May 17,
2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 20
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act,
Bill 10, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill 10,
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.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Natural Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 10 has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 10 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 hon. Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Bill 11, and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill 11,
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?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Proceedings Against The Crown Act. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 11 has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 11 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 from the
Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 8.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The House Of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2, be now read the
second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 8 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity And Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
standing here today in my role as Government House Leader to discuss An Act to
Amend the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.
Bills of this nature are entered into this House from time to time. I believe
this may be the second one of this nature that we've done this session, we may
have one more coming. We'll likely have them in the fall as well, given the fact
that we have been changing the various provisions of this act based on
recommendations provided by the independent committee.
Section
7 of this particular act is being amended by adding immediately after subsection
(2) the following: (3) Where an officer referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (d)
is unable to act by reason of absence, incapacity or other cause or the office
is vacant, the Speaker, upon the recommendation of the commission, may appoint a
person to act as that officer in a temporary capacity for a period that shall
not exceed 12 consecutive months.
Basically, this bill will provide for the temporary appointment of four Officers
of the House. It was approved by our Management Commission on March 15 before
being sent to Cabinet for final approval and the Office of the Legislative
Counsel for final drafting.
Section
7(2) of this act came into force in 2007 and requires that the Clerk, the Clerk
Assistant, the Law Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms of our House be selected
through a process that involves consultation between the Speaker, clerk of the
Executive Council and with the Public Service Commission. Basically, it goes
through this consultation process to determine an appropriate recruitment
process.
Following the selection process, which is under section 7(1), the House passes a
resolution nominating the successful candidate. Once a person is nominated by
the House, the LGIC makes the actual appointment. It's a process that gets done
here; it's done publicly, involving debate.
It's
been followed for all the Officers who've been appointed since 2007, which
include our Law Clerk, our Sergeant-at-Arms and our Clerk; however, there is a
gap in this legislation, as it does not make any allowance for a situation where
one of these offices becomes vacant for a period of time and more importantly
where that occurs between sittings of the House.
It's
fine if the House is siting, you can immediately take action, but if something
were to happen where there's a vacancy, say during the month of July when the
House is not sitting. Traditionally, the House will not sit again until October,
November. That's a long period of time where this is an unintended gap we're not
able to remedy.
What
we're doing here today is we're amending it to take care and to fill that gap.
For instance, if due to serious illness or resignation, retirement or any other
cause, one of the offices is vacant, there is a need to appoint someone into the
position in a temporary acting capacity.
Now, this already exists in other legislation. For instance, under the
Citizens' Representative Act, the
Child and Youth Advocate Act and the
Auditor General Act, they allow for
the appointment of their statutory officers in an acting capacity when there's a
temporary absence. We don't have that here.
It
should be noted that under section 10 of our
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, in the absence of the Clerk, the Clerk's
accounting functions are carried out by the chief financial officer and the
procedural parliamentary functions are carried about by the clerk assistant.
Again, it's intended to be short-term backdrop only.
The
proper parliamentary functioning and daily administration of this House need the
ability to appoint a clerk in a temporary acting capacity. The clerk assistant,
Law Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms have no such legislated backup and there are no
other similar positions within the House to fulfill the services that would
carry out their duties.
Under
this proposed Bill 8, which I'm assuming is going to get unanimous consent here
in this House, the acting appointment would be made by the Speaker following a
recommendation of the Management Commission, which for people out there, is made
up of all parties of the House and this acting appointment could not last for
more than a year. Therefore, within that year, a suitable candidate must be
found, following proper competition. The name placed before the House in a
resolution that would be debated and voted on by all the Members of this House.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't think there's any need to belabour this particular piece of
legislation much more. This was something that the parties were aware of.
Certainly, we've discussed it, various Members of this House in our roles in the
Management Commission.
I'm
going to take my seat at this point and allow the other Members an opportunity
to speak to this. I look forward to the Committee stage to answer any questions;
although, if there are questions, maybe we're better off asking the Speaker
those questions.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill 8, An Act to Amend
the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act. I, as
well from this side, sit on the Management Commission and from time to time
there are various pieces of legislation that would come forward to deal with
particular changes or proposed changes to come here to the Legislature.
