May
20, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 17
The
House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I am
pleased to welcome today to the public gallery Mr. Rajesh Sharma, CEO of Tata
Steel Minerals Canada and Vice-President of Operations, Praveen Jha.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As well as Cathy Dornan,
Chief Resident Executive.
Welcome
to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I am also very pleased today
to welcome to the Speaker's gallery: Ava Shibler, or shall I say Premier Ava
Shibler. She is a Grade 1, Topsail
Elementary, student who is Premier for a Day.
She is here today along with her dad, Eric.
Welcome
Premier Shibler.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before beginning proceedings
for the day, I have to make a ruling on a point of privilege that was raised on
May 14 by the Member for Terra Nova.
Hansard and the video recording of the exchanges giving rise to this question of
privilege have been reviewed.
Before
proceeding, I must state that I do have great concern with respect to the level
of provocation and unruliness that seems to have arisen in our debates in this
House, but first I will address the question of privilege.
The
issue was raised because of comments made by the Member for the Bay of Islands
to the Member for Terra Nova suggesting that the Member for Terra Nova and I
quote from Hansard
do some preaching or go back to church
.
The
Member for Terra Nova raised a point of order on this issue earlier in the
debate. The Chair found that there
was no point of order.
O'Brien
and Bosc, page 637, states, A Member may not
.raise a matter as a question of
privilege after the Speaker has ruled that it was not a point of order.
Consequently, I wish to rule there is no prima facie question of privilege and
that under these circumstances the Member for Terra Nova is not able to raise
the matter as such, given that the same matter had already been ruled upon.
However,
I would like to give further comment.
This debate arose as a result of personalized comments being directed in
this House at other members.
This
Speaker and the Chairs will not tolerate language that is personalized,
provocative or likely to give rise to disruption and disorder in the House.
During debate, comments to the opposite side of the House as a collective
group may be quite acceptable, but this does not hold true when the same
comments are directed at individual members.
O'Brien and Bosc on page 618 states, Personal attacks
are not in
order.
The
Speaker of our own House ruled on this November 13, 1991, and found at page 2486
of Hansard, If these words were used in the governmental or the opposition
sense, in the collective sense, then they are not unparliamentary.
But if such words were used in the individual sense, then they are
clearly unparliamentary.
I remind
all members of this House debate is not to be personalized, not to be directed
to individual members of the House.
As stated by the Speaker of the House of Commons on December 9, 1980, in
Debates, page 5534, and I quote, the characteristics of Parliamentary language
are good temper and moderation.
Also, as
was stated in this House yesterday, O'Brien and Bosc states at page 618,
the
use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly
forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and
obscenities are not in order. I
further quote, The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing
tradition of respect
.
We come
to this House to debate important issues; we must adhere to our parliamentary
expectations and traditions and conduct ourselves with respect for each member
and for the process.
In the
future, I would like to let all members know in advance, if the Speaker
determines that a member is engaging in debate that is unparliamentary, then the
Speaker will rise and ask the member to withdraw his or her comments.
If the member refuses, then we will follow the procedure outlined in our
Standing Orders and the member will be escorted out of the Chamber by the
Sergeant at Arms.
However,
if the member does withdraw, but then continues to engage in debate that is
provocative or personal, then the Speaker will rise again, request that the
member withdraw his or her comments; however, at that time, the member will not
be recognized to continue speaking.
Thank
you very much.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear members'
statements from the members representing the Districts of Port de Grave,
Labrador West, Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, The Straits White Bay North, St.
John's Centre, and Port au Port.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you.
We
goat this! Today I salute
Ascension Collegiate for their Free the Children initiatives We Act and We
Day. Free the Children is an
organization with a goal to empower a generation to shift the world from me to
we, from a focus on the individual to the power of community in this case, the
school community.
Through
Free the Children and We Day, students were challenged to take one local and one
global action to better the world.
Thus, the Ready, Set, Goat Campaign to raise funds to send goats to families in
Sierra Leone. From May 11-15 all
organized groups in the school, sports teams, clubs, and independent groups were
challenged to raise funds for this initiative.
There
are huge gains to getting a goat for a family.
Goats produce sixteen cups of milk daily which can be sold or used to
supplement students' meals and provide much needed protein.
Goats can be bred to help pay for school fees, vaccinations, and other
life-changing essentials. One goat
can change a child's life and a community's potential.
Through
the Ready, Set, Goat Campaign more than sixty goats will be purchased and over
$3,000 raised to support Free the Children.
Ascension Collegiate, you goat this!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
in this hon. House today to congratulate the many local businesses that came
together to support the Labrador West Food Bank.
Scott Pynn, owner and operator of a local business in Labrador West,
challenged his Facebook followers to donate money or food goods to have their
name put in for a gift certificate draw valued at $500 from his business.
The
local food bank has been hit hard with a spike in clients due to the economic
downturn in the area. The challenge
quickly snowballed into a business community-wide food drive in Labrador West.
Prizes and gift certificates are pouring in.
The
initial plan was to run the food drive until the end of the summer and then have
the draw, but with so many generous gift donations from local businesses there
is now enough to have weekly draws.
Every dollar donated and every food item donated earns a ballot for the draw of
prizes.
In a
time when Labrador businesses are being hit hard by the downturn, they still dig
deep and help others. Kindness has a
domino effect. All it takes is one
person to start it.
I ask
all hon. members to join me in congratulating the businesses of Labrador West on
this huge act of kindness.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
They say
grammar and spelling are arts lost to our younger generation.
Anyone who thinks that should meet Greta Warner, a Grade 6 student at
Bishop Feild School in my district.
On Saturday, Greta leaves for an unforgettable trip as the winner of the 2015
Telegram Spelling Bee, she will represent this Province at the fabled Scripps
National Spelling Bee.
The
eleven-year-old has worked all year, practising words with her mother, Rochelle
Baker, and her father, Patrick Warner.
She is proof that hard work yields results.
In last year's bee, she heard the dreaded ding from the judges on her
first word. This year, she won the
competition held, I must mention, also in Signal Hill Quidi Vidi at the Holy
Heart Auditorium.
Greta
will travel to Washington, meet 284 other like-minded students from eight
countries, and enjoy all the excitement of the spelling bee at the Gaylord
National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbour, Maryland.
Hopefully, she will also get to explore Washington a bit with her
parents.
I ask
all members of this House to congratulate Greta Warner, 2015 Telegram Spelling
Bee champion for Newfoundland and Labrador, and to wish her well on her voyage
next week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, Grade 2 student
Breanna Clarke is an inspiration!
After watching the Janeway Telethon in 2013 at five years old, she had many
questions as to why children were at the Janeway, unable to go home with their
families, and why money was needed.
After getting answers from her parents, Scott and Regina, she wanted to help the
sick kids of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Last
year, she started a walk in her hometown of Main Brook with the support of her
parents. Breanna's efforts continued
with additional fundraisers leading up to this past Saturday, when her second
walk began.
Not only
did she raise funds for a very worthwhile cause, she brought together a
community with her efforts. Last
year, only close family members joined but this year she mad more than two dozen
community members, including the RMCP and fire department.
Breanna
was full of smiles and had lots to celebrate since she was able to raise more
than $2,500 this year for the Janeway, and she cannot wait to do it all again.
I ask
all hon. members to congratulate Breanna Clarke for helping out many sick
children in this Province by raising funds for the children's hospital.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
weekend St. John's bids A Brave Farewell to an institution that has developed
thousands of young minds since it opened as a Salvation Army school in 1960.
Booth Memorial welcomed kids from every possible background, and most
city neighbourhoods even outside the city; St. Phillips students were once
bused to Booth.
Booth
had the Province's first infant child care centre so student parents could
continue their studies and graduate.
This was an incredibly brave no pun intended and progressive thing to do
when it opened in 1992. At Booth,
the arts have been nurtured, and the Braves sports teams compete with unmatched
spirit.
This
weekend, the festivities include an arts night on Friday, hosted by my colleague
for Conception Bay South, a former principal of Booth.
On Saturday, the school throws its doors open for tours, a barbecue
lunch, a meet and greet, and much more.
Next
year, the school doors will be closed, the Braves will become Warriors at
Waterford Valley High, but the impact of everything that Booth Memorial meant to
its community will not ever go away.
Bravo to
the teachers, the parents, the students, the staff, and everyone who made this
centre-city high school an extraordinary place to learn.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Port
au Port.
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, I had the
privilege and the honour to attend a formal dinner at the Royal Canadian Legion
Branch 35 in Stephenville on April 25 to celebrate the 220th
anniversary of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment better than the best.
The
Royal Newfoundland Regiment has a rich and renowned history.
The tremendous contributions and enormous sacrifices that have been made
by our servicemen and women have been and continue to be felt all over the world
and should never be forgotten. From
its involvement in the War of 1812 to Cyprus, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and
Afghanistan, members of this regiment have served proudly and courageously in
the name of peace and liberty.
The
Honour 100 program recognizes the contribution of the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment to the freedom of this great Province.
This program endeavours to ensure that future generations remember and
honour the contributions of the regiment during the First World War.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in thanking all uniformed
services that have served, and continue to serve, to protect our way of life,
our values, and the freedoms we enjoy today.
Merci ΰ
tous et ΰ toutes pour votre contribution et sacrifice.
Merci,
thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to recognize the work of Tata Steel Minerals Canada and their new
mining project in Labrador. I am
delighted that representatives from the company could join us today Rajesh
Sharma, CEO; Praveen Jha, Vice-President of Operations; and Cathy Dornan, Chief
Resident Executive.
Tata
Steel is a Fortune 500 company and one of the top ten steel companies in the
world with over 80,000 employees worldwide.
Tata Steel and Tata Steel Minerals Canada are part of the Tata Group a
global enterprise headquartered in India with operations in more than 100
countries across six continents.
For the
last three years, Tata Steel Minerals Canada has been constructing a new iron
ore mine in Labrador's northern Menihek region which will be fully operational
by late 2015. The high-grade iron
ore will be processed locally before being shipped directly to Tata Steel plants
in Europe.
This
project represents a $1 billion investment in the Labrador Trough and is
employing 500 people in Labrador during the construction phase.
Approximately 300 to 350 people will be employed during long-term
operations currently estimated to last at least fifteen years.
Despite
challenging iron ore markets, Tata Steel Minerals Canada is committed to this
project and to its investment in the Province.
As well, there is potential for the company to further develop resources
in the Labrador Trough through their partner New Millennium Iron.
Mr.
Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be ranked in the top ten of the
most attractive jurisdictions worldwide for mineral exploration investment in
the Fraser Institute of Canada's International Mining Survey.
Our
Province has a proven record of discovery and we are home to the development of
major world-class deposits. We are
known globally as a mining-friendly competitive jurisdiction with a stable
royalty regime and a fair and streamlined regulatory environment.
The
people working within the iron ore industry of Newfoundland and Labrador are
determined, resilient, and hard working.
I applaud the efforts of Tata Steel Minerals Canada, and of all our
industry partners, in providing such a valuable contribution to our Province.
We will continue to work together to secure a solid future for mining in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today.
I certainly welcome the representatives from Tata Steel here today.
I am pleased that they were able to join us in the House of Assembly.
I also want to congratulate Tata on being very persistent in what has
been a very volatile iron ore market.
This
project has already contributed substantial investment and jobs to the Province
and it stands to generate long-term employment and future benefits for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The Tata Group is a very unique company.
It is very philanthropic in its distribution of proceeds throughout the
world. When you look at the
provincial economy and see that all the very important economic indicators are
moving in the wrong direction, it is clear that we need to create the
environment of success for companies like Tata Steel.
We know
that the Canadian iron ore companies are typically in the third to fourth
quartile of cost structure, so it is essential that we make sure that we give
them the competitive advantage to overcome the challenges that they need to
invest here in our Province. This
includes regulatory processes that happen in a timely fashion working in
collaboration so that we can retain the investments of companies like Tata
Steel.
I wish
the company all of the success and their employees for many years of business in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very pleased to stand with my colleagues in the House and say congratulations to
Tata Steel Minerals Canada for having the vision to invest in Labrador at a time
when low ore prices are causing difficulties for other companies mining iron
ore. I hope more people share Tata's
vision and see the immense benefits of investing in the people of Labrador and
not just taking the ore out, but doing processing there before sending it on.
Placing
their confidence in the people of Labrador and in the long-term prospects for
iron ore is, I think, the right move.
I hope other mining companies sit up and take notice of Tata Steel, and I
wish them well in our Province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Environment and Conservation is partnering with rod
and gun clubs in St. John's and Deer Lake to offer two Youth Hunter Skills
Workshops next month. I am pleased
to rise today in this hon. House to encourage young people to participate in
these sessions which promote safe and responsible involvement in hunting and
trapping and other outdoor activities.
During
these one-day workshops, youth between the ages of twelve and seventeen will
learn important hunting safety techniques for shotgun, rifle, and archery
equipment, along with tips on outdoor safety and survival skills and other
important lessons about wildlife conservation and management.
Mr.
Speaker, participation in hunting and trapping is a very significant part of our
culture and heritage and plays an important role in practical wildlife
conservation and management. The
Stewardship and Education Section of my department's Wildlife Division is
responsible for administering education awareness programs that foster safe and
responsible use of wildlife resources and the habitat upon which they depend.
Programs include the Canada Firearm Safety/Hunter Education Course,
Trapper Education Course, Bowhunter Education, and other workshops and events
that encourage safe, responsible, and knowledgeable participation while
supporting recruitment and retention of hunters and trappers.
Organizations like local rod and gun clubs are important partners in these
efforts. Through knowledgeable and
experienced members, they help promote awareness about wildlife conservation
throughout the Province and allow the general public to learn and practice
hunting skills in a suitable and safe environment.
Mr.
Speaker, I would ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the members
and volunteers of the St. John's Rod and Gun Club and the Upper Humber Rod and
Gun Club for their efforts and wishing them success during these workshops,
planned for June 6 and 13.
Mr.
