June 2,
2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 38
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I'm
speaking today to a ruling that I had promised to bring to the House either
yesterday or today. Yesterday the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development rose in the House on a point of order and possible point of
privilege with respect to remarks tweeted from this Chamber by the Member for
Mount Pearl North.
The
minister stated that the Member had tweeted a reference to, and I quote, the
absence of Members of the House of Assembly during the course of our
proceedings. I have reviewed the tweets of the Member and, in fact, the Member
originated a comment while the House was sitting. This message referred to a
minister's absence for a vote.
O'Brien
and Bosc states at page 614: Allusions to the presence or absence of a Member
or Minister in the Chamber are unacceptable. Further on Chapter 4 of O'Brien
and Bosc: The Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the
absence of another Member from the House because 'there are many places that
Members have to be in order to carry out all of the obligations that go with
their office.'
At this
time, I wish to raise the issue of the rapidly changing area of social media use
and its application to this House. Social media use is rapidly evolving. Twitter
alone has increased dramatically since the decision of Speaker Wiseman in 2012,
which was referred to by the minister.
There
appears to be a move among Canadian and other commonwealth legislatures toward
the view that tweeting by Members from the Chamber during a sitting is not
considered to be a statement made during proceedings. There are exceptions to
this, as aspirations on the Speaker made through social media would, in fact, be
subject to discipline.
For
further reading on this, I would refer Members to an article by Joanne McNair
entitled, The Implications of Social Media for Parliamentary Privilege and
Procedure. This can be found in the
Canadian Parliamentary Review, volume 37, No. 4, in 2014.
However,
just because a comment is tweeted or retweeted by a Member does not mean that
the comment is not offensive. I remind Members that they are not only bound by
the Standing Orders and precedents of this House and of other parliaments, but
are also bound by their Code of Conduct. In particular, clause 1 of our code
states, Members shall inform themselves of and shall conduct themselves in
accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of
Assembly, the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Members' Resources and
Allowances Rules, the Elections Act, 1991, the House of Assembly Act and
this Code of Conduct and shall ensure that their conduct does not bring the
integrity of their office or the House of Assembly into disrepute.
Clause 4
states, in part,
there will be occasions on which Members will find it
necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the
public interest and to enhance public confidence and trust.
Members
are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with higher standards of
ethical practice while holding public office. I call on all Members to respect
the integrity of the office they hold and not violate the principles and intent
of our rules and precedents, even if not violating the actual provisions. As
indicated, we must be held to a higher standard.
There is
no prima facie breach of privilege here, and while I could rule today that the
statements made are out of order, it is more appropriate that I address the
issue of our Standing Orders. Our Standing Orders are very old and were meant to
address parliamentary behaviour and conduct of business in this House at a time
when social media was not even contemplated. It is my hope that the Standing
Orders Committee will commence consideration of the Standing Orders and our
practices after the House rises this spring.
Social
media can present a great challenge to procedures followed in this House, so I
ask that foremost amongst the Committee's considerations should be the use of
social media by Members of the House as it pertains to the proceedings of the
House in order to ensure that our existing parliamentary practices and
conventions adapt to social media use.
In the
meantime, I ask and expect that all Members conduct themselves with integrity
that befits their office. As was stated by the United Kingdom House of Commons
Committee on Procedure and referred to in the before mentioned
Canadian Parliamentary Review article,
freedom of speech in parliament places a corresponding duty upon every member to
use that freedom responsibly, and social media should not be used as a means to
circumvent existing Standing Orders and parliamentary conventions.
I will
say in conclusion that the issue raised provides us with a great opportunity,
and I embrace the challenge to deal with the issues of social media as we update
our Standing Orders.
Today, I
welcome to the public gallery, Crystal Hill, representing Branch 1 of the Legion
who is the subject of a Member's statement today.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements we
have the Members for the Districts of St. George's Humber, St. John's Centre,
Baie Verte Green Bay, Exploits and Conception Bay South.
The hon.
the Member for St. George's Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
past weekend I attended the annual review of the naval cadets in St. George's
and I was very impressed with their displays and demonstrations. I have also
been invited to other cadet reviews in Codroy Valley and Pasadena, but
regrettably was unable to attend because of duties in this House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, cadets take part in many important community activities and services,
while learning leaderships skills and participating in good citizenship. I would
like to commend the youth who have made the decision to become involved in the
cadets. It is a very important decision which will enhance their opportunities
for success in life.
I would
also commend the parents and other family members who have supported them in
their involvement in cadets. It is fitting to recognize the valuable role which
volunteers play in making cadets such a success. Without their involvement many
of these activities would not be possible.
In
conclusion, I ask all Members to join with me in recognizing and supporting the
important role that the cadet movement plays in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Royal Canadian Legion and Provincial Command's 46th Dominion Convention is just
around the corner. I am especially proud to acknowledge that our community
Branch 1 will also be: Looking back to see ahead.
Our
Legions provide crucial support and resources to our veterans and those
currently serving our country in ways that are very direct and deeply caring.
The folks at Branch 1 do home visits, advocacy and provide other means of
supports to our veterans.
President John Grenning, his trustees and executive can be proud of what they
make possible. These volunteers are so committed. They have done an incredible
job building and providing community through dances, dinners, bingos, darts and
special events.
They
host a seniors night twice a month, helping overcome isolation and loneliness.
The Ladies Auxiliary led by the extraordinary Pat Harding, roll up their
sleeves, don aprons and blue hairnets and bravely prepare what can only be
described as culinary magic for our veterans and other members.
I
sincerely encourage everyone to attend their convention events, including dinner
theatre provided by Vera Perlin Players and a barbeque featuring the St. Pat's
Dancers.
Congratulations and bravo to the Branch 1 community.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Baie Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize an exciting event I will be attending this
weekend in my district. The Baie Verte Area Chamber of Commerce will be hosting
its 29th annual Mining Conference on June 3 and 4.
Mining
has long been one of the economic mainstays of the Baie Verte Peninsula, with
mining activity stretching back to the 1850s.
The
well-established junior mining company Rambler Mining and Metals employs 150
people, Mr. Speaker, in the Baie Verte area. As well, the newer Anaconda gold
mine at Point Rousse on the peninsula has been providing well-paying jobs to
residents of my district.
The
Anaconda mine produces 16,000 ounces of gold per year, and company CEO Dustin
Angelo wants to double that output in the next handful of years. The project
currently employs between 85 and 90 people, and it's a real example of economic
diversification in action.
The
conference this weekend will feature an industry update on activity on the
peninsula, and a presentation of some technical papers. It is sure to be an
exciting opportunity to rub shoulders with key industry players and discuss ways
this dynamic industry can further benefit this region and the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize the achievements of David Nichols, a
resident of Grand Falls-Windsor who was just awarded the CY Hoskins Memorial
Award of Merit.
Dave
began his career in 1980 as the complex manager for sporting facilities in
Windsor. He stayed on in that capacity for 11 years, until Windsor amalgamated
with its neighbour Grand Falls in 1991. At that time, Dave took over as the
Director of Parks and Recreation for the newly amalgamated town.
Over the
years, he organized many provincial and national events such as the Newfoundland
and Labrador Winter Games, the Salmon Festival, national softball tournaments
and more.
He
oversaw many upgrades to the facilities in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, to
the present day inventory of 13 fields, six community facilities, six
playgrounds, six parks, four memorial parks, three rest parks, a dog park, a
splash pad and others.
Dave has
volunteered his time on many boards and committees, and has provided
recreational programs and activities to children of all ages.
I ask
all Members to join with me in thanking Dave Nichols for his service, and
congratulating him on his recent award.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on May 10, I had the opportunity to attend and present both Bronze and
Silver Duke of Edinburgh Awards to 28 deserving young women and men at Frank
Roberts Junior High in Foxtrap.
To
qualify for an award, participants much undertake a balanced program of
leisure-time activities and meet the prescribed standards in four different area
of self-development, including community service, adventurous journeys, physical
fitness and skill development.
This
group has been involved in many challenging and worthwhile activities under the
direction of committed volunteer leaders. In speaking with participants
individually, they tell stories of personal growth and commitment as they
embarked on the various challenges and opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to congratulate the Silver recipients: Ryan
Letto, Mitchell Fagan, Alexa Johnson and Jacinda Porter.
Bronze
recipients: Krista Greeley, Luke Strickland, Alexandra Gamble, Nathan Lake,
Lauren Payne, Leah Pomeroy, Mackenzie Searle, Kelsey Smith, Chelsea Bolt, Emma
Jacobs, Sarah Fagan, Katie Currie, Madison Tarrant, Alexandra Benson, Samantha
Bursey, Sara Burry, Chelsie Cake, Matthew Broders, Kristina LeDrew, Miguel
Santos, Kaitlyn Day, Jenna Scott, Karley Morgan and Olivia Cave.
This is
quite an accomplishment and I wish them well in their silver and gold metal
pursuit.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration of the
First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today for Honour
100, we have the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I
will now read into the record the following 40 names of those who have lost
their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal
Newfoundland Naval Reserve, the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine or the
Newfoundland Forestry Corps. This will be followed by a moment of silence.
Lest we forget: Augustus Taylor, Charles F. Taylor, Eric
Francis Taylor, Eugene Fred Taylor, George Taylor, George Hayward Taylor,
Hedley Taylor, Herbert
Taylor, Richard H. Taylor, Selby Taylor, William Bartlett Taylor, Joseph
Teixeisa, Donald Templeman, Francis Thistle, Frederick Gordon Thomas, H. Gordon
Thomas, Walter Thomas, Max Thompson, James Elliot Thomson, James H. Thorne,
Joseph Thorne, Walter Lewis Thorne, Edward J. Tibbet, Henry Tibbo, James Joseph
Tibbo, Edward Tilley, Henry Tilley, Lawrence Tilly, Melvin Titford, Gordon
Tizzard, Andrew Tobin, James J. Tobin, John Thomas Tobin, Patrick Francis Tobin,
Augustus Toms, Ernest Toope, Jose De La Cruz Torres, George Toumishey, Heber
Trask, Thomas Joseph Truscott.
(Moment
of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working to combat the forest
fires in Alberta.
Our
government is proud to respond to the needs of residents in Fort McMurray
through the deployment of 11 forest firefighters from the Forestry and Agrifoods
Agency. Also deployed are two government employees who are working as members of
Incident Management Teams in Red Lake, Ontario, and Horse River, Alberta.
Mr.
Speaker, the forest firefighters arrived in Alberta this past weekend and were
assigned to an area approximately 40 kilometres outside Fort McMurray. This is a
very high-priority duty as they help make Fort McMurray safe for residents to
return.
These
deployments are made under the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, Mutual
Aid Resource Sharing Agreement, which enables provinces to share firefighting
resources.
Four
provincial government employees deployed to Alberta and Winnipeg earlier this
month recently returned home. Thirty-one members of the local RCMP who spent a
few weeks in Fort McMurray to help rebuilding efforts in the community have also
returned.
Mr.
Speaker, we will continue to help our friends and family in Fort McMurray in any
way we can.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. We, too,
would like to thank and recognize the firefighters and staff from this province
who travelled across the country to assist our friends in Alberta. I'd also like
to take this opportunity to thank the local RCMP officers who recently returned
home from their time helping the effort in Fort McMurray.
Any time
there is an opportunity to help our neighbours, people in Newfoundland and
Labrador are among the first to put up their hands, and that is something we
should all be very proud of. Moreover, the ties between the people and provinces
in this country are incredibly strong. This is certainly evident when a tragedy
such as this strikes.
I think
we would all agree we are truly blessed to live in such a wonderful, caring and
connected country. In closing, I commend all those involved in rebuilding Fort
McMurray.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement. The devastation of
the wildfire and the reality of what Fort McMurray is experiencing have touched
all our hearts. There really are no words to say thank you adequately to our
amazing firefighters, other government employees and the volunteers who work in
dangerous situations to help others, especially in this current situation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to
recognize over 340 firefighters and emergency management practitioners who are
participating in the Fire and Emergency Services Training School in Grand
Falls-Windsor. It began May 28 and ends tomorrow, June 3.
Prevention, fire suppression techniques and emergency management planning are
critical to the safety and well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That
is why Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and Labrador coordinates a
large-scale provincial Fire and Emergency Services Training School at no cost to
firefighters and emergency management practitioners. The training includes
courses and seminars on topics ranging from basic emergency management to fire
protection.
This
year, the Grand Falls-Winsor Fire Department was selected to host and they have
been an outstanding partner, ensuring the success of the Fire and Emergency
Services Training School.
Mr.
Speaker, emergency responders are our first line of defence when dangerous
situations impact our communities. Proper training is important for the personal
safety of emergency responders as they work to ensure the safety of the
residents. I commend these individuals on taking time from their schedules to
ensure they are able to protect the residents that they serve.
I ask my
colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing the leadership of those
individuals, as well as the staff at Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland
and Labrador for coordinating another successful Fire and Emergency Services
Training School. It's a tremendous effort that has not gone unnoticed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement this afternoon. We join with
government in recognizing the tremendous women and men involved in our
province's fire services. Training is paramount in the area of fire protection,
and I'm glad to see government continue to provide appropriate opportunities for
individuals to best equip themselves. Prevention, fire suppression techniques
and emergency management planning are, as the minister said, critical to the
safety and well-being of everyone in our province.
I'd also
like to thank the very capable instructors and trainers that provide the vital
service to our front-line responders. You are to be commended. Your efforts and
dedication don't go unnoticed.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Well done to all the
participants in the training school. We all appreciate the value of the training
they are receiving.
I say to
the minister I would be interested in seeing a gender breakdown of participants
in this event, and I again remind the minister that cutting $400,000 from the
department's fire suppression and communications budget could seriously impede
or make more difficult the work of our wonderful emergency responders.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in December 2008, the United Nations passed a resolution to recognize
June 8 as World Oceans Day. On this day, each year, we celebrate the ocean, its
importance in our lives and how we can protect it.
World
Oceans Day events are held around the globe to create awareness about the
critical role that oceans play in people's lives. This Saturday, June 4, Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to be participating in World Oceans Day at the Marine
Institute. This is a free event that takes place from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and
includes exhibits, demonstrations and activities for the entire family.
In
Newfoundland and Labrador, the ocean and the opportunities it provides have
always been at the heart of our economy and our culture. The coastline and the
ocean are intrinsically linked to our history, culture, recreational enjoyment
and prosperity, and we will continue to rely on the resources from our waters
for generations to come.
World
Oceans Day is a perfect opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to
reflect on what the ocean means to us and how we can help protect it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the
Official Opposition, we too recognize June 8 as World Oceans Day and encourage
participation in World Oceans Day celebrations this Saturday at the Marine
Institute.
Mr.
Speaker, our ocean has long-lasting traditions and connections to this province,
in our fishery as a method of transportation, and recreation use. As
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we have great respect for our ocean and we
understand the economic growth it puts to our province, but we also understand
the dangers and the many lives that have been lost on our oceans. So no one can
respect the oceans more than Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. This year's theme is
Healthy Oceans, Healthy Planet. I'm glad the minister mentioned that we must
reflect on what the ocean means and how we can help protect it. That's why we're
concerned about things like oil spills and making sure aquaculture is monitored
properly.
So I
encourage everyone to take advantage of this wonderful event at the Marine
Institute and drop in on Saturday, as the minister invited all of us.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: At the conclusion of the April 19 meeting
that you attended with Mr. Martin, what agreement was reached with Mr. Martin?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question.
At the
end of the meeting it was understood that Mr. Martin would be stepping down the
next day, and that we would work in the morning on the communications on such
and that he would be making that announcement in the late morning.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So,
minister: Are you saying that it was your understanding that at the conclusion
of the April 19 meeting that Mr. Martin would be tendering his resignation? Is
that what you're saying?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, thank you again
for the question.
At the
end of the meeting on April 19 it was determined that Mr. Martin would be
stepping down, that he would make the necessary arrangements in the morning.
That we would be doing some media around this issue, that we would be letting
him we would go first, he would go second. That was what was discussed at the
end of the meeting.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
Minister of Natural Resources continues and maintains that Mr. Martin
voluntarily resigned, and that was her understanding from the April 19 meeting.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: What does Mr. Martin's executive employment
agreement say about voluntary resignation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, as we discussed
yesterday, and as I'll continue to say, the contract with Mr. Martin was with
the board of directors. The board of directors signed that agreement or renewed
that agreement in 2009.
It
clearly rested with the board of directors. The former chair of the board of
directors has indicated that it rested with the board; therefore, it was the
board's responsibility for his contract.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
the minister had perused and familiarized herself with the document, so I'd hope
she would be able to share that information.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: When you stood next to the Premier on April
20 and you listened to the Premier as he told the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador that Mr. Martin had voluntarily resigned, were you confident that that
information was accurate?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say
it again, that the contract rests with the board of directors. That is without
dispute. It was signed by the board of directors. The chair of the board of
directors said in that morning's email that he was responsible; the board was
responsible for the contract.
When I
stood next to the Premier on the morning of April 20, Mr. Martin was indicating
and I can read back, as I did a couple of days ago, his statements to the
media. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is I can repeat what Mr. Martin said to the
media that morning. The contract rests with the board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
the minister received an email early that morning through her government email.
I'll ask
her again: Were you confident that the information the Premier was sharing with
the province was accurate?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm confident
that Mr. Martin, when he made his public statements following the Premier's
public statements were, in his words, that he had stepped down, that he was
looking toward his family, that he would be available to the corporation should
it be needed, as I read into the record the other day and he's on the record
now. So I know that Mr. Martin, in his public comments, actually went further
than the Premier did that morning.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: When did you learn that Mr. Martin was fired,
terminated without cause?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
indicated yesterday, and as the Premier has indicated for the last couple of
weeks, we were notified of the board's decision on the morning late morning,
while we were actually still doing media late morning that he was terminated
without cause. That was the board's decision. That was as it was and, therefore,
no further indication.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I take
it she's confirming it was on late morning of April 20, I believe is the date
the minister is indicating.
I will
ask the Minister of Natural Resources this: What does Mr. Martin's executive
employment agreement say about terminations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Martin's employment agreement rests with the board of Nalcor. The board signed
that agreement. The board is responsible for that agreement. The board is
available to discuss that agreement, but it rests with the board of Nalcor.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Just to
confirm, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday she had
read the contract. Is that true, you are familiar with the contract, with the
details of it? So you do know what it says.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said
yesterday, in the course of my duties on March 3, I did ask the former chair of
the board of Nalcor if he would provide a copy of the contract. He provided me a
hard copy on or about March 4. I did peruse the contract.
Again,
the contract is with the board of directors of Nalcor. I filed it, as was
required, so I had a copy for the use of the department.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, Minister, we've heard
you say that, but that wasn't the question.
I will
ask the minister: Are you claiming that Mr. Martin wished to resign, but the
Nalcor board of directors did not accept it and fired him instead? Is that what
you're saying?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can't
accept words being put in my mouth, so I won't accept that.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say the board made their deliberations. The board had
information. The board made their deliberations and the board made their
decisions. That is the board of director's responsibility as they are
responsible for the contract.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly don't intend to put words in the minister's mouth, but we're trying to
help her along because it's very difficult and challenging to get answers from
the minister.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: Faced with the obvious contradiction that you
knew existed on April 20, did you immediately contact the chair of the board of
Nalcor to ask why he refused to accept Mr. Martin's voluntary resignation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, again, I will
say, I did not attend the meeting of the board of directors. I was not invited
to the meeting of the board of directors. I do not know the content of the
discussions with the board of directors, nor do I know the content of the
discussion between Mr. Martin and the board of directors. Therefore, I cannot
comment.
We did
receive the email, as has been discussed over the last couple of weeks, and it
was a decision of the board and it was accepted as same.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So just
to be clear, and I'm going to try and help the minister out, and I apologize if
she thinks I'm putting words in her mouth, but I'm trying to help her out here
to get this information because the people of the province want to know.
So to be
clear, on 20th of April, upon learning that the board of directors for Nalcor
had fired the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Martin, of the largest Crown
corporation in the province, the minister responsible didn't bother to inquire
why. Is that correct, Madam Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
accept the hon. Member's apology for trying to put words in my mouth. Let me be
clear again, Mr. Speaker, the contract for the CEO of Nalcor Energy rests with
the board of directors. It was made with the board of directors; they are
responsible for his contract. They signed the contract in 2009.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to say that in the early morning email, it again says by
the former chair of the board that the responsibility rests with the board of
directors. I'm not quite sure where the confusion lies.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister is responsible for natural resources; she is responsible for Nalcor.
Her mandate letter specifically indicates and directs her to be responsible for
Nalcor.
Again to
be clear, Minister, on the 20th of April, upon learning that the board of
directors who reports to the government, you as the minister fired the CEO
of Nalcor, the largest Crown corporation, the minister responsible didn't bother
to inquire why. Is that correct minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you
know, because I've indicated multiple times, the board of directors are
responsible for the contract of Mr. Martin. They did send an email in the
morning reiterating that they are responsible for the contract of Mr. Martin.
They also sent an email while we were in the press that day actually, Mr.
Speaker, at 11:25 a.m. indicating that this was a termination without cause.
The decision came through as that. We did not question that decision. It is a
decision of the board of Nalcor Energy.
The only
time we did not see the severance agreement. We did not review the severance
agreement. We did not receive the severance agreement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,
as I'm saying to you right now, the decision was made by the board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'll ask the minister this: When did you become aware of the financial
consequences of the decision that had been made?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
have said in this House, the final settlement agreement because we had never
seen it, we had never been party to it, we had not received it we understood
on May 5, and received a copy of that settlement agreement.
Mr.
Speaker, that's when we learned of the extent and remember, this was a
contract that was held by the board of that contract. That's when we became
aware of that contract and that's when we started to take action, because what
the settlement agreement said was that government directed that. Mr. Speaker, we
did not direct the board of directors on that issue.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister sat at meetings on April 17 and again on April 19. She received emails
and had correspondence back and forth with the board on the 20th.
So I'll
ask the minister this: How could you sit at a news conference on April 21 and
listen to the Premier speak once again and say that the CEO had resigned when
you knew it was wrong? How could you sit there, Minister, and not do anything?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Allow me
once again to review this. On April 17, the former president and CEO of Nalcor
Energy, Mr. Martin, requested a meeting. We attended that meeting. We listened
to what he had to say. There was a follow-up meeting. We've gone through the
contents, pretty much, of that meeting.
On the
19th, at the end of that meeting, he was stepping down. We agreed that we would
announce that the next morning. We had an email at 8:55 a.m. from the former CEO
of Nalcor Energy saying that they were responsible for the contract. We went
before the cameras at 11 a.m. and the people of this province at 11 a.m., to
tell the story that Mr. Martin was stepping down. At 11:45 Mr. Martin said he
stepping down. He went on to describe it even further.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the minister laying it all out again, but my question is about the
news conference on the 21st, the very next day, when she clearly knew there was
a contradiction in existence; yet, the Premier sat next to her and told the
people of the province that Mr. Martin had resigned.
Minister, you knew the difference, why didn't you take some steps to correct the
information, the wrong information that the Premier was providing to the people
of the province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe the Member opposite is referring to the press conference where we
announced the new CEO, Mr. Marshall, and we're very pleased to have Mr. Marshall
there riding some of the challenges that we're having with Muskrat Falls.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an $8 billion-plus project. We're very concerned about the cost
and the schedule of that project. We're working very hard to find out how we can
right that project.
Again,
all I can reiterate is that Mr. Martin himself indicated at 11:45 that he was
stepping down. He went on to say why he was stepping down; family, he was proud
of his work with Nalcor. Mr. Speaker, we have to take him at his word.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We also
know that the minister was quite aware on April 21 when she sat with the Premier
and she knew different. She knew that Mr. Martin was being terminated without
cause. They knew that. They knew that it happened on April 20.
I'll ask
the Premier: Why did it take three weeks before you or anyone in your government
took any action on this matter?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
minister has clearly outlined many times in this House of Assembly, and so have
I, is that the contract with the former CEO was clearly a contract that was with
Nalcor. As a matter of fact, it was reiterated in the email early in the morning
that the former chair of Nalcor made it quite clear that was a contract that
they felt they were responsible for.
As a
matter of fact, just on March 22, given the events of what happened on April 2,
they were going to deal with the when you look at the email, they were going
to deal with the outgoing bonuses. Even then back on March 22, when I sent the
letter asking them to reconsider this option, they quite clearly said that this
was information this was a decision that would be made by the board. So the
contract with the outgoing CEO was clearly a contract made with the board of
Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In an
April 20 email released late yesterday afternoon by government, it indicated
that the former chair, Mr. Ken Marshall, confirmed that in the April 19 meeting
an agreement was reached and that the board would be meeting to discuss the
employment contract obligations. That's what the email said.
I ask
the Premier: Did you reach out to Mr. Ken Marshall to discuss this as you
indicated you would in your response to the email?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Marshall, the outgoing CEO and I had a conversation. It was a phone call. On
that call we discussed three or four things; one of which was the fact that they
were going to resign en masse.
The
second thing they were going to discuss was what I just referred to a few
minutes ago, which was about the bonuses that would be paid to the senior
executives at Nalcor. I asked them to reconsider this in light of where the
province was where we are with the finances of this province. I asked them to
reconsider that option. They made it quite clear that they were going to they
would be doing that; thirdly, was the departure of the former CEO of Nalcor.
These were the things that were discussed in that phone call.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
Mr. Ken Marshall's April 20th email of 11:25 a.m. stated that the board of
directors took pause to advise the Premier and Minister of Natural Resources on
their action and pending action.
So I'll
ask the Premier this: Did you reply to this email, and what did you do as a
result of receiving this very significant information?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
that email made it very clear that the board had already made the decision based
on the meeting that they had with, I imagine, the outgoing CEO, Mr. Martin. At
that point, they had terminated without cause the former CEO. The pending action
would have been to put in place a settlement agreement, and this agreement right
here, Mr. Speaker, was not a discussion that we've ever had with this board.
The
board, during their governance model, that they held the contract and they had
made a decision to terminate without cause the former CEO. The pending action
would have been to put in place a settlement agreement. This settlement
agreement was never approved, never discussed. The first I saw of this
settlement agreement was on May 5, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'll ask the Premier: On April 20, did you reach out to Mr. Ken Marshall to
discuss the board of directors' pending action?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
pending action of the board, I did not reach out to because the action of the
board they had made their decision. They were going to quit then. Keep in mind
that this was the board, they were going to make this decision, then they were
going to quit.
The
pending action of the board was indeed this settlement agreement. They had made
it quite clear on many occasions that they held this contract. It was a
contract, by the way, that gave that board the authority by the former
administration. That is the contract that they had put in place giving the board
of Nalcor the authority to act with their CEO. That was the decision that they
had made quite some time ago.
So the
board then went on and put in place this settlement agreement with Mr. Marshall,
outlining what has been a very significant package worth some $6 million. This
is not a decision that we were part of. The board did not ask us to approve
that. They did not ask us to authorize that. The first we saw it was on May 5,
then we took action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
actually what the email says is that they were taking pause from the meeting to
advise of action and pending action of this morning. The rest of the email goes
on to reflect what took place on April 19.