As the
minister has outlined, the intent of the legislation, I will just read briefly
the Explanatory Note: To amend the House
of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act to allow for
House officers to be appointed temporarily by the Speaker, upon the
recommendation of the House of Assembly Management Commission, in certain
circumstances.
The bill
would lay out what they would be, the reason for it and specifically states:
Where an officer referred to is unable to act by reason of absence, incapacity
or other cause or the office is vacant, the Speaker, upon the recommendation of
the commission, may appoint a person to act as that officer in a temporary
capacity for a period that shall not exceed 12 consecutive months.
This is
a piece of legislation, an amendment that looks at, if you will, the operational
requirements in regard to the House and various House Officer positions of a
temporary nature when as Bill 8 references there's a particular circumstance
that occurs and vacancies become apparent for various reasons. It's an ability
then to deal with that.
This
allows the House Officers to be appointed temporarily by the Speaker. That would
be upon recommendation of the House Management Commission which has membership
that is reflected by the government side of the House, the Official Opposition
and the Third Party. Through that, the recommendation would be made to the
Speaker.
The
current legislation, why we're doing this and why it's being presented I assume,
is the fact that there is no provision right now for anybody to be appointed to
these roles temporarily. As the bill references, this could be done for any
number of reasons, normal course of events in regard to people's careers and
whatever may happen along the way. It could be in a case of retirements or in a
case of extended sick leave. Obviously, these would be necessary positions in
regard to the functions of the House and therefore would need to be required.
I think
the minister also referenced the fact that a temporary appointment may be needed
as the public service undertakes the official recruitment and screening process
to find a candidate to recommend to the House to fill the position permanently.
So this would be an interim step to be taken, legislative authority given to the
Management Commission at a time when you needed to fill a vacancy on a temporary
basis.
The
Management Commission would make a recommendation to the Speaker who chairs that
Committee, and on a temporary basis that position would be filled. Then the
process would start, it's my understanding, on the merit-based principle per the
Public Service Commission and that process would be undertaken, a screening
process to find that candidate that would be recommended to the House on a
permanent basis.
When we
go back and look at the review that was done by Judge Green in regard to the
recommendation from his report, it was my understanding that there wasn't a
provision at the time included to allow someone to serve in an acting role.
Again, Bill 8 looks to address that interim issue and how there's a legislative
authority now being suggested in this bill that it would be allowed to do that.
Without
this provision or this amendment in Bill 8 there's no ability there for this
Legislature or the Management Commission or the Speaker to put someone in that
acting role. It could be a period of time to be extended for that position or a
position to be vacant, which could certainly affect the functioning of this
institution; therefore, this allows action to be taken.
At
various times, depending on what that role is, as I said, it could negatively
affect the operation of the House. That's what this Bill does, to amend that and
to make sure there's the ability for the Management Commission and then make a
recommendation to the Speaker that the position would be filled on an interim
basis. Then we would proceed to the normal course of events in regard to the
merit principle or what is usually the normal course of events. We go through
the merit principle and they would recommend, through the merit-based principle,
the possible candidates that could be recommended to the House for approval.
This is
needed. We certainly recognize that. Bill 8; we certainly support this bill to
make the amendment and to give the authority of the House to do what it's
intended to do, to allow to have the authority to make a recommendation to fill
a temporary position that may be due to any number of circumstances, but allow
the function of the House to continue without any negative consequences.
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
happy to stand this morning and speak to Bill 8 which has been explained very
clearly by the Government House Leader An Act to amend the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2.
Of
course, I'll be supporting this bill which is an important piece to put in.
Right now, at the moment, with regard to this section in the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,
which I will call the act from here on in, the section in the act which is
called section 7 has two parts to it. One part names the Officers who are being
talked about. Both my colleagues have named those officers: the Clerk of the
House, the Clerk Assistant, the Law Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Section
7(2) of the act currently, and will remain, says: Before a nomination is made
under subsection (1), that's where they're all named out the speaker shall
consult with the commission, the Clerk of the Executive Council and the
chairperson of the Public Service Commission to determine an appropriate process
for recruitment of suitable candidates for appointment.
Today's
bill is putting in a new section not omitting anything that there is now
that is dealing with the fact that one of these Officers could be absent
temporarily because of incapacity or other causes, or the office could become
vacant. Section 3 is dealing with what to do in a temporary situation because it
takes time to fill a position, it takes months and months to fill a position and
you can't have the position empty.