Speaker, by teaching our youth safe and responsible hunting and trapping
techniques now, we are ensuring a future generation of safe and responsible
hunters and trappers who respect and appreciate all our Province's natural
heritage has to offer.
For
those interested in learning more, details about how to pre-register will be
made available through the department in the coming days and additional
information about other hunter and trapper education and outreach programs is
currently available on the department's website.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Certainly we should teach our youth these important life skills about
safe hunting and trapping, responsibility, and experience the important part of
our culture, especially the activities that are truly a fabric of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
believe that the government, in supporting these activities though, is not going
far enough when it comes to enabling our youth to put these skills into practice
and building the bonds with adult family members.
We have the highest age restrictions in place for hunters in the country.
Why if you are supporting these initiatives are you not looking at
lowering the big game hunting age from eighteen years of age and small game
hunting to lower, yet firearm safety and hunting education is available at
fourteen years of age?
The
Upper Humber Rod and Gun association is on record saying people who start
hunting at a younger age develop better skills of hunting responsibility and
handling firearms in a safe manner.
The government's regressive regulations are causing residents and families to go
to other provinces and deterring the non-resident hunters from bringing their
youth here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Anglers
and hunters continue to point to government's failure to address the age
restrictions on hunting. I support
them in their cause.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
While visiting heritage fairs I met a number of young people who were
interested in hunting, fishing, and trapping, and it showed in their
presentations. They were proud
because it is what their families have been doing for generations.
They enjoyed learning skills from their parents and grandparents.
This is embracing our culture and our heritage.
It is
great to see these workshops being offered and it is incredibly important to
teach safety. Rifles, shotguns, and
bows are powerful weapons and must be handled properly, responsibly, and with
respect. The Province should
investigate holding mentored hunting programs where youth can learn many of the
techniques for hunting through participating in an actual hunt with a licensed
adult supervisor. To all hunters,
young and old, Mr. Speaker, I recommend wearing blaze orange while hunting.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2012,
government signed a deal with Ocean Choice International allowing the company to
ship out unprocessed fish in exchange for 110 full-time processing jobs at the
Fortune fish plant, but it was confirmed yesterday by the minister that the
plant would not be open. There is
only twenty weeks work planned for this year.
The plant is not open and merely twenty weeks work for this year.
I ask
the Premier: Why are you allowing OCI to not live up to the commitments it made
to this Province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The fact
of the matter is that OCI has lived up to the terms of their agreement.
They have invested heavily in the plant in Fortune, almost $2 million,
Mr. Speaker. Their plan originally
was about $1 million worth of investment.
They have actually made almost $2 million worth of an investment.
They have secured another vessel which is hiring Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. They have lived up to
that obligation as well, Mr. Speaker.
What
they have experienced is smaller fish than what their business plan had allowed
for. A higher percentage of fish was
less than 400 grams than what they had anticipated, Mr. Speaker, and that has
had an impact. We are working with
the operator, we are working with the union and stakeholders, the town, the
people of Fortune as well, to ensure that we keep this plant open and
operational. This year there will be
twenty weeks of work, is what is anticipated right now by OCI, and we are
looking forward to them getting underway in early June, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
reported today in the media that government allowed OCI to ship out at least 1.4
million pounds of additional fish in 2014.
This is in addition to their 2012 agreement.
Since
the Premier is speaking for OCI today, I ask the Premier: Since OCI is breaking
their 2012 commitment to Fortune, why are you allowing them even more
exemptions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite does not have to be a little bit coy as he has been here in saying I am
speaking for OCI. He is asking me
the questions. He is asking me all
sorts of government questions, Mr. Speaker, and we will provide him with the
information.
I can
tell you, MPR is a complex business, Mr. Speaker.
MPRs are about providing best value and best opportunity for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It
is an opportunity to work with industry.
It is an opportunity to work with the union that represents harvesters,
that represents plant workers. It is
an opportunity to work with the plant workers themselves, and also towns and
communities that rely heavily on the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.
Speaker.
Doing
MPRs and working with those industries is providing best value to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is what the fishery is all about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
challenge the Premier on his comments about doing MPRs.
Remember, this is what he wanted to give away in the CETA agreement.
Right now with the exemptions it creates less work in our plants.
Over one-third of the total approved exemptions in 2014 do not indicate a
specific amount that is allowed to be shipped out.
I ask
the Premier: Why are you not attaching a maximum amount to one-third of your
approved exemptions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
mentioned, MPRs are a complex piece of work that happens between government and
industry stakeholders, Mr. Speaker, in order to provide best value to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I
can tell you we would be quite pleased to offer a technical briefing to members
opposite. We would be quite pleased
to have officials as well provide a technical briefing to members of the media
if they want to understand the complexities of MPRs.
The
agreement in Fortune had nothing to do with cod, Mr. Speaker.
The agreement in Fortune is about yellowtail, a species that is not
popular amongst processors in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They were willing to make investments to find an opportunity to process
yellowtail in Fortune so they can provide jobs for the people of Fortune.
We stand by those people who are looking for those employment
opportunities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the Premier that during the CETA arrangements the MPRs were something that his
own government could not put a value on.
Mr.
Speaker, Humber Valley Paving is in Supreme Court today in relation to a
construction job in Southern Labrador.
This is a separate contract from the one that the government cancelled
the day before the PC leadership race releasing $19 million in bonds.
I ask
the Premier: What is the status of the $1.18 million bond holdback that you
cancelled from the Humber Valley Paving contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to note to the House, that money is still in trust the $1.18 million in trust.
We are going through the court process.
We have encouraged people, if they have a mechanics' lien that they feel
relevant to that particular project, to put it through the court system.
We are
assessing every day. Every week my
officials look to the courts to see where we are.
We are going through the process, Mr. Speaker, and as the weeks unfold we
will be getting closer and closer to making some determinations with the court
system.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My mind
reflected back, I think it was to mid-March, March 23, when the minister said he
was working with the court system to identify a process for people who have
legitimate claims against Humber Valley Paving to be reimbursed.
So that was eight weeks ago.
He mentioned back on March 23 that, Over the next couple of weeks, I will have
something to announce in the House of Assembly about the full end of that
process.
I ask
the Premier: It has been over eight weeks, as I said, since this statement; why
haven't you made this announcement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
noted earlier, this is an ongoing process within the court system.
We do not control the time frames within the court system.
What we do is work within the court system to ensure that people do get
their due diligence here and those who have a legitimate claim will be taken
care of.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are small companies in our Province that has been waiting a long time for
payment from this mechanics' lien holdback.
I ask
the minister: Can you please clarify, stand on your feet and you say it is
coming soon, very soon, in a couple of weeks when can this process be made
public to the people who are owed the money?
They rightfully deserve it.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
have noted before in this House, those who have a legitimate claim against
Humber Valley Paving on that particular contract, this is being assessed through
the court system. Those who have a
legitimate claim, no doubt, will be rectified and they will receive that.
This is
a court process, as the member opposite is aware of.
There is a process that has to be followed.
We hope in the near future this will be rectified and those who have
legitimate claims will indeed be reimbursed.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since
there is an established process that the minister is talking about, will these
small companies that have to go through this court process that the minister
outlined, simply because one of your colleagues, one of your other ministers
cancelled the bonds from Humber Valley will this government now pay for the
court costs of these small companies?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I need
to clarify the process here. There
is a mechanics' lien that is held back on every contract that government signs
with any contractor out there, Mr. Speaker.
That is to protect those sub-contractors who feel that they did indeed
supply a service or a product, but are owed money and have not been paid through
that process. We hold the money in
trust, Mr. Speaker. That is the
legal responsibility we have.
The
court system is the court system. It
is an outlined process where companies go through the court system, through
Small Claims Court, and make their claims.
The courts decide exactly what is owed.
Under that process, we then release the money to the proponents so they
can then pay out to the people who felt and had been ruled that they have a
legitimate claim against that particular contractor.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
all aware of the ongoing issues in Labrador West.
There are presently over 2,500 outstanding grievances between the union
and IOC waiting to be resolved.
I ask
the Premier: What role is your government playing in resolving those outstanding
grievances with IOC?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
that the circumstances that are affecting mining globally are impacting
Newfoundland and Labrador as well.
We have seen the impacts of that already in Labrador West.
While some companies, as we heard about earlier today, are continuing to
make investments in Newfoundland and Labrador, we know that there are also
others that are struggling in their own operations, within their own shops, Mr.
Speaker.
We offer
support and services to companies who have conflicts and internal matters that
they want to resolve and want to work together to resolve, Mr. Speaker.
It is no different in Labrador West; we will do it with IOC as well.
We certainly encourage all members of the IOC family, workers, workers'
representatives, and management to make all their best efforts to keep that
operation viable and operating in Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, we understand that the number of grievances that I just mentioned is
continuing to increase in that area.
One option that the union has called for is an industrial inquiry.
I ask
the Premier: What other options have you considered; and, if there are none, are
you reconsidering the call for the industrial inquiry into IOC?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, through the Labour Relations Agency we offer a broad range of services
to support industry, certainly employers, unions, from instances where there are
issues arising between them.
Obviously the first priority is that those are worked out with those partners in
terms of issues that arise.
We do
provide services through the Labour Relations Agency.
We will in this case as well to try to work through these issues.
Again, we certainly encourage them to work through them, but we are there
for support through the Labour Relations Agency.
We will do everything we can.
We know how important the industry is to Labrador, and all the industry of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will continue to work collectively with them
to find solutions.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, several years
ago government commissioned a report into youth sexual exploitation, yet refuses
to disclose the report. Stakeholders
claim that as many as 100 youth are involved in the local sex trade.
I ask
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services: Has he read the report; and,
if so, can he confirm that this estimate is generally true?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Attorney
General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, there is very
little I can add to the discussion that the minister already provided to this
House, and the Premier, with regard to the sex exploitation report.
I can only take the member's question and pass it on to the minister and
make an undertaking to give that answer back in the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the question was
to the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services because stakeholders say as
many as 100 youth are involved in the local sex trade.
I ask
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, not the Attorney General
Child, Youth and Family Services if he has read the report and is it generally
true?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
say to the member, I am very familiar with the report.
I am also familiar with the sensitivities that lie within it.
I think if I were to echo what the Attorney General had just said, in
echoing what the Minister of Justice has said previously, the sensitivities
around that and the reasons for not allowing that information to go out
publicly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, of the youth
involved in the local sex trade, can the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services advise how many of them were once the responsibility of his department?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot
give him a number here today. I
would certainly endeavour to look into that and provide any information that I
can.
As I
have said before, quite frankly, any information that I can provide publicly,
either to the public, I will. When
it involves the Child and Youth Advocate, there is a proactive disclosure with
her as well. I have no issue
whatsoever. If I can respond to the
hon. member, I certainly will.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, at sixteen,
youth can sign themselves out of care of Child, Youth and Family Services.
However, government policy will not allow them to sign themselves back
into care if they realize they cannot make it on their own, indifferent to their
plea as government forces them to go it alone.
I ask
the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services: How can you justify leaving
vulnerable youth to live on their own, prey for pimps, drug dealers, and other
hardened criminals who further victimize them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, it is
unfortunate the member continues down the road of his commentary.
That he adds to it, and gross commentary, if I can say, with regard to
talking about many of our vulnerable youth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
If I could finish I would appreciate it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I have said quite clearly on a number of occasions how we have actually
enhanced that legislation around Youth Services.
We have extended the age of custody to eighteen recently.
Some of the things we provide because we do, we provide an umbrella of
services to youth.
It is a
voluntary service. However, if they
choose to stay within that service there is an umbrella of services that we are
able to provide, things such as financial management, housing stability, general
life skills, education, and emotional healing, all of which are very important.
We have
come quite a ways with regard to Youth Services in this Province.
I am very proud of the work this government has done, in particular with
regard to the Department of CYFS enhancing that service.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, the Marystown
Shipyard Families Alliance has been in existence for ten years now.
The Alliance is of the belief that family members were exposed to
dangerous chemicals while on the job at the shipyard and ended up diagnosed with
cancer some have died. After
months of lobbying, the previous minister finally promised to meet with the
Alliance, but within two days of agreeing to do so, he resigned from Cabinet.
So I ask
the Minister Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission today: Will he now take up this cause and agree to meet with these
distressed families?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question and being able to provide some clarification.
The member is not aware, I have actually responded to the group on April
15 offering my willingness to meet with the group.
I have invited them to come in and have a chat with me.
I also went on to say, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a level of
politics added to this, and I said to the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
the two ladies involved in
this group, I said, how about yourselves and myself meet?
We will have a very frank discussion.
I want to be able to learn from you folks, hear from you of what your
concerns are, but we do not need to have this shrouded in politics.
That is of course what the member across the way is trying to do.
Just to
reiterate, on April 15 I sent an email.
I have not heard back yet, but I am more than willing to meet with these
individuals and discuss their important concerns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, I say to the
minister, I am very well aware of that email, and I actually spoke to them
today.
Mr.
Speaker, the Families Alliance tells me that the minister will only meet with
them if they come to St. John's. He
is not prepared to go to Marystown.
If the minister had a fire truck to announce, he would have no problem showing
up in Marystown. These people are
suffering financial hardship.
Travelling to St. John's is a challenge.
So I ask
the minister: Will you reconsider this heartless stance and go and meet with
these grieving families?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
quite clear first off, I should say, if the member was aware I had that email,
I do not know why we are wasting time asking the question if he was aware of
that information. Again, I sent it
out
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. S. COLLINS:
If I can finish, please, Mr.
Speaker.
I sent
the information out April 15. I was
very clear, and I said the House of Assembly is open during the week.
I am in St. John's. I would
be more than happy to meet with you.
I would work within your schedules.
I would meet with you in the morning.
I would meet with you within
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. S. COLLINS:
If I can finish, please.
I would
meet with you in the afternoon; I would meet with you in the evening.
Any time that works for you I understand you have to travel in I
would meet with you. Of course, I am
in my district on the weekends.