So I'll
ask the Premier: Why didn't you pick up the phone and ask questions about the
contract obligations? Why didn't you simply pick up the phone and talk to the
chair of the board to find out what was happening?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
this was a meeting, according to media reports this week, that started at 11
a.m., dealt with a number of options; and if I remind the former premier here,
we were in the media, so it is very tough to pick up a phone call and say oh, by
the way, can I take pause from the media interview that we are doing. They had
made the decision sometime between 11 o'clock and 11:25 a.m. The meeting started
keep in mind that the former chair of Nalcor said the meeting convened at 11
a.m. that morning and between that and 11:30 a.m., they had made the decision to
terminate without cause.
We were
down doing media at that time. Right after that, the former CEO came in and did
his interviews with the media. Mr. Speaker, there was no opportunity there to
reach out to that board. They had made their decision.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
ask the Premier this: On April 20, did you know the financial obligations of
what the board were doing?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Absolutely not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, Premier, why didn't you
do your job and pick up the phone to find out this very important information?
It was a simple thing to do. You, your staff, one of your ministers they
already knew what was in the contract. The Minister of Natural Resources knew
what was in the contract. The Minister of Finance knew what was in the contract.
Why
didn't you or somebody say to you pick up the phone and find out what's going
on, what is this decision they are making and what's the consequences?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On the
day of April 20 when the decision by the former and outgoing board of Nalcor,
there was no direction sought from us they got their information from the
outgoing CEO and there was no direction, no requirement. They had made it quite
clear that the contract was their contract to execute.
They had
made the decision to do what they did. We found out the details on that on May
5, Mr. Speaker. As I said there was media being done at 11 a.m. At no point were
we even asked, where we even considered, authorized, to get involved with the
settlement agreement with the outgoing board of Nalcor. They had made that
decision and when doing that they then quit.
We were
left with a situation on April 20 without a CEO and without a board because they
made those decisions and then quit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say to the Premier, it is your responsibility as Premier. You are responsible
for millions of dollars that were being discussed and by noon on April 20, you
knew exactly that was taking place.
I will
ask the Premier: Why didn't you take the time and make the effort to get the
details about a severance package that was critical, of critical importance it
was not consistent with what you had said publically. It was different than what
you had said publicly. Why didn't you pick up the phone and do the job that
people elected you to do?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, at
about 12 o'clock on April 20 what I was faced with, what the minister was faced
with and, indeed, what this province was faced with was Nalcor, a Crown agency
of this government without a CEO, without a board of directors. One of the
largest projects in this country today without leadership from a board, without
leadership from a CEO.
My job
was to do whatever I could to make sure we had leadership in place with Nalcor,
and that's what we immediately turned our attention to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We also
know from the emails released late yesterday afternoon by the government that
the Premier and his ministers were quite aware. They were quite aware that the
board was discussing a mass resignation. He talks about the importance to have
people in play. Why didn't you pick up the phone and call the chair? Why didn't
you pick up the phone and call the board and say, what's happening? We need to
discuss this. We need to maintain control.
Why
didn't you do your job, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, if
you read the emails there, the decision of the board was they had made their
decision. They were going to execute on the contract, which they were entitled
to do, and then they were going to quit, I say, Mr. Speaker.
That was
a decision of the board. At that point, our attention was turned to getting
control at Nalcor, getting some leadership in place at Nalcor. That was my
primary attention right there.
We have
a major Crown agency that's spending millions and millions of dollars a day, Mr.
Speaker, that's what's at play here. My priority then was to make sure that we
do whatever we could to secure the Crown agency of Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition for a very quick question.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll ask
the Premier this, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are asking
this and they want the Premier to answer: Were you not being honest with the
people of the province or were you being incompetent?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
can tell you right now, what I turned my attention to was with the information
that I had and I can guarantee you, I did not have this information of the
settlement agreement. So being competent, when we found out what this settlement
agreement was all about on May 5, what we did was take swift action.
We wrote
a letter. The letter was wrote to the board of Nalcor letting them know that
this was not something that was directed by us, this was not something that was
authorized by us. This was done by the outgoing board of Nalcor. Before they
quit, they made this decision.
My job
was to actually get in place a new CEO and get in place a new board of
directors. Mr. Speaker, an interim board of directors to get the Crown agency
back under control, and we were able to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
email dated April 20, 2016, at 11:25 a.m. to the Premier from Nalcor Chair, Ken
Marshall, states clearly that severance would be paid to outgoing Nalcor CEO Ed
Martin. I draw the attention of the House to the key phrase: as per your meeting
with the CEO on April 19, 2016.
I ask
the Premier: How can he reconcile the contents of this email with his continuing
evasion in this House as to when he became aware that severance would be paid to
Mr. Martin?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you
look at the email of April 20 and the 11:25 a.m. email, what it does not outline
there is anything that is at all remotely close to what this settlement
agreement looks like. The board had made their decision by then. The settlement
agreement then was something that they put in place. We became aware of that
as I said so many times in this House, we became aware of that on May 5. It was
not something that we were part of, it is not something that we authorized.
When we
got the settlement agreement, and included in that it says we were almost a
party to this. We wanted to clarify, and we did that by writing the board of
Nalcor. We were not party to this agreement, I say, Mr. Speaker. It was not
something that we authorized. It is not something that we were part of. As a
matter of fact, we made that known by reaching out to the board early May,
subsequent to receiving this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, surely the
Premier understood the significance of that email.
If he
felt at the time that it misrepresented the situation in any way, I ask him:
What steps did he immediately take to put those concerns on the record?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The step
we took was writing the board of Nalcor back in early May when we became aware
of what happened. My understanding, the only person the outgoing board of Nalcor
spoke to about the events that happened with the meeting with Mr. Martin and
with the minister and with the chief of staff was Mr. Martin himself.
The
board did not reach out to us in any way; yet, it was the board that actually
signed the email of 11:25 a.m. The board had never reached out to me, to the
minister, or to any of our staff related to this. They did not reach out and did
not ask us to sign, authorize, or have any say at all in this settlement
agreement. This is something they did. They held the right to execute on that
contract, and that is something they did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
important work of the province has been sidelined by a crisis of public
confidence in the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources as a result of
their mishandling of this whole matter.
I ask
the Premier: Will he do the right thing and resign?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
the Leader of the Third Party mentioned about the ongoing work and the important
work that's ongoing in our province right now. There is no doubt we have a major
project up there that's costing millions and millions of dollars. We have things
around our province right now that we need. We need to be taking action on many,
many things to bring improvements to our province. We need to get this project
under control. We are spending, as a province, millions and millions of dollars
on this project.
By the
way, Mr. Speaker, no, I will not resign.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Natural Resources, who is responsible for Nalcor, the province's largest Crown
corporation, has shown no evidence that the minister did anything about Mr.
Martin's huge severance package until May 10, nearly three weeks after he left.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: Will she do the right thing and resign?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I find that
question quite offensive actually. We've worked very, very hard to right the
challenges that we have in Muskrat Falls. This is an $8 billion project that EY
has said not a month ago that really the information that was given to the
people of this province in September of last year was not reasonable.
We now
are working very, very hard to get the cost and schedule. We have a serious
problem with Muskrat Falls in general in terms of that cost. Mr. Speaker, I'm
going to continue to work as hard as I have been and trust me, I've been very
hard to make sure that project is on time and is on the best of schedule we
possibly can get it.
Mr.
Marshall is working hard, the new board of directors are working and we'll all
continue to work hard. This is very important to the people of the province, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time
for Question Period has expired.
It's
come to my attention that there are two guests of the Member for Terra Nova in
the gallery, Jonathan Rowe and Jesse Avery.
Welcome
to our galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Schools
Act, 1997, Bill 38.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to
give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Income And Employment Support Act And The Student Financial Assistance Act,
Bill 37.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety and the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Judicature Act, Bill 39.
Further,
pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House do not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 6.
Further,
pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House do not adjourn on
Monday, June 6, at 10 p.m.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing a higher
tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS
surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as currently
demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles, and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Well, as
we know, Mr. Speaker, since people signed this petition, government did make
some cosmetic changes to the levy. They themselves have now passed their
Budget 2016, one of the most stringent austerity budgets ever brought down in
this country, let alone not just in this province.
They
continue to talk about this levy as if it is something that is fair and
equitable. Once again, I raise the issue of, if government requires revenue from
the people in this province, one of the most important ways in which to do that
is through the income tax system. We have an income tax system that can become
much, much fairer and equitable than what currently exists.
I say to
this government, as I've said before when standing in this House, why not
improve our income tax system as this petition asks, do a review of our income
tax schedule, make it more equitable, make sure that those who earn more money
pay appreciably more than those who do not.
This
government has talked about the levy being temporary. Well, I hope that the
temporary levy is going to be gotten rid of extremely quickly and that this
government show its understanding of what true fair taxation means. They talk
about bringing down another budget in the fall. Well, I want to see in that
budget in the fall not more austerity, not more cuts, not more decisions that
are going to destroy individuals in this province as well as the economy of this
province, but I want them to show that they really have listened to the
petitioners that we've been representing there in the House, to the thousands of
people who've been turning up in demonstrations, and that the fall will see a
change in the direction they've started.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune need to have access to adequate health
care; and
WHEREAS
the local clinics in rural areas are the main source of medical assistance for
our people; and
WHEREAS
the government has reduced funding and closed the Hermitage clinics and
downgraded services;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the services to health care in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a very sad, sad day in Hermitage today as their clinic doors are
closing. They have been without a doctor for quite some time now, actually. They
have been receiving a visit from a nurse practitioner for two days a week, and
although a severely compromised service, it has been working well for them, and
at least alleviating the seniors from having the burden and expense of trying to
find a way to get to Harbour Breton, which is 45 minutes each way, for something
as simple as bloodwork and something as complex as concern about having a stroke
or sugars dropping, or any kind of physical ailment, Madam Speaker, that would
require them to visit the doctor.
We
certainly implore that the Minister of Health take it upon himself to encourage
Central Health to revisit the decision they have made with respect to downsizing
of services. We truly hope that this government revisits its approach overall,
because it really seems to be attacking rural Newfoundland and Labrador, pulling
services from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Health care and education are two
areas in particular, Madam Speaker, where the people all across this province
are equally deserving of adequate health care. Measures such as these certainly
downgrade our health and make it very worrisome to live in rural Newfoundland
and Labrador.
The
other issue that we're experiencing is reduced visitation to our islands and
reduced chopper services another grave concern. We had a very serious
incident, actually, in Franηois just two days ago. The chopper they called was
in Gander, and they called another one over on the West Coast, Pasadena, neither
of whom could get there because of the weather. The chopper in Conne River had
to be called, and that chopper is on the chopping block by the Liberal
government. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador deserves better.
Thank
you very much.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the
Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam
I'm glad
to rise today with this petition and present it to the House.
To the
hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
changes to bus routes will impact the start-up time of Goulds Elementary; and
WHEREAS
these changes were put in place with no consultation from school councils or
parents;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately instruct the English School
District to reverse the decision regarding busing and start times for this
school.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Madam
Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with a concerned parents group
from the region of the Goulds and down through Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove with
children in the Goulds Elementary, and also discussions with parents related to
junior high and the high school in the Goulds region. At that time, certainly
very significant concerns in regard to the changes to busing and what it's going
to mean to the delivery of services to school children for the region and our
youth.
Actually, the petition I have here has somewhere in the range of probably 400 to
500 signatures. They're from people from all over the region outlining the
concerns they have. Those concerns are quite significant, ranging from
everything for having very young children up much earlier in the morning in
terms of daylight and darkness, when they're getting to bus stops, safety of
children at that time in the morning, especially the younger children, those
definitely from K to 6 and what challenges there are in regard to them and being
on that road earlier in the morning; certainly changes and possible changes to
courtesy busing. Some kids now can avail of that right now, but if we're talking
about less buses, that's a challenge. The frustration of the parents is they
can't get any clarity on exactly what that is and what it's going to mean as we
look to the fall and some of the huge challenges that they have.
Daycare,
after-school programs now in the Goulds are now available. Achieva is available.
You look at the numbers, in terms of cost and extra costs that's going to be on
parents because of that. Right now some of the high school kids will take care
of siblings as they get out. With the change, that won't be possible. That
service won't be there.
Then
you've got to look at I had a call from a single mom. The arrangement now
works well. What she needs to look at now is possibly getting access to
additional daycare because there's no one to care for her child. What had
happened with the current schedule that was allowed.
Another
individual had a high school student that cared for their actual child right now
after school, but right now that's all extra cost. What's happening is that
extra cost has been downloaded to parents and families. While they're suggesting
they're saving over $2 million, all the cost, or a lot of it, is being
downloaded to families and parents.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
This is a concern. We
certainly call on the Minister of Education to step in and deal with this.
Thank
you.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax placing a higher
tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS
surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently
demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Madam
Speaker, it's very interesting now when we see what government has done with the
levy. What this petition calls for is the elimination of the levy and to not do
things piecemeal; but, as a matter of fact, to do a thorough examination of our
taxation system to make it progressive, to make it fair, to make it workable.
This is
not about unfairly taxing someone who's rich. It's not about that. It's about
how do we use our resources to the best we possibly can for the betterment of
all the people of the province.
In fact,
what's happened now is that government has somewhat responded to the activism of
the people of the province. Government has somewhat listened, only partially
listened, to what people have been pushing for. People have been pushing for the
elimination of the levy again and looking for an evaluation, a total reworking
of our taxation system.
What
government has done is they're doing taxation now on the fly. They've cancelled
it, except for earners of $50,000 and up. It's kind of a knee-jerk reaction.
Again, what was asked for was a comprehensive approach. That is where this
budget falls short.
In fact,
government should be a stabilizing factor right now in this economic crisis that
we face. They should be able to help us weather the storm. In fact, Madam
Speaker, what has happened is this government has de-stabilized the economy.
They are creating further unemployment which will only make the financial crisis
we are facing even that much more difficult.
We can
see that we have a shrinking population. Government hasn't addressed that. They
have done nothing for population growth strategy. They're doing nothing to bring
in more people to the province. In fact, what they have done
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member her time for speaking has expired.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I look
forward to standing again to speak to this.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the current 2016 budget impacts adversely and directly the education programs at
Beachy Cove Elementary in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's; and
WHEREAS
parents request a delay in the implementation of full-day kindergarten at our
school until at such time
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
the
new five to nine middle school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's will be open; and
WHEREAS
the student population at Beachy Cove Elementary is growing exponentially and
this growth is sustainable into the future; and
WHEREAS
parents request the reinstatement of the previous teacher allocation formula for
Beachy Cove Elementary for this year and subsequent years to service the growth
in enrolment and be able to provide all students with equal opportunity to enrol
in the French immersion program;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the previous teacher allocations and
delay the implementation of full-day kindergarten in order to provide the
children of Beachy Cove Elementary the right to a quality education.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Madam
Speaker, yesterday we had a very intensive debate around the impact of
implementing all-day kindergarten and particularly, the impact it would have on
programs and services.
Beachy
Cove Elementary is one of those schools that are directly going to be impacted
by implementing all-day kindergarten and the adverse effect that will have on
other programs and services. While it's been echoed by the parents organization,
the administration that all-day kindergarten is a positive process and one that
will be very beneficial, right now the impact it's going to have is negative to
the students down there.
We had a
discussion around some of the other impacts. One of the questions that has to be
answered somewhere along the way is because Portugal Cove-St. Philip's is a
growing community and it's very engaging. The amenities are growing. So it's
engaging more families to move there from all over this country, from all over
the world but particularly, various parts of Newfoundland and Labrador as they
move into the Northeast Avalon.
One of
the questions, for those students who are already enrolled or will be enrolled
next year in an Intensive Core program, because our Intensive Core program for
French is going to be at its cap, because we've had double the amount of
students who wanted to do the program and through a lottery had to be picked,
for those who would make it and those who wouldn't make it. If we have students
who, halfway through the year, transfer into that school, what happens then
who have been doing Intensive Core French in another school here in the city or
Northeast Avalon, or anywhere in this province. All of a sudden, now, is there a
decision made? Do we now have a lottery where we either kick two out, or the
ones who have been halfway through a program, tell them they have to change to
another program?
So the
thought process here, from discussions I had last night with parents not only in
my own district, but also in other districts I know I had some inquiries from
residents and parents in the Mount Pearl area. So this is another quandary, it's
another example of how there's been no planning here, there's been no
explanation of how things should work and how we move this forward.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I wanted outline again while there have been some discussion yet,
they're still imploring people here to make the right decisions
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
and change the all-day
kindergarten process.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move to
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities
In The Province, Bill 34, and I further move that the said bill be now read a
first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial
Facilities In The Province, Bill 34, and that the said bill be now read a first
time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill
34?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to introduce a bill, An
Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities In The
Province, carried. (Bill 34)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Regulate
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities In The Province. (Bill 34)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Education, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 36, and I further move that the
said bill be now a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 36, and
that the said bill shall now be a read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill
36?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General to
introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, carried.
(Bill 36)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Victims Of Crime Services Act. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco
Control Act, Bill 35. I further move that the said bill be now the first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded by the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services that she
shall have leave introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Smoke-free
Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco Control Act, Bill 35, and that the said
bill be now read the first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill
35 and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development to introduce a
bill, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco
Control Act, carried. (Bill 35)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 and The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3,
second reading of Bill 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Government House Leader, that Bill 23, the Revenue Administration Act No.
6, be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6, be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No.
6. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an
honour to stand in the House of Assembly today to speak on this important piece
of legislation. During our consultation process, input from Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians clearly pointed to the option of increasing taxes and fees as a way
to address the unprecedented fiscal situation we were faced with.
The plan
we have put forward as part of Budget 2016
to address the fiscal challenges in the short-, medium- and long-term that is
why we are implementing tax measures to assist with the recovery from our
current fiscal difficulties. Effective today, gasoline tax will temporarily
increase. That tax increase will be reviewed ahead of the fall 2016 supplemental
budget.
Our
government has committed to support the economic and social development of
Labrador and its residents, and to ensure that the unique perspectives of this
region are considered when making government decisions and delivering provincial
government programs and services. That is why effective June 2 there is a
reduction of gas tax of 10 cents per litre provided for gasoline required at
retail sale and used in motor vehicles in the Labrador border zones. This
applies to Labrador West, which includes Lab City and Wabush, the South Coast of
Labrador from the border of the Province of Quebec to and including the
community of Red Bay.
The
purpose of this program is to ensure that gas prices in Labrador remain
competitive with the prices in Quebec. By partially alleviating gas taxes in the
border zones the price of gas will be comparable to both those jurisdictions.
This should remove any price incentive for cross-border shopping and impact on
local retailers.
Wholesalers will collect the reduced tax rate of 23 cents per litre at the time
of the sale of gasoline to retailers in the Labrador border zone areas. This
will reduce regulatory burden on retailers by eliminating the need to apply to
the Department of Finance for a rebate of the tax paid. This will also minimize
cash flow issues that may have arisen from requiring retailers to pay the full
amount and then applying for the rebate afterwards.
Consumers will pay the reduced rate at the pump and the reduced rate will be
factored into the PUB's setting of the maximum pump price for gasoline in those
areas.
As a
government, we have a responsibility to ensure that there is a plan in place to
address the unprecedented fiscal challenges that our province is facing. As our
Premier has said, knee-jerk reactions have created mistakes that unfortunately
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying for now. As has been said in this
House many times, in this fiscal year, debt expenses already exceed the
estimates for the entire Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development. It is impossible for us to be satisfied that we will spend more on
debt expenses than we do on educating our children, Mr. Speaker.
Through
the work of the Premier in his role as Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal
Affairs, our government will continue to work collaboratively with the residents
of Labrador to ensure our programs and our services reflect their needs as we
move through our fiscal plan.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly pleased to rise and have a few words to Bill 23, as the minister said,
An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. It is directly tied to budget
implementation, with reference to the Labrador border zones gas tax rebate,
specifically dealing with that issue.
The bill
itself in terms of an amendment to the legislation specifically looks at the tax
reduction as I said for the Labrador border zones. Basically what the
legislation says:
where a person acquires gasoline, other than diesel fuel,
at a retail sale in the town of Labrador City, the town of Wabush or south coast
Labrador extending from the border with the province of Quebec to and including
the community of Red Bay, in respect of the consumption or use of the gasoline
in those areas, it goes on to say the tax payable to the Crown at the time
of the sale under paragraph 51(1)(e) shall be reduced by $0.10 per litre.
As we do
this this is a modification, obviously, to the current legislation and looks
at the reduction in the tax rate, and look at expanding the area to which the
reduction applies. I just outlined specifically the provision in the act,
section 52, in regard to the area that would apply to.
This
increase would be effective June 2, 2016, the same as the 16.5 cent increase
right across the board that was announced in this budget relating to an increase
in gas. We're certainly hearing and seeing today in regard to the implications
of that and what it means.
In
regard to this specific bill, some communities in Labrador are close to the
Quebec border an increase in gas tax increases the risk that residents may cross
the border to purchase gasoline. The bill will reduce the gasoline tax in these
areas near the border by about 10 cents a litre. The rebate, I think the
minister talked about, will be calculated at the point of sale.
Areas
included: Labrador West, Labrador City and Wabush, Southern Labrador from the
Quebec border to and including, as I mentioned in the actual bill, the community
of Red Bay. This is significant in regard to assisting with the cost. Certainly
from the point of recognition of that, from time to time we need to look at
various services, delivery of services and programs related to various areas of
the province. Oftentimes we amend or introduce legislation to reflect that based
on the particulars of a various region or various parts of our great province.
So it's
always good to acknowledge that and work collectively in regard to public policy
that identifies any shortfalls. The whole gasoline issue, fuel is significant in
this budget than what it was; certainly recognizing in this particular case what
it's meant to do.
Right
now I understand in Labrador I think in Nain today gasoline is about $1.53 a
litre, so that's significant. As I said, some of the changes made in this budget
in regard to overall gas tax policy are significant for the people of the
province.
I'm glad
to rise and have a few words in regard to this particular bill. I look forward
to hon. Members in the House expressing their understanding of the bill and what
the intent is.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to rise today and have a few words on this bill, Bill 23, which allows for a 10
cent rebate on each litre of gasoline sold in the border towns of Labrador City
and Wabush, and certainly the Labrador Straits.
Mr.
Speaker, nobody wants to see any increase in gasoline, or any other tax that's
applied to any commodity, but the situation we find ourselves in with the
budget, it gives us very little options. One that was chosen in preparing this
budget was the gasoline tax.
I will
say just a couple words on the Labrador West area. As most of you, I would
think, are aware, we are about 27 kilometres from the community of Fermont,
Quebec, which is also a mining town like Labrador City and Wabush. There is a
lot of back and forth between the towns with regard to transactions and sales
transactions for whatever commodity or whatever people want to go for. I guess
governments over the years have recognized that and they've imposed a rebate on
tobacco, for instance it's the one that comes to mind to allow the stores in
Labrador City and Wabush to be competitive with those in Fermont, Quebec where
tobacco taxes are lower.
If we
went ahead and did the full 16.5 cents added to the gas in Labrador West, it
would put those businesses at a very big disadvantage. It would really price
them out of the gasoline market because people would go across the border into
Fermont and purchase, not only gas. Once they're there they are going to
purchase other goods and services that the people in businesses in Labrador West
would offer.
I need
not remind anybody in this House of the economic climate that exists within
Labrador West today. While certainly the iron ore company is at full production,
nevertheless, the iron ore industry remains very unstable and very volatile, and
prices are up and down. As everybody knows in this House, we have lost a
significant employer in Labrador West with the Wabush mines closing in 2014.
We need
not remind anybody that businesses are struggling. It's difficult times. People
are not spending. People don't have the disposable income they had when both
mines were operating and there was some stability and certainly some assurance
in the region that they would continue to operate.
That is
not the case today with the iron ore market the way it is. So we have to ensure
that businesses in the Labrador West region remain competitive and that we
discourage as much cross-border shopping as we possibly can. I'm hopeful, with
this 10 cents that it would put the businesses on a level playing field and they
would remain competitive within the region.
As I
said before, we don't want to see any increases in any tax whatsoever, but the
fact that this government has recognized the need to allow businesses in the
border areas to remain competitive is reassuring and something that I'm pleased
with. I'm sure the people of Labrador City, Wabush and the Labrador Straits
appreciate that. As I said, it's an increase nonetheless, but it's not the
increase that most people are experiencing today.
I just
wanted to have a few words on this just to assure the residents of Labrador City
and Wabush that we will continue to monitor the price of gas in Fermont, Quebec
versus Labrador City and Wabush. We hope that with the 10 cent rebate they will
remain competitive, and certainly no different than they do with the tobacco tax
and other things.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that concludes my remarks on this issue. I just wanted to, as I said,
let the people of Labrador City and Wabush know that this is indeed the case.
There may be some confusion out there still that the 16.5 cents applies right
across the province, but that's not the case in the Labrador City and Wabush
area, and the Labrador Straits area.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for the time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased this afternoon to rise and speak to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act No. 6.
Of
course, one of the main reasons why we're having to pass this bill, which would
allow the taxation on gasoline in the areas of Labrador that intersect with the
Quebec border, allowing them to pay less tax than the new legislation says
should be paid.
First of
all, of course, I don't believe that what the government had in the budget, the
extra 16.5 cent tax, should have been levied at all. It's an extensively high
increase in the price of tax in this province that is going to impact people
especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador immensely. It's a high tax that is
going to be heavy on everybody's shoulders; however, we have a situation in our
province where part of our province is an island and part of the province is
connected to the Mainland. Whenever one province is on a border with another
province, you do get a situation of competition in costs from one province to
the other.
So even
though our whole province isn't in that situation, even though the whole
province isn't on a border with another province of Canada or even with the
United States as far that goes, Labrador is. I think we all understand the extra
costs, number one, of living in Labrador. We also understand the issue of
competition between cost of gasoline in Quebec and cost of gasoline in Labrador.
We had a
similar discussion on this kind of an issue back in 2013 and 2015 in this House.
At that time, it had to do with tobacco and the cost of tobacco. In 2013, we had
a provision in the province I was around when that provision came in too
that allowed a rebate to retailers in Lab West and in the Straits, wherever the
intersection between Labrador and Quebec occurred. The rebate was to help
retailers in Labrador to be competitive with the retailers in Quebec so that the
people of Labrador wouldn't go across the border to buy their tobacco but would
stay in Labrador to buy their tobacco.
There
were an awful lot of reasons given for that I totally agreed with, the reason
why that provision existed, because not only if people were going across the
border over to Quebec to buy their tobacco, that meant they would buy other
things over there. They would get gasoline over there and you would see a real
negative impact on the retailers in Labrador. So now what we're looking at is
not tobacco, it is gas.
I would
like to point out that in 2013, the then government of the day, which is now
sitting as Official Opposition, repealed the provision for rebates for the sale
of tobacco in Labrador. We argued against that repealing at the time. We
believed that it would not be a good thing to do, that it would have a very
negative impact on the retail sector in Labrador. The Tory government of the day
in 2013 did go ahead and repeal the provision that allowed for the tobacco
rebate.
Then in
2015, which was the year of our general election, the Tory government decided
this had been a mistake and went back into reinstating the rebate. Again, we
applauded that because we believed there had to be special consideration given
to the fact that Labrador abuts another province and have to deal with
competitive pricing.
Now
we're looking at the issue with regard to the tax on gasoline. I think we have
to use the same principles that we argued both in 2013 and in 2015, and that is
we have to take into consideration the different situation for Labrador than for
retailers on the Island. This is actually something that fits into the whole
concept of equity. We cannot treat both parts of the province the same.