Once the
temporary period is over and that's a 12-consecutive-month period and a
permanent nomination is being made, then the section that's already in our act
kicks in and the Speaker shall consult with the Commission, consult with the
clerk of the Executive Council, and the chairperson of the Public Service
Commission to determine an appropriate process for recruitment of suitable
candidates for appointment. That's where it stands when it comes to the four
Officers who are being talked about. Now we have something to cover both
temporary and full-time nominations and appointments.
The good
thing about saying the Speaker would now take recommendations from the
Commission is that the work of the Commission is open and transparent. So it
lends to continue the openness and transparency by saying it's the Commission
that would make the recommendations to the Speaker. The bill does not give any
details as to what that process would be, but as that process is worked out,
again, because of the nature of the Commission, we think this will be an open
and transparent process. I think that's what's important here.
There
isn't a lot more to say. It's important that we do this and it's important that
we do it in an open and transparent way. I think it's good for the public to see
that here in the House of Assembly things are being taken care of in an orderly
fashion, that there will be an objective procedure for the appointments. I think
right now people are looking for that kind of thing with regard to appointments
within anything that has to do with the House of Assembly.
I'm
happy to support this bill, but I do urge the Speaker to make sure that a
process for doing this gets worked out quickly so that people will see what
exactly will be the process for the recommendations from the Commission. Of
course, that isn't spelled out in the bill, the actual process for the
recommendations, how that would happen. I think we need to have a discussion on
that. That kind of thing is like a regulation. I guess it doesn't go into a bill
per se, but it would assume if there are going to be recommendations made, then
there has to be a process put together covering that.
Having
said that, I thank the minister for bringing this forward and I look forward to
voting for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
George's Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to make a few comments in relation to this bill. I think it's very
appropriate we have this kind of legislation come forward to look at the
possible absence of some of the staff here in the House.
I just
want to make a few comments. It won't take long. I think we have to also look at
succession planning here in the House and for the Table Officers in the House.
Succession planning is a big issue within the private sector and also in
government in general, about how we are going to move forward and the knowledge
that senior people in our organization have is not lost when they leave.
I think
as a House of Assembly we have to look at succession planning and what we can do
to sort of ease that transition as people leave employment here with this
organization and move on, to make sure that we have sort of a steady staffing
and steady knowledge in terms of the way we operate our House. Because these
Officers here in the House provide a great service to the House and I think we
need to look at the larger issue as well of succession planning and how we're
going to do it as a House of Assembly.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
If the
hon. Government House Leader speaks now he shall close debate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the commentary from my colleagues across the way, as well as my
colleague here on this side who certainly has a significant amount of experience
as it relates to parliamentary procedure. I'm not going to belabour this except
by saying I look forward to any questions or comments that come through the
Committee stage.
I'll
take my time to sit now and I look forward to having Committee on this and
moving this bill forward.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 8 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.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2. (Bill
8)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 8 has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity
And Administration Act No. 2, read a second time, ordered referred to a
Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)
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 8.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 8.
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, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
Before
we move on with the proceedings of Bill 8, I'm going to go back to yesterday. I
would like to make two rulings with respect to issues raised in this House
during Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 16.
The
first is a point of order raised by the Government House Leader with respect to
a statement made by the Member for Mount Pearl North. Hansard has been reviewed
and the exact words stated by the Member were:
that kind of behaviour from a
minister is unethical, it's dishonest and it's deceptive.
While at
first glance, the comment is phrased so as not to appear as a direct accusation
against a specific Member, in the context of the questions and answers being
asked and responded to, it is obvious that this statement was in fact an
accusation directed at the Minister of Finance.
O'Brien
and Bosc states at page 618,
the use of offensive, provocative or threatening
language in the House is strictly forbidden
. At page 619, In dealing with
unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and
intention of the Member speaking ....
I find
that the utterances of the Member for Mount Pearl North were offensive and not
conducive to the proper conduct of debate in this House. This is a violation of
Standing Order 49, and I therefore ask the Member to withdraw his comments.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Madam Chair, I've reviewed
the recording from yesterday and I would encourage others inside and outside
this House to do the same.
I cannot
apologize for being asked
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Is the
Member going to withdraw or not withdraw?