So I
sent that out. I have had no
response whatsoever. If the group
feels it is necessary to respond to me and propose a different time, perhaps
after the House closes, sometime later in the summer, I would be more than
willing to go to Marystown.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the minister
yesterday stated with confidence that there are 5,500 jobs in the forest sector,
yet government's own 2008 Forest Sector Strategy states total direct employment
at two paper mills and all sawmilling activity was 2,400 people.
Given
that a paper mill closed in 2009, sawmills sit idle, and no new development,
only job losses, will the Minister of Forestry admit his own government numbers
have been wrong for the last six years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, the numbers that
I gave yesterday as I went back with the department officials yesterday and
last evening and confirmed the numbers that I said here in the House of Assembly
were accurate, and I have no problem tabling this document which verifies the
numbers that the member is asking for.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, government's own
forestry strategy states indirect employment for all other industries increase
total I repeat total employment to approximately 3,000.
For six years government has been selling a fairy tale of forestry jobs
and industry growth.
I look
forward to getting that tabled document, but I want the minister to confirm in
this House that this number he has tabled is less than 5,500.
Will the minister admit that forestry has not been the focus and that the
job numbers are just a fantasy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, again, I will
reiterate what I just said, but I had the opportunity on an airplane two weeks
ago to sit with the hon. member and we had a great discussion flying back from
Ottawa because of another meeting.
We had a great conversation about the potential in forestry and fisheries in the
Province.
Mr.
Speaker, again, I will table this information as soon as I sit down, which
verifies the numbers I said in the House yesterday.
Thank
you, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Carbonear Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Mr. Speaker, over five years
ago government commissioned a report on fish harvesters not permitted to sell
their products directly to retailers or consumers.
Our office went to ATIPPA twice for this report, and finally government
was forced to release it.
Not to
pressure you, Mr. Minister, after all it has only been five years, but when does
government intend to act upon this report?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, the fishery in
the Province is extremely important to all regions of the Province.
We have advocated to better markets for our cod fish and other fish
products, and worked with the people of 3Ps.
Last year we opened up fish markets to outside buyers coming into the
Province. As we return to a
groundfish fishery and cod fish in the Province, Mr. Speaker, we will advance
the fishery in the Province and continue to do so.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Carbonear Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot really agree with the minister on that.
After all, I have fish harvesters over in 3Ps who leave millions of
pounds of fish in the water every year for the last three years.
Mr.
Speaker, the report recommends allowing people and restaurants to buy certain
seafood directly from fishermen at limited amounts.
I ask
the minister: Why are you allowing this report to collect dust?
Why are you standing in the way of helping to diversify our fishery and
our tourism industries?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, I have had a
very close look at that report and I had some good conversation with my
colleagues in the House and former Ministers of Fisheries.
I have also had conversations with industry folk and tourism folk in the
Province, and I have given it some great consideration.
When we
are ready to advance that file along, I will announce it here in the House and
we will look at all impacts of that report and those kinds of decisions will
have either on tourism and the small industry in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and
we will continue to do so.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, schools around
Newfoundland and Labrador have now been notified of how they are exactly going
to be impacted by the teacher cuts that were made in the Budget.
I ask
the Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: How many
schools are affected by these cuts, and how many individual teachers are being
cut from classrooms?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Acting Minister
of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, through the
Budget exercise, and I guess the annual exercise as well, the discussion between
the Department of Education and the school districts with respect to staffing
allocations for the year, this year through the Budget exercise and through the
allocation exercise a decision was made to reduce the number of teachers by 77.5
units.
The
majority of these will be impacted based on the class cap size.
I think there is a small number reduced as a result of declining
enrolment. That allocation is made
to the districts and then the district will work with individual schools as to
what their needs are to ensure that we provide a quality education.
Mr.
Speaker, that process has taken place.
The exact number I do not have the exact number yet, as a report back
from the board has just taken place over the past couple of weeks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, if the minister
is going to be responsible for education he should be more on top of how many
schools and how many individual teaching positions are affected.
At small
rural schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, teachers and school staff carry on a
variety of responsibilities. A loss
of only a portion of a teaching unit has a huge impact on everything from
educational outcomes to school safety.
I ask
the minister: Why are you penalizing students at small rural schools by cutting
into the quality of their education with the latest round of poorly thought out
teacher cuts that you know very clearly little about here today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Acting Minister
of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had
more time to be able to talk about my twenty years in the school system.
In a rural school, in a small school, and the value of teachers and the
work they do and how they work with parents.
They are able to work together with all stakeholders to deliver a solid
education in this Province.
It does
not matter if you are in St. John's, like the member opposite, or if you are in
a rural school, the smallest rural school in the Province.
We have great teachers. We
have a good system; however, we must acknowledge that when there are reductions
it does have an impact, no question.
During
our allocations we recognized the smaller schools: twenty schools with less than
twenty students, ten schools with less than ten.
We do have special allocation formulas for these schools, and so the
member opposite knows, we did not cut them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North has time for a very quick question.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, we only have one
English language school district; one large district now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for a very quick
question.
MR. KIRBY:
I suggest to the minister:
How about, Minister, you commit today to tabling the information I asked for?
You did not answer the question.
Bring some of your twenty years of teaching education experience to bear
on that and table the information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, time for a
quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, as acting
minister or my twenty years of experience, I will debate and have a conversation
or provide information to the House or to the people of the Province.
Very valuable education information is available to the public.
Whatever I have, I will make it available, Mr. Speaker.
If he wants to have a debate about it, we can have the whole afternoon to
debate it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, government announced increased annual caps on support for dental
services and dentures for people with low income, claiming they are making
health care decisions focused on improved outcomes for patients wishing to enjoy
better oral health.
I ask
the Premier: Does government's plan include preventative dental services, such
as regular cleanings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
very pleased to have announced some improvements to the Province's Adult Dental
Program. What we have done is
increased the cap for adult dental services from $200 to $300.
We have also increased the cap for dentures from $750 to $1,500.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We have heard concerns over
the last couple of years from people involved in using the programs and there
has been concerns raised in this very House, Mr. Speaker.
We are
always looking at ways to improve the programs, and any suggestions we receive,
like the one the member is presenting, will certainly be considered.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister: How does not including preventative services square with his
stated goal of spending wisely, getting better value for money, and improved
outcomes for patients?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we provide
publicly funded access to dental services to over 188,400 children, youth, and
adults in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We have one of the most
comprehensive public dental programs anywhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Close to $16 million is
budgeted annually for the Dental Health Plan.
At the same though, Mr. Speaker, while it is never good enough for the
NDP, we have also as individuals to take some responsibility for our own health
and well-being. Prevention is an
important part of that as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
I ask the minister: Does not
he understand how cleaning teeth is part of oral health?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm
for the hon. member that cleaning your teeth is a good part of oral health.
She is indeed correct. I can
also confirm that we have a universal Children's Dental Health Program that is
indeed preventative and focused on prevention where it matters most.
So yes,
it is important for people to take care of their teeth.
That is why we have one of the best dental programs in the country, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, today I got a
call from constituents living in a boarding house.
Their electricity has been cut off because the landlord has not paid the
bill. These are folks with barely
enough money to live on. All their
food will spoil. They said trying to
deal with Residential Tenancies is like spitting in a hurricane.
I ask
the minister: Where is the new Residential Tenancies Act and its
recommendations? It has been almost
three years. What could possibly be
taking so long?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do
recognize that the act is in need of updating.
It was brought in, Mr. Speaker, in 2000, I believe.
The act right now serves the residents of the Province very well,
landlords and tenants. There are
mechanisms for dispute resolution built right into that act.
Mr.
Speaker, the people at Residential Tenancies are very effective and things
happen very quickly over there. If
they contact Residential Tenancies, there are people there to help your
constituents in question. There are
ways to deal with these situations right now within the existing act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I went to the
consultations for the Residential Tenancies Act and there were huge, huge, huge
problems identified by people who took the time to testify.
That was three years ago.
What could possibly have taken so long?
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister again: Will he instruct Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing to stop the sale of all housing, land, and assets until a comprehensive
housing strategy is developed in consultation with municipalities, community
advisory boards, housing advocates, community groups, and his own
interdepartmental housing advisory committee, and the recommendations of the OCR
report?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service Newfoundland and Labrador has time for a quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, in 1998,
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, directed by the Liberal government at the
time, was directed to take assets and sell these assets and monetize them
assets that were not being used for housing and to put that money back into
the coffers of government to help those that are most in need, and it was a wise
decision.
Mr.
Speaker, we have no issues with that whatsoever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CRUMMELL:
So the assets that we are
talking about with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that they have, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CRUMMELL:
in their stock, are not
housing assets or other assets that we are divesting of, and we are going to
divest of that, put the money back into general revenue, and help the people of
the Province that need help the most.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time
for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 49(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the
attached list of temporary loans that were raised under Section 48 of the act
since the last report in the House on April 3, 2014.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 55(3) of the Financial
Administration Act, I wish to report that there was one guaranteed loan paid out
by the Province since the last report in April 3, 2014.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 55.1(2) of the act, I wish to
report that there had been no guaranteed debt of a Crown corporation or agency
assumed by the Province since the April 3, 2014 report.
Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, I
wish to table the annual report of the loan guarantees provided to local
governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
I am pleased to report that
there are no new loan guarantees on behalf of local governments during the
fiscal year.
Mr.
Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on April 3, 2014, and
included guarantees issued up to and including March 31, 2014.
This report covers the period from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015.
Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling three Orders-in-Council relating to funding precommitments for the
2016-2017 to the 2017-2018 fiscal years.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It now
being 3:00 p.m. we go to the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the minister have leave
first to table a document?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave.
The
minister has leave to table a document.
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, in response to a
question yesterday from the Member for The Straits White Bay North, I table
this document entitled Forest Industry Employment and Sector Value for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
We will now go to the Member
for St. George's Stephenville East to begin debate on his private member's
motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
great pleasure to rise in the House today to do my first private member's
motion. I have spoken on other
people's private member's motions, but this will be the first one that I have
put forward in the House. It is a
very good honour to rise to present this motion, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
get into the motion, I just want to read the motion into the record of the House
so that people will know what we are debating here today.
People in the House, of course, have it on their Order Paper, but I just
want to read the motion into the record so that we know what we are debating
here.
Mr.
Speaker, the motion is: WHEREAS the government has made many expensive mistakes
which have cost the taxpayers of this Province millions of dollars; and
WHEREAS
the government has not provided leadership in establishing proper processes and
management practices that would result in the prudent expenditure of tax
dollars;
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House of Assembly condemns the current government's wasteful
inept mismanagement of taxpayers' money.
That is
the motion that we are debating today.
Mr. Speaker, it is a private member's motion and motions are different
from bills. We go back and forth
every Wednesday, people bring forward motions.
The motions that we have in this House are really non-binding.
It is really an opportunity to have an issue discussed, Mr. Speaker.
In other
Legislatures they have opportunities to debate private members' bills.
People can bring forward private members' bills and have them debated.
So, it is an opportunity for government members and Opposition members to
have a more substantive sort of input into the operations of government.
These
motions that we have, and we go back and forth, one week it is the government,
one week it is the Opposition. These
motions are basically an opportunity to have an issue debated, to have a
discussion. To have a debate about
issues that we think are important.
The
issue I am dealing with today is an important issue I think.
It is about government waste.
Basically, it is about: How do we spend taxpayers' money?
What controls do we have?
It
really goes to the basic principle of government.
It goes back to the idea the whole concept of government is based on
that people are willing to come together and organize themselves in a way that
they can make their lives better.
They contribute a certain amount of money to the operation of government because
they believe having a government really makes their lives better.
It provides them with services they need that can make their lives
better.
Mr.
Speaker, this whole concept of government and taxation really begins to fall
apart and really beings to erode when governments do not spend taxpayers'
dollars in a responsible manner; when they spent it in ways that do not really
get a benefit for the people who paid the taxes.
That is the very important issue I want to talk about today and I want to
have debated here today, and that is why I am bringing it forward.
I think
it is timely, as well, because we are really in the middle of the Budget process
in this House, this month and the next few weeks.
We are really in the period when we are focused on the Budget and
spending and expenditures in this Province.
So it is a timely debate to have here in this House.
With
that in mind, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I want to bring up is when the
government presented its Budget, one of the things they highlighted was eight
principles. The first principle was,
We Will Cultivate a Culture of Cost Management. That was the first principle
the Minister of Finance laid out in his Budget Speech.
The idea of cultivating a culture of cost management.
At first
when I read that in the Budget Speech I said, well, that is a noble sort of
ambition. That is a wonderful thing
to do, really, to cultivate a culture of cost management.
That sort of fits with the basic principles, but then I sort of thought,
well, this government has been around for twelve years, Mr. Speaker.
They have been in power for twelve years, and they are characterizing
this as a new approach after being in government for twelve years?
It is
somewhat concerning that they would put forward this as a new initiative.
I guess the question people have to ask is, why haven't they been doing
this all along? It is something that
you would assume a government would have done all along, cultivate a culture of
cost management. Mr. Speaker, it
seems that was not the case, because they presented it as a new initiative.
I guess it sort of fits the political theme now, whereas maybe in the
past it did not.
It sort
of rings to me the old saying: the horse is gone, maybe we should close the
door. It is a little bit concerning
that it took twelve years to come to this realization.
I think we really have to question, because of the nature of this
commitment, the nature of this principle and the way it is presented, I think we
really have to question is this government's commitment to that principle.
The
other thing is they are saying they are going to get an outside consultant to
come in and have a look at the cost expenditure in the Province and how we can
contain it. They are going to hire
an outside consultant. Mr. Speaker,
outside consultants serve a purpose.
They often provide a new set of eyes or they bring some expertise they have
developed in other areas to government, and sometimes they bring in expertise
that is not there in government. Sometimes external consultants are valuable,
but I think we really have to question it becomes problematic when you have an
overdependence upon consultants.
When you
look at consultants and this government, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask, how much
does this government spend on consultants?
Does anyone have any idea how much this government spends on consultants?
MR. HILLIER:
Do you know, Scotty?