In
certain situations we there are things that this government has done in this
same budget that I say, well, a bit counterproductive, isn't it? The fact that
the Foodlift Subsidy is gone is very, very disturbing. So on the one hand
they're doing something to help Labradorians, both from the perspective of the
consumer and the retailers, and on the other hand they've got some very negative
things in the budget with regard to Labrador. I want to put that out there.
Having
said that, I totally agree that this new tax should be lower for Labradorians
than it is for people on the Island. I think it's equitable. I think it's
necessary, too, at this moment from the perspective of the economy of Labrador,
especially what's happened in Labrador West with the closure of one mine and
that being in a precarious situation. We still don't know what's going to
happen. With a project being put on hold with the other mine, with the Iron Ore
Company of Canada, things are, from an economic perspective, rather precarious
there for them.
I think
we do have to see the unequal situation of people in Labrador and people on the
Island when it comes to this issue of the lack of competitive pricing with
another province.
Having
said all that, Mr. Speaker, I think that's enough to show the people of the
province why we are supporting this bill and why we think it is the fair and
just thing to do.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure once again to stand in this hon. House this time to speak to Bill 23,
An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to
take a long period of time to speak to this. I think most of the points have
been made but, as I've said in the past, I intend to at least stand on every
bill if nothing else just to indicate where I stand on it, if I'm for or
against. And if I have problems with it, I'll point it out and if I think it's a
good bill, I'll say that as well because I have that accountability to the
people who elected me.
Mr.
Speaker, as we've already talked about here and other Members have talked about
really what this is about is lowering the price of gasoline in Labrador in the
areas which I guess would border Quebec, would be close to Quebec. For obvious
reasons we know now that particularly with the hike that we've seen come into
effect with the gas tax 16½ cents and then tax on that is closer to 20 cents
increase in gas. Some people would certainly say that gas is gone through the
roof.
As a
matter of fact, it was interesting, I saw a post I found it kind of humorous.
Actually, there was a post on social media last night. There was guy and he said
the gas prices are gone that high in Newfoundland now, I actually saw Ed Martin
at Costco with his jerry cans. I thought that was kind of funny.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing here is to just lower the tax in the Labrador
area. It makes a whole lot of sense for business. Obviously if you're living
close to the border and you can go across the border to Quebec to buy your gas,
if there is that big of a price differential, people are going to be inclined to
do that. That is obviously going to have a negative impact on the gas bars and
other businesses in Quebec.
As the
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi indicated that it is not just about the
gas, it's a case of, if you actually go over there to purchase your gas, maybe
while you are in there now, you're going to purchase your milk and you're going
to purchase your bread and whatever else, and that means that other business
that's not going to Labrador, it would have a detrimental impact.
With
that in mind, I will certainly be supporting this bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of minutes and talk on this bill, too. I am supporting
this bill, by the way.
Any time
we increase the gas and we've talked about this in the House of Assembly
before. It's a major concern in Labrador, I would imagine, the same as on the
Island. I understand the reason why we're doing this. I understand from the hon.
Member, today gas is about $1.25, $1.26 a litre, which is fairly high. Even now
in the area today, we saw the lineups yesterday at all the gas stations where
people were just so to fill up because they knew of the major increase today.
We, as a
party, as the Official Opposition, we've been pressing on government to have
some kind of a cap. You're gone up 10 cents a litre now in Labrador. It went up
like 18.5 cents today in around Newfoundland in other areas. It's very
important; the consumers out there are very worried. They took this today and
said, oh my God, it's a huge jump and we saw it yesterday.
What
they'd like to see is that government would come in and say, listen, we know
we're increasing gas. We're trying to get some revenue. Nobody knows where the
price of gas is going to go. Every week lately it seems it's going to increase.
As we get into summer months, we always see a huge increase in gas.
People
are very nervous because right now there's nowhere else in Canada that it's more
expensive to drive than right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're, by far,
the most expensive place in all of Canada to drive. The price of gas, as it
increases, that's not going to change because we just put such a huge increase
in the price of gas.
So it's
important that government should realize that they should have some kind of a
cap on this. If the price of gas does rise I know a couple of years ago it was
in the $1.40 range, $1.42 range. Who's to say in a couple of months that it's
not increased? Every week it can change.
The
price of oil is increasing. Usually when the price of oil increases I don't
know how they do the calculation to tell you the truth. I really think they
increase it a whole lot faster. When it comes down it seems like it decreases a
whole lot less and when the price of oil goes up, it increases a whole lot more
and a whole lot faster.
While
we're supporting this bill, I'd like to see government think about putting some
kind of a cap. It's gone 10 cents a litre now in Lab West and that area today,
and it's an extra 16.5 cents in the rest of Newfoundland. I'd like the
government really to have a look at this and say we understand, because right
now, again, we're the most expensive place in all of Canada to operate a car.
That's hard on our businesses. It's hard on people on fixed incomes, and any
income really.
I spoke
to someone last night. They were driving a big truck and told me, I don't know
if I can afford to drive this anymore. If it goes any higher, I'm definitely not
going to be able to afford it. I just ask government, while we'll support this
because it's a good thing to do, make sure in Lab West that people do not go
across the border and get their gas and affect the businesses that are in
Labrador. Like one of the Members just mentioned that time, they probably get
their milk and a few little groceries and whatnot, and it would take away from
the local business in the area. So this is important that we make sure we're
competitive on the borders.
As
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I think government should really look at this
and say, okay, we did this increase but this is the max. There should be some
kind of a max level they're going to charge people in Newfoundland and Labrador
for the price of their fuel, because people really can't afford it. People on
fixed incomes, low-income people, high-income people, anyone, it's a huge cost
to everyone. It's a cost to our students, seniors, everyone.
I think
by jumping, like we did today, when you look at the gas going from I saw it
yesterday evening on Torbay Road at $1.08 and this morning it was $1.31. To see
that kind of a jump, that has such a huge impact. For the average person filling
up their car, yesterday they probably got it it cost them anywhere between
probably $12 and $15 more today. If someone fills up their car two or three
times during the month, that's $50 or $60 more a month. That's hard on people.
That's hard on a lot of people who are trying to get by.
Not only
there, Mr. Speaker, it also has an effect on as gas increases, businesses have
to do business. They have to make sure their vehicles they have to be
competitive, and if their gas prices go up, we know who it all gets passed to.
It will be passed on to our groceries, it will be passed on building supplies,
it will be passed on different things, and it really will affect our economy.
So I
just ask government, while it's good to do this in Lab West, please have a look
and see if there's some way you can put a cap so that we're not gouging the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. Minister speaks
now she shall close debate.
Seeing
no other speakers, I recognize the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to say a sincere thank you to the Members of the House today who stood up
and spoke to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6.
There
were a couple of comments made during debate that I just thought I'd take an
opportunity to provide some additional information. I know the Member for Cape
St. Francis asked if government had considered a cap as we worked on the gas tax
changes. I wanted to let the Member know that we did. The challenge is that from
a legislative perspective with tax, we couldn't create a legislative mechanism
that would allow a cap to be in place; hence, we have to continue to come back
and make changes.
We do
have mechanisms as a government, and we've talked about this last week, that we
intend to review the gas tax as it is today before the supplemental budget in
the fall and make any changes that are necessary. Officials in my department are
providing me with regular updates. This week in particular, we've had
discussions on every day since last Thursday, and I can certainly present to
the Members of the House the maximum gasoline pump prices set on June 2, 2016.
This will be based on regular unleaded, self-serve motor gasoline. This is a
comparison of where the prices are today and a five-year average.
While
there's no doubt that the increase today is a sharp one for consumers and
residents of this province, and certainly we understand the concerns that people
have. I think it would be important for the House to also understand that we are
half a cent now higher than the highest average over the last five years. We'll
be continuing to monitor that very closely to ensure that we fulfil our
commitment of adjusting the gas tax when we do have the opportunity to do that
based on revenue changes.
Mr.
Speaker, as we've talked about with the gas tax, it was designed to replace the
revenue that was lost by the lower price of oil. Certainly, as I've indicated,
as prices improve we will adjust the tax downward. While I'm pleased with the
overall direction of oil prices as many people in this House have heard
comments that since the budget was presented the price of oil has increased. I
am hopeful that if that trend continues we may be able to reduce the tax sooner
than later, because that was always our plan.
For
those viewing at home, and for those Members in this House today, it would be
important for me to share that the gas tax will bring in $142.8 million in
revenue. That's about 73 per cent of the total cost of building and maintaining
roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
With
reference to Bill 23, from the conversations that happened here in the House
during debate, it certainly appears that the Members in the House will be
supporting this bill, and I appreciate their comments. I appreciate their
feedback and look forward to discussing this when we do move into Committee, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House that the said bill be now read a second time?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6, read a
second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 23
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate
Bill 23 and that I do now leave the Chair.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 23)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I just
wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions because she just made a couple
of comments that time. When I mentioned about cap size, she said that the
mechanism couldn't be put in place. Could you explain what mechanism you are
talking about and how that will work?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
To the hon. Member opposite,
I didn't hear your question. The Page was in view, and I'm sorry I didn't
actually hear; my apologies.
MR. K. PARSONS:
When I mentioned about cap
size and you said you were looking at that, and it was something that you looked
at but you talked about a mechanism put in place. What mechanism and how does it
work?
MS. C. BENNETT:
Madam Chair, what I had said
and I apologize
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you.
What I
had said and maybe I wasn't clear and I apologize to the Member opposite for
that. When we looked at implementing the increase in the gas tax, we looked at
whether or not we could create a legislative mechanism that would allow the cap
on the overall gas price to be in place and to have the tax floating.
From a
legislative perspective, under the FAA and other legislative analysis we did, we
couldn't make that happen. So that's one of the reasons why in the budget we
made sure that we made it clear that we were going to look at reviewing the gas
tax every six months to make sure we we're going to do that before the
supplemental budget. In addition to that, in the Department of Finance we've
implemented a process where we are having discussions on a weekly basis as the
gas prices change.
Many
people in our province believe there is a correlation between oil price and gas
price. The reality is that those two have limited interaction. Motor gasoline
and crude oil are in two different markets. The price of crude is only one input
in the calculation of the pump price for gasoline. So, for example, this week on
the Avalon Peninsula the price of crude contributed 30 per cent of the pump
price. Other inputs in the price of gas would include exchange rates, refinery
profit margins, marketing and distribution costs, the PUB-allowed Newfoundland
markups, the PUB Newfoundland and Labrador pricing zone differential, federal
excise tax, provincial gasoline tax and HST.
It is
our intention, as we've discussed in this House, to monitor the situation with
the gas price. We will certainly be taking action when we have revenue options
to be able to take actions. It is our intention to review the gas tax before the
supplemental budget, as I've said, in this House. I hope that answers the
Member's questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Yes,
Minister, it does. It's because it's a floating rate that it's a job to put in
the proper okay, I understand that.
Minister, you also said there's no correlation between oil and gas. We all can
see that as the price of oil goes up, it always seems that the price of gas
takes the jump the same week. You also mentioned right now you're looking at a
weekly basis. What prices are you looking at to where the price of gas goes that
you're going to adjust the levels of taxation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
intention is to review the prices, take a look at them, make sure that when we
have a revenue opportunity to be able to adjust the gas price, we will. From an
oil price perspective, as I mentioned earlier, there's a long list of items that
make up the gasoline price. When I asked officials the same question the Member
opposite asked, I was told what happens is refinery margins increase at times
when the oil price drops. Unfortunately, we don't control the refinery margins.
That's the reality of the way gas is priced.
I look
forward to finishing up the debate soon.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know the general public
and we all look at what crude oil is doing. Never before have we seen so many
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understanding what's happening with crude oil
and look at the news every evening to see if it's gone up or whatever because it
gives an idea of what's going to happen on Thursday.
I was
just wondering if there is a level you have that, if gas goes to $1.50 a litre,
is that the time you're going to step in or is it what revenue we're going to
get from a barrel of oil? Do you have a level at the gas price, or is it where
oil is going to be when you're going to step in and make changes?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I've
said repeatedly, it is our intention to review the gas tax as implemented as
part of the legislation that this House discussed last week before the
supplemental budget. Certainly, the opportunity of any increased revenue from
any source would provide us an opportunity to accelerate looking at that. We
have to be cognizant of the fact that gas price has an impact on things like
tourism and other things in our province. We'll certainly be taking that under
advisement.
The
Member opposite mentioned the increase in oil. I'm sure, as Members of this
House have heard repeatedly, oil royalties in our province are impacted by
production, the US exchange amount, as well as the price for Brent crude.
We have
implemented, since our government came in, a process for monitoring that. Most
recently that monitoring is coming directly to me on a regular basis. I can
report to the House that we've seen, I think, May 17 was the first date that we
actually hit the combination of the oil price and US exchange that would have
been reflective in our budget. So since May 17, we've seen a slight increase.
I would
be prepared to share this chart with the Member opposite so he can see that for
himself.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2?
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act No. 6.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 23, An
Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6 carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 23.
CHAIR:
It has been moved that the
Committee rise and report Bill 23.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 23 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed her to report Bill 23 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 33.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway
Traffic Act No. 2, be now read the second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 33 entitled An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill
33)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here today and speak to this piece of legislation, which I guess
technically you could say it falls under the Department of Service Newfoundland
and Labrador, but the fact is that my department, the Department of Justice and
Public Safety, has certainly been working on this piece of legislation, given
the fact that it's often dealt with in court rooms across this province.
I don't
think I need to, today, talk about the background of the
Highway Traffic Act. We all know that the purpose of it. It's a
piece of legislation that deals with the rules, the regulations and the
legislation affecting vehicles on our roadways, on the motorways, whether it's
the Trans-Canada Highway or secondary highways of our province.
It's
fairly lengthy. It covers a number of sections, but the part that we're dealing
with here today is actually fairly new to the piece of legislation. Basically,
if you were to look back at the history, we look at the issue, I guess, of
distracted driving or driving with cellular telephones. Again, it's funny
because even that terminology, cellular telephones, is getting outdated now. The
fact is that we're not using telephones now; we're using computers. The fact is
it's a little handheld device, but the capabilities and the abilities that it
has are far different than those that were even contemplated back in 2003 when
this piece of legislation was amended the first time to deal with cellphones.
And certainly it's far more than was contemplated I'm sure when this piece
of legislation was first brought into this House of Assembly.
We all
know that distracted driving is a serious threat to public safety. Again, I'll
go back to 2003. In 2003 section 176.1 of the
Highway Traffic Act came into force,
and that's when the use of cellphones was prohibited while driving. At that
time, the fine was set at a minimum of $45 and the maximum at $180.
I can
remember actually that debate. I didn't follow the House of Assembly that much
then, but I can remember there was a significant public debate going on about
prohibiting this type of activity. Actually, there are a lot of people that were
against this, a lot of thinking well, how can be ban the use of cellphones while
we're driving.
I think
our knowledge and certainly the literature and the studies have grown since that
time, as well as our understanding as motorists about the dangerous aspect of
obviously driving using these or any type of distracted driving. That debate
happened and I think actually we were one of the first provinces to enact a
piece of legislation of this nature. I think now most provinces have followed
suit since that time.
In 2004,
the fine was increased to the present rate. So we haven't had this legislation
changed in this regard since 2004, 12 years ago. At that point, the minimum fine
was at $100, the maximum fine was $400, and it was the accumulation of four
demerit points.
Now,
again the fine levels have stayed the same; they haven't changed since that
time. In 2010, this section was again amended to prohibit dangerous driving
habits, including the use of electronic devices such as cellphones, Blackberries
and iPhones to send or read text messages, or programming GPS devices while the
vehicle is in motion and can distract drivers from driving safely.
So the
law has been updated to take into effect the different devices that are out now,
but the penalty section hasn't changed. If you were to look at sometimes our
knowledge and our driving habits, the fact is that drivers in this province
still use their phones and not just for the talking but for the texting, which
seems to be the thing that we are seeing a lot now. Again, I think anybody in
this House, anybody outside, when you're driving, it's only easy to tell when
you look at them and the head is down while their driving, you know the phone is
in the lap and it is being used.
The fact
is from January 1 of last year, 2015, to December 31, 2015, there were 1,352
summary offence tickets issued to operators of vehicles found to be using their
mobile devices. That is a significant number, Mr. Speaker.
The
amendment that we are proposing today is going to change the penalty section.
The penalty section, which would change the schedule and again, the
legislation itself is small in size. So 176.1 would change and basically what
we're going to do now is make our legislation in terms of the penalties amongst
the toughest in Canada. For a first offence, it will be a $300 to $500 fine, so
there is a minimum and a maximum. For a second offence, it would be $500 to $750
and for a third and subsequent offence, it would be $750 to $1,000 for using
your phone.
Now, as
is currently already the case, the loss of four demerit points would accompany
each one of these. That's a significant penalty as well.
I can
talk about the history of drafting this legislation. This is something I've been
dealing with since I got in the department. We've had a number of meetings. As I
went through this process, we talked about the issue, what is done elsewhere,
what the possibilities are that we could do and what we've come up with today.
One of
the things we did do was a jurisdictional scan. It ranges across the country. BC
is $167, three demerits; Alberta is $287, three demerits; Ontario is actually
$400 to $1,000, three demerits; Manitoba is $200, but it's five demerits; Nova
Scotia has a range as well, first, second and subsequent. They have very
specific numbers in theirs $233.95 for the first offence, $348.95 for a second
and $578.95 for a subsequent offence.
There
are a couple reasons we do this. I can tell you now I know we have the
wholehearted endorsement of law enforcement in this province. I know that. These
are the people who are dealing with this. I also know, and I would hope that we
would have the wholehearted endorsement of all individuals in this province.
Now,
they might say those penalties are tough, and I say, as they should be. Because
do you know what? If you're using the phone while you're driving, you don't need
to. It's not something you need to do. You can stop. They're all the same;
distracted driving is distracted driving. When this was first contemplated, it
was talking on your phone and we know there's the Bluetooth, but when you're
texting, when you see somebody with two hands on a phone looking down, it's
ridiculous.
I will
tell you someone who's probably going to they'll agree wholeheartedly with
this, but I'm willing to bet they'll say it's not tough enough. This was not the
reason. This is something that's been in contemplation for a number of months,
but there a CBC story from May 17 of this year. This is a matter that went to
court. There was a young lady who said she was lucky to be alive after a women
charged with texting while driving hit her vehicle.
Now, the
fact that emergency responders had to come in and use the jaws of life to pull
apart her car. I know I'm not supposed to use props, Mr. Speaker, and somebody
can call me unparliamentary, but a picture says a thousand words. This is right
here when somebody was texting while driving, wasn't paying attention. I'll show
it right here, it's in the CBC story. This woman is lucky to be alive because of
the act of somebody else.
This
matter ended up in court. They talked about how they're driving along, a father
heading out to the cabin actually, going to enjoy a weekend. As they were
driving, following the rules of the road, the car coming the other way swerved
across the road right into their path. They end up off the road, upside down,
lucky to be alive, jaws of life.
The fact
is we could be sitting here talking about a tragedy and we're lucky that we're
not. This is not the only one; there are more. There are 1,352 that were
ticketed last year. That's only the ticketed ones, not the 'unticketed'
offences. In this case they talked about the penalties and the maximum fine. In
this case, they don't think that it's tough enough. I say, do you know what? You
have a point. This piece of legislation was in contemplation well before this
because we had already thought about it and talked about it. It needs to be
done. So that's why we put it forward.
We had
some talks about whether you had the one I liked the idea once I looked at
Nova Scotia. I also like the idea that we, as humans, are not perfect. We make
mistakes and we need to learn from our mistakes. That's why I like the graded
system that Nova Scotia has, first, second again, people can disagree or
agree; that's fine. I know that will come forward. I like to think that you
learn and I'm hoping that people learn this early.
I had a
paragraph here that I think is important because we all know there's no
tolerance of impaired driving. There's none, right? We all think it's sickening
and we know how serious it is. We've talked about it for years. Texting now when
you look at the data, the information, is arguably the most alarming distraction
because it involves manual, visual and cognitive distraction simultaneously.
This
sentence I'm going to put out now actually, I'm going to put out two sentences
now. I think it says it all: Sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the
road for at least five seconds. At 90 kilometres per hour that is the equivalent
to driving the length of an entire football field blindfolded. That says it all,
Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
A no-brainer.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's exactly it. As my
colleague behind me says, this is a no-brainer. It's extraordinarily dangerous.
What I
can say to Members opposite is this is just the first step. I'm certainly
committed to working with Members, working with the public, working with our
police forces, working with advocates to do more. I think there are other things
that we can do to strengthen this. More importantly, it's the elimination of
something that we want to see. We don't want to see this happening. The fact is
if we have to put in this significant financial deterrent, that's just one step,
but there are other steps that we can take. I'm willing to consider them, and
the fact is we need to learn from this and we need to move forward.
I think
that is the right step. So I will sit down at this point. Again, I look forward
to the commentary of my colleagues across the way, I'll certainly answer any
questions that I can, but at this point I'll sit and look forward to the debate
on Bill 33, which we think will strengthen the
Highway Traffic Act, and most importantly, it's going to do more to
protect drivers in this province young and old all across this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A lot of
what the minister said there today I have to agree, we talk about cellphone
usage, as he correctly stated, they're no longer cellular phones; they are
actual computers as we all live with one every day.
I'm not
opposed to but like I said, we do support this legislation, obviously. There
are a few things I'd like to discuss, though, in it. Like I said, the minister
hit a lot of main points, but just a couple of things increasing the fines,
which is basically an increase of enforcement, or a deterrent for people texting
and using their cellphone when they're driving. I don't think there's anyone in
this Chamber who would dispute that a lot of our youth are probably savvy with
the phone, texting. I know I have two daughters that one is just about to soon
start driving. What they can do with a phone, I can't even imagine, let alone
what I'm pretty well basic, your text, email and your phone call.
But,
when you increase these fines, as we're increasing them, and I understand the
reason for the fines being increased, my only concern when I read through it is,
I don't know how else to get this through to teens not to be texting and
speaking and driving. Especially texting I see a lot of that, and it's a real
dangerous thing on our roads.
Increasing a fine by $300-500 for a first offence, I mean, no doubt it will
teach you a lesson, I know that's the intent, but if any of us know that have
children that could be an awful hard lesson to teach. But in today's society
the minister pointed out we're not talking about drinking and driving, there's
no tolerance for that and a lot of other offences. These here with our youth,
especially our younger populations that Twitter and you name it, everything
unimaginable, they are very adept at doing that with one hand and driving, as
they think, with the other. We know that's a distraction of driving.
That's
about the only, I guess, of a concern. I know the reason for it, and I do
support the legislation. That's my own caution with the cost because all ages
will do this, there's no doubt. There are people of all levels but I guess the
biggest usage I see is with a lot of our younger people who probably can't
afford a fine like this; yet, there needs to be a deterrent. So you have to find
a balance. I understand it, but that's the only caution I have, Mr. Speaker.
You talk
about that bill, just to talk and add some context as well. I know the minister
showed a picture of a vehicle that was as a result of texting.
On a
personal note, a young person I knew quite well, very well actually there was
a tragic accident. Actually, it was a fatal accident as a result of sending a
text message and high speed; speeding and texting at the one time.
Unfortunately, it was a teenager and it cost her life in 2014. It's a serious
issue.
We drive
through our streets, there's not a day goes by actually this morning I was
stopped at a light, the arrow stopped so I was waiting for the vehicle to come
forward and it was just stopped there. When I realized it was a young girl
texting.
It's
ironic we're doing this bill this afternoon because the first thing that jumped
out at me was the dangers of doing it. We all know it's easy to be distracted if
you as we all know, we have a phone and it's vibrating or flashing and you're
trying to drive but you have to as we all know, you can't do both. You can't
drive and do both. Unfortunately, it can and has led to many tragic accidents
over the years.
A
combination of enforcement and increasing of fines, how else do you stop this
stuff? Education, I know we have I believe it's the minister's department that
have ads on about texting. That's all good stuff, but you have to get the
message through. Sometimes there is no other way of getting it through but to
come down hard on them with increased fines. There has to be a deterrent,
there's no doubt.
Will it
eliminate it? Obviously not, but I do hope so. It is a huge concern and it's
hard to I think even for law enforcement be able to police this stuff
because people are pretty adept at using those it's hard to detect if you're
passing by or you're patrolling the roads. That's something else too, with
technology advancing I guess they are
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
I've read different articles,
it's been talked about, is there a way for enforcement, police officers to have
equipment to be able to find out if you were actually using the telephone while
you were driving. I know there are different theories out there. I don't know
how much it would hold up in court, but it is an interesting conversation
because if you could narrow something down like that I think that would even
in a combination of fines and enforcement add a more powerful deterrent to the
usage.
If you
knew, for instance, a law enforcement officer could check your phone and find
out if you were just on that phone five minutes ago and they were behind you
again, it's technology. I know we advance every day. So hopefully, eventually
there will be a tool that our police officers could use when trying to curb
this, as I said, very dangerous it's a huge issue.
I go
back to our youth sometimes, because it's become a way of life. You can sit down
in a room sometimes and you can see, I guess, 10 people sat in a room and no one
speaking, everyone is on a phone. The younger ones, I've been told, they'll sit
next to each other and text. They don't like to talk so they text.
They
will carry that out into a vehicle, and until it's curbed or shunned upon the
minister rightly pointed out, and when he said it, it struck me. There was a
time and it's a sad statement to make, I guess. Back in my younger years it
was a badge of honour to some people when they said they got picked up for
impaired. That's a really terrible thing to say, but it's true. I don't think
anybody probably my age can remember back in that day, that was I remember how
terrible a thing to feel but there was a time when that wasn't shunned upon the
way it is now.
Nowadays, it's a pretty bad stigma that comes with that. That came over time
and it's still there, unfortunately. It's really sad actually. We have MADD that
are always active and out there. We still hear it on the news, people who were
picked up, but it has reduced. We know it has reduced, but it's become a very
public shaming thing now. It's a very shameful thing. There's no longer that
feeling, but I guess as society advanced we've come I believe the same thing
needs to apply with this sort of thing.
Another
point the minister made, which is a good point too. I remember the debate that
went on back when the fines came in, in 2004, and not being able to use your
cellphone. It seemed like a big deal. There was a lot of public outcry at the
time because everyone it's a natural thing. You watch a movie and you see it
was a natural thing a phone as they drove along. Everyone thought, well,
what's the big deal.
Now when
you look at how quickly and in 12 years you realize it's all relevant. You're
moving with the times. So I do believe in the direction we're headed. I believe
we still have a lot more work to do to get society to embrace this because I
still believe there are a lot of people who don't see the issue. They know it's
wrong, but it's not being shunned upon, it's not being shamed.
I
believe if it's condemned by the public, it's a huge step along the way in
getting people to buy into changing it. I support the fact of increasing the
fines, but as I said, there are other things I believe that we can do in
addition. We are recognizing it is an issue and I just hope that we can, with
this and other measures down the road, curb this once and for all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and speak to Bill 33. It's a short bill because it's dealing
specifically with fines regarding using a hand-held cellular phone while driving
a motor vehicle on a highway.