MR. KENT:
Madam Chair, I won't
apologize for being straightforward with the people of the province.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Whether in the House of
Assembly or outside the House of Assembly, we have to be honest.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I will
continue with the second issue. The second issue that was also raised
AN HON. MEMBER:
No, no, if he doesn't
withdraw, he (inaudible) out of the House.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Chair is speaking and I ask all Members for respect in this House.
The
issue raised was also raised later the same day by the Government House Leader
who was raising a further point of order under Standing Order 49.
Hansard has been reviewed and
showed that the Government House Leader stated that the Member for Mount Pearl
North had tweeted from the House that:
Hansard will have a record of the questions asked and the misleading answers
provided. The tweet has been captured and was indeed sent by the Member for
Mount Pearl North.
Again, in the context of the questions and answers
occurring in the House at that time, I find that the comment was directed at the
Minister of Finance. The issue is more complicated than the mere use of an
unparliamentary word such as misleading. Had the Member stated this openly in
the House, he would have been immediately required to withdraw it; however, he
chose to tweet his comment presumably from the floor of the House of Assembly
and certainly while the House was sitting.
Similar issues have occurred before. On May 9, 2012, the
Speaker of this House, while addressing a tweet made while the House was not
sitting stated: Had this accusation of lying been sent while the House was
sitting so as to escape being sanctioned for unparliamentary language, I believe
it would have been a prima facie breach of privilege.
While I do not believe this is a matter of privilege but a
point of order under Standing Order 49, I endorse the sentiment that this is a
breach and an attempt to do by the back door what could not be done by the front
door.
This is not the first time that this Member has been
reprimanded for his tweets. While social media is a wonderful tool, I admonish
the Member and I ask him to refrain from tweeting comments that could not be
said on the floor of this House.
I will one final time ask the Member: Will he withdraw his
comments?
The hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT: Madam
Chair, thank you for your ruling. Unfortunately, I cannot apologize for what I
said yesterday.
CHAIR: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. Member to leave the House for the remainder
of today.
We are now considering Bill 8, An Act To Amend The House Of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 8)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wasn't
quick enough to jump up when we were doing second reading. So just for the
record, obviously, what's being proposed in this bill does make sense if one of
our Officers should be off with sickness or for any other reason that we would
be able to appoint someone to replace them.
So just
for the record, I support the bill.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I don't
know if the Government House Leader has an answer to this because he did make
reference to maybe questions have to go to the Speaker. I would like to know if
there has been any thought given to what the process would be for
recommendations being made by the Commission to the Speaker with regard to the
temporary positions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's a
good question by the Member. I probably can't say because, as it stands, I guess
I'm bringing this in in my role as Government House Leader, but really this is a
Management Commission and House issue.
What I
would suggest is that maybe at one of our next Management Commission meetings, I
think it's a good topic for us to discuss because, right now, I'd only be giving
my opinion, which has no more weight than any of our opinions on this. I'm not
trying to duck, but it really is a House thing. It's a good question that we
need to address because the recommendation carries a lot of weight.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I really
appreciate the answer from the Government House Leader. We're all I mean, he
and I are both on the Management Commission, but I'm wondering since, as
Government House Leader, he was the one who brought the bill forward, will he
then be the one to speak with the Speaker, who is the Chair of the Management
Commission, for us to have it on the agenda.
One of
us has somebody has to take responsibility. I agree with what he's saying, but
one of us has to take responsibility. So I'm just asking: Will he take
responsibility for making sure we get this on the agenda of the House Management
Commission?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Certainly, I have no issue
with that, making sure that's a topic we discuss. I doubt it's going to be at
the meeting tonight but, definitely, it's something we should discuss soon.
Maybe
what I can do is, hopefully the House staff I have to give them credit for
even the notes I get can remind me to make sure that it goes on as well,
because if I don't bring it, it's not intentional. It's my memory and that's my
fault.
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:
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:
All those against, nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 8 carried
without amendment.
All
those in favour, aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Deputy House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
I move, Madam Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 8, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act No. 2.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 8 carried without amendment.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. Deputy Chair of
Committees.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 8 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 8 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand in the House this morning to speak to Bill 9.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. C. BENNETT:
Oh, sorry, my apologies. It
was a long day yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER:
Move and second.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act, be now read a second time.
Thank
you for your patience.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 9 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.