MR. REID:
I think I have a figure here,
yes. I am just wondering if anyone
else knows.
MR. HILLIER:
I bet you it is low.
MR. REID:
Is it $10 million a year?
MR. HILLIER:
No, it is more than that.
MR. REID:
Would it be $20 million?
MR. HILLIER:
The Auditor General knows.
MR. REID:
Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Higher.
MR. REID:
In 2013, the latest year that
I have figures for, it was $85 million.
Mr. Speaker, $85 million on consultants.
Well,
$85 million on consultants, Mr. Speaker.
That was more than we spent on roads, more than we spent on road works in
this Province.
MR. HILLIER:
More than we spent on
seniors.
MR. REID:
More than we spent on
seniors, as the Member for CBS says, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
More than we spent on
Labrador ferries.
MR. REID:
More than we spent on
Labrador ferries, Mr. Speaker.
More
than we will spend on implementing full-year kindergarten, Mr. Speaker.
It was more than we will spend on the Home Heating Rebate Program.
It is more than we will spend on housing this year.
It is an enormous figure when you think about it $85 million in
consultants.
So, Mr.
Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that the first job of any external consultants
might be to look at the expenditure that we have on consultants.
It is sort of ironic. The
first job of the outside consultant will be to look at the expenditure on
consultants.
Mr.
Speaker, when we ask questions about what things are happening in the House, or
things are not happening in government, one of the things the government comes
back at us with is, well, what a slap in the face to public servants and people
who work in this Province and do their best.
Well, what does it say when we have to hire so many consultants?
What is the message to the senior management that were selected by this
government? What is the message to
them when we have to hire so many outside consultants?
Mr. Speaker, what is the message to them?
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about an external consultant that we already have.
We already have an external consultant in place.
We already have one in place.
The external consultant is called the AG, the Auditor General.
We already have an external consultant.
AN HON. MEMBER:
We bring him in occasionally.
MR. REID:
Every year, every year
AN HON. MEMBER:
Not every department, though.
MR. REID:
He looks at different
departments every year, but every year he does a report and makes
recommendations, Mr. Speaker. So
they already have an external consultant.
That is already built into the government process.
Mr.
Speaker, the question is: Has this government been listening to the
recommendations made by the Auditor General?
Have they been implementing the cost-saving recommendations that the AG
has been making over the years? No,
they have not. That is the problem
and that is another reason why you have to question their commitment to this
idea of cost containment, cultivating a culture of cost containment.
Another
reason I think you have to question this idea of cultivating a culture of cost
containment, I think you need look no further than the Budget package itself.
You do not need to look any farther than the Budget package itself, Mr.
Speaker, to see that government really is not committed to cost containment.
You look
at the Budget package each year, you usually have the Budget Speech, you have
The Economy which outlines things that are happening in the economy, and you
have the line by line Estimates that give you the details in the department, and
you have the Highlights document which sort of highlights certain points.
Until last year you used to have the detail salary estimates.
I am not sure what has happened with the detail salary estimates this
year. I am not sure if they are
online this year. We will have to
have a look at that, but there is a new document there this year.
The new document is called Solid
Investments in Provincial Infrastructure.
It is a
new document. It is forty pages.
It is a very glossy document, and really it outlines infrastructure
investments over the last few years.
Really, I think that is a campaign document, but I do not think the PC Party is
paying for it, Mr. Speaker.
That is
another reason why you have to question how committed this government is to
containing cost and containing waste when in their very Budget package they are
making wasteful expenditures based on political expedience.
You have to question their commitment to controlling waste when they do
not even get out of the gate, Mr. Speaker.
In the whole Budget package, it is not internally consistent.
The message does not match the reality of what they have been doing.
You have to question how committed they are to cost containment.
I only
have a minute or so left here in my first round, but another issue that makes
you question their commitment is the amount of money being spent on government
advertising now, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor
pretty well every department is out there spending money on advertising of one
kind or another. What the government
would have us believe is that it is very difficult fiscal times.
They are out there spending taxpayers' dollars to promote themselves,
basically, in a lot of cases.
A lot of
other provinces have legislation which restricts government advertising.
This Province does not. It is
left to the good judgment of the people who are in government and how an
Opposition can hold them to account.
This government has failed that test as well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
showing that they really want to contain waste in government.
Mr.
Speaker, my time is up. I will have
a few more minutes at the end to provide some concluding comments.
I look forward to what the other members have to say.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
delight today to get up and respond to the private member's motion.
The Member for St. George's Stephenville East laid out what a private
member's motion is, the value of it, and the value of the debate we have in the
House around private member's motions.
So he wanted to enlighten people, provide some information, and that is
important.
It is
also important when you participate in the debate and you make your comments and
you contribute to the debate, it is intended to inform and to enlighten, but it
is also intended to be accurate. It
is intended to be accurate, I say, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to comment on a couple of things that the member opposite has just introduced to
the House. For example, he talks about spending $85 million on consultants.
If you left that on its face, you would think that this was $85 million
that government spent to bring people in from the outside to provide advice on
day-to-day management decisions. The
member is referring to a document that they would have received as a result of
an ATIPP request.
What he
did not share with the House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was a
breakdown in that $85 million, I say, Mr. Speaker, because in that $85 million,
let's think about what is in there.
Embedded in that $85 million are fees that would have been paid for legal
counsel. Government is involved many
times in getting advice from outside legal counsel.
We need to buy those legal services.
That is consulting fees. He
failed to raise that issue. That is
part of that $85 million.
The
other thing he failed to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, was that embedded in that $85
million, the biggest portion of that $85 million in fact, I am not sure what
the exact percentage is, but it is well in excess of half of it is based on
our significant investment in infrastructure that he alluded to in his comments
as well, because the Budget document this year provided an overview of our
fiscal plan, our capital investment plan.
When he held up the book and made a reference to it, he did not bring
your attention to the last part of it which starts on page 36, which talks about
the investment that we are proposing this is a part of the Budget forecast.
Budgets are about capital expenditures.
Budgets are about current expenditures.
What he failed to realize is that in this document there is a layout of
the money we are going to spend on schools, money we are going to spend on
health care, money we are going to spend on transportation infrastructure.
Every
time we build a school, an architect has to design it.
We need an engineer to manage the project for us.
We need someone with the necessary architectural and engineering skills
to build those schools and to build those hospitals.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker? That
is embedded in that $85 million.
Fees normally would be in the range of 6 per cent, 7 per cent, or 8 per cent of
the total construction cost. So just
think about it for a moment. Every
year we spend $700 million or $800 million on infrastructure, building roads,
building schools, building hospitals, building health clinics.
Every time we do it, we have to hire an architect and we have to hire an
engineer. That is embedded in that
$85 million.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we can give up spending money on capital.
The $6 billion that we have spent over the last ten years, we could have
said no, we are not going to do that because we do not want to pay engineering
fees. How ridiculous and how stupid
would that be? If you are going to
have an aggressive infrastructure program and spend $6 billion over ten years,
you are going to pay consulting fees.
It is called design. It is
called architectural fees. It is
called engineering fees. It is a
normal course of doing business.
Mr.
Speaker, it is somewhat disingenuous to stand in the House to suggest that $85
million was wasted on frivolous advice that you got from consultants who came in
to tell you how to run the day-to-day operations of government.
When he stood and repeated that number, he had in front of him a list of
all of those items. He had in front
of him, by category, what areas the money was spent.
In fact, he had in front of him what departments spent what money.
That detail was provided to him by my department, or one of his
officials, or one of his speech writers, or the person who maybe even wrote his
notes for him for today. They had
that in front of him when he, in fact, stood.
Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to make sure the people in the public and the people in
this House were fully aware of what that $85 million represents, why it is
spent, and how we get that kind of number.
I say, Mr. Speaker, we do not apologize at all when we go out and spend
that kind of money on infrastructure and needing to hirer architects to help us
do that piece.
I just
wanted to make sure that we are clear.
That $85 million that he talks about, he seems to suggest it was a waste
of money, but when you go down through it, look at how we have, in fact, spent
that money and what value we got for that, Mr. Speaker.
To
suggest that the Auditor General is a consultant the Auditor General is not a
consultant, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor
General provides very valuable work.
He provides very valuable assessments, provides very valuable feedback to
government. I do not categorize him
as a consultant, and I doubt very much if the Auditor General himself would view
himself as a consultant.
Quite
the contrary, he is acting on behalf of this House.
He is an independent Officer of this House.
He does his work independent of any department of government, reports
directly to this Chamber, to this House of Assembly, and then by extension to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
He is not engaged as a consultant to give advice.
He does his own work and provides information.
He is independent of any department of government but he reports directly
to the House. I just want to make
sure people understand clearly the use of the language consultants and what we
do with them.
At the
same time, Mr. Speaker, we are big people.
We acknowledge we need to reach out sometimes to engage people to provide
advice and provide direction to us.
We do not sit on this side of the House, even though we have the majority of the
people who sit in this House, we do not stand here and believe we have all of
the answers to everything that goes on in the world.
We do not stand here and think we are absolutely right on every single
issue that arises. We are big
enough, Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge there will be times there will be issues
that arise that we need to seek out the best expertise that is available.
It is no
offence to anybody in the public service, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, we have said in this House many times in fact, during this
Budget debate in recent weeks I have said, the Premier has said on any number of
times that we respect the public service of this Province.
That is why we are upfront with them.
That is why we said that over the course of the next five years here is
our plan for how we will readjust the size of the public service.
We have not said secretly that we are going to wait until we get another
set of facts in front of us and then we were going to decide what departments we
were going to eliminate. We did not
say that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
We did not say that at all.
We respect the public service and the work they do but everybody
recognizes, regardless of where you are, whether you are in the public service
or whether you are in the private sector, whether you are in it does not
matter what industry you are in.
There will be times when you will look at what you need before you, what the
issues are before you, and you will need to make a decision.
We have talented expertise in-house but we need to bring someone in who
has a very specialized set of skills to help us work through a given
circumstance we have, and that is the circumstance we find ourselves in today,
Mr. Speaker.
If you
look at and I am delighted the member opposite read the Budget documents
because we have received some compliments on this Budget document.
It is a comprehensive plan.
It lays out a five-year fiscal framework.
Never before, Mr. Speaker, never before and the reason the member
opposite is so astounded by it is because the Liberals never ever built a five
year budget.
This
House of Assembly has never seen a document like this, Mr. Speaker, where you
lay out a five-year plan. You know
year by year by year for five full years.
The other significant thing which the Liberals never ever did, they never
ever developed targets. They never
said here are performance measures, you can judge us on our performance
measures.
We are
going to come to this House twice a year.
We are going to come in the fall with an update and we are going to give
you a progress report. We are going
to come in the spring or late winter every year and we are going to give you a
Budget, another update, and we are going to be judged.
We have performance measures here, Mr. Speaker, that we will be judged on
our performance.
The
other reason I suspect he is not very happy with the Budget document itself is
because we have provided a forecast for the future but we have also looked at
some history. If you look at some of
the history, it dates you back to about ten years of Liberal reign.
If you look at all these performance indicators, just look at all these
performance indicators, Mr. Speaker, and look at the period when the Liberals
where in power versus the last ten years.
Just look at the comparison.
Look at the comparison, Mr. Speaker.
As an
Administration, we have outperformed the Liberal Administration that were here
the ten years before that on any of those performance measures.
That is why the member is astounded by it.
Never before has he seen in this House a government that introduces a
five-year plan, a detailed five-year plan, never before has he seen performance
indicators where we are going to be measuring our success in working towards
these budget targets.
So I
say, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that he read it.
I am delighted he read it because we have received many compliments on
it. Never before, as he has pointed out,
it never happened before. The reason
it never happened before is because we believe with a new leadership Premier
Davis and a new leadership, a new vision for the future, a new approach to
governance. We lay out so everybody
can see. There is nothing secretive
here. We have a plan, we have a
vision, and we have a clear understanding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, when you start
talking about fiscal management, and to suggest there has been something wrong
that has happened in the last ten or twelve years, just look at where we are.
Look at those performance indicators.
Look at how we have reduced net debt during that period.
Look at how we have made significant investments in infrastructure, $6
billion.
Just
drive around the Province today and look at new schools.
The Member for The Straits White Bay North, look at the South Coast of
Labrador. The member stands in this
House every day and talks about how the South Coast of Labrador is left out.
You drive up that coast and what do you see?
Two new schools. Drive up the
Northern Peninsula, what do you see?
New schools as you drive up the Northern Peninsula.
That kind of strategic investment, Mr. Speaker, in key infrastructure in
this Province is important for the people who live in those regions.
We made those decisions.
So if
you want to stand in this House today and you want to go to any one of these
communities go to a community that had a new school built in the last ten
years and say, do you know something, they should not have built that.
That is mismanagement. You
did not deserve that new school. We
should have saved that money. We
should have reduced the debt. Is
that what they are suggesting, Mr. Speaker?
Look at
poverty reduction, just one issue. I
could go on for hours talking about the money we have spent in the last ten
years, the programs we have enhanced, and the investments we have made to
position this Province to be better served today than we would have been had we
not done it. Just look at one issue,
Mr. Speaker, something that is dear to all of us as a society, as a people, as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We
value and respect our neighbours. We
care for them. We are nurturing
people, caring people.
When we
came to government we had the highest rates of poverty in the entire country.
It was embarrassing, Mr. Speaker.
As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian it was embarrassing to say that we
had the highest rate of poverty in the entire country.
We said
we are going to do something about it.
It was not good enough to just say, boy, that is terrible, that should
not be. We are going to do something
about it; we are going to fix it. So
we set out on a path, Mr. Speaker, and we have stayed focused.
We set out on a path, developed a strategy, a Poverty Reduction Strategy.
In fact, we had people visiting from around the country wanting to mimic
what we had done here, it was such a well-laid-out plan.
We
started making investments year over year over year.
Regardless of what other priorities came up, what other issues surfaced,
we were diligent, Mr. Speaker, we were focused, and we were on a mission.