Obviously, it's a serious situation, but so far in this province I think we're
not dealing with all of the issues that need to be dealt with, with regard to
distracted driving because that's really what we're talking about. I think if we
were to start using, here in our own Legislature, the term distracted driving,
then it would force us to look at a much wider piece than just cellular phones.
Just using the term cellular phones right now in our legislation is really using
an outdated term because there are so many other examples of hand-held devices
that need to be considered.
In a
province like Ontario, for example, their law says it's against the law to:
operate hand-held communication and electronic entertainment devices while
you're driving and view display screens unrelated to your driving. So
they are really getting at a much broader issue than we are with our
legislation. The examples they use of hand-held devices, for example, include
iPods, GPS and MP3 players, cellphones, smart phones, laptops, DVD players. All
of these are now being used in vehicles and not just being used by passengers in
vehicles, they are being used by drivers. I'm sure all of us have seen people,
for example, using GPS. I have to say being in a car with somebody using a GPS,
you really get a sense of how dangerous that is.
I know
myself, it wasn't here in the province but once, when travelling, renting a car
and having a GPS and realizing very, very quickly I have to stop the car and
figure this out, not stay driving. I think that we have to take much more
seriously the distracted driving issue than we are taking it. Yes, it does help
I suppose to put the fine up, but I question if the government was really
concerned about distracted driving and not just about raising more money, they
would have done a broader change to the
Highway Traffic Act than just raising the fine. They would have looked at
the broader issues that other provinces are looking at.
The
minister used some examples here today of accidents that have been very serious
accidents and sometimes fatal and sometimes near fatal because of somebody using
a hand-held device. I would suggest that some of the recent ones it wasn't a
cellphone; one example was somebody texting, forcing another car right off the
road. According to the news reports that I heard, in spite of others blowing at
the driver, others trying to get that driver to realize what was happening, the
driver literally crossed over into the other lane and forced a car off the road
and still didn't know that this had happened.
So we
have a major issue. I don't have the statistics for our province with regard to
the number of accidents that have been caused by people holding hand-held
devices of the type that I'm talking about, but the accident I just talked about
that was reported in the news was somebody texting. So it's much more than just
holding a cellular phone and using a cellular phone.
We have
really got to deal with the issue of distracted driving. I think we have to do
it certainly as a Nation, but we can only deal with our province and we have to
start making sure that it gets dealt with in our province. The Insurance Board
of Canada is certainly concerned about distracted driving, not just about the
use of one particular medium, the cellphone. Some of their facts are very
interesting. For example, according to the Insurance Board of Canada, you are 23
times more likely to be involved in a collision if you text while driving
that's frightening and four times more likely if you talk on a cellphone,
hand-held or hands-free, while driving. So it is much more dangerous to be
texting than it is to be on a cellphone, even though a cellphone also adds to
accidents.
We still
haven't put texting into our legislation. We're only dealing with cellular
phones. Again, according to the Insurance Board of Canada, a distracted driver
may fail to see up to 50 per cent of the available information in the driving
environment. You may look, but not actually see what is happening a bit like
this government; you can hear, but not actually listen. Well, same with
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Got that one right? Thank you
very much, Sir.
Same way
here if you're distracted while you're driving because of texting, because of
looking at a screen, because of working a GPS, you may be looking, but not
seeing anything because you are really concentrating on the device that you are
using.
Another
study done by the Insurance Board of Canada showed that nearly 80 per cent of
collisions and 65 per cent of near-collisions involve some form of driver
inattention up to three seconds prior to the event. According to the Ontario
Provincial Police, distracted driving is the number one killer on the roads.
With
this piece of legislation coming forward, it really would have been so much
better if it included looking at the broader issues of distracted driving.
Whether or not we have the proof to show that putting up the fines is going to
affect the use of the hand-held cellular phones or not, I don't know. I think
one of the things that have to be done is that we have to put more resources
into the hands of the RNC and also into the hands of the RCMP with regard to
enforcement.
Because
I think that's a big issue, that we don't have enough officers on the roads,
either in our cities or on the highways, to really see that our legislation is
enforced. I'm sure I'm not the only person who is driving around and seeing
person upon person upon person using their cellphones, and observing, maybe in a
smaller way, the type of thing that I just described with the driver on the
highway literally texting another car off the road, to put it graphically.
So if
I'm seeing every day almost every time I'm out in my car, I see examples of
people with their cellphones up to their ears. It's impossible to drive without
seeing it. So we need enforcement. If we enforced even what we had as the fine
and got more people fined, government may have seen more income, if revenue from
it is what they're concerned about. I'm concerned about the safety issue and the
fact that our legislation is not broad enough. So I really encourage the
minister to look at
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member speak.
Thank
you.
I ask
for your co-operation.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
concerned about the safety issue and not so much about making money. I really
encourage both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice I think it
would be under Justice to look at how weak our legislation is with regard to
really getting at the issues of distracted driving.
So
saying that, I do encourage both ministers to look at that issue, and obviously,
I will vote for the bill hoping that if we also add greater enforcement
possibilities, that we will get people to increase their concerns and stop using
cellphones when driving. But as I said, we need much more in this province in
the legislation than the use of the hand-held cellphone.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to stand and speak once again, this time to Bill 33, An Act to Amend
the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Speaker, as has been said, this bill is really
about raising the fines for people who are using a hand-held cellular phone
while driving a motor vehicle on the highway. Of course, it's a progressive fine
which goes $500 the first time that you're caught doing it, $750 the second time
and $1,000 the third time.
I want
to say upfront, for the record, I do support the bill 100 per cent 1,000 per
cent. Mr. Speaker, I do want to, I guess, echo though some of the remarks of the
Member for St. John's East Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, or whatever the name of
the district is. I can never seem to get it right. I do want to echo some of her
remarks, as it relates to distracted driving, and that it goes much further than
cellphone use.
Unlike
the previous Member who was just up speaking, I don't have an issue with the
fines. I don't have an issue with raising the fines whatsoever. I think it is a
deterrent. I think it does work. I just know even from experience, none of us
are perfect. Even though we're the people here putting in the legislation, we've
all been guilty of stuff. There's not one Member in this House, I'm sure, who
can say unequivocally they've never been pulled over, they've never done
anything wrong, they've never gotten a ticket for anything. I find it hard to
believe. We've all made mistakes.
I have a
tendency to have a bit of a heavy foot, Mr. Speaker. I don't mind admitting it.
I've been pulled over a couple of times in my lifetime. I can tell you what,
once I got that fine I thought twice about that heavy foot. It did change my
behaviour on an ongoing
AN HON. MEMBER:
For a day.
MR. LANE:
Somebody said for a day, but
no, it actually went longer than a day. When you get that big fine and then the
threat of oh my goodness if it happens again I'm probably going to get a bigger
one and more demerit points and so on, it does change your behaviour. I think
increasing the fines is a good thing.
Going
back to what the previous Member said before me, we really do need to look at
distracted driving as a whole, not just cellphones and cellphone use. Whether
we're talking about cellphones, you're on the phone or you're texting, which is
a biggie for sure but there are other things. We've all witnessed it I'm sure.
I'm sure we've all witnessed it. I've seen people stopped in traffic doing their
makeup with the lipstick and the eyeshadow and everything going while driving.
I've seen a lady I saw a few times.
I've
seen incidents where people with pets, and everyone loves their pet. Some
people, their pet is just like their child. How many people have seen somebody
driving down the road and the dog is actually on their lap, the head stuck out
the window or whatever blocking their peripheral view and so on. You see it all
the time. That definitely has to be causing a distraction, without a doubt.
I can
even remember at one point in time, I don't know, it's about a year or so ago. I
was on the parkway and I actually seen a lady, she was stopped and she had, I
don't know if it was a curling iron or a straightener or something, because with
cars now you actually have outlets in them. It's not like before where you had
to put it in a cigarette lighter. You can get adapters.
For that
matter, in my vehicle now it just takes a regular household kind of plug. So you
could literally, if you wanted to, plug in your hairdryer, plug in your curling
iron, your straightener, whatever. I actually saw a lady on the parkway, I don't
know if she was curling her hair or straightening her hair but she was doing it,
and she was the driver. She was the driver.
The
bottom line is that it does need to be expanded I think into distracted driving,
and not just cellphone or Blackberry use, as the Member for Quidi Vidi just
said, because there are other distractions. While I do support this bill, I
support the intent of what's going to be happening here, I do believe it should
be expanded for sure.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat. Again, for the record, I think it's a
good move on behalf of the government. Any time a bill comes before this House
that's a good thing, is a positive thing, I have no problem acknowledging it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to get up and speak to Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway
Traffic Act.
I'll
just take a few minutes because I want to echo what the minister has said, and
my colleagues here in the House of Assembly, about how important it is to
getting people to move away from being distracted while they drive. You are
operating a very powerful piece of equipment. You want people to get where they
are going safely. You want people around them to feel safe.
I know
technology has changed. Our world has gotten to a point where people are
constantly in contact with each other and they constantly need to address
issues. As technology moves forward that's a positive, but unfortunately this is
one of the times where technology is also causing grief for people. It has
caused unbelievable hardship for families in death and injuries. We need to find
ways to prevent that.
No
doubt, I agree when we talk about all kinds of distracted driving. I know the
RNC and the RCMP already have some clauses they can use to their disposal around
enforcing things like driving with due care and caution and giving extreme fines
and making that an offence where you have to go to court and then you are
answerable to a judge when they review all the evidence related to it. That's a
very important part.
I do
agree and I do like the fact that one of our deterrents in society it's
probably not the best one we have but one of them is, particularly around the
Highway Traffic Act is around the cost
associated with it. I know there's data that will show we've improved that
around school zone fines and issues around drinking and driving. It has been a
deterrent. Is it the only deterrent? Of course not. Is the biggest deterrent
education and knowledge? No doubt about it.
I know
the former administration and I know this administration will do the same, in
trying to educate people to be a little bit more aware of the impact of their
actions. Particularly when you're driving and operating a motor vehicle,
particularly around being distracted.
As the
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands has noted too, and we've all done it. We've
all been idiots when it comes to driving at times and not being cognizant of
exactly how we should be operating fairly. We've all had our phones next to us.
We've all had it next to our ear as part of it; but, I think as we mature, as we
get a little bit more aware of things or, as happened in my case, when you get a
fright and realize you could have done damage because you're veering off the
road because you're not paying attention, and that happened a couple of years
ago. Then I came to a realization, I've got to stop this. My phone comes in, it
goes on the seat, it stays there. That's part of it, exactly. You have to be
very cognizant of what's happening. Throw it down, do it.
Fortunately enough, a couple of years ago I got a car that has hands-free. I
still try to stay away from that because I still see that as a distraction,
that's part of it. I know people need to have it for all kinds of reasons, work
reasons, contact with their family. There's a loved one who's in peril or there
are some health issues and all that, you need to have that concept.
We've
come a long way in trying to educate people, but we've also come a long way in
access. As the previous Members have also said, it's no longer just a little
small held device that's a distraction. It's all the other things that go along
when we're driving. All the other things that people have at their disposal.
While
this is a great process for it, and we encourage it and we support it and we
hope it serves as a deterrent, I think we all have a responsibility, all levels
of government, every line department, every Member in this House and every
citizen in this province, to encourage people to be a little bit more cognizant
of being safe. This is one way of at least identifying, if you're going to do
something, if you're going to take that risk, you're going to have to pay for
it.
Now,
hopefully it's a deterrent up front. Hopefully you don't need to do something
wrong and get caught and then have to pay the price. Hopefully it's a deterrent
enough that people would say, you know what, I'm not going to take that risk.
I've already got enough expenses in my life, I don't want to add to that. Even
if they're not thinking about the safety factor, because sometimes our mind goes
somewhere else.
We're
all cognizant of how much money we have in our pockets. If this does anything to
deter people, it's definitely a move forward, and I believe it is. If somebody
does get caught, I would hope this would then serve as a serious deterrent.
Because if they get caught a second and a third time, it gets worse and worse
for them, and I would hope they catch on to that.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to echo that I support this bill. No doubt this is a move
in the right direction, and hopefully we'll continue to move in that same
direction in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to be able to stand and close second reading on this. Firstly, I'd like to
thank my colleagues for their comments: the Members for CBS, St. John's East
Quidi Vidi, Mount Pearl Southlands and Conception Bay East Bell Island. I
listened to them all attentively. I took some notes. They still have an
opportunity in Committee to ask questions again, but I will address some of the
points they made or try to address them.
The
first thing I would note, globally, is that is this the only thing we can do?
No, there is more we can do and I've said that in my preamble, in my earlier
comments. I'm looking at other steps that can be taken when it comes to this.
I'll get more into this now in a second because I have to address some of the
comments that were made. One in particular I'm extremely insulted by, actually,
but I'll get to that.
The
Member for CBS, I appreciated his comments. I appreciate the fact that it's
going to be unanimously supported. The Member, as well as the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island deterrence; they said deterrence is the big
thing. Deterrence is one of those things, how do you measure it? What is the
means that you put in place? Do you get too heavy, too prohibitive? Do you get
too light? There are other things we could do. Why not put jail time in? Why not
take the car away? There are all these different levels that one can look at.
One that
I'd like to look at but the other thing about doing this is you have to
explore because you start to get into the effects of the decisions that you
make. If you do A, what will B result in. One of the things I'd like to look at,
I'd like to consider and I don't know if it's done elsewhere. I'd like to look
at the seizure of the device that's being used. I'd like to see it because I
tell you what, that's a deterrent. That's going to be a deterrent. That requires
proper research. You can't change legislation of this nature without doing the
proper examination of everything.
In this
case, immediately after taking over this portfolio this is something that I've
talked to law enforcement about, talked to my department about. When you look at
the fines and the penalties, they were severely outdated and minimal and
obviously not having the deterrent effect.
The
Member for CBS mentioned about maybe you have to measure is it too heavy or not.
That's why there is the graduated schedule. The initial one, $300 to $500, is
still light when you look at what it is now. I think now it's $100 to $400. I
think we need that deterrent and especially for the youth, because once they
have that first time and again, I don't think this is necessarily just a youth
issue, but I also think that the best way to educate anybody about anything is
to start at the youth level, whether that's safety, it doesn't matter, start
when they're young. We all say we teach our kids. Well, I think this is the best
way to do that too.
I
appreciate the comment and I do know where he's going with it. I think this
allows for that. I know it's heavy but by the time you get to that third one,
you're not learning your lesson. You're not learning. That's why we also have
the demerits. I'm also willing to consider other penalties, especially when you
throw in the harm that's caused.
One of
the things he mentioned was the education. I have to give compliments to our
RNC. Recently, they had a display set up at the Avalon Mall of a simulator of
texting and driving. I haven't done it myself. I've had people talk about it.
They say it absolutely amazing. I think if we talk to people who participated in
this, they'll talk about that real-life effect of showing what the impact is.
The
second thing I would say, he talked about a device. Actually, we all know what a
Breathalyser is. Well, there's research being done now on something called a
Textalyser. It's a device that's being used. It's actually an Israeli company
that's done it. Again, you're getting into issues there where there are
constitutional issues where you can take the device and test it to see how long
ago they texted, but then you're getting into access to all the information,
then you're getting into charter issues.
I think
there are things being looked at and we can see them and again, that's the
thing about legislation; it can go and be amended down the road as we learn more
and as we know more. I have no doubt that any legislator who sits here five
years from now will have something new they can use to make the legislation
better and make the streets and the roadways safer.
Another
thing he mentioned and I completely agree it's not just the resources to
catch people. It's the resources to prosecute. Right now, this is a significant
fine here. It's tough to catch people. It is a tough challenge, and I know our
law enforcement deal with that. You look at, when you go down that road, a
ticket and you have the chance to contest it, then it goes to court, the
resources that we're using. I think a greater deterrent so we can avoid all that
because that's resources throughout our entire system that are being used for
something stupid, you shouldn't be doing in the first place, period, there it
is. I don't normally like to use that word in here, but I think we all agree if
we or anybody else is doing it, there it is.
The
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, I think he brought up the anecdotal side of
this talking about the individual, what they did. We've seen that. I've seen
similar ones myself. I can remember driving through Edmonton once and seeing
somebody shaving with the electric razor in the car. I still remember that. That
was at least 20 years ago and it stuck with me. I thought it was crazy then and
I think it's even crazier now.
What I
would say is that there are other sections of the
Highway Traffic Act, imprudent driving, dangerous driving that can
be used to take care of these behaviours if they are witnessed. I would suggest
to people is that we have to point this out and pass this on, if we see people
doing this. So there are other sections.
Again we
have seen people, even if it is just elapsed, people can be charged and they
have significant penalties, imprudent driving, especially on the insurance
implications that come with this. They are very heavy.
The
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island, I appreciate the commentary he
made. I think everything he said was very on point and I appreciate the support
as well. The Member for St. John's East Quid Vidi and again, I appreciate the
support of the Member. I'm going to make sure because I thought I heard the
comment well, we're only talking about cellular phones. If you look at section
176.1, we are talking about hand-held wireless communication devices or other
prescribed devices capable of receiving or transmitting telecommunications,
electronic data, email, text messages. So that does take into account the GPS.
That does take into account anything receiving.
The
other thing is that you can change through your regulations the prescribed
devices, if we had that, as well as the other means that we have through that
piece of legislation to stop people from distracted or bad driving. We have
those other means, I would put out there.
Now, I
will say the point that was mentioned, and maybe this was just an aside, but it
caught me, was that we are doing this because of the revenue. That was said and
if I'm wrong, the Member can correct me when we get to the Committee stage. That
is the most insulting thing I've heard. We're doing something to make our
streets safer and she has to bring it back to something like that. That is
absolutely ludicrous, ridiculous and it is insulting to everybody that is here.
We are all talking about the safety of the roads and we have to throw something
else like this here. It is talking about deterrents to stop people from doing
activities that might kill people and she has to bring it back to revenue.
Now if
we want to talk about revenue, the fact is as well, Mr. Speaker, this is not
about revenue. This is about deterrents. This is about stopping us from doing
stuff that might kill somebody. The other thing she brought up in the same side
was the and again, she'll get an opportunity during the Committee stage to ask
these questions or correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem I have, at the same
time she was talking about his, she says we need more resources on our streets
we need more resources on the streets. What I would say to that is I don't think
anybody disagrees with that, but I don't know where the Member has been for the
last month and a half that we've been talking about the budgetary challenges
that we've been facing.
Again,
it is always about you need more this, you need more this, you need more this,
and sometimes it's upsetting. I'd love to have the ability to increase that.
Over the last number of years, I've given compliments to the other Members. The
fact is that policing budgets have increased. We do have more money spent in
policing now than has been spent.
But
again, to talk about that and just talk about the revenue side of it is just
insulting. I would suggest just stick to the well, we need to do more; we need
to do more. Do you know what? I think I said that starting off, yes, we would
like to do more, but you're not just going to go and change legislation without
thinking about the consequences and the repercussions of doing so. Doing one
thing will have an equal reaction on the other side, so we can just change it
let's put them all in jail, why not? Then we're going to talk about we need more
resources to handle that. Do you know what? Go ahead and build that new
penitentiary too.
I'm
sorry to get off on an aside, but I find it insulting when I talk about
legislation, and I mentioned a story here involving a young girl and her father
who almost died, and we're trying to make the roads more safer and the Member
opposite has to get into the political side and talk about trying to raise
revenues. It's insulting and it's sickening to me.
Again, I
look forward to the question in the debate in the actual Committee stage where
we can go back and forth. I can't say that enough. We're doing something to make
the roads safer. I appreciate the commentary and the fact that this will receive
unanimous support when it is done, and I look forward to the fact that I will
have more time in future sessions of this House to update the
Highway Traffic Act to make the roads
safer for the people of this province.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 33 be now read for a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 33)
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 33)
MADAM SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Madam Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Education, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 33.
MADAM SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill, Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic
Act No. 2.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 33)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam
Chair, I just had a question for the minster in regard to some of the data on
some of the infractions over the past number of years. I know this is relevant
to enhancing the deterrent in regard to the changes we're making in regard to
first, second and subsequent offences.
I'm just
wondering if you could share some information as regard to what the record has
been under in the past number of years in regard to increased infractions, to
violation, to hand-held cellular phone devices. Have we seen an increase,
decrease? Any idea of where we're to in regard to that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I
would say is that I don't have specific data in front of me. I can certainly
undertake to provide it before third reading of this House which will also allow
for an opportunity to discuss it.
The
number I had I do think anecdotally you can say that it's grown. I also think
that the number of 1,352 has been an increase from previous years. I do think
the number is going up, but I will ensure to provide that information. You'll
get an opportunity if there are questions on it, certainly I'm willing to
discuss that even during the third reading stage. I'm more than willing to put
that out there.
One of
the big things that I will say is that when you talk to members of law
enforcement, what they'll say without even having the stats in front of them is
the numbers are going up and we're seeing it more. I would put that out, but I
can make sure that information is provided as soon as possible.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know
the minister has sort of addressed it. I raised it in second reading and the
minister did sort of address it. Just for the record, I just want to put it in
there that I really do believe I understand that the minister did say that
there are sections under the Highway
Traffic Act for imprudent driving and dangerous driving and so on.
Not being a lawyer or anything, though, I would question to
what degree of offence would have to occur for someone to actually be charged with that. I don't know if somebody,
for example, had a pet on their lap or was shaving with a razor, as was
mentioned, or doing their hair, or whatever, I'm not sure that would necessarily
qualify for an offence under dangerous driving, whatever.
So I
would just throw it out there that I would like to see that we would expand
maybe the definition of distracted driving to include other things besides
cellphone use. That's not a question; that's more of a comment and request.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I thank the Member for his
question.
What I
would say, first of all, is that when it comes to legislative change, I would
put forward that I'm always willing to entertain change. I would suggest the
best way, even if it was put in writing or a letter or anything like that, I'm
always willing to consider that. I think it's in the best interest of us all.
I've
seen imprudent driving. Something as little as an individual got in their car
and the gearshift went back, ended up in reverse, rolling out in the street and
hitting another car complete accident. And I've seen, actually, those matters
get in court and it depends on an interpretation by the officer. Again, it can
be a million things, and there's a scale there from high to low. There's also
under the Criminal Code of Canada,
section 249, which is dangerous driving.
It
really can go either way, but I think overall there's a difference between the
accidental and the person that's doing it on purpose. The fact is, nobody is
accidentally texting, nobody is accidentally talking, but we've all got those
people and again, certainly we've all had maybe that time when you didn't look
in the mirror or something happened, and especially it can happen when you're
young and it can happen when you're old. So I want to make sure, because the
intentional action versus the accidental action is something we have to be
cognizant of, that I always worry about. Again, sometimes I've seen those where
that only comes out after the charge is laid.
Going
back to the greater point is that when it comes to legislative change, certainly
that's something again, I've actually had meetings with other Members opposite
and Members in my own caucus when it comes to pieces of legislation not this
one specifically and say, look, if you have something you want to bring
forward, willing to consider it in fact, I'm pretty sure I'll have legislation
coming in the next session that was discussed by Members of the opposite side.
You hope for the best, and there's a lot of work that goes into it, but I would
put that out there now.
Thank
you.
CHAIR (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just a question, Minister.
It's a question if you look at technology today. As we all know, we're all using
cellphones. The technology I saw just recently, cars come in now that, unless
you put your seatbelt on, the radio doesn't come on.
Is there
any technology out there used in other jurisdictions or anything that can say
your cellphone won't go in usage while you're driving a car? I'm just asking the
question because I think it would be smart technology if somebody had it that
you couldn't access probably a warning could come up that someone is trying to
call you. Is that technology out there? Is there anywhere you could get it?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the Member opposite
may be auditioning for Dragon's Den.
I get
where he's coming from. I'm not aware of that, but the fact is when you look at
the devices that are out there. For instance, a person who is convicted of
impaired driving and has the alcohol ignition interlock device, something where
you have to blow into it in order for your car to start or else it locks. I
mentioned earlier the Textalyer.
I would
imagine there's technology and ability for everything, but with that comes the
need to assess it to ensure what are the possible drawbacks, negative
consequences, positive consequences. I haven't done that scan, I haven't. Maybe
it's one that we need to do, because we've only had so much time in this case.
In this piece of legislation it was a case of, what can you get done to put in
an immediate deterrent without offending charter implications.
Actually, I meant to mention earlier and I forgot, but BC, effective June 1,
2016, has actually brought in some pretty hefty financial penalties for the same
offence. There are other provinces that are moving this way, but this is where a
lot of times it's good that you can talk to the Members in departments, law
enforcement across the country and see what's being done elsewhere. What other
steps are they taking, but what are the drawbacks, the pros and cons of doing
each.
I'm
always willing to listen to anything, but at the same time making sure we do as
much assessment as we can to make sure that it doesn't have unintended
consequences that probably weren't thought of.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Opposed?
Carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Highway
Traffic Act No. 2.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Chair, I move that
the Committee rise and report Bill 33.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 33.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy Chair
of Committees.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 33 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 33 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would
move Motion 8 on the Order Paper, that the House, pursuant to Standing Order 11,
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, June 2, and Motion 9, that the House,
pursuant to Standing Order 11, not adjourn at 10 p.m. today, Thursday, June 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 today.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
It's
also moved that the House not adjourn at 10 o'clock tonight.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Motion 1, a resolution
respecting the imposition of taxes on personal income, Bill 13.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 13, An Act
To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now debating the related resolution and Bill 13.
Resolution
That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on
personal income.
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate having the opportunity to speak to Bill 13, the personal income tax
rate increases. As we've discussed during debate around the budget, and had
lengthy discussions, the fiscal situation of the province has required that we
take action. One of those actions we had to take as part of the budget was the
need to increase personal income tax. While those decisions were very difficult,
certainly they were due to the serious fiscal challenges facing the province. We
had to increase many fees and taxes, including personal income tax. The income
tax rates for all income ranges will be increasing, and the new temporary
Deficit Reduction Levy will also be introduced.
The
changes will be effective as of January 1, 2016, with the administration as of
July 1, 2016. This means that the effective rates for 2016 will only be half of
the full year implemented. So there has been some confusion. The budget was on
April 14, the implementation date will be effective January 1, 2016, and
administered as of July 1, just for clarity.
It
important to note that even with these changes we are still the third-lowest
rate on the first income tax bracket, and even with the levy, income tax payable
on all income levels is lower than it was in 2006, and we are still very
competitive with our Atlantic Canadian counterparts. The estimated revenue from
the increase, as has been discussed in this House, is $204 million annually. Our
government chose to implement a broad rate increase across all income ranges.
The rate increases for higher income individuals are more than the increase for
lower income individuals.
The
information on the personal tax increases, as has been communicated, can be
found on the Department of Finance website, along with other important
information about the budget, I might add, Mr. Chair.
I'd like
to take a moment now just to lay out those increases for people here in the
House of Assembly, and for those people watching the proceedings at home.
There
are five income tax brackets. The first bracket is on income up to $35,148, and
the rate will increase to 8.2 per cent for the 2016 tax year, and 8.7 per cent
for the 2017 tax year. The second bracket is on income from $35,149 to $70,295,
and that rate will increase to 13½ per cent for the 2016 tax year, and 14½ per
cent for the 2017 tax year.
The
third bracket is on the income tax from $70,296 to $125,500. That rate will
increase to 14.55 per cent for the 2016 tax year, and 15.8 per cent for the 2017
tax year. The fourth bracket is on the income from $125,501 to $175,700. The
rate will increase to 15.8 per cent for the 2016 tax year, and 17.3 per cent for
the 2017 tax year. The fifth bracket is on income over $175,700 and the rate
will increase to 16.8 per cent for the 2016 tax year, and 18.3 per cent for the
2017 tax year.
