce and so on. I get all that. Remember all the
mouldy schools? Do you remember that? Mouldy schools were a daily discussion.
You tune in to the radio this morning to see what school is closed today because
there's mould, there's health problems, and there's a quality of air, quality of
the environment problem in the school. There were a lot of leaky roofs to fix,
and a lot of schools to improve, broken roads and bridges still lots of them.
The Minister of Transportation is probably overwhelmed with the list of
infrastructure investments that still need to be made, but there's been billions
of dollars of infrastructure made, but there's still more to do.
So when
you go home with that cheque, what are you going to do with, that bonus? Are you
going to put it in the bank and save it for another rainy day, or are you going
to fix your roof? Well, sometimes you've got to fix your roof. That's where
we've been as a province, and that's where we are.
When you
tell a student or a hard-working family that, okay now, you've got to pay $450
on a levy, for what? Well, you just got to pay it, because that's how much money
you make. You've got to pay that now, and you've got to pay it in March when you
expect your little bonus cheque from your tax return you're not going to get
that now. Now you've got to pay it and your roof is leaking. Well, government
says we're going to crack down on people not paying their taxes and we're going
to make sure you pay your taxes. So your roof is going to have to leak for
another while.
That's
what's really tough about this budget, is that when you take like the HST
increase, so many people last year said, you know, Paul, things are getting
rougher; it's probably the right thing to do. I think it is and I still believe
it is and so on. There are so many conditions beyond government that government
cannot control. I know ministers are learning that really, really quickly.
Things happen that you cannot do anything about it and you have to deal with it.
Bay de
Verde last week, no one could do anything about it. The minister went down there
right away. Good for him, he went down, met with the people down in the
community, met with the leaders and so on. The minister was down there. I was
down there the week and the minister knows the town has a lot of cleaning up to
do and there's going to be a cost to that. Someone is going to have to pay the
cost.
When you
have soot and ash from the fire it was a windy day. It was like a funnel went
up to the town. I'm sure the minister can tell you about it. There was a funnel
right up to the town of soot and ash that blew through people's houses. People's
eaves are black; things in their houses are black. There's soot and ash the size
of that glass, on people's lawns. Everything is black.
Someone
said to me you're either going to have to cover this over or dig it up and
replace it. Don't know what they're ever going to do with it. Ash is ash and
there's not much you're going to be able to do. It has to be taken out,
something has to happen. That's going to cost.
I know
the town has already said publicly we want help from government. Haven't sorted
out yet what that's going to be, but government is going to be faced with that.
Government is going to be asked for that expenditure. Government is going to
have to make a decision on how to help that town that so quickly is rebuilding,
thanks to a group of people who want to pull together and work together, and
Quinlans, who I mentioned very early in my time to speak this afternoon.
When you
put more on top of people, people who are working hard, you get people who come
off of and I know so many of them who are on income support and social
programs from the government for years. They wanted to get off them. I know lots
of them. He said how do I do it, how do I do it, how do I do it?
We
changed the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. One of the big
problems of getting off social programs at one point in time was if you take
that job if you walk out the door and you apply for a job and you get that job
and you're living in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, you rely on income from
government and you want to get off it the first thing that happens is you lose
your drug card, gone. Lots of employers won't give you a drug card until you're
with them for six months, sometimes a year. Lots of them don't have drug cards.
Lots of employers don't even have health programs for their employees.
But
you're saying why would I want to leave a social program where I have my health
care and I have my coverage there? If I need transportation, I have it. If I
have to go to the doctor, I'm being looked after. I'm taken care of and they
will look after me. I have a social worker I can call on financial assistance
where I can do all that, but I want to get off it. If I get off it, I'm going to
lose my drug card and I have two pills I take every day that I'm going to take
the rest of my life, as an example, or my child has a health how am I going to
do it?
So we
extended it and we said you can keep your health card while you start to get
your new job. Then we extended it again. It's up to a year now I think. I think
it's up to a year now that people can keep their drug card when they're trying
to get off their reliance on social programs and move to independence. Good for
them because that's what everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, we hope,
strives for and many, many people do.