Just look at what has happened today.
Look at the poverty rates today versus where they were back in 2003 and
2004. There are only about half the
number of people today on Income Support as there was back in 2004-2005 just
one indicator, Mr. Speaker.
Look at
what we have done with providing some support to young families.
Look at what we have done in reducing income tax for people with incomes
less than $18,000. This year, Mr.
Speaker, just think about this, if you are a single individual making just a
little shy of $19,000 a year, you pay no personal income tax to Newfoundland and
Labrador. If you are a family and
your income is just a little over $30,000 a year, you pay no personal income tax
to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is what we have done. It
is just one of the many things that we have done to make sure that we eradicate
poverty in this Province.
Many
years ago you only have to go back, what, twelve years ago?
Every September, families sending kids back to school, what would they
have to do? Buy books, supplies, all
kinds of fees. When they walked
through the door the first day, the principal was there with the hand out, you
need a fee for this, the fee for that, the fee for something else.
Do you
know what, Mr. Speaker? That was
contributing to the poverty that existed in this Province.
We said that cannot happen; we have to fix that.
That was embedded then in our Poverty Reduction Strategy.
We took an eraser to every single fee in schools, took them all out, and
eliminated them. Today, we do not
have any fees in our schools in this Province.
We provide free textbooks to the students of the Province in our K-12
system.
So just
think about that, Mr. Speaker, the strategic investments we have made in the
future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Our young people, the people who are Grades 4 and 5 and 6, people
starting out in life, and we have made a huge difference.
So any man who stands in this House and says this has been mismanagement
of fiscal resources
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
Order, please!
I remind
the minister his time has expired.
MR. WISEMAN:
point to something that
they would not do. Point to one of
these things that they would not do, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
just stand for a minute. I heard the
minister talk. I tell you one thing
we would not have done. When he was
Minister of Health with a wink and nod, with Billy Fanning, gave the Centre for
Health Information a 300 per cent raise.
The Auditor General went in there and said it was shocking that the
minister would not put it in writing.
That is one thing we would not have done: given a wink and a nod to Billy
Fanning, going down and say give them all the raise, while the civil servants
here are going on next to nothing and giving all the bunch down there that is
one thing.
I just
find it odd, Mr. Speaker now, I am not here to criticize the minister, but he
is criticizing the Liberals. What
platform did he win the election on if it was not a Liberal platform?
If you want to talk about disingenuous, he ran on a Liberal platform,
went out, got elected on all the Liberal policies, and turned around and say how
shocking those Liberals. You want to
talk about disingenuous. Oh my, I
could not believe it I could not believe it.
Anyway,
the minister just spoke about some things you would not have done.
For twelve years
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
The government gets tired,
Mr. Speaker, and abuse creeps in abuse creeps in.
I remember Paddy Daly and I was on a talk show and he said: Well, the
Liberals did. I said: Yes, and the
Liberals got booted out, the same as what should happen with this crowd, booted
out. I make no bones about it.
Anybody who takes the people of the Province for granted, takes their
finances and spends it, in my opinion, in several occasions in wasteful ways
and I will give you some good examples and the minister wanted us to stand up
and give you some. I will give you
some, Mr. Speaker. I will give you a
nice few.
Do I
think there have been good things done in the Province?
Absolutely. I would never
stand in this House and say there has nothing good been done.
Absolutely, I would never say that, Mr. Speaker, because there has been,
but this is about abuse. This is
about ownership now of abuse. This
is some type of entitlement that we can go off and do what we like in this
Province because we are the governing party.
I will
just go through some, Mr. Speaker. I
will just go through a few of them that we are going to talk about.
Let's talk about the $25 million or $30 million because up in Parson's
Pond when they wanted to drill a hole, you think they would have did that with
their own money. Drilled two holes
up there $30 million, wannabe Jed Clampetts of the world, tried to find oil.
Because it is taxpayers' money, they go up and drill two holes; that is
$30 million.
Think
what could happen in this Province with $30 million.
That is just counting drilling the holes, not counting what it cost again
to build the roads to the hole, and this is all Nalcor.
This is all approved by this government.
That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, $30 million.
They were dry holes and they were told that.
They were informed of that because if any oil company who already did any
seismic work in that area, they walked away; but because it is taxpayers' money
just think $30 million.
How many
children could that help? Just
think, there would be no increase at Memorial University this year because of
that. Just think of how many people
in child poverty that this could help out with $30 million.
That is just one.
Just
look at Abitibi in the big haste because they wanted to make sure that Abitibi
were not going to walk away with our money, Mr. Speaker, and the fatal mistake
of the government, the abuse and they would never admit it over $200 million
liability now in environmental cleanup.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, just think about it, just think about what this Province could do with
$200 million. Just think about it.
This is what happens when a government gets in and they feel they are
entitled to make these decisions without doing due diligence.
Just think about it; that is $230 million.
That is just two things in the last number of years, Mr. Speaker.
Every one of those members opposite voted for all of this.
They all agreed with it. They
all stood up and supported this.
When you talk about entitlement, you have to think about are you doing what is
best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is just two examples.
We spoke
to the government. We said: We have
to look at this. Mr. Speaker, we
were shut down. Oh, no, we are
against government. We are not
standing with the government. Look
at what happens. Any time you stand
up and ask a question it is almost like you are against us.
You are against the Province.
It is either us or them. That is
$230 million. Just think what the
people ask anybody out there who is listening today: What would you be able to
do with $230 million? Just think
about it.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to go back to something that I brought up in the Auditor
General's report. I know the Member
for Humber West is well aware of them.
We have Holson Forest Products up in Roddickton when they built a pellet
plant. I just want to put this on
the record, Mr. Speaker. I did it in
Public Accounts and I just want members opposite to know what they voted for.
When I asked questions on this, it was you are not for the Northern
Peninsula. You are against
development. Here is what happened
there, Mr. Speaker.
They
went up and they put $10 million into a pellet plant in Roddickton.
I asked questions about it after it was done.
Guess what? In Public
Accounts it is on the record I asked them, the officials, show me the
markets that you had for the pellets.
Do you know what the answer was?
We have none. We did not do a
market survey. They did not do a
market survey and put $10 million up in Roddickton for a pellet plant and gave
the big impression when they went up for the big press release of how we are
going to save the Northern Peninsula.
On the
second part of that it is sad because people really believed that government
did the work on this. That is $240
million so far. Mr. Speaker, I asked
a further question. You have no
market, so you have no place to sell you pellets.
Second of all: Where are you going to store your pellets?
We do not have a storage facility.
I said: Well, how much will that cost?
That is $1 million. I said:
Didn't government no, they said that was all right.
So if
you are going to make the pellets, you have no place to sell them, you have no
place to store them while you are in production.
That is one part of lack of due diligence of $10 million.
Then I said, well, how are you going to ship them there?
Well, we had a wharf, but the federal government came in and tore down
the wharf. I said, did the
provincial government step in and say we need the wharf?
Oh, no. So how are you going
to get it? How are you going to get
the pellets which you do not have stored, which you do not have in markets,
how are you going to get them to the market?
We need another $4 million to build the wharf.
Mr. Speaker, so you call that a waste of money?
I call it a waste of money, absolutely a waste of money.
Mr.
Speaker, here is the kicker. In the
big scheme of government, it is not a big deal, an extra million dollars for
Holson Forest Products in Roddickton.
When it came back from the federal government, they got the rebate of a
million dollars. They went to the
provincial government, and they sat here in Public Accounts.
I asked a question. I said,
what happened to the million dollars?
Oh, we gave it back to pay the bills.
The
question that I asked was very specific.
Can you show me what bills they paid with that million dollars?
They said, no. Just ask
people, would you ever do that with your public money?
If that was your own personal money, Mr. Speaker, would you do that?
Would you go to somebody and say, oh, we just paid some bills, here is
the money for it. You have to prove
that it was done.
Mr.
Speaker, that is where entitlement comes in.
Just think about that.
Northern Pen, here is the article,
Roddickton's recycled power plant.
Holson Forest Products has this also, they put it out on bid.
They did not want it. It was,
I think, five megawatts of power.
They gave it to Holson for the pellet plant which is never going to operate in
Roddickton, not a chance right now, unless what I mentioned earlier happens.
They
gave them the generation plant, Mr. Speaker.
Get this now, for the pellet plant they gave it to them.
Boom, here it is. They would
not disclose. They dismantled the
plant. Take a guess at what happens,
Mr. Speaker. They sold it to a
company in Quebec, a green forest company.
The company they sold it to in Quebec, the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador get this: the company would not state how much they paid for it, but on
a $17 million project they saved $7 million by getting this free gift from the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
An asset they gave away for a pellet plant which never existed.
Mr.
Speaker, I am up to $270 million already, and I have not even started yet.
Those are just some of the major things.
You wonder when the member brings up about waste in government, this is
what happens. This is the
entitlement this government feels is their right and their ownership.
It is our obligation, as Opposition, to bring this up to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
any person out there in TV land, Mr. Speaker, who are looking at this debate
today to tell me: What would you do with $250 million, $260 million?
What would you do?
I am not
even going to get into Muskrat Falls today.
I am not going to get into how I feel about Muskrat Falls, millions and
billions being poured in of taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, poured into
something. I hear the minister
standing up day after day, but we are going to have money coming in from here to
eternity. We are, but it is the
people of the Province who are paying for it, so you cannot say it is new money.
You cannot say the government is making all this money, because we are
paying for it. We are paying for it.
The prices are going to go up, and guess what?
If you want to talk about abuse, Nova Scotia is going to get it at cost
price if you want to talk about abuse, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into that today, I am going to speak for my
last three or four minutes. Just
look at some smaller things. Look at
Bill 29 and the cost, $1.4 million.
People in government say, well, that is not a lot of money.
To a $7 billion, $8 billion Budget, it is not.
I ask
the average household person out there, what would you do in your area, or any
member, in your district with $1.4 million that it cost for their mistake?
Just any district, pick a district in this Province, water and sewer,
roads, upgrades, municipal buildings, schools.
What would you do with $1.4 million?
Mr. Speaker, you would do a lot.
When you
look at the big scheme and you become tired and you get entitlement, oh, it is
only $1.4 million. It is not a big
deal but it is. When you are out
in the communities and you see people without proper drinking water, when you
see sewer running into ditches, it is a lot.
It is a lot of money. This is
why the people are saying that any government, Mr. Speaker, that all of a sudden
becomes entitled, they lose focus of what they were elected for.
This is what is happening here.
Mr.
Speaker, I can go back, and not everybody was here at the time.
I was here. The office in
Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, the big office.
We are setting up an office in Ottawa because we do not have confidence in the
MPs. We are taking our fight to
Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, that cost $4
million to $5 million. We still do
not have the full figure on it; $4 million to $5 million to have an office.
The
funny part about that, Mr. Speaker, the office in Ottawa, I know the members
opposite do not even know this, they had someone from another office to come
down and collect the mail because there was no one ever in the office, but we
were paying rent at the building. We
used to hire people to go up to the office.
We had seven MPs. We had all
the ministers here, yet for some reason we had to go take on Ottawa and we had
to spend millions upon millions of dollars to go up to Ottawa to say that we are
going to fight for ourselves in Ottawa.
They had no one in the office.
They had it leased but no one in the office.
They had all the equipment in the office.
They had no one in the office but we are going to fight for someone in
the office, for spite, in Ottawa.
Mr.
Speaker, even when we look at the consolidation of Eastern Health, even the
Auditor General, $4.7 million. I am
up to $280 million now.
Look at
the fines in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They laid off the collection people.
They laid them off. The fines
in Newfoundland and Labrador, get this, Mr. Speaker, is $42 million.
I ask any town out there, take the seven largest towns, what could you do
with $42 million? What can the
average person do if you split that up around the Province?
Just think about that, and they laid off the people who were actually
going to go out and collect the fines.
Mr.
Speaker, right now, as we speak, we are up to $360 million.
So the next time the member opposite wants to ask me, what would you do
differently? I am up now to over
$370 million by the time I am finished with it here.
When you
look at the moose detection, that is another fiasco.
That cost, again, $1.5 million to $2 million.
Guess what? I ask any
municipality out there, what could you do with that money?
Ask any common person who is struggling right now, Mr. Speaker.
How can we help out the common folks in this Province with that type of
money?
Mr.
Speaker, I know my time is coming near.
The next time someone opposite wants to challenge me on what would you do
different? There is $380 million
right there, Mr. Speaker, of what I would have done different.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. member's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has
been an interesting discussion this afternoon.
I was amused by the motion that was put forward yesterday by the hon.
member who spoke first today. I
think there are probably more constructive ways we could utilize Private
Members' Day but nonetheless, I congratulate him on his first motion.
As the
Finance minister pointed out earlier today, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to
participate in debate then it is important to be accurate.
It is important to provide real information and not just rhetoric and
spin.
We have
heard two members of the Opposition today get up and talk about waste.
Well, I would like to challenge that.
Over the little bit of time I have this afternoon to participate in this
debate, I intend to do so, because, Mr. Speaker, our government has been
implementing solid plans for the last twelve years.
In fact, we have a plan right now to deal with the current fiscal
situation, as the Minister of Finance spoke to earlier today.
We have clearly set out a five-year fiscal recovery plan and it is very
clear. It has been set out very
clearly. We have set clear targets,
Mr. Speaker. We have set out
benchmarks to measure ourselves against.
This is
the first time that any government has laid out such a clear, fiscal plan, but
the members opposite do not want to hear that.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve a clear plan, but I can
assure you that they will not get it from the folks opposite because we keep
asking where is the plan from our detractors, and last week
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
You can hear them
gibber-jabbering over there; it is like
The Muppet Show over there, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for your protection.
Last
week, the Liberal Opposition said that they were going to unveil a big economic
announcement, an economic plan. Then
they got everybody together, a couple of folks from St. John's, somebody from
outside St. John's, and then the big announcement was that they do not have a
plan. They actually were announcing
they have a plan to create a plan.
If they do have a plan, they are keeping it to themselves, Mr. Speaker.