As I
said earlier, personal income tax rates remain competitive in the Atlantic
region and in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will maintain the lowest top
marginal rate among the Atlantic provinces at 18.3 per cent.
To help
mitigate the impact on low-income individuals and families, government
introduced the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and this new benefit
will provide up to $450 for any individual, $60 for a spouse, and $200 for each
eligible dependant. In addition, to the low-income tax reduction, amounts have
revised so that those who fall below the current income thresholds will continue
to pay no provincial personal income tax. These measures will help lessen the
impact on the personal income tax changes on low-income individuals, families
and seniors.
Mr.
Chair, we know that the decisions with this budget have been difficult and
certainly the choices we've had to make and the decisions we've had to make have
had an impact, and we recognize that, on all of us and all residents in this
province. We have a plan to get our province back on stable, fiscal ground and
one that is designed to achieve fairness, I would say, Mr. Chair, for all
generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We cannot continue to push debt
and our debt costs up as we continue to put the weight of the debt and the debt
we have per person in this province onto future generations, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a
good opportunity again to get up and speak on anything related to the budget.
This is another mechanism to our budget, the increase of income tax rates.
Looking
at this rate increase, increased from 7.7 and 8.2 up to 8.7 in your lowest
income bracket and then upward in your bracket; 35,000 to 70,000 you're looking
at, in 2017, a 14.5 per cent, a 2 per cent increase; 70,000 to 125,000, it's 2.5
per cent and then your higher income of 125,000 and up to 175,000, you have an
increase of 3 per cent. So I guess it's a gradual increase. As income rises,
there is an increase. People have argued sometimes it's probably not enough,
it's imbalanced and that the lower incomes seem to it's not done
proportionately. In the meantime, if you look at it, it's still $125,000 and
up, it's going to be 17.3 per cent as opposed to 14.3 per cent. It's
significant.
I guess
probably to put it in the fairest context if this was one of the only budget
implementation bills, one of a few, you'd be tolerant. It would be so much more
palatable. We know there are an awful lot of budget implementation bills that
makes this budget whole. Every opportunity you get up to speak, it's important
to remind and to speak to it that people are very concerned out there with the
implementation of this budget.
You take
this here, like I said in the beginning, there was a time and I think I got up
and spoke there one time earlier the week. It was back in the day when people
looked at two, three key items in the budget. If the price of alcohol and
tobacco never went up, they were okay a long time back. That's when life was
pretty simple.
We know
now, when you look at personal income tax rates going up, it's kind of I was
fully expecting it. This morning the reaction to the price at the pumps, I was
at home and I knew they were going up, but then I got up and I went online and
it was all these pictures of before and after. It's quite a jolt. It's looking
at nearing 20 cents in one night. We're always used to a one- or two-cent
adjustment.
I'm not
sure when it was in recent probably a year or two ago. I know gas was going
up. I guess it was probably a couple of years back gas was making a big increase
on the Wednesday night. It was word that they were going to increase. I went to
the local gas bar and they ran out of gas. That increase, I think, was a four-
or five-cent increase; it was one of the bigger jumps. It was when oil was very
unstable.
When you
get almost 20 cents, I believe I know up in my there are variations of it.
Some of them base their prices on competitive pricing. I believe up in CBS it
went up for 18 anyway they dropped it back to around 16 because they compete
with their local gas bar which is alongside them.
I always
say, whenever I have the opportunity to get up, you need to take the budget in
its entirety. These tax increases alone or with a couple other measures, they're
still increases, but I think the majority of the public would expect that and
would accept that.
If you
look at the increase of the 2 per cent HST, I guess it's been brought up in the
House, but it's interesting a lot of people have not equated that had the
current government not reversed the increase that was scheduled for January 1,
2016, and took it back they cancelled the increase as of January 1 it's in
the vicinity of $100 million to $110 million in lost revenue. This is
approximate, but that could have reduced the need for a levy.
There's
not a Member in this House who can't agree with me that the levy has been one of
the biggest lightning rods of the budget, outside of everything else. That's
kind of sad actually in a way when you look at it because I talk to a lot of
people out around and I don't think anyone disagrees, it's a topic of the day
wherever you go. It is on each and everyone's mind.
Today,
they're talking about gas. Every conversation starts with the tax increase. The
levy became an issue, but when you sat and talked to them, the entirety of the
budget became their issue. It was: How am I going to do this?
I
listened to commentary this morning on our local radio station. It was a guy
saying he's looking at roughly $1,100 extra a year in gas alone. When I heard
him say that amount, I'm not one to quote, I don't know, but they're his
numbers. That was more, in some cases, than what people were paying with the
levy before the adjustments.
Take the
insurance tax of 15 per cent that is going to come in in July. That's going to
mean another $500 or $600 to people. Then you take your personal income tax
increases that you're going to see next March or April when you do your taxes.
Then you put 2 per cent for HST on things which I think most people were
expecting. Then you take used cars I might be wrong, but I've seen a lot of
tax bills, it was 14 per cent and we bumped it to 15 per cent.
All of
these things have fees increases, but all these things it is death by a
thousand cuts. I use that term because I remember it was used a few years ago.
It was a good point of what not to do when you do a budget like this. That's
when the former PC government was in power. I know behind the scenes at the time
they hit a patch in the road and they were trying to find savings.
I worked
closely in my previous world with other senior ministers and that and they used
to always be that was a conversation I was privy to numerous times: We can't
do this by death by a thousand cuts. If you're going to do it, we have to do it.
It really stuck with me because in this world we educate ourselves on what we
feed and listen to others that are in the know or have that experience.
It's
like everything now, no one ever agrees foolhardily on everything, but you come
in and come and pass without huge implications. There were implications, there
were savings and they made the numbers work, but it wasn't a death by a thousand
cuts, as I say, because it only affected certain groups.
Every
time I get up and speak on the budget or speak to any bill pertaining to the
budget, I always keep saying that because that's probably the truest
implications of this budget that you hear every day, you hear it on the streets
and that's everyone's issues. It affects every single person in the province.
Back in
2004 there was a big public outcry. I know Members opposite, no doubt, have been
told and I was around. I wasn't in government, but I was very close to the
former government and I knew what was happening. My wife was one of them
actually. That affected a group, the public sector. In 2006 my dates may be
wrong we had the revenue sharing, the resource sharing with the crab, a big
dispute. You affected the fishermen.
Bill 29
we upset the media. I know people in my district that still don't know what Bill
29 means, but the media were all over it and did an effective job.
Budget 2016 affected every
single person in the province. I don't think there are truer words to be said
AN HON. MEMBER:
Everyone's upset.
MR. PETTEN:
Everyone is upset, and everyone is affected.
This morning I was sat down in a coffee shop actually and
it was a spot I try to go to different places for coffee some days just to get
around to meeting people. I went down to a place this morning, I went in and
there were only a few people around. I sat down and there were a couple of
people there I didn't know, so I sat and read the paper and had a coffee.
There were three
conversations around me and every one of them was budget related. Luckily they
didn't realize who I was. I kept my head down and I wanted to read the paper,
but I would have talked to them. I was just there and every conversation was the
budget. One was on gas
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
It's unbelievable, everywhere
you go I did Camp Day yesterday at Tim Hortons; I know some of my colleagues
did as well. I was in the drive-through and I had vehicles hauling up as they
were getting their coffee and you were giving them their stuff, they were having
a sidebar for a second. The lineup was right around the building out on the
road, but it just triggered the conversation.
It's
near and dear to every person in this province and I don't say that to fill in
time. If anyone is following me, I'm not one that has videos on Facebook of I'm
out roaring and bawling. I just speak here and if anyone wants to go in and
follow it online, they can go in and see what I said. I'm not one of them
self-promoters.
When I
get up to speak I speak my mind, I speak what I hear on the street, I speak
really what people put me here to do. My record will speak for itself. I try to
tell what the real story I'm hearing on the street is. As the sayings goes,
there are no punches pulled. These are honest comments from people. I always
like to use the word real people because that's what we all are, really, at the
end of the day. When we leave this and you go home, we go out around, we're all
residents of the community, we all got to go to the gas station, we all have to
pay taxes, we're all affected, each and every one of us are affected in some
way. With this budget, there's a negative impact.
It's
unfortunate that there wasn't more creativity given when the budget document was
being prepared. When the Minister of Finance announced the budget on April 14,
we were doing the briefing before you come out and my background is accounting
actually, ironically, on taxes and stuff. When you get the spreadsheet, your
columns, anyone knows it's a balancing effect; this has to add up to this. All I
could picture when I was reading some documents was that's what this appeared to
be. That's your target, this is where your starting point is, but that's my
target and I have all of these columns to get me to that target.
Even
now, many hours we have sat in this House and we've talked about the budget,
some of the theatrics and whatever, and that's fair game, I keep coming back to
that point and it sticks with me. When it was being done and I know that's not
exactly, but I can't help but feel, play with numbers. Wait now, we'll add that.
We need that amount to be that amount. How are we going to get there?
The term
has been used in the House, a lazy budget. Well, everybody works hard. All the
staff in Finance, I know the minister can agree, they work day and night. I know
from previous years seeing officials in that department, that's a pretty
tireless, thankless job. They work very hard. Probably we don't give them credit
for the work they do behind the scenes.
The
direction that staff takes to make this budget is the issue. That, to me, is not
where we should be when we're doing a budget that's affecting the province in
such a negative way. I said it last week and I'll say it again as I'm closing on
my time, I really and truly believe this.
I know
my colleague from Virginia Waters Pleasantville pointed out, he took exception
when I made reference last week but people have lost the bounce in their step.
I can't say it any clearer than that. People are concerned. People have lost
that sense of freedom or the ability to go spend or the want to spend.
As
recently as yesterday, I was talking to a person new home building. Housing
starts in CBS has been through the roof for a long time; one of the leading in
the province. I was talking to two contractors yesterday. One in particular
doesn't know if he's going to get any work. The other guy is going around trying
to take whatever he can get. You couldn't get them to give you a price less than
a year ago, now they can't get any work. That's how quick the economy is turning
against them. They're residents of mine. Their concerns are very valid, as are
everyone's here.
In
closing, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, until I get another chance.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
It's
indeed a pleasure to get up here today. We're back on the budget again. Every
chance I get, I will get up and talk about the budget and the effects the budget
is having on people in the province and people right across Newfoundland and
Labrador.
This is
probably the one bill that makes a little bit more sense. It's reasonable to
people where you increase their tax based on their salary. Not like what the
levy did, which was just pick out a group and then went and did whatever.
No
matter what we do in increasing taxes, we all look at this budget and like
I've said every time I got up, the budget to me is all about choices. The
choices we make and how we there's nobody in this province that are going to
come to you and say, listen, that's it, let it go, let her go the way she's
going, don't do a thing, we know that things need to be done. It's all about the
choices that we make and how it impacts our society.
We have
a lot of people in our society that can pay the extra few dollars and we have
people in society that can't pay the extra few dollars. The bill is based on
different revenues that everybody makes, whether it's everything below $35,000
basically, and then $35,000 to $70,000 it's a different rate that you pay.
People are reasonable; people understand that's how the income tax works. The
more money you make, the more taxes you pay.
Increases in each category have gone up by quite a bit, but it's something that
people could probably live with. The problem is that there's so much. This is
one part that people probably can understand more than what they can other ways.
It's just so much. I heard it said lots of times that it's too much too fast.
The shock that this has done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is
unbelievable.
My
colleague just mentioned about being at a coffee shop yesterday at Tim's day. I
did the same thing myself. What a great day I had. It was a good bit of fun. We
all had a good laugh. I'm not the best person now; I'd need a lot of training to
become a Tim Hortons. I poured a good few coffees. I wasn't bad at it, I
suppose, but they're pretty quick.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Spilled a few.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I spilled a few too, yes. I
hope all the customers at Tim Hortons on Torbay Road yesterday were in it for
the cause and not for the quality of the coffee that I made for them. We all had
a great day, a good cause. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians came out, they
supported it.
It's
unbelievable what they do to support any charity, and we see it in all our
communities. Every time anybody is asked to jump in we need something for
somebody, whether it's somebody who needs a wheelchair, whether it's somebody
who needs a ramp to their house, whether it's somebody who had some kind of a
fire.
I saw
the week that the little girl, Quinn, out in the Member for Harbour Grace Port
de Grave's area, they had a fundraiser for her. They expected to raise only so
much money and they went over their expectations. It just shows you what kind of
people we are.
I'm very
proud to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm very proud to live where
we live today, I really am. I'm proud that I can say my neighbours and my
colleagues across the way and colleagues all over this Island, we do care about
people. We actually do care.
When the
time is there, I guarantee you, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians step up to the
cause. I have to say, whoever organized that event, I believe it's a playground
that's going in Paradise, it'll be a memory for that little girl forever. It's
such a tragedy, but hopefully it will be a memory that young children will know.
I believe there are other things they're doing with the Kirby House, making
extra beds available and stuff like that, too. It's really good to see people
step forward.
The
problem is, getting back to the budget, it's too much too fast. The reason being
is we're taking too much money out of people's pockets. Now, I'm going to get a
couple of chances to speak on this today, but I really believe there are people
we're hurting out in society under this budget that I really hope government
will just listen to.
I had a
phone call last night, it was a from a friend of mine, that her dad went
yesterday to get he gets a shot, a vitamin B shot is what he gets. He's 85
years old, lives in his home, him and his wife. They're lovely people, very nice
people. I missed their birthday and I ended up going down and seeing them, and
what a nice conversation. I could hardly get out of their house. Really nice
people, but they're struggling. They're seniors. He's 85 years old. His wife has
some medical issues and he has some himself, but two of them do not want to
leave that house. They want to stay in their house as long as they can, and
that's what most seniors are like in Newfoundland and Labrador. They want to
stay there.
Yesterday he went to the local drugstore down in the community and he was
charged $12.16 for his vitamin B shot. Now, that may be a small amount of money,
a very small amount of money, but to that gentleman it was unbelievable. This
was something that he got, an over-the-counter drug that he got. It didn't cost
him anything. It didn't cost him anything, until yesterday when he went to go
get it, the pharmacist told him, now Mr. so-and-so, this is going to cost you
$12.16.
Again,
maybe it's not a lot of money, but when you're a senior and you're on a fixed
income and every month now you've got to go to the drugstore and that's another
$12. That gentleman and his wife, they paid their price over the years. They
raised a lovely family. They're pillars in their community. Like I said earlier,
if you needed someone who was going to buy a ticket or give a donation or bake a
cake, I guarantee you, you would have no worries to see what these people would
do.
Here we
are on this budget, these are seniors in their own home, trying to stay in their
own home, now for a vitamin B shot, as of yesterday, he has to pay $12.16. I
think that's unfair. I really believe to do that to our seniors I listened to
the Open Line show this week and a
gentleman was on Open Line talking
about the same thing. It was a prescription he needed that was $4.50.
Why are
we doing this? There has to be other ways. This senior, they have a car, so
right now they're going to pay 15 per cent more on their insurance; they have to
come up with that. Then they have to pay another 15 per cent on the insurance in
their home; they have to pay that. And now the gas today went up 18 cents. So,
here they are, to operate their car it's going to cost and we're going to
charge a gentleman, 85-years-old it's unbelievable how hard they're working to
stay in their home an extra $12.16 for a vitamin B shot. By the way, Mr.
Chair, the doctor actually comes to their home, does a home call for them so
that he can give him the shot at the home. He gets it up to the drug store; the
doctor visits their home and does the shot for him at the time. That's $12.16;
this is what we're doing to seniors in our province.
I think
it's absolutely shameful that the seniors in our province now going to our drug
stores, that have something for free now, if they never got it for free and
they were always paying for it, okay, because they would budget it. They'd have
it in their budget. It's a small amount of money I know, but how many other
things are there and how many more seniors in the province are going to drug
stores and finding out that what I got for $5 or what I got for $6, now I have
to pay more for it?
I
understand we're here today and we're talking about people who are making
$75,000 and we're talking about people making $150,000, but I'm talking about
seniors in our province that, all of a sudden, got a vitamin B shot to get his
vitamin B shot, he'd go up and the druggist would give it to him. As of
yesterday, he walked into the same drug store and now he has to pay $12.16 for
it.
Do
people on the other side I know you do. I can't say that. That's not right to
say that to you. But you must realize how hard this is on seniors in our
province. And why are we doing this to seniors in our province? These people pay
the price. An example, like I just said, that gentleman wants to stay in his
home. Perhaps that's what we'll do, we'll drive them out of their homes, and
we'll have to set up a long-term care facility to put him and his wife into
long-term care because they won't be able to afford to live in their homes. Is
that what we're trying to do? I think it's so shameful. It's unbelievable that
we're doing this to people.
You may
think or I know when you did your budget well, it's only a small thing. But
I can tell you every dollar counts to people who go home when they get their
cheque and can tell you where every cent is going. That's what's happening here.
I really would love to the government to consider what you're doing with
over-the-counter drugs, what you're doing to our seniors and people on fixed
incomes.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Really think about this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity to stand again here in this House and speak to the
impact of the budget that has been brought down by the Liberal government. The
bill that we're dealing with today, the bill which will make changes to the
income tax system not to the system itself, but to the amounts of money that
people have to pay in income tax by changing the percentages of income that tax
is paid on in our income tax system gives me an opportunity to speak more to the
concerns I have with regard to the impact of this budget on the lives of people.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis just spoke to an issue that I think I'll start with.
What I'm trying to do, every time I stand up, is to show the government the
impact on people of this budget. I promised people that if they sent me their
stories on how the budget is impacting them, I'd be happy to bring that here to
the floor of the House and that's what I'm doing.
A
government budget should be there for the good of the people of the province.
The budget should be there to help people, not to make life more difficult for
people. A budget should have a vision so that people will be taken care of, that
revenues will be adequate to help people be taken care of.
What we
have here is not a vision. We even have the the changes that are being
suggested here to the Income Tax Act,
the changes that we're dealing with here today, only go so far with almost
everything else in this budget. Yes, making changes to the income tax and we
do have the tax payable per individual going up in each of the brackets, but it
once again doesn't do it in an equitable way. The government could have come
much more close in the last two tax brackets, much more close to those top
brackets, to demanding more from people in those tax brackets and be closer to,
for example, what Nova Scotia and PEI charge.
But no,
they backed down and didn't even bring the rates for the top brackets up to
where they were when the cuts were first made in income tax rates by the Tory
government when they were in. They backed down and continue to make life harder
for people who are mid to low income. It's not all low, low. The mid to low
income are really being affected by this budget.
As I was
about to say, the Member for Cape St. Francis was talking about over-the-counter
drugs. I don't know if the government thinks that over-the-counter drugs are
drugs that weren't necessary or they're drug that people don't need. That
they're drugs that people can do without.
My
answer to the minister and to the Members, if that's what they think, is that
many over-the-counter drugs really do make life better for people and keep
people from becoming more ill and having to use the health care system. So, for
example, some of the drugs some of us may never use, but there are people out
there who need them.
There is
one example I want to use because this is one I didn't even know about. This is
from somebody who's on dialysis. This person uses a cream. The name of it is
Amila. The cream makes life more bearable and actually helps the skin. What it
does is it numbs the skin around the needle sites. It costs $50 a tube. This
person uses three tubes a month. It was covered under the special needs part of
our drug plan but due to the budget cuts, it's no longer covered because it's
one of the over-the-counter drugs that isn't been included anymore, not even in
the special needs section.
This
person is a low-income earner and barely makes it from cheque to cheque. So what
will happen is he's not going to be able to afford this cream, and dialysis is
something that keeps him alive. This is not something that's not necessary. This
keeps him alive. If his skin becomes more irritated and becomes sore because of
not being able to use this cream, that's really going to cause real problems for
him. This is an example.
We also
know there are people with bowel conditions, for example, who need drugs like
stool softeners that are no longer able to be accessed over the counter. Over
the counter doesn't mean not important. Over the counter doesn't mean, well, you
can live without that. Over the counter simply means that it's not necessary to
have a prescription for that drug, but it doesn't mean the drug is not
important. This is what the budget seems to be implying, and it's very
disturbing.
When I
talk about middle-income people, I have an email here which really fits this
middle-income couple. Husband and wife, she works two days a week. She makes a
little less than $20,000. Her husband, a provincial pension, old age security,
CPP and, between the two of them, they make approximately $55,000 a year. Now,
as she puts it, if they can keep their expenses to where they are, if they can
keep their costs to where they are, they can make it. But as she says, we don't
need any cuts to our income or increases to our taxes, fees and purchases,
because if that happens, they are not going to be able to make ends meet from
cheque to cheque. They just won't be able to do it.
As she
says: We do understand that something has to be done to get Newfoundland and
Labrador back on track, and are willing to do our part, even though all our
previous governments have consistently dropped the ball. I think the amount of
income my husband and myself have is a decent income and we have no problem
pulling our weight, but I just don't want to end up in the poor house doing it.
Now, there's quite a statement, and that's from this person. I'm reading exactly
what she's saying.
Also, I
will mention that she did write to her MHA who is on the government side of the
House, and the MHA did answer her email by saying he would get back to her, but
that never happened. In her original email that she sent to her MHA, she just
didn't talk about herself and her husband who can make ends meet, but with any
changes to expenses and I'm sure they must have a car and if they don't
have a car, they use a taxi.
We heard from Doug McCarthy on the radio this morning, I
can say, because he spoke publicly in the media. As a taxi driver he's going to
be spending $44 more a week for gas for his car, and he says that his taxi is
one of the smaller ones. So if Doug is paying $44 more a week, somebody using
the taxi maybe this couple is going to end up having to pay more money for
that taxi.
So they can't cope with more expenses.
The gas went up today, whether they have a car or whether they use a taxi,
that's going to affect them. For them, they cannot absorb any more expenses.
That's the problem. Or, as she says, they could end up in the poor house.
She's
also concerned about her son and she talks about the son, a son with a wife and
one child. They live here in St. John's and as she puts it, they eke out a
living here in St. John's; eke out a living to be able to take care of the
family and keep a home. This budget is making it very hard for him to do that.
She says: As I said, I'm willing to put up with the budget and try to eke out,
but for God sake put a stop to the gouging of young families, the working poor
and our seniors.
This is
a concerned voter, somebody who lives here in St. John's, and who, if we
continue down the path we're continuing, is not going to be able to make ends
meet, will either do without or build up more and more debt. That's what this
budget is going to be causing. The majority of people are like this couple that
I'm reading about here now.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a
pleasure once again to stand in this hon. House and this time we're speaking to
Bill 13, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. Mr. Chair, obviously the minister
has already outlined what this bill is about. It's going to raise income tax for
people in this province. And, quite frankly, if that's all we were talking
about, if we were talking about this bill in isolation, I'd have no problem
standing up here and supporting it I wouldn't, if we were talking about this
bill in isolation.
But
we're not talking about this bill in isolation. We're talking about a number of
bills, a number of measures and the cumulative effect of all those measures,
which is why I cannot support any of the bills that are coming before this House
that relate to taxation and the budget, simply because they all have that
cumulative effect and that negative impact on people, and that's why.
I just
heard one of the Members across say and that's why you're over there. Yes,
absolutely that's why I'm over here and I'm glad I'm over here because there's
no way that I could subject my constituents to all of these brutal taxation
measures. That is all you can call it is brutal. It's going to be brutal on
people; everybody knows it.
I would
recommend to any Member of this House if you don't believe me, go out in your
district and knock on doors. Knock on random doors: the good, the bad, the
Liberal doors, the PC doors, the people who don't vote for any particular party
doors. Knock on every door, randomly. I can guarantee you that you're going to
get the same feedback that I've gotten and people on this side of the House have
gotten, and I know that you've gotten because I've seen the emails. We've all
got the emails.
The
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi I think that's the name of the
district; I keep mixing it up.
AN HON. MEMBER:
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MR. LANE:
St. John's East Quidi
Vidi was reading an email, and she's after reading a few. I can tell you, Mr.
Chair, that if I wanted to I'd say I could print off about a thousand emails
and I'm not joking, that's not an exaggeration from all over the province that
will all be similar. They would be tweaked in different ways, different
situations depending on where they're from, depending on their financial status
and so on. They're all very similar in that the common theme is this is just too
much, too fast on the people. That's the common theme and they're there.
I'm not
going to read them today. Certainly if we get to the levy bill, if that comes
before us I understand it is, if it is then I'm prepared to read a thousand
emails, every one of them, one at a time. Absolutely I will so that we get it on
the record. For now, I'll just keep my remarks coming from what I've heard
without actually reading off emails.
It is
the cumulative impact of all this stuff. If you go up later on and look out your
window and you see all the people out here in front of the building in another
little while I hope there's a huge crowd; I don't know if there will be or
not. Whoever is out there, they're going to be protesting the gas tax. But it's
not just about the gas tax; it's about the cumulative impact of all of these
changes.
I know
everybody knows that's true. I know that deep down everybody in this House
understands that. Do you know what? It's still not too late. I don't care if the
budget look, we voted on the budget, so what, big deal. The government can
come in tomorrow and bring in an amendment to that budget tomorrow if they
wanted or not tomorrow, the House is not open tomorrow, but on Monday. You
could bring in amendments on Monday. We could debate those amendments. If
they're reasonable, then I'm sure we could support it. So it's not too late. If
you think for a second just because we had the budget vote that means this is
all over, it's not over. This is not over.
This
debate will continue on at every given opportunity until this House closes. Then
it will continue on in the community well beyond that, because this is not going
away. I can tell you it's not going away. Do you know why it's not going away,
Mr. Chair? Because there are going to be constant reminders, people will be
constantly reminded. Every time they go to the gas pump, it's a reminder. When
they go to file their income tax, it's a reminder. When they go to register
their vehicle and their licence, it's a reminder.
When
they go and get their moose licence, it's a reminder. When they go and they
renew their insurance, it's a reminder. Every time they go to the store to buy a
loaf of bread or something, it's another 2 per cent on it, it's a reminder. It's
a constant reminder. Everywhere people turn there's another reminder. That's not
to mention the trickle-down effect of all of this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
I can bet you dollars to
donuts, whether the gas tax increase is legitimately going to have a big impact
on the price of bringing in food and goods and services and so on, whether it
really will because I know diesel is not gone up the same degree as what gas
is gone up. I can guarantee you if you look through history, that will be just
the excuse that will be needed to start driving the prices of everything else
up.
Oh, we
had to put up groceries. Why? Oh, because of gas. We had to put up this. Why?
Oh, because of gas. It's funny how we can put prices up because of gas and taxes
but when that condition changes, it never goes down. It never goes down to the
level it was, never. It has never happened yet. I haven't seen it. So this is
going to have a trickle-down effect.
Even
things as simple as I heard the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday or the day
before, talk about taxis. I know it just came up a little while ago: taxis. Just
think about it, if you're a taxi driver, gas has gone up big time, insurance on
your taxi, which is much higher than regular car insurance I don't know what
it is, but I understand it's much higher because of the virtue of the fact it is
a taxi. That insurance is going up big time. Every time the taxi driver brings
the car into the garage for repairs, which they do on a regular basis with
brakes and so on it's another 2 per cent.