They
say, I don't want to rely on the government. I want to have a chance in life. I
want to create a business. I want to work for somebody. I want to get up in the
morning and put my children in my car and drive them to school and drop them off
and be proud to do so, and go on to work and earn my paycheque and at the end of
the day come home and cook supper with my family and my children because that's
what I want to do.
What we
don't want them to do is to pack up their car, head to the ferry and head to the
mainland. That's what we don't want them to do. Your budget even says you
believe that's what's going to happen for so many people. We don't want that. We
need to fight against that.
One of
the things that I encourage the government to do and I encourage the Premier to
do is get back on a plane and go to Ottawa and sit down with the Prime Minister
and say I have a crisis in my province, I need your help. You have billions and
billions of dollars available to you.
I've
talked before; I know the premier of Alberta and the premier of Saskatchewan
have been knocking on the federal government's door saying we need your help.
There are three jurisdictions in the country who need their help because we have
such a significant loss of revenue in oil.
By the
way, you should be saying that because that's the case. That makes the case that
you've lost your revenue that you need back, and you need the federal government
to help you. You should be trying to make that, and I encourage you. I know you
have good relations with them, and I hope there's lots of things going on behind
the scenes.
I expect
your approach to be different than an NDP premier and an Independent Party
premier. I expect your approach to be different but I hope you're doing that,
because nobody wants this levy. Nobody wants these fee increases. Nobody wants
these new fees. These new fees that are going to impact hardworking families
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
and Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, and I'm sure you don't want it too.
Members
opposite are going to have to stand in their place and vote for this budget when
the time comes, and I hope that you encourage all of your own Members to have a
hard look. Make the changes that are right for the people of the province.
Only a
few months ago you knocked on people's doors and said: I promise no layoffs, I
promise no HST, I promise a stronger tomorrow. Well go back to their doors and
ask them how you can deliver on the promise that you made to them. Knock on
everyone's doors and ask them for their input. That's what I encourage you to do
because each and every one of you will rise in your place and vote on this
budget.
We hope
that this budget changes to become good for a stronger tomorrow and for all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I sat
here this afternoon and I've listened and I've listened there's so much that
I want to say. It's hard to listen and it's hard to swallow all the things that
I've heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about today.
Before I
get into that, I just want to say to the people who are listening at home,
people in my district, I've received your emails, talked to you on the phone. I
understood exactly where you're coming from. Nobody wants this budget, but it's
a budget we have to deliver on. It's not that we choose to be in this situation;
it is a situation that we have been put in.
When you
think about you're presented with a deficit budget that's nearing $3 billion,
there are a few okay, I'll give you exactly, $2.7 billion. There are a few
things that you can do as a government: one, you can borrow money, and I'll get
to that because there are challenges around borrowing money; you can raise
revenue; and you can cut programs and services.
When it comes to borrowing money, you have to have a good credit rating. You
think for yourself and your own personal circumstance that if you want to borrow
money and you've exhausted your credit card, and your credit rating has been
downgraded
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Your
credit has been downgraded, you can't raise money, you can't borrow money, or
you have to raise money, so how do you raise money? You have to think about
increasing fees and taxes. Those are not choices that anybody likes to make.
The
Leader of the Opposition talked about Alberta and a comparison to Alberta. Well,
Alberta brought down their budget last week. If you read closely, you will see
that they plan to amalgamate or close 33 commissions, boards and agencies. They
will have an annual deficit this year on $10 billion. By 2019, they will have an
accrued deficit of almost $59 billion. Now, I don't know about anybody else in
this House or in this province, but that is not a legacy that I want to be a
part of or to be proud of. So we had to make some tough choices, no doubt.
I want
to speak to legacy for a second. I know before Easter we talked about legacy. We
brought forward a bill in this House around legacy. And I know the Leader of the
Opposition said when he talked about the levy that government won't benefit from
the levy until next year. Do you know what? That's planning.