I am not sure that is a position that you can trust.
It is not a position that I trust.
The
Leader of the Opposition announced I think on Budget day that he would increase
borrowing against the future. That
was his plan to deal with the fiscal situation, but he did not talk to the
Member for Virginia Waters. They did
not confer on their positions on Budget day, and maybe it is because they are a
team of leaders as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested.
The Member for Virginia Waters outlined clearly that she would cut
spending, she would cut programs, and she would get rid of public servants.
In fact, in a very derogatory way she referred to one of the offices that
I am responsible for and basically said that the entire office is a waste of
government resources.
Those,
Mr. Speaker, are diametrically opposing view, so which position should you
trust? Should you trust the Leader
of the Opposition, or should you trust the Finance critic, the Member for
Virginia Waters? I am not sure which
one of them I believe, and I am not sure which position that I would trust.
Unlike
the opposing views that have been articulated by the Leader of the Opposition
and his Finance critic, we have a real plan.
As the Finance Minister has outlined, that plan is about balance.
It gets
more confusing than that, Mr. Speaker, if you try to dig into what they actually
stand for or do not stand for. Just
yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Member for St. Barbe said, I think
everybody understands that you can control how much you spend one way or the
other. You can defer some things.
You can cut back some things.
You can eliminate some things.
Well, I
am glad there is at least one member opposite who understands that sometimes you
have to make tough choices throughout a Budget process because his leader and
many of the members opposite do not seem to recognize that.
In fact on April 30, The Globe and Mail reported that the Leader of the Opposition
said that he would not cut any programs.
He said that he would roll back the HST increases.
So if you want to talk about fiscal mismanagement, Mr. Speaker, let's
talk about that for a moment.
The Liberal idea seems to be let's avoid tough choices,
let's make the popular choices, let's say whatever we think the public wants to
hear, let's borrow, let's borrow, let's borrow.
Unless you are the Finance critic because the Finance critic does not
want to borrow, she wants to gut the public service.
It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
Who knows how high the debt would rise and the deficit
would be if the Liberals actually were to take power in this Province.
They say they would reduce taxes and fees, thus reducing revenues.
They also continually challenge us to build more schools and bigger
schools. We cannot pave roads fast
enough for their liking, Mr. Speaker, and they ask us to wave our magic wand and
make new health care facilities appear and at the same time they want us to do
all that no matter what the cost is.
They do not like our partnership for long-term care, a
partnership that will provide services, vital services in a fiscally responsible
way, but they do advocate spend, spend, spend well, with one exception, and
this is all we hear from the members opposite; but at least the Member for St.
Barbe recognized yesterday in this House that sometimes you do have to cut.
So maybe the team of leaders should get together and have a chat about
their fiscal policy.
Also yesterday in this very House, Mr. Speaker, the Member
for St. John's North joined in and he said: The Budget this year should have
been called lost opportunity and misplaced priorities.
Misplaced priorities I ask the members opposite, which priorities of
ours are misplaced? Because the
priorities of our government and the priorities of our Premier were actually
quite clear going into this Budget process.
That is more than we can say about the Leader of the Opposition and we
are still trying to figure out what his priorities are.
We were not at the dinner in Toronto, so we could not really get to hear
it first-hand.
The priorities of our Premier, though, and the priorities
of our government were to help the economy be as strong as possible, to protect
the jobs of public servants
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT: There
they go again, Mr. Speaker. There
they go again. I am glad they are
entertained or amused or whatever is going on over in that back row.
Our plan was to protect the jobs of public servants, to
prevent mass layoffs like
we saw in the 1990s which would also assist the economy.
We also committed to providing the best health care and access to health
care possible for our residents, and we are going to continue to develop
infrastructure where it is needed most.
Our Premier's priority was clearly to balance fiscal concerns and social
concerns.
So I ask
the members opposite: Are these the misplaced priorities that you refer to?
Are these misplaced priorities?
Because it seems like these are the priorities of the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
On May 4
in this House of Assembly, the Member for Virginia Waters said that For any
government, including a Liberal government, attrition will help with reducing
the cost of government without negatively impacting the economy
.
So, it is good to see some acknowledgement that our attrition plan may
very well be the right move.
The
Leader of the Opposition a couple of years ago not even a couple of years ago
said, you have to put sustainable practices in place in your expenditures.
What we have done here in the last few years I am not here to argue
that we have to have less wages, but we do need less people.
So, he is acknowledging, like the Member for Virginia Waters not that
long ago, that we should reduce the public service.
That is why we are using attrition.
The approach that seems to be talked about across the way, if we could
get a clear answer, is layoffs, which is not something that we support, Mr.
Speaker.
Just
before that, the Leader of the Opposition who was not the leader at the time,
I do not believe; maybe he was he said, this is the third term for government,
and there was no question that back in 2003 there was significant debt within
the Province. So, there was some
acknowledgement. He said and these
were his words we had social debt, we had infrastructure debt, and of course
we had financial debt. There just
really was not a lot of money to go around.
So, the
Liberals asked where our money went.
I will tell you where the money went, Mr. Speaker; it went to fix those issues
that the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged himself.
We fixed social debt, we have addressed infrastructure debt, and we have
addressed financial debt. We have
made great progress, Mr. Speaker.
We hear
members opposite get up day after day saying that we have mismanaged the
Province's finances. They say we
have wasted money
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
and apparently it is a joke
to the crowd in the back row over there, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I think it is actually very serious, because they are accusing
government of wasting money and to the members opposite if they could pay
attention for a few minutes I asked them: Are all the bridges we have built
wasteful? Are the schools we have
built and renovated wasteful? Are
the roads we have paved the waste that they are talking about?
They
tell us about all this waste, but they cannot tell us, not one of them over
there, Mr. Speaker, can tell us what they would do differently, except, as we
heard last week, now they have a plan to come up with a plan someday, perhaps by
September, I believe.
If you
look at the Budget Highlights document on page 4 you will see where over $6.6
billion has been and you will see how it has wisely been invested since 2004.
It has gone into infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, infrastructure that will keep people safe, allow them to get
from point A to point B, and allow them to access government programs and
services. I ask the members opposite
again: Is that the waste that they are talking about?
Is that the waste that they would have cut?
The
infrastructure highlights in this Budget include $1.89 billion for roads and
buildings, $1.6 billion for education infrastructure, $1.5 billion in health
care infrastructure, and $1.27 billion for municipal infrastructure.
So we have presented all that information about our plan and our
accomplishments. I would like to
know is that all waste? Is that what
the members opposite consider waste?
Are they
telling the communities of this Province that they should not have gotten their
recreation complexes? Are they
telling parents that their children should be in old mouldy schools that were
neglected by the previous Administration?
I certainly hope not, Mr. Speaker I certainly hope not.
I will
stand on our record and members of this government will stand on our record as
well. When we compare the Liberal
financial record of the past to the Tory record of the past decade, we can see
that we truly are the best financial managers because we balance social needs,
the people's needs. We balance
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
They do not want to hear it;
they laugh and joke. We want to
balance social needs, the needs of people, with financial concerns.
We aim to spend money wisely all the time and we cannot say the same for
previous Administrations. I will not
focus on some of the mismanagement that went on prior to our Administration
because it is a long time ago, and I recognize that just about all members
except one were not part of that Administration.
Let's
talk about some economic measures.
Page 3 of the Budget Highlights document shows several fiscal performance
indicators. When we look at net debt
as a percentage of GDP we see that it was much, much higher under Liberal
Administrations, approximately 60 per cent higher.
The net debt as a percentage of GDP was incredibly high until 2004 when
it started to decrease because of actions that we have taken, Mr. Speaker.
That
metric then dropped to about 25 per cent in 2009 and it is still, Mr. Speaker,
at 25 per cent. So it will increase
very slightly in the next couple of years due to low oil prices.
I hear members opposite shouting about oil.
It is still much lower than what it was in the past.
When you
look at debt expenses and percentage of gross revenue, you will see the same
thing. From 1995 to 2001, the
Liberal debt expense was 20 per cent to 25 per cent and higher.
Thanks to our wise financial planning the debt expense is now less than
15 per cent and is forecasted to continue to be less than 15 per cent.
Those are just a couple of metrics.
If I was not running out of time, I could give you more examples.
We can
also compare the borrowing of Liberals in previous Administrations to our fiscal
plans today. If you at page 6 of the
Budget highlights, Cumulative borrowing totalled $6.78 billion over the 1987-88
to 2003-04 period, averaging $399 million per year.
If that level of borrowing has continued, borrowing would have totalled
$4.4 billion over the 2004-05 to 2014-15 period.
However, in reality, borrowing over that time frame
was much lower
.
So what that means is that we fixed a lot of the issues that have haunted
us in the past.
I only
have a minute left so I want to talk about health care spending, which I assume
the folks opposite would categorize as wasteful as well.
It has been one of our top priorities and it has been one of the biggest
line items in the Budget. So maybe
this is the waste the Opposition is talking about, but I do not think the people
in Newfoundland and Labrador would call it waste.
There is nobody on this side of the House who would call it waste.
In a
Province of just over 500,000 people we have fifteen hospitals.
We have twenty-three community health centres.
We have 119 community clinics.
We have twenty-three long-term care facilities.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
We are going to build even more.
So which
of those facilities, which of those hospitals, which of those community health
centres, which of those clinics, which of those long-term care facilities do the
members opposite consider to be waste?
Because they are the same folks who will stand in this House day after
day and advocate that we should be spending more money and doing more and more
in all kinds of different areas.
Whether you are talking municipal infrastructure or education, or health or
whatever the case may be.
What is
irresponsible is the kind of suggestions that have been made here today that
some of these investments are wasteful.
That is not something I will stand for, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the minister his time has expired.
MR. KENT:
Members on this side of the
House will not stand for it either.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
Usually
I say I am happy to stand and speak in this debate, but I have to say I find the
motion that we are dealing with today an appalling waste of this House's time
when there are so many more important topics we could be debating.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
I also find it rather ironic
coming as it does from a party that has a history of mismanagement in this
Province. So they cannot talk about
this one over here. They are both in
the pot together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Just last week, the old
Holyrood rubber boot factory was demolished, sixty years after it closed.
In the 1950s the Liberal government spearheaded an industrialization
strategy which cost the people of this Province a fortune and failed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
This closing of the boot
factory really does seem the perfect metaphor for this afternoon's Liberal
private member's motion. While they
stand and try to score political points here today claiming they are better
managers of the Province's money, their long political legacies say otherwise,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL:
We are here today in a
private member's motion. A private
member's motion can be meaningful and accomplish things, like the day we stood
here when the Member for St. John's Centre brought the private member's motion
about the all-party committee on mental health.
The Committee was formed and is now working and they are going around and
hearing the people in this Province tell us what their concerns are.
That is the kind of thing we should be discussing, Mr. Speaker.
Resolutions on improved child care or resolutions on primary health care, let's
look at the size of all of those issues, but instead here we are today wasting
time on blatant partisanship, Mr. Speaker.
A little
over a year ago the NDP caucus presented a motion to raise the minimum wage.
We were able to talk about why minimum wage is important, able to talk
about how we take care of people who are working on poverty wages, Mr. Speaker.
That motion was a recommendation based on the government's own committee
reviewing minimum wage, a motion that could have helped many people in our
Province living in poverty and was rejected by both of these parties here in
this House.
Perhaps
the aforementioned boot factory, which made defective boots no one wanted, is
ancient history, but it is just one of a series of ill-thought-out Liberal
economic initiatives which cost the people of this Province dearly.
Then we
had the things they did together and mismanaged.
The Liberals started the linerboard mill in Stephenville and that was a
disaster of epic economic portions in the early 1970s.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
It was the Tories that
continued it, Mr. Speaker, the two of them together.
The Newfoundland governments, both of them, invested over $300 million,
including construction costs and erratic infusions of money; the financial
losses were abysmal. The project was
such a white elephant that Moody's, the credit rating agency, cited it as a
factor in Newfoundland's low credit rating at the time.
The
disastrous Upper Churchill contract, money lost in the signing and that was lost
by the Liberals and money lost since, all the money that the Tories have been
putting into trying to get out of the contract that the Liberals signed, so
mismanagement on both sides, Mr. Speaker.
I could
go on, but I do believe we are wasting time talking about this as they stand
here and try to show how each other mismanages.
They are posturing, trying to figure out who is the better manager.
They have the gall, and I have heard both sides say it, that they are
better on fiscal matters than the NDP.
Well they certainly have not proven they are better than anybody.
Given
the outrageous fiscal history of both of these parties, this would be funny if
it were not so galling and tragic to the people of this Province who have borne
the burden of this mismanagement. I
want to see it come to an end, but I do not see people in this House on either
side who are the ones to do that, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to sit down now because I think it is a waste of time and I am
not going to waste any more time.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MR. HEDDERSON:
I say, Mr. Speaker, I have to
pick up where the Leader of the Third Party left off.
Yesterday I got up too soon.
This time I am up too early again.
I say,
Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity for me to get on my feet today and speak
on a private member's motion brought forward by the member opposite, and to also
look at the opportunity to talk about the way we have fiscally managed this
Province. Really, I have been there
since 2003. I have seen the good,
the bad, and some ugly. There is no
doubt about that. I do not think
there is a government that has come through twelve years that cannot talk a
little bit about the ugly.
As we
talk about the Budget, it is all about balance.
It is all about trying to make sure that we are meeting the needs of the
people who put us here. I do not
think there is any doubt. I would
say on both sides of the House that is a basic principle which we all sit in
this House or stand in this House on.
This is about
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hedderson, weren't you NDP
(inaudible)?
MR. HEDDERSON:
What?
Oh my God, strike me dead that you would even suggest that I was orange,
I say to the member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
I do remember that you were
blue and turned red. I will say that
I chuckled today when the member sitting next to you for the Bay of Islands,
talked about someone crossing for this side of the House from the Liberal's side
when he is surrounded by turn colourers.
Basically three of them are surrounding him and he has the gall to look
over and point at one of ours.