When
they go to renew their licence, that's going to be a bigger cost and when they
go to get their registration, that's going to be a bigger cost. What do you
think is going to happen, Mr. Chair? The meters are going to go up. They have to
or these people won't survive. These taxi drivers are barely surviving as it is.
They're going to have to put up their meters.
Who's
using the taxis? Who is using the taxis when those meters go up?
AN HON. MEMBER:
People who can't afford cars.
MR. LANE:
People who can't afford cars,
senior citizens. Those are the people that are using the taxis. If it's somebody
because some people said, well, a lot of people who are on income support use
taxis and it gets paid for by the government. Yes, and that happens too, but
then that means the cost to the government is going up.
Either
way you look at it, the disadvantaged are going to be paying for these rates and
the government itself, in a lot of cases, are going to be paying the higher
rates. That's what's going to happen.
What do
you think is going to happen when people stop going to restaurants because they
can't afford to? What's going to happen to the restaurant? They're either going
to have to cut back their hours, cut back on staff or shut their doors
completely. If that happens, jobs are gone. Where do the people who lose their
jobs where are they going to get a job if you see that happening? That has to
be a negative impact. I said before I'm not an economist, Mr. Chair, but my
goodness, I don't understand why we're not getting that point.
I
understand there has to be balance. I understand the financial circumstance.
Everybody understands it and everyone's willing to pay their share, but we're
gone too far. That's all we're saying. That's all the people are saying we're
gone too far. Some of the other decisions that are being made around education
and so on, there's not even a dollar value associated to that. That's not even
saving money. We're going to implement new programs at the cost of existing
ones. Everybody is saying it, the Teachers' Association, teachers,
administrators, parents, school councils. They're all saying don't do it.
It's not
even a matter of money, but we're going to do it anyway because somebody has it
in their mind that's what I said I'm going to do and by God, I'm doing it.
That's what it comes down to. It's not acceptable and the people are not going
to take it.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. Member that
his speaking time has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
certainly happy to be rising in this hon. House again, but not at all happy to
be speaking to this budget which I really do believe and I followed politics
my entire life. I think I was born with the political bug. I grew up in a
political family. My father was actually at the Liberal convention when
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
He was at the Liberal
convention when Joey was supposed to resign and he was a supporter of John
Crosbie. When Crosbie walked out the door, so did my father, and we've been Tory
ever since. And quite proud to do so, Mr. Chair, because people deserve to have
all voices heard, and people need to challenge the government. Because a
government that doesn't listen to the people is a government that ends up
delivering budgets like we see here in the House of Assembly again in 2016,
which is bad for the people.
I truly
hope that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador make their voices clearly
heard in the next election and express their full displeasure with the fact that
everything they voted for and everything they believed in was thrown out the
window once power was granted to the Executive Council opposite, I will say,
because I think many of the people in the back bench are like many
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in complete shock at what we see in 2016, Mr.
Chair.
It's
very disheartening. In fact, I almost come to tears with some of the emails that
we read, and I know, and I'm sure many of you know especially those of you who
live in rural districts that people in our province, many people, really do
struggle. I've been in homes and I've left and I've wondered how these people
were going to feed themselves, how these people were going to get to their
medical appointments that they needed to get to. And that was in the good times.
So how
they're going to fare once all of the implications of this budget are brought
down, I'm genuinely very worried and very concerned, Mr. Chair. I truly hope,
like my colleague for Mount Pearl South just said when he got and spoke, that
there will be some sober second thought to some of the measures in this
budget. I know that I've talked about these issues previously when I got up to
speak on the budget, and I probably will speak of them over and over and over
again over the course of the next month or so as we continue to debate the bills
that are on the floor of this House of Assembly for us as a part of the course
of this budget.
The Liberals campaigned on the theme of people matter. If
you truly believe that people matter, then please listen to the people, and take
some sober second thought with respect to some of these measures. As my
colleagues on this side of the House have stated when they get up, it's not the
one particular tax increase; it's the cumulative impact
of tax after tax after tax
after tax, after cut after cut after cut after cut. It's too much too fast for
people to absorb I say, Mr. Chair, in a way that is not going how it's not
going to cause a lot of pain and suffering for many of our people is beyond me.
Again,
I'm going to call attention to things like the study on the tunnel. Some of the
key messaging they use when they get up, they'll say: It's all your fault, all
right. That key message is not working out for them so well because they were
the ones who promised the people, oh, we can fix all your problems with no tax
increase. We're not going to increase the HST and we're not going to have any
layoffs. It's strange you know, lately, since they've taken government, all the
Members of Cabinet, you only hear them speak of attrition. That's all they say,
we're all about attrition, yes. When we were talking about attrition it was a
terrible thing.
My fear
is they're going to go much further than attrition. As we've already seen, they
are going much farther than attrition. People are receiving layoff notices. In
my district alone, we have lost three librarians; three women with young
children, decent jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Their jobs are gone.
We're seeing two nurses gone as a result of the cutbacks in health care. That's
five jobs in my district alone that we know of already, and there are more to
come.
People
who supply goods and services in the private sector, they're not going to be
able the small private business in rural Newfoundland and Labrador probably
only operates on a profit margin of 5 or 10 per cent in some cases. They're just
managing to keep the lights on, pay the bills and make a living. They're eking
out a living. They're not rich. They're not prosperous. They're not making
millions and millions and millions of dollars like some of the more affluent
people that live probably in urban areas.
In rural
Newfoundland it's a struggle to survive, but they do it because they love their
communities. They know their communities need a grocery store. They know their
communities need a gas station, but they're gravely concerned about being able
to keep those businesses going.
Inevitably, in order to pay the increased cost of insurance that they're now
going to have, the increased cost on tax, the increased costs on goods and
services, the increased income tax, the increased corporate tax, they're going
to lose jobs in the private sector as well, Mr. Chair. It's going to be totally,
totally devastating.
I'm
praying for a miracle sometime between now and the passing of the rest of the
bills we have here in the House before the House closes. In the absence of that,
the only thing left to do is pray for an increase in oil to hope that some of
these impacts can be reversed for the people of our province in short order. I
know come the next election because one of the things that's very clear to me,
and to all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador so far, is that this government,
the Executive Council of this government, is not listening to what the people
are saying.
The
people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the onus is on you now. The
onus is on you to make sure you send a strong and clear message, not just to the
politicians who run in 2019 but to every future politician whoever wants to
represent a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, that you will not tolerate being fed
a bunch of baloney because we have to careful about the words we use.
People
expect honesty. They expect integrity. If you promise something to the people,
then they expect you to deliver, Mr. Chair. That is something that now the torch
has to be shared by both Opposition and members of the public as a whole as we
clearly send a message, like I say, to all future politicians, that if you want
our vote and if you want to govern us then be honest and deliver on the
commitments you have made.
This
budget, we've never seen anything like it ever in terms of such a complete
contrast from what was promised versus what was delivered. We never saw such an
extremity in what people were led to believe versus what we actually got. I hope
it never, ever, ever happens again in Newfoundland and Labrador. I truly think
the people will be upset enough as a result of this budget that they won't allow
it to ever happen again.
It is
unequivocally, I do believe, the biggest let down ever. It shocks me when I have
people who have been Liberal their whole lives and have respected me and the
work I do, but have said my dad was Liberal and my dad's dad was Liberal and
I've always been a Liberal. You're a great lady, but I can't support you; that
are saying: Tracey, can I work on your campaign the next time? That's
astounding. I've never experienced that before. It's actually quite incredible.
I
haven't really talked about anything I have here in my notes, Mr. Chair. So I
look forward to a few more opportunities to get up and speak. In particular, as
a rural Member, the attack on rural Newfoundland and Labrador is absolutely
devastating.
I will
say the Liberal government of the '90s, at least they tried to do something for
rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We're all scratching our heads in rural
Newfoundland, saying: What are they trying to do, get us all moved to the Avalon
Peninsula? Well, there's no room. You can't accommodate all of us on the Avalon
Peninsula.
I
actually did an interview not too long ago with a local reporter. I said, look,
if this government thinks they're going to force all of us out of rural
Newfoundland, I, for one, will be moving to a rural community in another
province because I'm not an urbanite. I don't ever want to be an urbanite.
I like
rural living. I like the calm and peacefulness that rural Newfoundland has to
offer. I like the fact that you can go to bed at night and not have to lock your
door. I like the fact that you can walk to your neighbours and walk in and have
a cup of tea. It's a different way of life. It's one that I think we need to
maintain. Where would tourism be if we didn't have rural Newfoundland and
Labrador? That's what our ads are all about.
I see my
time is running out, Mr. Chair. I look forward to getting back to speak more on
the concerns of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and how we must do
whatever we can to change this budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm very
happy to stand and to speak for the first time to Bill 13, An Act to Amend the
Income Tax Act. Over the weeks we have talked quite a bit about the budget, and
not only the budget, the economic situation here in our glorious Newfoundland
and Labrador. So many words have been said and so many different opinions have
been brought back and forth across the aisle here.
Mr.
Chair, I started a process last week where I was going through a presentation by
Toby Sanger, who is an economist, who prepared an analysis comparing Alberta to
Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a very interesting comparison. What he does is
he shows us what is similar. He's also very, very much aware that although both
are going through a very, very difficult fiscal time, a time where their
economies are hit really hard by the drop in oil prices, and both provinces rely
quite heavily on the income from oil and natural gas, but the key thing is we
cannot control what happens to the price of oil. We cannot control what is
happening to the price of commodities worldwide globally, but what we do have
control over is how we deal with it and what our response is.
I loved
some of the comparisons he made. Again, Toby is a well-respected economist. He
talks about how Newfoundland and Labrador and Alberta both have glorious
mountain ranges. We both have wonderful people in our arts and in our cultural
industry.
One of
the things I've mentioned before, I'll mention again, that I found very
interesting is that both provinces have almost the same number of moose. Alberta
has 118,000 moose and Newfoundland and Labrador have 115,000 moose. I found that
very interesting and very, very surprising.
What he
did was he looked again at what was the different approach to the economic
crisis that Alberta undertook and what was the approach to the economic crisis
that Newfoundland and Labrador took. The interesting thing is that Alberta has a
new government. They have a new NDP government, led by Premier Rachel Notley.
Newfoundland and Labrador has a new government. It's a Liberal government led by
our Premier.
What he
did then was to look at what were the approaches, how did they handle this
particular crisis that's both our provinces are facing. One of the things is
that we know the role of government in an economic crisis is to have a steady
hand, to help the people of each province, to help the people in our province,
to help business in our province to weather the storm so that, in fact, we can
become stronger. It's to help stabilize the economy.
It's
very interesting to see the two approaches that each province has taken. We know
that we're not exactly comparing apples to apples. Alberta did not have the same
level of debt that Newfoundland and Labrador has. Our deficits are quite
different as well. The population, of course, of Newfoundland and Labrador
compared to the population of Alberta is quite different.
Although
the similarities are that in both Alberta and in Newfoundland and Labrador there
are many hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to work. In
Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
are unemployed. In Alberta, we have a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
who are unemployed. In both provinces, we have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
who want to work, who are willing to roll up their sleeves, who are resilient
people, who are hard-working people.
I did go
in detail some of the different approaches. The other interesting thing is both
Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador brought their budgets down on the very
same day, April 14. I find that quite interesting.
After
looking at the similarities, Toby Sanger said, but let's look at where the
differences are. A bit of a thumbnail sketch is in the area of public spending.
Alberta has instituted a 2 per cent increase in overall operating spending. They
have instituted stable funding for education and health. They've also instituted
increase in infrastructure funding by 23 per cent this year, and by another 13
per cent next year.
Now,
what has Newfoundland and Labrador done? What has this government done in its
response to the fiscal crisis that we find ourselves in? Newfoundland and
Labrador, this government, has made $260 million in cuts in this budget. Except
for the cuts, they've put another $1.3 billion into Nalcor. We've been talking a
lot in the past few days, actually in the past week, about Nalcor, Mr. Chair.
Particularly because when we are looking at what is happening, we can't get any
straight answers, there are all kinds of evasiveness, there are all kinds of
confusion about either the dismissal or the resignation of the CEO of Nalcor,
and also about the board being very unhappy with government as well and
resigning en masse.
Anyway,
$1.3 billion has been put into Nalcor again, and $100 million cut to planned
capital and repair projects. So what we see is that Alberta, in fact, they
called their budget a jobs plan, and what they're doing is that they're
investing. We know that what has happened here is that they're investing in
their people, they're investing in infrastructure projects, they're investing in
health and education, so they're investing in they're people. They are helping
the people of Alberta weather the storm.
That's
not what our government has done. When I first read the budget, I was
heartbroken. I thought, oh my God, what is this government doing to help us
weather the storm? What are they doing to strengthen the people? What are they
doing to ensure that people have jobs? What they're doing is cutting jobs. And
we know what the result of cutting jobs is: further unemployment. We already
have the highest unemployment rate in the country.
So, our
government, rather than developing a budget that will put people to work, that
will strengthen people, that will strengthen our public services, that will
strengthen our communities, they are impoverishing our people. They are creating
further unemployment. They are closing schools. They are closing libraries. They
are putting an incredible burden of taxes and fees on people who are already
just barely making ends meet, just barely able to pay their mortgage payments,
their car payments, their heating payments, their student loans, their child
care and putting food on the table for their children.
So our
government, in fact, the Liberal government of Newfoundland and Labrador has
decided to put the squeeze on the people rather than strengthening people so
that we can weather this storm. That's unfortunate and the government says that
they a Government Renewal Initiative. So their Government Renewal Initiative has
different measures that they're employing. I think that is really grim. Their
approach to the budget, their approach to the people, is a grim approach. Their
Government Renewal Initiative measures are grim. They are not strengthening the
people.
A few
days ago, I looked at the comparisons between what Alberta and Newfoundland and
Labrador are doing in the areas of health, in the areas of education, in the
areas of infrastructure and now I'm going to go through a few of the other areas
that we haven't had a chance to look at in this particular presentation. One of
them, one area that we haven't yet had a chance to look at is the environment
and climate change.
Alberta
includes climate leadership, a plan to end coal and to cap oil sands. That's one
of their main measures in the environment and climate change area. They are
doing proactive measures. They are being very proactive. They're being very
progressive in that area. And it's a hard thing to do. For a province that
relies on oil, it's a very interesting, brave step to take.
They're
introducing a carbon levy with progressive refunds. We don't have a carbon levy
at all. As a matter of fact, what we have is a levy that we placed on people and
then increasing gas taxes, whereas Alberta is doing a much more creative
approach.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that her speaking time has expired.
Thank
you.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'll
stand again and finish this presentation.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good
evening, it's good to have another chance to speak to issues related to the
budget. It might be a little bit confusing for the public because there was lots
of drama and commotion this week about the vote on the budget, but that was the
vote on the formal budget bill, the formal budget motion, I should say, and the
Supply bill that then enables things to move forward.
But
there are other pieces of legislation that need to be brought in to enact
various elements of the budget. One that is coming that I think the public will
be particularly interested in is the bill on the levy. Various bills have
already been voted on, the debate has occurred, but there is still important
debate that needs to happen in this House. So that's why we're here this evening
a little longer than normal as the sitting day goes to continue debate on
the issues related to the budget that affects people.
I think
Members so far this afternoon have done a good job of highlighting issues that
are important to them and the people that they're hearing from in their
communities and in their districts. That's a role we take quite seriously.
That's why we will continue to debate the issues when we get the opportunities
to do so. We look forward to more opportunities in the coming days to do more of
that.
In the
few minutes I have this evening, and hopefully I'll have an opportunity to speak
again a little later on. I'd like to talk about issues that perhaps some Members
are tired of hearing me talk about, issues related to the education system and
how it affects schools and families in my district.
I was
pleased to have an opportunity to speak in debate yesterday in this House where
we talked about full-day kindergarten and our belief that it should be delayed.
Not that we should cancel it. We all believe well, I can't speak for
everybody, but certainly the vast majority of people in this House believe the
concept of full-day kindergarten is a good one. I know recently people have
pointed out research that suggests otherwise, but the overwhelming amount of
research I've seen supports quality, play-based, full-day kindergarten. That's
not what we were debating. We were debating the timing and the impact that
plowing ahead with it at this point has on the rest of the K to 12 system.
In the
few minutes I have right now, I'd like to talk about some of the concerns I'm
hearing about. Not all of them are specific to my district. There are no schools
closing in my district but there are some schools closing around the province.
The impact of teacher reductions and layoffs is still yet to be determined to
some extent. I'm getting bits of information from various schools about what the
allocations look like and what impact it will have on classes and schools in my
community.
There
has been some infrastructure projects delayed and some cancelled. One issue I
was really surprised to have to contend with in my own district in Mount Pearl
is combined grade and multigrade classrooms. I just don't believe with the
school population we have in this region that it's the right play. I think it
could potentially impact the quality of education in a negative way.
So
because of allocations, because of numbers, because of budget cuts, Mary Queen
of the World on Topsail Road in Mount Pearl, a school that's been around for
many, many years, for the first time in decades I can't speak with certainty
that there's never been combined classes because maybe many, many years ago when
the community was first being established there may have been combined grade
classes at Mary Queen of the World at that time, but in recent history there
certainly hasn't been. In September, there will be a multigrade classroom at
Mary Queen of the World. It's just not necessary. I really believe that there is
a better way forward.
The
other challenge at Mary Queen of the World related to Intensive Core French.
Since this debate has come up and since there's been growing concern in the
public about Intensive Core French, I've become aware of some schools where
there have been draws in the past to determine who participates. I can honestly
tell you, Mr. Chair, I had no awareness of that before now. I didn't know these
draws had taken place in the past.
Now
they're taking place all over the place. So while it may have taken place in
certain schools in the past, due to capacity and whatever the case may be, now
that Intensive Core French is being attacked and being reduced significantly,
these draws are happening in I won't say every school that has Intensive Core
French, but many, many schools that have Intensive Core French.
I really
find it frustrating when I hear those involved with the government suggest that
this program is somehow an optional luxury for people living in town is the
way I've heard it described by some. I find that particularly troublesome and
offensive. Access to education is important no matter where you live. Granted,
Intensive Core French is not a program that exists in every school and that's
due to population realities.
Members
opposite have pointed out that there are multigrade classrooms in Newfoundland
and Labrador and have been for many years. Yes, because in some communities
there aren't sufficient numbers to do anything but. I don't have a problem with
that. To suggest that because you can't have Intensive Core French in those
situations it shouldn't be available for others, that's not a logical or
sensible argument in this day and age. I think it unfairly pits rural
communities against urban communities. I'd like to think we've moved past that
here in Newfoundland and Labrador today.
At Mary
Queen of the World we're going to have the multigrade classroom situation. We
also had a draw take place for the first time perhaps ever but certainly for
the first time that I know of where several students were voted off the
island. Several students were told, no, you can't participate in the program.
That's no longer available to you.
It just
doesn't seem fair. There has to be a better way. That happening at Mary Queen of
the World this year, the multigrade classroom happening at Mary Queen of the
World this fall, those things are a direct result of this budget. So that's why
we need to keep this discussion going, because there's still time to fix those
things.
I know
that it takes time to get ready for a new school year. There are budgeting
issues and teacher allocations issues, human resource issues, there's all of
that which the school boards have to contend with, no doubt, but there's still
time. This is June 2, so if government moves quickly, I think there are some of
these issues that can still be addressed.
The
other thing that really bothers me about the situation with Mary Queen of the
World is that in September the school is going to have six empty classrooms.
Meanwhile, we have a school like St. Peter's Primary that's already at
overcapacity. It's been overcapacity for many years. Now, in September, we're
going to have another school across the community and Mount Pearl
geographically is not a massive place. We're going to have another school across
the community with six empty classrooms.
The
Minister of Education, who says he doesn't get hands on, actually directly
contacted the chair of the school council at St. Peter's Primary, who I've been
working with for several months, and said: Hey, your MHA is suggesting that
you'd be okay with students being just bused and moved over to Mary Queen of the
World next year. I never suggested that, Mr. Chair I never suggested that.
What I'm
suggesting, though, is there is a long-term solution that could be implemented
as early as this fall. Some classes do need to potentially move to Mary Queen of
the World, but I'm not suggesting we just randomly uproot some classes and move
them over temporarily. The long-term solution, the better solution is to create
a French immersion stream and adjust the zoning so that the population
challenges within the Mount Pearl system are addressed.
I
understand why the school board doesn't want to touch the zoning, but that may
be the best solution. In the meantime, if you established a French immersion
stream, which there is sufficient demand for in Mount Pearl at Mary Queen of the
World, well that would take care of your six empty classrooms and it would take
pressure off St. Peter's Primary.
Those
are the kinds of practical suggestions that we want to try and bring forward to
try and influence change in a positive way. We may not be able to stop all of
these cuts and changes as a result of this budget, but there are things we can
do to make the best of what is unfortunately a bad situation.
I see my
time is running out. There are some other things related to the schools that I'd
like to talk about. Hopefully as debate related to the budget continues in the
days ahead, and maybe even later this evening, I'll have an opportunity to do
so.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Indeed,
it's an honour to get to speak again to the budget and outline some of the
concerns that have been echoed to me by my constituents and people all over this
province. I've had the opportunity, like my colleagues on this side of the
House, to speak a multitude of times, and particularly outline some of the major
concerns. We've talked about education. We've talked about literacy. We've
talked about health care. We've talked about all the impacts they're going to
have on people from an economic point.
I'm
going to concentrate for the next 10 minutes or so and I'll have a number of
other opportunities to speak to some other issues around the budget,
particularly how it relates to my own district and the impacts it's going to
have and some of the responses from some of my own citizens and how it's going
adversely affect their quality of life and their sustainability, and that
becomes a challenge.
One of
the first things that I'll note here is a letter from the mayor of the Town of
Wabana where he talks about the impact that this budget is going to have on the
citizens of Bell Island, particularly. In the letter he notes a particular thing
here about where we are and, particularly, about what was promised as part of
this whole new administration's philosophy around a stronger tomorrow and moving
our province forward. He talks about two of the Liberal's five-point plan was to
focus on building a stronger, smarter economy, and the supporting safe and
sustainable communities.
Well,
Bell Island being on the Northeast Avalon, it's probably lumped in with full
economic growth, sustainability, because it's all part and parcel of all the
investments that are happening on the Northeast Avalon and all the companies
that are coming here, and the job market being very fluent and very accessible.
Well,
there are some challenges when you come from Bell Island. Because you've had a
population where it went from a boom to bust and people are only now being able
to get to an opportunity to get proper education, to be able to compete, to be
able to provide services and get jobs in the service sector. We've tried to put
in play a better ferry service, an affordable ferry service; we had the Advanced
Education and Skills office who had worked with former clients to ensure they
had not only the skill set, but the supports. In some cases, supports was around
day care, some cases it was around start-up and some cases, it was around
training. In a lot of cases, it was around basic education, their adult basic
education programs and services.
So we
had all these amenities that we were now putting in place, it's been decades
where we've been trying to put this into play so that we could not be a burden
in any way, shape or form on the rest of the taxpayers of the province, but
would be able to contribute back. We've moved forward immensely over the last
decade or so. We've gone anywhere from 1,700 ad 1,800 cases of Income Support
relying clients of some way, shape or form having to rely on the state to
support it. Only because the economy, their circumstance dictated that.
We've
gone from that down to less than 900. We've cut it by half. Those people are the
same individuals now who travel on a daily basis to come to St. John's and help
provide services for people. They work in the health care. They work in the
education system. They work in the service sector. They work in the construction
sector. They've done their part, and they want to continue to do that.
What
they're noting here, and the mayor has noted here, in a number of things, of the
impact it is going to have on its citizens around increases to ferry rates,
cutting of schedules down the road. The impact that the gas tax is going to have
now on people, the fact that they are not services readily available on the
island for them to access these are all things. Insurance costs all things
that are going to have a direct impact.
Some of
the other things even outside of the direct, financial economy for people
travelling to sustain that, are their own loved ones who are in long-term care
who now don't have access to certain drugs, who are already on fixed incomes
because they're third or fourth generation where there wasn't a sustainable
year-round job for them. This is going to have an impact on them, because now
they've got to find a way to offset, with all these other additional costs,
another health care cost, that they have to help make sure whoever it is that's
in the long-term care over there gets the proper medications they need, the
proper drugs. And it has an effect on everybody.
When
people look at the impact it's having and we're hearing by the protests out
there by the general public, the impacts it's having. If you go to any island in
this province, particularly ones that are populous and people are having access
to employment, you add all these additional costs, you're taking anywhere from
20 to 30 per cent additional money out of their pockets. Unless you've got some
exorbitant high-paying job, 10 chances to one you don't live in one of those
communities, because you're going to have to be very close to whatever job that
is. These other jobs that you're travelling, you're making middle- to low-income
wages and now you've got to absorb an exorbitant amount of money all in one
time, it's not sustainable, it's going to create hardship for people and it's
going to force people back on a reliance on the state that they worked for years
to get away from and took pride in being able to get a hand up and not a hand
out. Now all of a sudden, we're going to put them back to where they were a
decade ago or beyond.
It's
frightening that there isn't a vision here when you're talking about,
particularly two of the five points here, very sustainable making communities
that now exist sustainable, by either finding a better way to merge the services
we have; or particularly, engaging the citizens so that we find a better way
that those communities themselves become self-sufficient to the fact that
they're contributing more because they've drawn businesses to be there; or
people themselves have taken control over their own destiny and have started to
move things forward.
What
we're doing is being again I've talked about regression in our education
system; we're becoming regressive in our economics, particularly in
sustainability for communities' own survival.
Now, if
our intent, the intent of this House, particularly the government side, is to
resettle all these communities that have a population of less than 3,000 people,
well then, say that to the people. Tell them here's our standard, here's our
process for the next 10 years, and here's how we're going to do it by cutting
services, by forcing you out from an economic point of view. For making sure
that it's not accessible, the services that you're going to have; by not putting
anything in place that would encourage businesses to invest, or for citizens to
take the few dollars they may have saved to put back into a quality of life for
themselves; or making the basis of life health care and education not
accessible because it is not in a proper geographic area for you.
If
that's the intent, be honest with people and tell them we have a plan, that we
can only sustain 195 communities in this province. Be upfront with people. At
least the communities can determine how they sustain that and families can start
looking over the next generation as to what they want to do.
I would
hope and think I guarantee you that's not the plan of the majority of the
people in this province. As a result, the plan is here to support everybody. Are
there economic ways that we can tighten up what we do, make it more efficient?
Sure there are. The problem here is we went out to ask people to do that or
the government did. And I was one of the people who sat in on some of these
sessions, would give my two cents' worth. I thought that information would be
taken and actually looked at.
Because
just in the session that I was at, I saw very intelligent people from all
backgrounds, people who work in the private sector, people who work in the
government sector, people who are single parents were there looking at,
educators were there, medical professionals were there, people from
post-secondary, every sector that you would want were represented people from
different cultural backgrounds.
So you
had a good cross section for people to be able to come in and say here's what we
suggest, here are the things we think you need to tighten up on because you need
to be fiscally prudent and you can make those plans without being detrimental.
Here are the things we think, from a long-term perspective, would be beneficial
to people. Here are the types of services that you can collaborate on to still
provide a proper service without it being an additional cost but actually a
savings. Here are the things we suggest of how you can drive the economy, how
you can enhance it. If there are only X number of dollars you have now and you
need more, well then you have to enhance the economy. You have to encourage
other business to come here. Be more creative; be more diverse.