The
Government of Alberta didn't really think about and talk about putting money
aside when you have oil royalties and revenues that come forward, putting that
money aside for a rainy day. They couldn't do it because they weren't planning.
When you think about the Alberta budget that came down last week, one of the
reasons they were able to mitigate and not have as extreme an impact on the
people is because in the '80s they actually started to put some money aside.
The
Members opposite refused to do that, despite the fact, I might add, they were
given advice by the people of this province to do so. I know that first-hand. In
my previous occupation, there was advice that came to the previous
administration about putting some money aside for that rainy day. They refused
to do it. So we were forced as a government to not have that money to mitigate
the challenges we have when we were bringing forward this budget.
I've had
a lot of people who have reached out to me to remind me of the things I've done
in this past, and hoping that information, that experience, that knowledge is
going to bring forward. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the things people have
reminded me about in terms of being a former schoolboard trustee, in terms of
working with people who are homeless, in terms of working with family resources
centres, I get it; I understand this is a hard budget. But when we are left to
looking at can we borrow and we have borrowed for this budget we have to
raise revenue and we have to cut some programs and services.
But I
get it, because I understand the impact. I want to assure the people at home
that everything that you have said to me, I understand where you are coming
from. I have spent the last number of nights, Mr. Speaker, talking to people in
my district about the impacts of this budget. I think it's extremely important,
and I take exception that when the Members opposite want to go out and create
fear and chaos in this province without providing all of the correct information
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It does
not do any of us well when we are creating fear and chaos in this province. What
is extremely important is for us to get the right information out.
Mr.
Speaker, when we talk about the comparison to Alberta and Newfoundland, I take
this from an economist who had a look at both budgets. He says, Newfoundland's
interpretation of the fall in the oil price is that oil is not going to come
back any time soon. So rather than accumulate a whole bunch of debt, waiting,
hoping, praying that oil prices will come back, they decided to take action to
close the deficit. It requires leadership, Mr. Speaker. I am a leader.
I spoke
to somebody a while ago and one of the things I said to the person was I know we
have a challenging budget. I know we have challenging times in this province.
This province requires strong leadership to get us through a brighter future,
and I am going to be a part of that leadership that leads us into a brighter
future.
A senior
economist with the Bank of Montreal said: There was zero appetite for
Newfoundland and Labrador's debt. The budget makes Newfoundland's bonds more
saleable. Positive responses to the steps we were forced to make, not the ones
we chose, that we said was absolute, it was things that we were forced to do
because of the deficit that we face.
The
President and CEO of Atlantic Provinces Economic Council said, In Alberta, it
is a repeat performance, and governments evidently did not learn from past
cycles. In a few years, they may wish to revisit their government's choices
today.
When
people are comparing Alberta to the steps that we have had to take, they will
see that the choices we have brought forward, while they are not the ones that
we would choose if we didn't have such a large deficit, they are the ones that
will help us bring this province back into prosperity.
Talked
about consulting with the people, and I'll remind people at home, Members
opposite, that we did engage the people of this province. We set a course and we
were criticized for it. People talked about that we were going to spend months
and months and months going out and engaging and we weren't going to take
action. I can tell you, I was part of the process of engaging people.
We had
26 in-person sessions, over 1,000 participants, over 28,000 Dialogue App users
and over 700 emails, faxes and phone submissions. I can tell you from the themes
that came forward people talked about and asked us to find efficiencies and
innovation, to increase revenues, to save money. That's the people of this
province who gave us that advice, so we did consult, we did listen and we took
action.
Mr.
Speaker, I was part of research that looked at how we make the rural regions and
the entire province sustainable. We looked at a number of things. I think there
were probably close to 50 different indicators. Some of the things you see in
this budget are a reflection of the indicators that lead to sustainability.
I'll
talk a little bit about some of the good things that are in this budget and I'll
reflect back on that report. In the '90s I was part of the Regional Wellness
Coalition. One of the things that we used to talk about was that we have a
crisis management reactive health care system in this province, long waiting
lists in emergencies, people unable to get access to family physicians.