I say,
Mr. Speaker, that I will
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON:
I digress, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize and I will not even pay attention to what is going on the
other side
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MR. HEDDERSON:
This is a very important
motion that I think we need to shoot down.
There is no doubt in my mind.
I do agree with the Leader of the Third Party that it is kind of a waste of
time. I do not like talking about a
waste of time in this House. Any
time a member gets up they have something to say, and I hope that it does add to
the debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Mr. Speaker, let me get on
with the debate. I follow from my
colleagues who certainly have made good stead today.
Newfoundland and Labrador as a Province has experienced a decade of
substantial growth. The decisions
this government is making right now are helping to protect that growth and to
lay a foundation for future continued growth.
I do
know that the Member for Bay of Islands had sort of a head calculator.
I kind of miss the former Member for CBS who had that large calculator.
If he were present here now I would ask him to start clicking off.
I think that if you are getting up in a debate you should have the
information that is necessary and stay away from the rhetoric and trying to
persuade people one way or the other.
I think we should present the facts of what we have done in this
substantial decade of growth.
Someone can add it up and tell me at the end what, in all that I have mentioned,
would they have not done. That is
the important part.
When you
talk about doing things, you have to look at what are the indicators that you
are doing good, bad, or very poorly, outcomes indicators.
Let me talk about some of the indicators.
After twelve years, really, of substantial growth, this Province boasts
the highest average weekly earnings in our history.
Our per-capita household incomes are third highest among the provinces.
Our retail sales in this Province are third amongst the provinces.
Per
capita investment in Newfoundland and Labrador is second highest among the
provinces behind only Alberta.
Capital investments have been particularly strong, almost tripling from $4.2
billion and listen to this number to over $12.2 billion capital investment.
The unemployment rate remains one of the lowest levels in forty years.
So if
that is mismanagement, what can I say?
It has brought us up to some of the top levels of indicators throughout
this great country of ours. These
significant indicators did not happen by chance or accident.
Our government made strategic decisions that allowed Newfoundland and
Labrador to prosper over the past decade, and yes, to become the envy of this
country on so many fronts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
However and I know I sound
like the Opposition now but we are not immune from the impacts of a global
decline in commodity prices, particularly oil and iron ore, I say to the Member
for Labrador West, but we do have a plan.
That is the key thing I think we need to get across to the people of this
Province. We do not have to plan for
a plan; we have a plan to weather the storm and return our Province to surplus
in 2021.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Mr. Speaker, if that is
fiscal mismanagement I will eat my hat, how is that?
We have
talked a little bit about infrastructure.
The infrastructure deficit in 2003 was no man's business no person's
business I should say because it was quite obvious.
We had no trouble whatsoever in that first year laying down an eight-year
infrastructure plan. The problem
that we had was what we were going to prioritize, because all of them were
priorities, our roads, our buildings, and this building itself, et cetera.
We
placed great significance on building infrastructure in this Province that we
believe will stand the test of time.
This building now, as the scaffolds come down, as the shroud comes down, we see
a building now that can weather the storms a little bit better than when it was
even first built.
When we
came into office we were faced with a real infrastructure deficit and had to
invest significantly to give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a solid, reliable
infrastructure that they needed. I
say, Mr. Speaker, we are still in progress.
What we have done over the last ten years, specifically, there is as much
to do in the next ten.
We have
a plan. We know where we need to go.
Infrastructure, if we go forward, will remain a priority as we try to get
beyond an infrastructure deficit.
Some of the roads that we did twelve years ago, guess what, they need to be done
again. That is just the nature of
all of this.
Mr.
Speaker, we place great significance on infrastructure.
Budget 2015, by the way, includes a $660.8 million infrastructure
program. Is that a bad budget?
Are we mismanaging it because we are still continuing to invest where we
need to invest? That investment, by
the way, not only gets the infrastructure but it also gives us employment.
A lot of Newfoundland companies and Labrador companies are involved in
that infrastructure and I must say they employ a lot of people.
Now from
2004 to this year and this is where I will ask someone to do the calculation.
From 2004 to right now we have invested $1.89 billion for road and
building construction, $1.27 billion for municipal infrastructure, $1.5 billion
for health care infrastructure, and $1.6 billion for education infrastructure.
I would ask anyone to go back over every individual project and tell me
again where we mismanaged, where we should not have tried to address that
infrastructure deficit.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON:
Six point two six, so just
make note of that because again that is a significant figure and in my mind that
was worth every penny.
Now, as
you know, education is one of my fortes; I certainly keep a close eye on
education. Even in this Budget,
which we are being condemned about, guess what?
Budget 2015 allocates $926 million for key initiatives, including $45.7
million for Caring our Future strategy, early childhood development; $10.5
million to continue implementation of full-day Kindergarten beginning in
September of 2016; and $95 million for K-2 school infrastructure projects
facts.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I challenge anyone to tell me could we have not done any of that?
Certainly we could not have done some of that, but would it interfere
with where we need to be? It
certainly would.
As well
since 2004, the provincial government has allocated more than $731 million for
key K-12 infrastructure to ensure students and teachers continue to enjoy safe
and healthy learning environment. We
have opened fourteen new schools, we have eleven more in stages, and
twenty-seven major extension and renovation projects completed, with thirteen
more underway. Almost 2,000 repairs
and maintenance projects have been approved again keeping up and trying to
make sure that we are investing wisely which we have.
We have
developed a multi-year educational infrastructure development plan which will
prepare so if you are looking for the future, this is here.
Of course we have outlined some of the places that we are going to be
going in order to continue to invest heavily in that infrastructure.
Budget
2015 includes $95 million for school infrastructure projects to support this
plan, including over $8.2 million for well there is a whole list of schools
there. I do not need to go through
them; you have heard them before.
Over $65.2 million for ongoing school construction projects, including the new
elementary school in Paradise, schools in Conception Bay South, Virginia Park,
Torbay, Portugal Cove-St. Phillips, Coley's Point, Gander, and the Waterford
Valley High School in St. John's.
The west end high school is back just imagine.
I was
there back in, I think, it was 1999 when they were in fighting the school board,
to keep that open, to keep a high school in the west end.
It was closed and finally twelve years later we are going to get a west
end high school. Was that money
wisely invested? Absolutely.
I would even look up on the shore, the Witless Bay one that is there, a
new school, and badly needed and what, we, as a government saw as a priority.
Per
pupil investment for K-12 has increased from 7,400 in 2003 to 13,000.
Of course, should we give up on the school fees?
We eliminated standard school fees.
That is an investment of $56 million.
We have extended the provision of free textbooks.
That is $21 million. We have
invested $538 million that is about 62 per cent of the entire K-12 education
budget in 2014 for teacher salaries.
We go on and we go on.
My time
is winding down. I think it is
important that we do present, as a government, where we have invested our money.
Someone once said that no good deed goes unpunished.
Of course, that applies to governments as well.
For all that we have accomplished, there is still a lot more that we need
to do. That will continue.
I had
the privilege of serving in Transportation and Works.
The investments over time in that particular area of bridges and roads
have just been tremendous. I also
had the privilege of christening the Grace
Sparkes and the Hazel McIsaac, two
boats that were built here in Newfoundland and Labrador that are serving the
islands very, very well. Of course,
I am looking forward to the arrival of the
MV Veteran for the Fogo Island-Change Islands and the
Legionnarie for the Bell Island
service.
Mr.
Speaker, again, significant investments that have been a long time coming.
I might add, I guess through the 1990s I can remember, what a mistake the
previous government made by not putting in a second
Flanders.
It was on the books and ready to go, but they came in and they cancelled
it. That new
Flanders would have been a tremendous
asset. They had just built the
Flanders one.
There was one that was ready to go, but in austerity and that sort of
thing they looked at it and said no, we will not do it.
Their answer to it was to bring in older boats.
Of course we know what Hull 100
or whatever, what that was. Mr.
Speaker, it is very, very important.
Mr.
Speaker, with one minute and twenty-six seconds left I have to tell you that
there are lots of outcomes and indicators.
I can go on and on about how we have tried as best we can to make sure
that the money that is our responsibility as the governing party does respond to
the needs of the people. I did not
get into some of the other areas that we invested in.
Pay
equity, an issue that was held over from the 1980s, most of the members would
understand that. We as a government
were able to take that off the books and repay some of the grief that was put on
government employees by inequitable pay.
As well, the pension plans for our public service, the $2 billion that we
invested, had we not I can only imagine where we would be today.
As well,
the deals that we have made; would anyone want to draw back that 22.5 per cent
that was given to the public service and the other additional, I think, 4 per
cent that has been of late, almost 16 per cent?
That is why we as a government believe that we did hit the mark on making
sure that we not only took care of the money, but we did it for the right
reasons.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. member his
time has expired.
MR. HEDDERSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
behalf of the people of L'Anse au Clair I am going to stand and use my time to
talk about some of the wastage of this government, some of the mismanagement,
and how we feel about that. Mr.
Speaker, before I start I could hardly believe my ears, what I heard coming out
of the co-leader of the NDP. I could
hardly believe my ears. She wondered
why we would stand here today and we would want to talk about wastage and mess.
Mr.
Speaker, we have an obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This government would lead the people to believe that there are only two
options to getting out of this mess that they have us in: tax and borrow.
Reducing waste is one of the ways to get our Province's finances under
control reducing waste. That is
why, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very important that we remind people of what this
government have done, of some of the very bad choices that have led us to the
mess that we are into today.
When I
was listening to the co-leader of the NDP, I thought about the PMR that we put
forward, one of the ways that we could save money in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador by not paying the parliamentary secretaries; I think
it is a savings of around $185,000 a year.
They did not support it, but day after day they stood and asked for the
family violence court to be reinstated, which we supported as well.
That was one way to get the money back, one of the ways that we could
save.
Mr.
Speaker, several members opposite today talked about policy, how we have no
policy. What I want to say to them
is that any time we identified a policy we did have, they have seen that it was
a good idea and they have gone and implemented it.
If they want to see the rest of the policy that we have, drop the writ
and let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador decide who they have confidence
in.
Because
what I have been hearing since the Budget came down on April 29 is that after
twelve years they can talk about the Liberals and the previous
Administrations, but the facts speak for themselves.
No other government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador have ever
had the money at their disposal that this government have had: $25 billion in
oil.
Now the
minister the other day tried to correct that and say it was $18 billion.
Well, I say to the minister, it was $19 billion and it was $5 billion in
Atlantic Accord, so you are very close to $25 billion, much closer than you are
to $18 billion. I want to go on
record, but I do not know maybe he got some help from the Finance Minister in
adding up his figures there, Mr. Speaker.
What we
are dealing with here is a government that in twelve years have had $25 billion
in oil, we are facing the biggest deficit that we have ever had in the Province,
and now after twelve years they are saying stick with us; we have a plan stick
with us for five more years; we have a plan.
I want
to say that when I travel the Province the people see through that.
Mr. Speaker, I have to mention before I get too much into it, when I was
back in my district on the weekend I overheard a conversation between a father
and a daughter. Neither one of them
are connected with any political party.
I did not think that they followed politics or anything very much, but it
stuck with me as I travelled back.
I heard
the father I guess thinking out loud say it is unreal, the taxes, the hikes,
and the fee increases now that the average person is going to have to pay for to
help get this Province out of the mess.
The young girl said: Dad, I guess that is why the low-income people in
this Province are always stuck on the bottom.
Just
imagine, that is what a young girl, a student said.
She said: Dad, I guess that is why the low-income people in this Province
are always stuck on the bottom.
Because you have a government that mismanaged millions we have heard it here
today; I am not going to repeat the amounts billions and billions and then
they want to reach deep into the pockets of the average and the low-income
people.
I am
going to talk a little bit about that but on the flight I do not know if it
was that same trip home I opened up The
Telegram and I thought that one of the writers at
The Telegram had done a very good job chronicling the cost and what
it is going to mean every other day to the average person, and I want to
highlight some of that. She talked
about people having to keep their heat down now and feel cold because of the 8
per cent increase that is going to go back on their power bills, an 8 per cent
increase back on the power bills come July.
She talked about the Residential Energy Rebate that would be eliminated,
a $200 bill last year, and $216 bill this year.
Mr.
Speaker, those numbers add up. She
talked about the pool increase fees.
My colleague for Conception Bay South referenced that in questions earlier this
week. We are doing everything we can
to promote healthy living, yet we are increasing fees in areas where we are
trying to encourage people to get out and to live active lifestyles.
The
Minister of Health got up today and talked about what they are doing in the
Department of Health, Mr. Speaker.
We held a roundtable on health in August, 2013 and we brought everybody together
from long-term care operators, private ambulance, at the table.
They said no one had talked to them no one.
The interesting thing that came out of that, Mr. Speaker, at the end of
the day two large groups in that room, nobody asked for extra money but they
wanted to have more say in how to spend smarter.
If the
Minister of Health thinks everything is under control, I want to flag to his
attention something in my district, in Forteau fifteen beds: one palliative
care, one respite, thirteen beds.
Mr. Speaker, there is a very long wait-list.
Every single day I hear from families who want to bring their dad closer
to home so they can visit, want to bring their mom home.
In half
of my district, from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay, we have eighty people over the
age of eighty, and we have thirteen beds.
We cannot afford to put the infrastructure there that we need because we
have seen billions and billions in wastage.
That is the reality. That is
the price that people are paying when you have mismanaged finances, Mr. Speaker.
It is very, very sad.
Back to
the fee increases. We see
registration gone $20; and 30 per cent on a senior's licence now for moose
hunting. We are back to health
again. We are talking about healthy
choices and a diet is a part of that.
We all know that if you can go out and you can kill a moose, or you can
live off the land, like my colleague here for Torngat likes to do, it is a
healthier lifestyle.
Yet the
fees are going up right across the board, everything from camping right down to
your milkshake at the end of the day.
Do you know what happened? We
have seen good times. Over the last
ten, twelve years there has been a lot of money flowing, but it has been very,
very seriously mismanaged. Now what
is this government trying to do? Tax
us to prosperity. Tax us, everything
that you can possibly imagine. Mr.