Those
were the conversations that were happening. I even questioned the 15- to
18-month delay process but I said if the government is sincere about this, they
want to get it right, you need a bit of time to do that and you need to engage
the right people. So having all of these open forums, having people sit down
with structured questions to have an outline so they can get their head around
exactly what they should be suggesting would be the best way forward, I thought
would be a great process.
But
obviously, we saw none of that was taken into account when we looked at the
budget process, and it couldn't be. It couldn't be if you were cutting
libraries, you were cutting AES offices, you were cutting clinics from a health
care point of view; if you're increasing major taxes on insurance and on
gasoline, and you're trying to drive the economy around tourism, or if you're
trying to encourage other industries to set up in rural communities so that they
can sustain the employment rates in those areas; if you're trying to look at
other things in the fishing industry and industries like that, that have been
normally sustainable in rural communities, or if you're looking at a better way
of providing services in suburban areas; if you're going to have cluster service
areas, but none of that seemed to be focused on what this budget was all about
because there doesn't seem to even be a plan on that. It seems to be just a cut,
and some of the cuts are actually so detrimental to people it's going to mean a
negative around their health, their mental health, their physical health. It's
obviously going to be a negative around their employability and their
sustainability for employment.
When we
get to get a point where we're aggressive, because people now are either having
to quit their jobs or because they're actually not going to be able to make
enough money to be able to get to their jobs, then we have a real problem here,
and that really makes our economics extremely regressive.
We've
done it in a number of other factors here. It's unfortunate that we're still
thinking that way. I will get an opportunity to speak to some of the other
things that have a detrimental effect on my district.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm
really glad to be able to stand again and raise more issues that arise from
Budget 2016.
It's
interesting, government started off with a budget with all the initiatives, and
with all the protests that happened in the province with the initiatives, there
have been slight changes in their language, slight changes in their approach.
One of the things I've noticed is the introduction of the word temporary.
It first
came in around the levy. All of a sudden it became not the levy debt reduction
but the temporary levy debt reduction. That's fine, if it's temporary. I just
don't think it should exist at all. When government says temporary, I'd like to
know what exactly that means.
Then
today I heard the Minister of Finance talk about the temporary gas tax. Well, I
didn't hear that in the very beginning being called a temporary thing either,
but it's easy to make something like that temporary. You can do it. You can put
a levy on and take it off. You can put a gas tax up, lower it, put a new one on,
take it off. You can even do it with over-the-counter drugs. You can say, today
they aren't being covered, tomorrow they are being covered. A whole system
hasn't been torn down. So a lot of the things that are there can be termed
temporary. A lot of them I don't think should be there, but they can be termed
temporary.
The one
that's really getting to the heart of people and is really upsetting people,
there are many, but the issue that for a lot of people was the straw that broke
the camel's back, was the closing of the 54 libraries. I had an email, a
Facebook message actually yesterday, from somebody who right now is on Fogo
Island. She's an educator and a researcher post-secondary educator and
researcher. She's on Fogo Island and there's no library. She talked about the
fact that it is heartbreaking and the people on the Island feel that the heart
of their community has been taken from them.
This is
what really disturbs me. I'm really being affected by it because that is what's
happening. You can't turn that one around overnight. You close down a library in
the community for two or three years, you can't turn that over overnight. You've
lost the expertise of the staff who worked in the library. The library itself
has probably been dismantled or not dismantled because it's in a school still
having to be reinstated as a community library. Especially in the places where
they're not in schools, it's even worse.
The
heart of the community has been torn out. Government will be hard pressed to
talk about that one as a temporary initiative because it's something that is
part of the structure of the community that's been removed.
I
actually have quite a number of emails that came in from people about the
libraries and the way in which it has really torn at their hearts and the way in
which they are really affected. Some of them are very moving in the language
they use.
There's
one I have here and she says: This is absolutely heartbreaking and that word
is coming up over and over again. How many services can we possibly cut with
there still being a positive future for Newfoundland? So many people depend on
libraries for basic things like using the Internet to find a job, using
cookbooks to learn how to cook, using resources for school projects and getting
help with family history. Closing libraries is basically saying that the
government does not care about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and those
who depend on the services that these treasured libraries provide.
Closing
these libraries is also a signal to young Newfoundlanders everywhere saying
don't bother trying to pursue your education goals, we don't value them here. As
a young 24-year-old library technician and this is very interesting, a female
as well who was seriously considering pursuing a masters in library science
and wanting to work in her home province, this budget has me seriously thinking,
why bother. The government is shutting down libraries in a province with such
high illiteracy rates it is absolutely deplorable and depressing.
So we
have two or three issues here, Mr. Chair. We have the library itself being shut
down. We have the shutting down of the library affecting the education of
children. We have the shutting down of a library affecting the future of a young
woman who hoped to do her masters in library science and work here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the spinoff effect of the closing of the
libraries.
I have
another letter here which has affected me. When I say affected me, I went to bed
last night literally thinking about what must it feel like to be on Fogo Island
and not be able to go to a library. I can't picture it. They're on an island and
they can't go to a library with all of the services that are part of a community
library.
The
person who Facebooked me yesterday they messaged me on Facebook said it's
like the heart of the community is gone. She too used the term heartbreaking.
She too used the term that this is just tearing at me and tearing at the people
in the community.
I have
another letter here from a woman who worked in the Vancouver public library
system for a few years. She refers to a blog that one of our librarians from
this province has put up that is filled with stories of people here in the
province. She says, as someone who worked in the Vancouver public library system
for years, I recognize all of the stories here. I know those elderly people who
come to the library for conversation and a warm place to stay. I know the new
immigrants and refugees struggling to learn more about their new language and
their new homes.
I know
those children whose parents have never managed to get them to a library before.
I know the people looking for information about spousal violence, addictions,
divorce. I know the youth looking for information about sexuality,
relationships, identities. I know the families sharing story times, learning
about computers, taking workshops. I have met and spoken with all of them before
in another library system on the other side of country, but these stories are
what make libraries matter. They are at the heart of what libraries do every,
single day.
She goes
on and talks about I won't read her whole email an experience which puts
another face on the role of library: Although my family has lived in St. John's
since our arrival in the province in 2008, we have visited libraries in
different communities while holidaying over the summers. I still recall happy
hours at the Cow Head Library bye-bye where we took cover after heavy rains
interrupted our camping trip at Shallow Bay.
We
weren't the only camping family there. Others, too, had taken advantage of a
refuge filled with books. We read, we played with the small children's games, we
caught up on our email, we chatted with the librarian and we watched local
community members, too, pop in and out of the library over the hours we spent
there.
So
tourists from our own province able to spend rainy days when in Gros Morne Park
in the library in Cow Head won't be able to do that again. The breadth of the
role of the library is fantastic, even on rainy days in the city. I remember as
a child when we couldn't go play tennis in Bowring Park or go down to Bannerman
Park, going to the library. This has been taken away from these communities.
Here we
have another dimension to it, an effect on tourism. What happens if tourists are
going around our province and can't even find a library to go into when they are
touring and need to get another dimension to their holidays or need a refuge
because it has started raining? The effect of the closure of the libraries is so
vast that I'd have to believe the minister did not sit down and really do a full
analysis of this decision, which is one of the worst decisions of this budget.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR (Bragg):
Order, please!
I remind
the speaker her time has expired.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) don't worry, Mr.
Chair, you'll be okay. Who was the cheer for? I wonder was it for me or was it
for you? I think the cheer you're in the Chair. I'll let you have that one,
okay? They cheer for me all the time anyway, so I'll let you have that one. It's
nice to see you in the Chair, Sir.
It's an
opportunity again this evening to get up and speak to Bill 13 and to continue
what I was saying a little earlier. As I talked about the budget so many
different times before, I always say it's about choices. I do and most
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do recognize that we are in difficult times,
but the choices that we're making are not the choices that the majority of the
people want.
I went
to some of the consultations that were held here around St. John's; I went to
the one out in Roncalli one night and it was very interesting. I sat with some
people around the table and there was lot of interesting yes, you were there;
a couple of Members from the St. John's area were there. We were all sat down.
It was good and had a great conversation.
I know
the Minister of Transportation and Works there now a good suggestion at our
table was and just listening to the people, the lady was wondering why are the
lights on all the time in government buildings in the nighttime. And if you
drive by a government building it was a really good comment that she made. We
drive by the Confederation Building, a lot of times you drive by late at night
and there are a lot of lights left on. Obviously, the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador are paying the light bill.
That was
a simple suggestion, just like people do at all of these consultations, and they
had suggestions. I thought that was a reasonable suggestion. Sometime when the
Minister of Transportation and Works gets up, maybe he can explain to us why the
lights are left on, or maybe there is a reason for it or maybe there is not. I
bet if the lights were turned off, we'd be able to save a few dollars over a
number of years. Maybe it would save enough money to save the libraries. It was
an interesting suggestion.
You went
out, the government, and you had 500,000 advisors that gave you advice on this
budget. I'd like to go back to the 500,000 advisors right now and ask them what
they think of their suggestions. I tell you, I don't think you would get very
many people that would agree with what is on the go in this budget.
Again,
people are concerned, people engaged, and there were so many people who came out
and so many people had different suggestions. We see petitions here in the House
of Assembly; I've been around for eight years and I can tell you right now, I've
never seen so many petitions with so many names on them. Every day people get up
with petitions in the House of Assembly when we were on that side and the
Opposition were over here, there would three or four names. You'd get a
scattered one with 50 names, maybe 30 names.
Even the
hon. Chair tonight, he presented one with 1,050 names on it. I had one from
outside my district at Mary Queen of Peace where they say listen here, it's the
wrong time to do full-day kindergarten. Don't do the cuts to the education
system. Don't cut the education system. Listen to us. There are 700 children in
the school and 500 parents put their names on a petition asking you to look at
full-day kindergarten and you're not even flinching. Not even, nah, that doesn't
mean anything to me.
The hon.
Member for today got up and spoke. He had a petition from Ferryland. He had a
petition with over 500 names on it. He presented his petition. Basically his
petition was the same thing; the cuts that you're doing to education are too
much. People say reconsider; look what you're doing to education. If you need to
save that much money, maybe there's a better way to save it. Do not do these
cuts. Do not do these cuts because just leave full-day kindergarten to another
time. Do full-day kindergarten in two years' time when hopefully we're in a
better financial position. Don't cut the buses; don't increase class sizes.
I had a
great visit this morning. I went down to Holy Trinity Elementary. This is part
of this job that people at home won't realize. It's important, but it's probably
the most enjoyable thing that you do as an MHA. I'm sure most of you do it as an
MHA is walk in a grade four class. Everyone in the grade four class are doing a
course. They all sent me they did a card up where they did a painting on the
back and had suggestions to their MHA.
There
are a lot of them want zip lines down in Torbay and some of them want swimming
pools. One little guy, he's planning on getting an electric car, so he wants to
make sure there's a plug-in in Torbay so he can get one and all the great
suggestions.
Today I
went down and they asked me I just stood up in front of class. What I did,
every single one of the cards that I got, I replied to them, individually wrote
down what they had to say and gave the answer to them about swimming pools and
they wanted sidewalks. We talked about the new school. They asked me questions,
how you enjoy your job. They wanted to know when the new school was going to
open.
It's so
nice to be able to go and talk to our children and be part of that because
that's who we are. We represent them as MHAs. Not only do we represent adults,
but we represent the children in our area.
I always
say there will never be a better place to grow and never a better place to bring
up a child than right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're so fortunate, but
we have to be smarter. Look what we're doing to our young people. We're going to
force young families to move away. It's even in your documents it's in the
document. You're expecting a decline in population. You're expecting people to
move away.
I heard
one Member get up the other day and he said, b'y, I had to move away. I had to
do it so what's wrong with it. Do you know what? It's unfortunate that you had
to move away very unfortunate, but do you know what? I don't want to see
anybody move away. I'd like to see everybody here because there's no other
better place than Newfoundland and Labrador to raise a family. There's no better
place than Newfoundland and Labrador to get an education. We're fortunate. We're
very fortunate, but your budget is really hurting the young, the old, the middle
class.
There
are choices you could have made in this budget that should be completely
different. There's a $30 million contingency in case we have, God forbid,
something like happened up in Fort McMurray. It was never in the budget before.
2001 was the last time that was put in the budget. So why are we doing it today
when we're in economic times that are so hard?
We're
going to put $30 million aside and we're going to close 54 libraries for a
million dollars. We're going to tax books. We're going to increase the cap size
in our education system. Where are our priorities?
I walked
in a classroom this morning and what a nice feeling to see our young children
getting educated in a beautiful school with the best you could have in
technologies. We've come so far when it comes to education in this province that
we should be proud of it. We should be very proud of all our teachers. They take
their job so seriously. They do a great job teaching our children. Yet, we're
cutting classes. We're cutting teachers. We're combining classes. We're changing
bus schedules and the Member from Labrador told me their children go to school
in the dark every day.
I feel
bad. It is unfortunate they have to do it, but why do that to everybody? If
that's what happens there, because it's happening in one place, why the
minister is saying combined classes are happening all over the province. Why do
it if we don't have to do it? Why are we doing it? Why are we making these
changes? Why are we going back to where we were 10, 15 years ago? We've made
great progress.
Our
children are getting educated well. Our children going to post-secondary are
getting the best education in Canada for the best price. That's something to be
proud of. To be proud that we can offer here in Newfoundland and Labrador we
can offer university education better, cheaper and good education, more so than
anywhere else in Canada. Isn't that something to be very, very proud of? That's
what we have to be focused on. Why are we doing what we're doing?
The last
time I was up I spoke about seniors and the effect this budget is having on
seniors, but let's talk about education this time. I spoke about education. Can
you please look at what you're doing to the education system? Delay full-day
kindergarten. Eliminate the cuts that we're doing to children. Look, give our
children the best possible opportunities they can get to survive in society.
They can be educated and they can be great people to this province. They can add
to this province. They can be pillars of our communities. Don't let them move
away, keep them here. By the cuts that you're doing in this budget, you're going
to make them move away.
CHAIR:
I remind the speaker his time
has expired.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
nice to see a different face. Anyway, it's good to get up again as we discuss
the budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thanks for the applause, yes.
Mr.
Chair, like I said, it's great to get up and talk on the budget again. I just
wanted to go back. I meant the last time I got up, actually there were a
couple of times I got up. I know the Member for Lab West took great exception
and I know he I've spoken on this numerous times and I felt it important to
just touch on it again tonight.
There's
been some discussion about it but we'll get into that feasibility study of the
Labrador link. The only reason I go back to it is I don't feel that my point on
it now I'll speak on me personally, I don't believe our caucus as a whole but
me personally. I don't have any objection to a fixed link to Labrador. I've
always said it intrigued me. I think it's an interesting option.
When
I've commented on it and every time I stood up and commented on it, all I've
ever said is this is not the time based on when you take the budget in its
entirety. I know that the Member for Lab West has taken great exception to it. I
understand why he would. So he should in his role as MHA for Labrador and other
Members, Cartwright L'Anse au Clair as well. I respect that and I would expect
no other, but I just wanted to I'm not going to go into great detail on it
because I know it's kind of always been a sore point. I don't think anyone on
this side of the House ever opposed a fixed link.
Again,
we talk about the budget. We talk about gas taxes today going up by almost 18,
19 cents a litre and colleagues and we've all talked about the effects of the
budget and what we hear every day. Mr. Chair, $750,000 for a fixed link study in
this time when libraries are closing, Intensive Core French; kids are denied
because of budget cuts to education, multigrade teaching and the class size.
Again, I'll go back to what I said earlier. I really believe this is probably
the fairest statement yet, it's death by 1,000 cuts.
I
remember back in 2005, why was it publicly announced that you were spending
$750,000 on a study? If you were proud of it, that should have been something
that should have been exposed in the budget documents. It was very important to
the MHAs for Labrador and, obviously, to people up on the Northern Peninsula.
Why not make it public?
We found
this through Estimates documents because the budget as a whole was so painful to
the public it seemed like no one wanted to go there to say we're spending
$750,000 on a study, but say it. Put it out and publicly announce it. When we
dug through the documents we found it. Again, this is not the time to do it.
I'll say that and I'll be on the record of saying that every time I've spoken of
it.
It's
funny; it's a curious thing about that study. I've talked to people who have
been involved and been around with the 2005 study. There are people who are in
the know, who have knowledge and were close to that. They don't feel like it's
going to be much more different this time around than what they discovered in
2005, maybe a few minor details. The 2005 study cost $100,000 but this study is
costing three-quarters of a million in these times.
The
Premier is the Minister responsible for Labrador Affairs, and the MHAs are so
focused on this fixed link. We're not opposed to it, but why didn't you go back
and look at the 2005 study. You could dust that off and do it up. We're talking
about a study; we're not talking about the actual link. If you looked at that
2005 study, you'd be intrigued to find out that having anything other than a
train shooting back and forth one way at a time, that's the most you're going to
get. This was done by a pro-development company back in 2005 and they couldn't
find a way to make it work.
I'll
move on from that. I just wanted to clarify it was never about us opposed to it.
It's just about the timing of it, but also about giving the 2005 study some more
look, take the dust off it and give it some serious consideration.
Move off
that topic, Mr. Chair. I want to just go into we're talking about all aspects
of the budget, but I think one of the topics that have not been spoken about
enough is the cuts. I tend to bring it up a lot because I feel it's important.
July 1,
I think, is going to hit people just like the gas tax hit people today. The tax
on insurance I've said it before, and my colleagues will attest to this, I
bring it up to them a lot; 15 per cent on people's insurance, they don't know it
coming until it hits them. When they get their renewals later this month,
probably any day at all now or early this month, for the July 1 renewal is when
most insurances renew, when they get that renewal the 15 per cent is going to be
an awful and it's going to affect everyone in this House more than likely if
you own a vehicle or a house or anything. That is going to have just as big an
impact I say this all the time; that is almost as bad as the levy, to a
different degree.
That's
like the gas today. That gas is probably going to cost most people as much or
more than what the levy would have. It's strange, the levy was insulting, but
the gas tax, the insurance, which is going to be they'll get their renewals I
would say because I know mine is up in July, I haven't gotten it yet, so I'm
expecting it within a week or so, then you'll add that much more gas to their
fire. No pun intended, because you can't overstress the effects of this budget,
the crippling effect this is going to have on the economy.
I have a
few minutes left. I touched on it when I got up last, contractors in my district
CBS, if you look down, it has been seen for years as one of the fastest
growing communities in Atlantic Canada. That was because of new home builds.
Personally, two years ago you couldn't get someone to give you a quote on
getting a step put on your house, let alone a new home built. No renovations,
the economy was on fire. They were too busy. It was a great complaint, new home
developments going everywhere.
In such
a short period of time, and I'm only talking within the 12 months not even 12
months really, the last six or eight months, well, in December when gloom and
doom hit, the economy started to slow then. It never waited until now, because a
lot of budget effects are not kicked in yet. We're just got the gas increase
today and that's all over the news. Wait until the insurance kicks in. Wait
until everything else personal income tax, you name it, the HST and all of it
starts hitting everyone the one time. It's going to be a drastic impact.
This is
on the speculation of where our economy is going to go. The market is after
dropping off. I've been told by contractors there is hardly a new housing start
in CBS. Now, there are some, no doubt, but there's hardly any. Now, I'm not
making that stuff up. I'm hearing that from the people, that's what they do for
a living. That's on anticipation of what effect the budget is going to have. The
budget hasn't had its full effect yet because it's only the early stages of it
being implemented.
You
don't overstate it, but I want to stress it. It's important to me in my district
because my district is growing. Paradise and CBS are closely aligned and they're
fast growing communities because that's where a lot of the young families are
moving. There are a lot of developments, but you are seeing the slowdown. That
is just in that sector. Car sales and all of that, that is another issue. That
is a bigger issue, but no doubt it's there.
Again,
we zero in on certain trigger points in the budget, and that is fair enough. I
say it every time I'm up because I think it's so important that this is going to
have a guy said to me yesterday, and it was funny but actually he made a good
point. He said I'd rather one good swift kick in the guts than 25 jabs in the
face. He said that's what this budget amounts up to. I thought it was funny. The
budget is not funny but the comment made sense to me. I said, I get it. Give it
to me once, one swing, don't just jab me until and that comes back to my death
by 1,000 cuts. I use that term, but that's the feeling on the street.
We stand
up here in our place over and over and we repeat it. I don't think it should be
overstated because the public want to be on record of bringing their concerns to
the floor of the House of Assembly. That's what we all should be cognizant of
and I'm sure Members on the other side of the House are listening. We saw what
happened the other day with the budget but these are real stories and there are
real people involved.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR (Kent):
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
It's
quite interesting to see that sitting in the Chair right now is the hon. Member
for Mount Pearl North. I would hope that this would signal a further
modernization here in the House and an atmosphere of co-operation, which is
something that all of us have been asking for. Hopefully this is a good sign
that this is an omen that, in fact, we will look for further co-operation in
ways of using all the expertise in the House and using all the skills of all
Members in the House as we go forward.
Again, I
would like to continue on with the presentation of Toby Sanger, who is an
economist with CUPE. What he was doing was looking at the situation in Alberta,
the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the different approaches: the
approach by the Notley NDP government in Alberta and the approach by the Liberal
government led by our Premier here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Chair, I must stress, I will stress again, I don't believe I can stress it too
often but we are fully aware, as is Toby Sanger, of the differences between
Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador. The debt load for Newfoundland and
Labrador is far greater, is far more serious than what is happening in Alberta.
However,
what we're looking at, we have no control over the price of oil, we have no
control over the commodity prices, but what we do have control over is how we
are going to approach the particular economic crises that are happening in both
provinces, and that's what he was looking at.
So,
again, we're fully aware that the Alberta economy at this point does not carry
anywhere near the debt load, particularly per capita, that Newfoundland and
Labrador does. Alberta has a far larger population than Newfoundland and
Labrador does, and they have a much more resilient economy because they do not
have the same debt load that our province experiences. Also, they have a greater
borrowing capacity at this point.
However,
again what we're looking at is, what are the general approaches to dealing with
this? Again, the similarities are we have a lot of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a lot of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in Alberta, we have a lot of unemployed Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians in Alberta, and in our own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador;
but we have a lot of people, a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are
willing to work, who are hard-working people who want to roll up their sleeves,
who want to help our province regain a stable economy, who are willing to help
pull us forward, who are willing to propel our province forward to once again a
sense of economic prosperity and stabilization.
So I've
looked at a number of the different areas like health and education, economic
diversification that Toby has covered in his presentation and so I'd like to
continue on with that, and then also get to a point of looking at what we might
propose.
If we
look at the environment and climate change in Alberta, in the Alberta budget it
includes climate leadership, a plan to end coal and cap oil sands which is
quite a big step for a province that relies so heavily on the oil industry. They
also introduced a carbon levy with a progressive refund. They invest $6.2
billion over five years in renewable energy, energy efficiency and transit.
That's an extremely progressive and visionary approach to their province. In
Newfoundland and Labrador, there was not one mention of the word environment
in the entire Budget Speech. Imagine, not one mention of the word environment
in the entire Budget Speech. Perhaps it's there and someone missed it, but so
far we haven't been able to find it.
There
was no plan in the Budget Speech and in the budget no plan to address climate
change or to put a price on carbon. Instead what the budget for Newfoundland and
Labrador does, it increases gas tax by 16.5 cents a litre. That came into effect
today, so it's kind of interesting to speak about that today. We know that
people have been lining up yesterday at the gas pumps. Many gas pumps are
actually emptied out. People have been filling up their vehicles and filling up
jerry cans in anticipation of that tax raise on gas.
It's sad
that there were no progressive environmental issues addressed in our budget at
all, not even looking at a carbon levy. On the issue of jobs, in the Alberta
budget there were no public sector job cuts. Now, our government, the Liberals
when they were campaigning said that there would be no job cuts. I think
probably every single Liberal candidate repeated that as a mantra over and over
and over and over again. What did this government do? They are cutting 650
public sector jobs. Those are the ones they are committing to cut. We'll see
other rollouts from that as well.
Alberta
is committing $250 million over two years for job creation. Newfoundland and
Labrador expects 2,500 to 3,000 other job losses in the private and public
sphere. Alberta is creating jobs. The Newfoundland and Labrador budget very
clearly states they haven't talked about job creation at all, what they were
talking about is cutting jobs and then job losses. What happens when we lose
jobs? We have greater unemployment. We are the province with the greatest
unemployment in the country.
With the
Alberta budget, they forecast employment to increase by 5 per cent by 2019. In
the Newfoundland and Labrador budget, the forecast is employment to decline by
15 per cent by 2021 decline by 15 per cent by 2021. What this budget says on
page 5 of the Budget Speech, it actually says as a result of the activities of
the plan of this budget that employment will decline by 15 per cent by 2021.
What does that give us? That gives us either more unemployment, grossly more
unemployment or people will have left. Perhaps people will leave.
Also, in
Alberta, the measures that they have taken and again, I am fully aware that
the financial situation is very different in Alberta than it is in Newfoundland
and Labrador. They lost 60,000 in a crash 60,000 jobs due to the drop in oil
prices. So they're dealing with an economic crisis themselves as well, but
they're dealing with it differently. And it's not just about borrowing and
borrowing and borrowing; it's about a different approach to how we deal with
that crisis.
So on
the jobs, Alberta expects their jobless rate to decline from 8 per cent to 5.8
per cent by 2019; Newfoundland and Labrador, as stated in the budget, expects
the jobless rate to increase, to go up. So they expect more unemployment. They
expect the jobless rate to go from 13 per cent to 19.8 per cent. That's
basically 20 per cent in 2019. That's horrific. Imagine creating a budget with a
particular type of approach, knowing that what your budget is going to do is
cutting jobs, thereby creating unemployment, but that also the whole jobless
rate, period, will increase by 2019.
Basically, what this government is saying is that there is no way out for us.
That's basically what they're saying. They've done again, I've said this in
the House a number of times an accountant's approach to their budget. They
haven't done an approach that as a government that's having the long-term and
the long-range vision, looking at how do we strengthen our economy, how do we
stabilize our economy, how do we get people back to work. They clearly missed
the mark on this one, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that her time for speaking has expired.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
congratulations.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is not half way across
the floor or anything is it? Just checking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I assure
the hon. Member that I am not crossing any floors.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You hear the applause by the
hon. Member over there. Do you want to get closer to that? A few people are
moving away.
Thank
you very much for the opportunity to rise this evening and speak in debate.
While it's a very rare Thursday night sitting of the House; it's important work
we do and we all know that and reflect on that on both sides of the House. We
value the time we have when we come to debate.
This
being a money bill allows for Members to talk about any type of a matter or any
matter that's of interest of value to the province and the people of the
province. The topic I want to talk to tonight is about changes in taxation,
impacts on people, but not specifically what's happening with this particular
budget. I want to go back and talk a little bit about the past because Members
opposite, during budget debate and for some time, have talked about all the
terrible previous decisions that were made by putting more money back in
people's pockets.
It's
very interesting to point out that last year when we were in government and we
campaigned on increasing the HST, Members opposite said no, you can't do that.
It's a job killer. You can't increase taxation because it kills jobs is what
Member's opposite said. What we've seen in this budget is unprecedented with new
levels of taxation and revenue out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians than we've ever seen before.