One of
the things we used to talk about was, it's too bad we couldn't find some money
to help people transition into a healthier lifestyle. Well, I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, in this budget there are measures to help us get and the people of the
province get to a healthy lifestyle: $1.84 million for programs and projects
that focus on recreation, physical activity and wellness; $1 million to
encourage healthy living and increase physical activity in school-aged children;
$500,000 to promote healthy eating, physical activity and mental health
promotion.
Mr.
Speaker, when I was part of this study that talked about sustainability, access
to healthy food, access to physical activity, are some of the core things
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
are some of the things we
need to focus on in this province if we're going to turn from being a reactive
health care system into a healthy health care system.
Some
people have asked me, Mr. Speaker: So where did the money go? I think that's a
very good question. We know we're spending almost a billion dollars on debt
servicing. It is a crime when we have to do that and we're not putting as much,
we're putting less into education.
I can
give you a couple of examples from my district of where the money went. In the
budget, it has been announced that there will be repairs to the bridge in Terra
Nova. Now I want to clarify for those listening at home, as well as for Members
opposite so that you understand, that in the budget it talks about $530,000. Now
$530,000, part of that is to address repairs to the trestle but we also have a
significant issue in this province where there are other bridges that we need to
assess. So that everybody understands, that money is to deal with both aspects
of that issue.
The fact
that we have so many bridges in this province that need repair, despite $25
billion in oil revenues and it went undone
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Yes, I did, and I'll even
talk about that. I'm glad you brought that up, Sir. I'm glad you brought that
up.
The
Member opposite tabled a petition in this House with three names from the people
living on the Avalon in the St. John's area and not from my district. However,
you also said, Members opposite also said on the weekend that they were going to
vote against this budget and you tabled a petition in this House wanting that
aspect of the budget to be done. Like, tell us what you want? Which do you want?
Do you want it done or not done? We're confused by the way you stand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
So, let's talk about the
trestle. During the election I ended up in Terra Nova and I found out that new
decking was going to go on that bridge. As soon as the decking was done, the
bridge was closed down because it was unsafe. People have asked, where did the
money go? Well, I can say to you that was a waste of money.
I'll
also talk about, I went to another community in my district and they advised me
they were getting a new fire truck. I think, and someone may correct me, but
it's around $275,000. Well, the fire truck came during the election and the
community didn't have anywhere to put it. So you had a $275,000 investment and
nowhere to put that piece of equipment. It's disgraceful, actually.
What was
said to me was we need $600,000 now to add on to our fire hall so we can utilize
that piece of equipment. People in this province wonder, where did the money go
and what things do we have to do to fix the mess that we were handed?
Now, I
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the things that were said to me during the election.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The promises you made.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
The promises that were made.
Well, some of them had to be made to fix the mess we were handed, like
investments in roads, like investments in fire halls, like building new schools,
like keeping
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
teaching units in schools.
Those are the good things that are in this budget.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I have tremendous notes here, things I want to talk about. I thought I
was going to get to talk about but I'm going to finish I'm going to talk a
little bit about the Leader of the Opposition who couldn't remember his quote.
His quote was, You manage things, you lead people. It was by a retired admiral
of the US Navy, Grace Hopper.
Well,
Abraham Lincoln said, I do the very best I know how the very best I can; and
I mean to keep on doing so until the end.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues in this House, we are committed to leading this province
into a bright future. There are great investments in this budget. There are
challenges
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, the Speaker is standing, would you
respect the House.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly,
I have hit a number of nerves today by wanting to get all of the information out
so that the people of this province and the people of my district are not
reacting to the fear mongering that has been presented in many avenues. We've
all heard it.
I hope,
and I encourage people to read the budget. Get in touch, and let's talk about
it. We will debate it even further as we go on over the next number of days and
weeks. We talk about the budget so that everybody has a full understanding of
what's in here and why we have to do the things we have had to do.
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 move,
seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, that the House do now
adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
This
House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock, tomorrow, being Private Members'
Day.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00
o'clock.