(Bill 9).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was
saying, I'm pleased to stand in my place today to speak to Bill 9, An Act To
Amend The Revenue Administration Act. This particular piece of legislation
relates to our government's commitment, as we stated in last year's budget, to
reduce the temporary gas tax that we had no choice but to implement as part of
last year's budget decisions. It's always a privilege and an honour to speak in
this House, particularly when we are able to say, do, and reflect the
information that we gave the people of the province by committing to reducing
that gas tax, which is what this piece of legislation will do, Mr. Speaker.
Over the
past two years, in the wake of a very serious fiscal situation facing
Newfoundland and Labrador, our government has taken a smart, focused approach to
financial management. The magnitude of the fiscal challenge we inherited cannot
be understated. The easy solution would have been to ignore the situation and
pass the problem on to future generations. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we choose to
make some very difficult and responsible decisions for the long-term benefit of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Our
government made hard choices and we asked the taxpayers to support those choices
so we could close the gap between our revenue and our costs. This included
implementing a gas tax increase. As we stated as part of
Budget 2017, we are now on the path to
gaining control of our finances and striking the balance of better spending
controls and valuable investments. In fact, we are currently ahead of our
forecasting in terms of deficit projections and we are on track to return to
surplus in 2022'23.
As part
of this path to better financial management, we want to make clear that our
government is responsive to the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We
committed to the people of the province that we would review the gas tax on a
regular basis and as soon as we had the ability to reduce this temporary tax, we
would do so.
We have
seen increased revenues since the temporary gas tax was implemented, and as part
of Budget 2017, we felt it was prudent
to reduce the tax. We are listening and we are following through on the promise
we made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
In 2017,
residents of this province will benefit from two reductions to the temporary gas
tax. Beginning on June 1, we will reduce it by 8½ cents per litre and on
December 1, 2017, we will reduce it by a further four cents per litre for a
total reduction of 12½ cents, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
We will review the remaining
four cents as part of the 2017 fall fiscal economic update.
Mr.
Speaker, this reduction represents a 75 per cent reduction in the temporary gas
tax by the end of the calendar year. This will provide residents with more
disposable income, ultimately providing for a positive impact on the provincial
economy.
As well,
Mr. Speaker, consistent with the phase-out of the temporary gas tax on June 1,
2017, the rebate for the Labrador border zones, which was set at 10 cents per
litre last year, will be reduced to 1.5 cents per litre until December 1, at
which time it will be discontinued. The affected areas are Labrador West, Lab
City and Wabush, and Southern Labrador with the Quebec border to and including
the community of Red Bay.
As
implemented in 2016, the temporary gas tax on the North Coast of Labrador will
continue to be reduced to the point that the tax per litre does not exceed $1.55
or the temporary gas tax is fully reduced. This will be evaluated over the
coming months. There will be no change to the tax rate on diesel fuel, Mr.
Speaker.
As a
government, we have established a vision for sustainability and growth in this
province, but in order to achieve that we must have a solid foundation in which
to work from. That solid foundation includes strong fiscal management. As part
of this, we know that tax increases must be balanced with tax competitiveness.
That is why we will initiate a comprehensive, independent tax review of our tax
system this fiscal year which will be completed within our current mandate.
As
outlined in The Way Forward, this
government must be redefined to address economic, social and fiscal challenges,
and strong fiscal management is a top priority, Mr. Speaker. With
The Way Forward providing us with the guiding principles of
developing a smarter approach to governance and management, we are methodically
and responsibly redesigning government to address our economic, social and
fiscal challenges. Our focus will always be on positioning our province to be in
an ideal place to raise a family with a competitive work and business
environment.
Mr.
Speaker, in order to return to fiscal balance we must think and act in a way
that is long term. We can no longer afford to be bound by short-term reactionary
thinking. That is why we reviewed the temporary gas tax we had in place and we
found we were in a position to reduce this tax and provide some financial relief
to the people of this province. It is also why our government is committed to
beginning a tax review this fiscal year.
As we
continue down the road of strong fiscal management, our government will make
decisions, such as reducing the temporary gas tax that are in the best interests
of good governance, responsible finances and the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
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
pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 9. As the minister said, this bill is
related to An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act, and specifically
related to the gas tax which was part and parcel of last year's budget and part
of 300 fees and taxes that came about as part of this government's direction to
raise revenue.