Members
opposite actually campaigned and said: It's a job killer. The Premier went as
far as to say and he used the words publicly and people will remember this I'm
sure. Some of his ministers used it as well. I'm not sure about any of the
backbenchers, but I know some of the ministers used it as well. They used the
words: not on my watch.
The
Premier said when it came to the HST increase: not on my watch. Some of the
current ministers in the government repeated it. They tweeted it. They shared
it. They had their graphics put out and said: HST is a job killer and not on my
watch.
Mr.
Chair, when I grew up, I was always taught when you say some things, you should
be careful about what you say and so on. My father always taught me that you
have to earn the respect of people. When you say things to people, especially
certain phrases and so on, you better mean it because it's going to speak to
your character and your credibility and will go with you forever.
Not on
my watch means as long as I'm on the watch, as long as I'm in charge, as long as
I'm at the helm, as long as I'm there, this will not happen. It doesn't say
unless there's some information we're not sure about or we haven't looked into.
It doesn't say, well, if circumstances change. It does say any of that. It means
I give you my word that if I'm here that will not happen. That's what the
Premier told the people of the province last year.
Now, I'm
going to go back in time a little bit in history, Mr. Chair, because government
Members opposite quite often will up and say, oh, they blew $25 billion they
blew it. Where did it go? Well, we
know a good piece of it replaced what we used to receive as equalization from
the federal government. We know that much, but at the same time while we're
heading towards coming off equalization and being self-sustaining, the
government of the day saw fit to say, well, we should lower taxes and we should
lower the burden on the people of the province.
Some
would say why didn't you put it on the debt? Instead of lowering taxation, if
you had additional revenue from your taxation, why didn't you put it on your
debt? Putting it on the debt didn't drive the economy. It didn't do anything to
stimulate the economy because you had less debt, but putting money back in the
pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had great value and had great
impact.
It meant
that when you go around today and you travel throughout our province, you go
places there are beautiful homes that have been built over the last decade or
so in our province that you never, ever thought would ever exist before. You
look at areas in the suburbs and outside of even St. John's and the Northeast
Avalon the Member for Harbour Main is over there, if you look up in her
district there are beautiful new homes being built all over the place.
That was
because the economy was growing. People had the money in their pockets. They had
a chance to build business. They had a chance for the economy to thrive, because
the money was taken from government taxation, the operations of government, and
put back in people's pockets.
How many
trailers have been purchased over the last decade? How many new snowmobiles? How
many new trucks? How many boats? How many cabins have built? How many people
have repaired their homes and put money back into their own homes? How many
people go to restaurants more than they did before, or they spend money in
retail? That's investing back into the economy.
When you
put money back into people's pockets that's what happens, and that's what they
did. They drove the economy, and we know that's changing now. We had to make
changes. We moved to make changes. From 2004 to
Budget 2015 there was $4.2 billion just in tax adjustments. That's
money back in people's pockets because of reductions in tax adjustments.
Back
even as early as 2004, the government of the day saw the value in reducing
taxes, putting money back in the economy and driving the economy. They did a
number of things. For example, the introduction of the low-income tax reduction
for 2005. It was introduced in 2004. In the budget of 2004 that was introduced,
the low-income tax reduction. Because the lowest wage earners in the province
would benefit the greatest, dollar for dollar. The lower income you make, the
greater the value to you as a family or to you as a person. The low-income tax
reduction was in budget 2004, became effective in 2005.
Indexation for the Newfoundland child benefit. That's a provincial tax credit
for families with low incomes. At the time, it was low incomes for families
below $24,849. There were 11,000 low-income families that benefited from that; a
huge number of families benefited from that.
The
low-income seniors' benefit was indexed. Enhancements to the Mother Baby
Nutritional Supplement. They were all done in 2004, to look at young families
and low-income families to benefit them and also to fight one of the things
this province has been plagued with for generation after generation, and that's
people packing their bags and leaving and going somewhere else. These are young
families and low-income families that help keep them there.
Mr.
Chair, we know over the years I'm going to go through some more of these. Back
in 2004 this province had the worst record of poverty in Canada. We know in
2015, we reached the top of the heap when we became the lowest level of poverty
in Canada. That's something we should celebrate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's not money squandered.
That's not $4 billion squandered. That was an investment that created
significant value, especially to low-income families. How many people over the
years you meet, low-income families, people not working and relying on social
programs. They come with all kinds of challenges of why they couldn't get off
social programs.
Well, if
you reduce their taxation, you increase programming and opportunities, you have
a good chance. Broaden their education and stimulate them in the system, move
from social programs to self-independence, looking after their own families,
earning their own living and that's what happened through a number of years, Mr.
Chair.
That
started in 2004, and throughout the next decade there was a long list of changes
made to taxation year over year over year that brought families back to
Newfoundland and Labrador, that kept families in Newfoundland and Labrador, that
created value in rural parts of our province and in urban areas. It grew
industries. It helped to drive our tourism industry because there are people
there to help. I'm going to stay here and create my own business, and the
government helped them with that.
Now,
Members opposite will say we squandered $25 billion. Well, I say to Members
opposite, that was not money squandered. That was money invested in our
province. If we say we invested money in our province, it means we invested
money in our people. That's what it means. We invested in and believed in the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We went from a doom and gloom province to
one that has celebrated everything we had to offer, and it's not that long ago.
In a short six months we've gone from believing in ourselves to hanging our
heads down, and we've got to turn that around.
Mr.
Chair, I look forward to the chance to speak further during debate. I'm going to
tell some more stories about taxation and how those changed over the years and
how we made adjustments in 2015. When the price of oil started to fall in 2014,
we knew we had to make adjustments in 2015. I'm going to speak to those as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm
happy to stand again. I want to continue a thought I was on when I stood earlier
this evening because I have so many more comments with regard to the closure of
the libraries. As I said earlier, it's something that is really hitting at the
heart of communities and at people's hearts.
I was
reading a letter from a woman who is somebody who has worked in public libraries
both in Vancouver and here. She lives in the Windsor Lake electoral district at
the moment; she and her husband and their two children. Some of the things she
said, that if I were to say them maybe the opposite side would say I'm being
melodramatic. So I'm going to use her words: I can't bear to think of a world
without libraries. I can't imagine a childhood without libraries. I can't
imagine a community without its library. I can't imagine having to leave an
island to get to the library. I can't even imagine a world where driving 30
minutes to get to the library is somehow considered acceptable.
This is
where she really gets at it: Of all the bad decisions in this particular budget,
and there are many, this one is the one that strikes at the heart of the
community. It is not just mean-spirited, it is soul less and the effects of this
decision are soul destroying. This is really strong language but I believe in
this language that she's using.
To take
up a literary metaphor, this government is a death eater, sucking the life and
heart out of this place I call home. Devastated can't even begin to describe how
I and many others are feeling. I encourage you she's speaking to everybody in
this House to reconsider the budget well, that's too late for the present,
because this government has passed their budget and the implications of your
decisions on the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
As I
said earlier, the absolutely devastating thing is while you can make a tax
temporary and turn it around easily, while you can create a levy and make it
temporary and turn it around easily, you cannot turn around easily the closure
of 54 libraries in this province. You can't do that.
The fact
that it's been done in what seems to be a thoughtless way, with comments from
the other side making it seem like it's archaic to have a library. Well, it's
not archaic in the city. You can go 30 minutes in this city and hit at least
four libraries. So why do we think it's archaic in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, where they really need it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
Why is it archaic there?
There's
a really good article that was written by Jessica Riddell. She's an associate
professor in the English department at Bishop's University and was so upset by
what happened in our budget she wrote an article for
The Globe and Mail. She's
also the chair of Bishop's Teaching and Learning Centre. She may know a bit
about what she's talking about. She just may know something. She gets at some of
the points that I was just making, so I want to quote from her. Are we going to
listen to people who know what they're talking about?
She
says, In the wake of the provincial government's decision to close almost half
the public libraries in Newfoundland and Labrador, politicians have offered up a
number of justifications. The most prevalent and specious argument is that
technology has rendered libraries obsolete, and that libraries are now relics of
the predigital age.
This
couldn't be further from the truth. I agree, and she gives her proof of why it
couldn't be further from the truth. It's not further from the truth here, as I
said a minute ago, in St. John's, but apparently it's the truth for rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well,
she argues against it. Libraries are not static repositories of physical books.
Rather, they are knowledge hubs where people of all ages can seek out
opportunities, collaborate, create, and learn. They are centres of learning,
libraries. When we think about libraries, we must extend our perception beyond
the limitations of bricks and mortar
if the government side is able to do
that, I put out, Mr. Chair. Stretch themselves beyond the limitations of bricks
and mortar, books and periodicals, and understand libraries as public, cultural,
literacy spaces devoted to knowledge creation in its many forms.
Public
libraries uphold values of inclusivity, social and cultural literacy, and equal
access to knowledge
. It doesn't matter how little money you have, how much
money you have, you can go to a library and have equal access to knowledge. All
of these are key values of a vibrant and thriving democracy.
This is
the part that's very important when she says: When we close our libraries, we
threaten to unravel the very fabric that binds members of our communities
together.
In this
digital age and I really ask the
Members to listen to this it is even more important not less important,
more important to invest in libraries as spaces where we encounter, explore
and experiment with ideas, whether these ideas are found in the pages of books
or are circulated by digital content platforms and new technologies. As a
university professor, I have yet to find a technology that can replicate much
less supersede the powerful learning that occurs when my students and I
encounter complex ideas together in safe, supportive, and curiosity-driven
environments.
These
are powerful statements that Professor Riddell is making, and they should really
challenge us and challenge our thinking. I may sound like I'm being emotional.
Well, I am. I'm still trying to understand what it's like to be on Fogo Island
and not be able to go to a library. Or to be on Bell Island and to think it is
going to take me three hours probably by the time I get to the nearest library.
A
library is the place you go to as part of your daily living, as part of your
weekly living. It is not this strange excursion you are going to make once or
twice a month or once or twice a year. It is part of living, and I just don't
get it.
I want
to read a bit more from Professor Riddell. She talks about librarians today.
Librarians and library staff at my university are key collaborators in this
vison: they are not guardians of books but rather facilitators, curators,
community event organizers, archivists, researchers, educators and mentors.
Moreover and this is the point that is really important they teach the
next generation about digital literacy, a core competency of global
citizenship.
The
interesting thing is in our community libraries, the librarians have also been
teaching seniors about digital literacy. We have seniors in this province who,
through their community libraries, have learned how to make that technology for
them; work for them, for example, with regard to communicating with their
families who are all over the country; go to a library and be able to write
emails, go to a library and be able to see how this technology is not something
to fear but something they can use; how they can go to the computer in the
library and save a few bucks paying the government fees by being able to online
and do that, and to feel oh, I can do this and this is not something for me to
be afraid of.
A
library is a place where you have fun. A library is a place where people meet
each other. A library is the heart of the community. You have torn the heart out
of the communities that have lost their libraries. You've literally torn the
heart out of those communities. You're telling them they don't matter, that
their communities don't matter.
I don't
know how you can sit there knowing that you made this decision. You have some of
the Members of the government side who've acknowledged in one way that this is
going to really hurt people in their communities, yet they still sat with that
government, or stood with it, and voted to shut down the libraries in their
communities and tear apart the communities some who elected them. This is
unbelievable how you can do it, how you can do that and sit there so calmly and
smugly having made that decision, I'll never know and that's only one of the
decisions, but this is one that has really gotten to people and it really gets
to me because it really is tearing at communities.
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad
to be able to stand in this House once again tonight and speak to the bill. Of
course, it being a money bill, I get to speak to the budget in general.
Mr.
Chair, where do I start? There are so many areas I could touch on. There are so
many. But I just want to talk about seniors for a moment. I'll just use an
example of a seniors' home, not in my district, in the District of Mount Pearl
North, but it's in Mount Pearl, and I have a family member there. It's called
Hillcrest; it's a beautiful home. Some of the seniors there stay in the well,
they all stay in the home, but some of them have the ability to get out and some
don't. Some stay in the home all the time and others have the ability to get out
and go to seniors functions that the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence would
have, or they go to church and they do different things.
A lot of
those seniors, the majority of them, are in what they call subsidized
accommodations. Basically, with the subsidized accommodations these are people
that the only income they have is their OAS, CPP and perhaps a supplement. So
their income is very, very low. These people are living in that particular
facility and by the time they pay their rent, when they pay their rent, if you
will
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
to the home all that
remains is $150. That's how it works. In all of the seniors' homes, all the
seniors like that who are in these homes have $150 a month. That's what's
leftover, for everything. Now, that has to deal with personal toiletry issues;
if they wanted to actually get a newspaper. For a lot of the ladies there, maybe
once a month or once every couple of months a hairdresser comes into the home
and they get their hair done. If they want a few treats or whatever because,
yes, there is food provided, but there are no treats or snacks or nothing like
that. So if they want a few little things like that they've got $150 a month.
Now that's what they have to live on.
Some of
those, like I said, they probably go to the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence for
a game of cards or go to church or whatever. How do they get there? In a lot of
cases they have to use a taxi.
The last
time I was up I spoke about taxi fares are going to go up because of the impacts
of this budget. That's going to cut into their $150. Then we're going to have
issues now with the non-prescription drugs that someone talked about earlier.
About the fact that they might need I think the Member for Cape St. Francis
talked about a lady who gets a vitamin B shot is it or something?
MR. K. PARSONS:
A gentleman, 85.
MR. LANE:
It's a gentleman, but it doesn't matter, male or female. A vitamin B shot that
used to be covered. Now that's going to cost him. These people are into
the same type of issue with some of these non-prescription things that used to
be covered, and now that's not covered. So that's coming out of their think
about it now $150 a month for everything and that's coming out of that. The
increased taxi fees are coming out of that. That's all they have to live on.
You talk about a society is judged by the way we treat our
most vulnerable people. When you
think about the seniors in our province who have given their whole lives, many
of them, and now they're in their golden years, we'll say, and they're living in
a seniors home or whatever the case might be, or in their own home, and all
they're getting is a lousy $150 a month. Now we're going to cut into that. I
have to be honest with you, there's something wrong with that picture.
I don't
care what way you look at it, nobody can tell me that's right. There's not a
Member in this House who can tell me that is the right thing to do. If there is,
I challenge the Member, whoever it is, to stand up in this House and tell me
that's the right thing to do to our seniors. I ask them to do it. I bet you
there won't be one Member who will stand up and say that's the right thing to
do. Do you know why, Mr. Chair? Because it's the wrong thing to do, that's why.
These
are some of the things we're doing in this budget that are having such a
negative impact on people. It's absolutely shameful. I have to say it's
absolutely shameful that we're doing this in this day and age. We know we're in
a financial crunch, but my goodness we're talking about people with the
denture program. That's another one.
I can
remember at the time, when under the former administration they had to scale
back the program. At the time, the then Opposition were talking about a half set
of teeth. It was all a big joke. Oh, you only have a half set of teeth, a half
set of dentures and talking about dignity.
So we
cured that in this budget, because we're going to give them no teeth at all.
That's what we're going to do. We're not going to give them any teeth. Instead
of a half set, we're going to give them none. Problem solved, give them no
teeth.
Seriously, I know people could look at that and laugh at it, but it's not funny.
It's really not funny. That's somebody's mother, somebody's grandmother,
somebody's grandfather. It could be your grandmother or your grandfather. It
really could. I don't care what anybody says, there's something wrong with that
picture. I don't know about any Member of this House, but when I signed on and
raised my hand to take on this job, I didn't sign up to go attacking seniors I
can tell you that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
I didn't. I know nobody else
did either. I've said before, I really believe nobody has intended for some of
these things that have happened. It's not done because you want to hurt seniors,
I'm not suggesting that. That would only be political rhetoric. I'm not
interested
MR. LETTO:
It sounds like it.
MR. LANE:
No, I say to the Member for
Lab West, it might sound like it. It is not meant to. I say to the Member for
Lab West, I know you don't want to hurt seniors. I know you don't, and I'm not
suggesting that you do. I know you don't, but these are some of the consequences
of this budget. It may not have been intended. Maybe it was overlooked or
something, I don't know, but I know there is no way it could have been intended.
I don't believe that you support it. I don't believe anybody in this House
supports it, yet we're doing it anyway. That's the problem.
On the
one hand I don't believe you support it, but on the other hand if I know we
don't support it then why are we doing it anyway? That's the problem. Why can't
we make a few amendments? That's all we've been asking in this whole budget.
That's all I ever asked. Even when I was on that side, that's all I asked. Make
some amendments.
MR. LETTO:
(Inaudible).
MR. LANE:
I say to the Member for Lab
West, the only one he asked, no, that's not true at all. That's not true at all,
Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. Member to
direct his comments to the Chair, please.
MR. LANE:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. LANE:
Because you made some
amendments to the levy but you only made some amendments to some people in the
levy. You never made any amendments for any
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
most of my constituents
benefited nothing from that levy announcement, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that.
Most of my constituents benefited zero from that. There were people who did
benefit and I'm glad they benefited, but there was an awful lot of people who
didn't and a lot of my constituents who didn't. It still doesn't address the
cumulative impact on everybody. It does not address it all.
There
are other issues there around education as well that's not addressed, that are
non-money issues. They are not even money issues. These educational issues are
not even money issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
everybody that the hon. Member has the floor. I certainly expect all hon.
Members here to show respect and I'd ask the hon. Member again to direct his
comments to the Chair, please.
Thank
you.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate your protection from the Member for Lab West. I really appreciate it.
I know
he's getting a little hot under the collar because he knows what I'm saying is
right and it's really getting to him. I know that he knows what I'm saying is
right and it's killing him inside that he has to sit there and support what's
going on because deep down he doesn't support it. Deep down I know he doesn't
support it, and that's the problem. That's why we are hitting a nerve.
All I
would say, Mr. Chair, before I conclude, I say to all hon. Members, it's still
not too late. It is still not too late to make changes. I don't care if you
voted for it or not; it's still not too late. There are enough people on that
backbench to put the pressure on the frontbench to make some changes. The
numbers are there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that his time has expired.
MR. LANE:
I'd encourage you to use your
numbers.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Someone
needs their Wheaties, I think, tonight, Mr. Chair. They're getting a bit cranky
in the House tonight.
Mr.
Chair, earlier I was talking about taxation and a bit of history on what
happened with taxation over the last decade, and the impacts it has on the lives
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and also what it does for the economy. As
you drive and grow the economy, lower taxes puts money back in people's pockets;
it helps to drive and grow the economy; provides more money in people's pockets
to spend; it grows their quality of life, gives them reason to stay here and
raise their families here; they put money back into the economy which helps grow
business opportunities which grows employment; it drives local economies in
rural parts of our province as well as urban parts of our province, and benefits
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. And we had to be sensitive to that.
Over the
years, in 2004, the reduction in revenue to government as a result of lowering
taxes and cost to taxpayers in 2004 which I talked about earlier was $4.8
million; in 2005, it was $8.7 million; in 2006, it was $8.5 million; 2007, it
was $104 million; and it continued to grow as time went on but so did our
province and our economy and opportunity and benefits for the people that live
here.
I talked
earlier about the child benefit also in 2004, which came into effect in 2005. In
2006, the previous government eliminated and reduced 34 fees. Also in 2007, the
personal income tax rate was reduced. There was an elimination of the surtax and
indexation. The low-income tax reduction enhancement all occurred in 2007. The
Seniors' Benefit was enhanced for couples in 2007. The RST rate on the sale of
used vehicles and we knew back then, and the province knew back then, that to
help stimulate used car sales, they reduced the RST from 15 per cent to 14 per
cent because on used vehicles it's only RST; it is not HST. They reduced the 1
per cent to help to grow the used car business.
If you
remember, back in those days it was very competitive and it became very
difficult. There were low leasing rates and there were great benefits for people
and used car dealers said well, what are we going to do with them; some are
being shipped out and so on. So the reduction of 1 per cent helped to stimulate
that.
The
Canadian income tax for small business threshold was increased to $400,000,
which helped to drive and establish small business and stabilize their ability
to get established in our province and grow. We know, Mr. Chair, there's been
lots of new businesses developed in the province and a lot of them do business
outside and government helped them do that. In a lot of cases, government helped
them do that.
Mr.
Chair, then through to 2008, there was further income tax reductions; Seniors'
Benefit was enhanced for single persons; RST was eliminated from insurance
premiums and I remember that; I remember in 2008. I was working then as a
police officer and I remember when the tax was eliminated, it was celebrated by
so many people because it was a huge savings.
If you
think about lower income families and those that I talked about in my earlier
comments, you're trying to move them off social programs and give them a chance
to be self-sufficient and survive on their own, then they want their car, they
have to drive their car, they want to take their kids around, they want to drive
them to school and so on, it was money directly back in their pocket. It was a
benefit to them and that money then could be used for other things such as
enhancing the quality of life of their family and their children.
Payroll
tax thresholds increased to a million dollars. In 2009, low-income tax reduction
enhancement; dividend tax credit enhancement; and small business threshold was
increased to $500,000, which benefited small business and helped them continue
to grow and develop their business. Small business is a significant employer in
our province. Think of all the tourism operators, they are all small businesses.
They are all small business operators in rural parts of our province and
increasing that threshold gave them a leg up, a hand up.
In 2010,
the Seniors' Benefit increased to $900; personal income tax rate reduction; the
age amount increased; dividend tax credit enhanced; and there continued to be
benefits for business and small business. Residential energy rebate, which came
on in 2011 I'm going to talk about that again a little bit more in a few
minutes. That came on in 2011. In 2012-2013, remember those days, we had a bump
in the road and I was elected in 2010. In 2011, I became a cabinet minister
and we had changes that happened in our economy and in our oil revenues, in our
production. We didn't make any more improvements. We didn't do that; we didn't
change that. We didn't improve taxes in 2012 or 2011.
Mr.
Chair, when we get up to 2014 that was a monumental year; that is the year I
ran for the leadership during that summer. I remember it well. I don't remember
anything about my personal life; I just remember about work and campaigning and
so on.
I
announced I was running I think my friend there was July 1; I think I was July
2. Or I can't remember if it was the other way around, or I was July 2 and you
were July 3 or something like that
MR. KENT:
I've blocked it all out.
MR. P. DAVIS:
He's blocked it all out,
okay.
It was
the first few days in July I haven't blocked it all out. It was the first few
days in July, the first, second or third of July that I announced that I was
going to run for the leadership and I remember, Mr. Chair the price of oil
started to fall. The harder I campaigned that summer, the more the price of oil
fell, but it's not my fault. All summer the price of oil fell and fell and fell.
I became
premier in the fall. We were waiting for the OPEC meeting in December, what was
going to happen and, boom, it just fell. It just kept on going. We took steps, I
remember, in December. I was a brand new premier and I said we have to start
changing how we're doing business. We talked about reducing discretionary
spending. Much like the Minister of Finance did this past December, many of the
same things, reducing hiring. We put a new layer of hiring processes in place so
we could reduce hires. We reduced discretionary spending and travel and so on.
We did all those kinds of things. Then we worked toward our 2015 budget and we
were like oh, my goodness, we have our hands full, what do we have to do here,
because we had a significant revenue problem coming.
Oil was
so volatile and where it was going, and the predictors in the world kept saying
it's going to get better. It's going to turn next month, no, next month, no,
next month. They were wrong and they were wrong and they were wrong. So we had
to make decisions.
What did
we do? We increased taxes in 2015. We added two new personal income tax levels
for the highest tax earners. We eliminated the Residential Energy Rebate. We
eliminated that, which everyone got that. We left the Home Heating Rebate on
because that was for low-income families who got the Home Heating Rebate. This
government opposite has eliminated that as well, but we eliminated the
Residential Energy Rebate.
We
increased the Financial Corporations Capital Tax from 4 per cent to 5 per cent
because we had to find ways to create new revenue. We made a commitment to
increase the HST from 13 to 15 per cent. We made that commitment to increase
that from 13 to 15 per cent, which is essentially the Newfoundland rate from 8
to 10 per cent. We did that.
That's
when Members and I talked about this earlier said, no, we're not going to do
that. No way. Not on my watch. That's what they said: Not on my watch; it's a
job killer. We fought that, Mr. Chair.
I went
to an election in 2015 telling the people of the province I have to increase
your taxes. We have to make steps to lower services and reduce employment levels
of government and public servants in the province. They went out and said, no,
we don't have to do all that. Jobs will be safe. There will be no job losses. No
job cuts. No HST. They used the term not on our watch and they got elected.
We did
some things last year that were beneficial because we reinstated the Labrador
border zone rebate as well. I'm sure the Member for Labrador West was pleased to
see that when we reinstated the Labrador border zone rebate. We started to do
that.
I also
knew, from back in 2012, 2013, back in the '90s, when the Liberals were in power
and I was a public servant a long time go back, but it's interesting and
important to look at the history sometimes, because back in the '90s
Newfoundland was trucking along and trucking along and all of a sudden you had a
budget similar to what Members opposite brought in. It wasn't quite as harsh as
what they brought in. They were hard on public servants and they had massive
layoffs and so on which we don't know what this government is going to do
until the fall and the economy went like that. It dropped like a stone,
dropped like a rock, and people are afraid it's going to happen again.
In 2015,
I stood before people and I said no, here's what we're doing. I've said this
before in the House and I've told the Minister of Finance she can correct me
if I'm wrong and she can do it again. Of course, she can correct me anyway, or
give different information. I believe today there are fewer public servants
there was at least when we left government last fall than there was prior to
2010, because over those last few years we're slowly, very slowly reducing the
number of public servants because we believed we had to do that.
We
slowly, over the last five years, reduced the public servants but nobody
noticed. Nobody really noticed because we did it slowly and did it without
shocking the system. That is what was important and that's why we said we wanted
to do an attrition plan. We knew we were going to have to modify the attrition
plan and that is why we said we have to increase taxes, but do it in a way where
it doesn't shock the system. That's what we did. What this government has done
is shocked the system. We may not see the repercussions of that for a long time
yet to come, and we will not see it for a long time because it takes an enormous
amount of time to turn that around.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall the resolution carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, resolution carried.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 13)
CLERK: Clause
1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 13
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent
thereto, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I move that the
Committee rise, report the resolution and Bill 13 carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report the resolution and Bill 13 as carried.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy Chair
of Committees.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me
to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill
be introduced to give effect to the same.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered the matters referred
to them and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be
introduced to give effect to the same.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
resolution be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the resolution be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
CLERK:
That it is expedient to
bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on personal income.
On
motion, resolution read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the
resolution be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the resolution be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
CLERK:
That it is expedient to
bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on personal income.
On
motion, resolution read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave
to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 13,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 13, and that the said bill be now
read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, carried. (Bill 13)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 13)
On
motion, Bill 13 read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 13 be now
read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 13 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 13)
On
motion, Bill 13 read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 13 be now
read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 13 be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Mr.
Warr, Mr. Browne, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Derek Bennett,
Mr. Holloway, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Finn, Mr. Dean, Mr. King, Ms.
Parsley.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Kent, Mr.
Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael, Ms. Rogers.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes 20, the nays eight.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion carried.
CLERK:
A bill, Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, given the hour
of the day, I would move, seconded by the Member for Stephenville Port au
Port, that the House do now adjourn.
I wish
everyone a happy weekend.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nay.
Carried.
This
House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 in the afternoon.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.