Speaker, 261 fee hikes is what they are trying to do.
Mr.
Speaker, I went through a list of some of the wastage.
I looked at the former Premier Dunderdale when she brazenly appointed a
former deputy minister to a six-figure job in a newly created office.
No accountability, no transparency.
Do you know why? Because we
were living under a big black cloak called Bill 29.
Despite
all of the debate in the House around Bill 29, despite everybody talking about
the ruthless draconian piece of legislation, despite it having national
attention, they went right on and plowed through and they brought in Bill 29.
There has been nothing but cartloads of toner going up in the elevators
ever since, Mr. Speaker. It was
right around the time they were sanctioning Muskrat Falls.
I can
hardly mention it, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls, because it turns my stomach too
bad. The reality of Muskrat Falls, I
am living with it. It is in my eyes
front and centre every single day.
The Joint Review Panel and the PUB, the only two groups that were going to do an
independent review, they did not even get time to do that.
We see that this project has ballooned into, what, $8 billion, $9
billion, $10 billion? Nobody seems
to be concerned about that, Mr. Speaker.
You know what is amazing, when I stand and I speak for the people of
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and when I talk about the people of Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair who cannot get jobs, who are qualified; this is a hard-working
people. They are not asking for
anything to be given to them.
Yet the
few people who we did get into Muskrat I am going to tell you how messed up it
is there, and my colleague for Torngat will attest to this.
The people who do get in there say they cannot work.
I said, what do you mean you cannot work?
Cannot work; they are telling us to slow down, slow down, do not work.
This
winter mostly what they did, because we are dealing with the elements in
Labrador, is they spent most of their time shovelling.
They went through 23,000 litres of fuel a day to keep the place heated in
the dead of winter. The project is
plowing on through and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, Mr. Speaker,
are going to pay for it. That is one
of the examples of wastage. That
project could have been better managed but it was not.
We see
vacant buildings, Mr. Speaker, all around the Province.
I do not know if the co-leader of the NDP was referencing schools
scheduled for demolition that we are still paying heat and light on, if she
believes that is not wastage. This
is not politics we are playing here.
It is very, very important to highlight this.
It is important for the people of the Province to understand the wastage
that has occurred here. It is
important that lessons be learned here.
Yes, we
cannot always be looking back. I
love the quote that says there is a reason why our windshield is bigger than our
rear-view mirror. Mr. Speaker, we
have to look back and we have to learn valuable lessons from the past.
The
moose warning system; over and over again still lives are being lost.
It is a failed system, Mr. Speaker.
Parliamentary Secretaries back in the early winter months we heard much
about Judy Manning, an unelected minister.
Was there nobody over there who was competent enough to fill that
position, that the Premier had to step outside and bring someone in?
We saw all the headaches and the havoc that it wreaked.
Then I
would be remiss if I stood here today and did not mention Humber Valley Paving.
Mr. Speaker, $19 million released in bid bonds.
We hear much about mechanics' liens.
The day that I was kicked out of the House for telling the truth
because that is what happened. I got
kicked out of the House for telling the truth. I
stood for what I believed in. I
stood by the people. I stood by the
businesses.
Do you
know that I had a number of businesses contact me?
One of them made a very good point.
One of them said you talk about mechanics' lien and thirty days to put in
a lien. When your main bread and
butter in a community historically does not pay you in less than a sixty to
ninety-day period, why are you going to put in a mechanics' lien in thirty days?
When you normally have your money in sixty to ninety, why are you going
to do that and put it in?
So these
people were left holding the bag because decisions were made that were wrong.
We know from the report the Auditor General did that he did not find
sufficient information that satisfied him, that answered his questions, Mr.
Speaker. Bill 29; I did not mention
when I was up the $1 million that it cost when Marshall ordered a review,
finally, after a lot of public outcry.
My time
is almost out. I did not even get to
mention in my district the millions and the billions that we talked about here
today, Mr. Speaker, in wastage and how far that would go.
I represent a part of the Province where the cost of travel is
astronomical. My colleague here, for
him to get to Goose Bay, to Nain, and back is almost $1,000.
Guess
what happened, because of this government's blatant, mismanagement of finances,
now they are going to hike landing fee costs.
For me to get on a plane in Charlottetown for forty minutes and go to St.
Anthony it costs me almost $500.
People cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker.
I have
communities, Mr. Speaker, like Black Tickle where men are going out in small
boats into ice trying to get to a neighbouring community to get to the boat to
start fishing this summer because they cannot book a flight to get out of the
community. There are 150 people in
that town and you cannot pick up the phone and make reservations to travel out.
Then they wonder why we raise the issues of where we live.
They talk about equality. It
is not equality, it is inequality.
Sometimes I really think these people believe their own spin.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS DEMPSTER:
I believe the people of the
Province are going to have the final say come election day.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
always a pleasure to get up and speak in this House and represent the wonderful
District of Exploits like all our members do.
We always like to mention our districts of course.
We are
accused of being part of a government that overspent.
Yes, I think we did. We
overspent on necessities, that is the thing.
Who knew what was going to happen with the oil?
If the people want to go back to the former Liberal Administration and
she talks about the former Administrations of other parties.
She
wants to go back to when there was no money, when they had the big Read and
Succeed program going. At the same
time they were closing down schools because they amalgamated the schools.
I do not know what they did with the money that they saved, and of
course, not to mention all the money that was spent on wine and Waterford
Crystal.
That was
when we had no money and depended on the feds to get some money because we were
not a have Province. They do not
want to hear that though. They do
not want to hear it. Well, you know
what; I will not talk about it anymore.
I will give it up for the very simple reason that I want to talk about
what we have done, the money we have spent, why we did it, the reason we did it,
and why it was necessary, Mr. Speaker.
I know I
do not have a lot of time this evening, but I just want to try to stick to one
topic, a topic that is near and dear to me and near and dear to all the members
here in this House I am sure it is all the members on this side anyway for
sure. There are two things actually,
our Poverty Reduction Strategy, what we do for seniors, and how we respect our
seniors.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember back a few years ago when we brought in two things actually.
We brought in the Continuum of Care for foster families and we introduced
a Poverty Reduction Strategy in this Province that was rated second to none in
the country. As a matter of fact,
there was a person from this Province who went on to teach as a professor at
MacEwan University in Alberta. I
just happen to know that person.
When we
were highlighting our Poverty Reduction Strategy, when we were redoing our
foster care and our Continuum of Care, she called me actually.
She said is there a way that somebody, a minister from your government,
can come up here and talk to the students here in this university?
That is how well known it was.
It was widespread.
Do you
know why? I am going to give you
some of the reasons why. This has to
be part of the wastage that they are saying was part well actually part of the
wastage, yes, but I am saying that I am glad we spent it and all the members on
this side are.
Mr.
Speaker, when I am dealing with facts and numbers, I usually like to refer to a
sheet because it gives me the right information; however, our Affordable Housing
Agreement, the latest $68 million investment in Affordable Housing Agreement for
2014-2019 will provide $27 million over the next five years to create 500 more
new affordable housing units. I do
not think that is a waste. I think
the people out there really appreciate that we are doing this.
I do not think they are going to say, well, we do not want this.
You are throwing your money away, you are wasting your money.
The
remaining $41 million will help fund the Provincial Home Repair Program.
About 86 per cent of people assisted under the Provincial Home Repair
Program are seniors with low incomes; 86 per cent of the people assisted under
the Provincial Home Repair Program are seniors with low incomes.
In fact,
through the Affordable Housing Program, 632 housing units have been constructed
or renovated specifically for seniors since 2006.
At least one in every ten units built under the program is fully
accessible. In addition, it is
important to note that in 2011 the corporation made universal design a mandatory
requirement on all affordable housing program funded projects.
The
Provincial Home Repair Program provided $6.4 million last year through the
Provincial Home Repair Program to help about 1,700 clients.
I am glad I was part of that.
In fact, in the past eight years 18,622 grants were provided to low-income
homeowners to make needed repairs to their homes; and, get this, about 86 per
cent of people helped under this program are low-income seniors.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Sure we can applaud ourselves
for that. Sure we can, because they
appreciate it. I get calls all the
time, and they are telling me: Clayton, this is a great program, you have to
keep going with it.
We have
the Rent Supplement Program, the Residential Energy Efficiency Program,
Partnered Managed Housing Program.
Mr. Speaker, we have a Provincial Advisory Council on Seniors and Aging.
We have the Low Income Seniors' tax Benefit, and the Newfoundland and
Labrador Prescription Drug Program.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
It being
4:45 o'clock, I call on the hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East
to close debate.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the
purpose of this debate was to bring some attention to the waste that is
happening within government and how we can work to reducing some of that waste.
It is also about talking about processes that we can have in place in
this House to bring about the reduction of waste and what we should be doing
with government to examine expenditure and how we spend monies.
I think it is a very important discussion to have, Mr. Speaker.
It can become a very political discussion if you want it to be, but it is
also an important discussion to have in a serious way about what are the
provisions we have in place to look after finances.
Mr.
Speaker, it is important to look at, how did we arrive in the situation we are
today? If we were to listen to the
people on the other side, they would have us believe they were merely bystanders
in this whole situation. They were
just there and it happened to them.
They had no control, no role in what happened or how it came about.
We have
to look a little deeper than that, Mr. Speaker, because I think if we look at
the way the finances of this Province have been managed in the last twelve years
we look at things like the Public Accounts Committee and what has happened to
the Public Accounts Committee in this Province over the last twelve years.
There was one point in the twelve years where the Public Accounts
Committee of this House was not even operational.
They did not meet for I believe it was about two years the Public
Accounts Committee did not meet.
The only
thing that really kick-started the Public Accounts Committee again was when the
Green report came out and pointed out that there is something wrong when you do
not have a functioning Public Accounts Committee in the House.
It is an important topic to look at.
It is also important to look at the reasons of why we are where we are
now and what provisions could be put in place to prevent that.
We
recently talked about the new freedom of information legislation.
I am just going to take a couple of seconds to say how that relates to
this whole issue of reducing waste, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the whole idea of freedom of information is that people have a right to
the same access that members of government have access to.
If the taxpayers have paid for a consultant's report, then they have a
right to have access to that report and get the same information that the
government members have. That was
not the case in this Province for a long time.
It was
interesting to listen to the Member for Bay of Islands when he spoke in that
debate just a couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, to explain that in some cases the
Premier of the Province did not even have access to the information that was
vital to making an important decision about cancer treatment in this Province,
on the West Coast of the Province in particular.
The provisions we have in this House and the provisions we have in
government to contain waste are important.
When they fall into disrepair, it has consequences.
Mr.
Speaker, freedom of information, it may seem a different topic, but really it is
related. If we do not have freedom
of information, we do not have an informed debate about how we are going to
spend money, how we should be spending money, and where the waste exists.
These are related topics and things that I wanted to connect.
Mr.
Speaker, there is more evidence of the lack of cost controls this government has
had in previous years. The Member
for Trinity Bay de Verde recently talked about the $45 million in business
loans that were written off by this government.
The Member for Bay of Islands outlined $380 million of expenditures that
were not being accounted for, I guess in a lot of cases wastage.
The
Member for Virginia Waters recently talked about the efforts this government is
making to collect a relatively small amount of money from seniors in this
Province. Sometimes it is not just
about collecting the money, because they are going to spend almost as much money
collecting this money as they are going to draw in.
Sometimes it is a matter of common sense in terms of whether you collect
money from seniors who are seventy, eighty, ninety years old.
Sometimes it is a matter of common sense, Mr. Speaker.
So those are some examples of waste and there have been other issues
that have come up here as well.
Mr.
Speaker, the other part of containing waste and making prudent expenditures is
making wise expenditures. Many
people have talked about strengthening health care in this Province, but we have
to look at health in a broader sense.
Rather than just health care, we have to look at health and wellness.
Those are some things that we have to look at.
In terms
of post-secondary education and the way we spend money on post-secondary
education, all the evidence is in, for anyone who wants to see it, that
investment in post-secondary education and early childhood education are good
investments for society. Places that
are doing well economically now are places that invested in education years ago,
and continue to invest in education.
So,
being able to have the money to make those wise investments, Mr. Speaker, and to
choose the right priorities is a very important part of what we should be doing
in this Province. It is something
that we have not always done.
There is
an old saying: you can be penny wise and pound foolish.
Sometimes you can save a few pennies by not investing now, but the
consequences later on are disastrous.
So I think those are some things that we should take into account as
well.
Mr.
Speaker, an example of this might be full-day Kindergarten.
That was a Liberal initiative that we put forward.
The government took that initiative, and I guess we are sort of happy
that they took that policy, because it is going to be good for the Province.
Also in
the Budget they talk about developing this Generations Fund.
They just threw out the idea of a Generations Fund.
There are very few details, and there has not been any discussion on how
this is actually going to take place, or what form it is going to take.
How is
the money going to be saved? What
are going to be the restrictions on taking the money out?
In Norway they have restrictions where you can only take the interest out
each year. How is the money in this
fund going to be invested? Is it
going to be invested in Newfoundland, or is it going to have to be invested in
other jurisdictions? In Norway they
have a restriction that most of the money has to be invested in things outside
the Province. So these are sort of
ideas that have been kicking around, but we really have not had a sufficient
debate on this.
I just
want to say I am very disappointed that the NDP does not think it is important
to talk about waste in this Province very disappointed but I guess it is
consistent with their overall approach.
The same as the members opposite, they think they can tax their way out
of problems like this. They can just
continue to tax people. They do not
have to worry about things.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
They do not have to worry
about things; that is their policy.
Tax, Mr. Speaker, that is their plan.
Well, I
think we have pretty well exhausted the debate on this topic for today.
I think it is an important topic, but I will sit down and take my place
and adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is the
House ready for the vote?
Shall
the resolution carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The resolution is defeated.
On
motion, resolution defeated.
MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday and the business of the House concluded, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.