This
amendment is revisiting that, one of those 300 taxes and fees. Revisiting it not
to remove the tax, but certainly revision of the current tax, what was
implemented last year in the budget and to reduce the gasoline tax as announced
in, as I said, Budget 2017.
There is
also reference to subsequent necessary adjustments to the legislation to
continue the gasoline tax
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was
saying, the bill will amend the Revenue
Administration Act to reduce the gasoline tax as announced in
Budget 2017 along with the 299 other
taxes and fees. This is really the only one that's been modified from the budget
prior to this year. It will also make subsequent necessary adjustments to the
legislation to continue the gasoline tax rate within the Labrador border zones.
From the
technical side of it, section 1, as you go through, allows for the reduction in
what was 16.5 cents in Budget 2017. A
reduction of 8.5 cents per litre will occur on June 1, 2017. This is in the
portion of the bill 1(e)(ii). The gas tax will be set at $0.245 per litre for
the period beginning June 1, 2017 and ending November 30, 2017
.
A
further reduction of four cents per litre on December 1, 2017, for a reduction
of 12.5 from 16.5 I think last year, was implemented in the budget. This
provision is shown in section 1(e)(iii) where you get $0.205 per litre for the
period beginning December 1, 2017.
Section
2 of the bill makes changes to the Labrador border zones gasoline tax. These
changes (a) and (b) reduce the border zone rebate so that the effective gasoline
tax which it paid in the border zones will remain at 23 cents per litre.
Currently, the Labrador border zones have a discount of 10 cents per litre
applied to their gas tax. This means that the gas tax at the border zone is
exactly at 23 cents. This is done, I understand, to prevent residents from
crossing the border into Quebec to purchase their gas. That zone, the Labrador
border zone, consists of Labrador City, Wabush and South Coast.
On June
1, 2017, the gas tax will be reduced through this bill, Bill 9, by 8.5 cents.
The border zone discount will also be reduced by 8.5 cents to a discount of 1.5
cents per litre. This keeps the gas tax rate for the border zones at 23 cents
per litre.
From my
understanding, the Labrador border zone discount will be eliminated on December
1, 2017. The entire province then will pay a gas tax of 20.5 cents per litre.
The
question of the gas tax and the philosophy behind it, and certainly the public
policy in regards to raising revenue through this method, there's been
significant discussion in our province since the budget, since this was brought
in, in last year's budget, 2016. We've seen the effect of it, and the ripple
effect, in regard to consumer's consumption tax.
When you
look at gas and what is required for the fuel in terms of operations from
families, take their kids to school in the morning; from business in terms of
able to operate, whether it's a small business, whether it's a large
corporation; emergency services. The full spectrum of what a gas tax and the
effect it has on society and economy is enormous.
We've
seen and hear it, I know last year on the gas tax bill itself, when it came to
the House, we had a filibuster on that gas tax bill. It went on for considerable
days. I know thinking back to that, the gas tax at that particular time and the
concerns people expressed in regard to what it believed it would do. The effect
it would have, the negative effect. We were here for days going through, reading
out letter, reading out emails on the gas tax that we're proposed to change here
today, not remove, but reduce it; literally hundreds.
I know
myself, it comes to mind on this particular public policy in regard to gas tax,
I read out middle-class families talking about the fact of how they're going to
be able to function and pay that consumption cost on fuel. While this bill here
reduces it, the whole philosophy behind it and the intent and how it's being
used and the effects it's having on society and on the economy still stands
today. There's no change from 2016 in regard to when it was brought in, to the
negative effect it's having and what that ripple effect is. When you put that in
with the larger view of the 300 taxes and fees and this gas tax was one of them,
it is significant.
I think
we heard that last year in 2016 when it was brought in. We heard it continuously
throughout the year. We continue to hear it today in regard to what those
concerns were.
We
talked about last year, too, and again this year, there was a financial
situation and you needed to deal with it. Yes, indeed. I don't think anybody
would dispute that, but the reality is there were choices you could make and the
policy decisions you make and the amendments to legislation you make, whether
it's gas tax or whether it's HST or whether it's fee, there's a balance and a
direction you take on where that threshold is to where you can tax and fee an
economy to the point where it becomes negative and you don't even reach your
targets.
It's
interesting enough and I'll speak to that in a little while when you look at
the targets that were last year or the target that was identified for revenue
from this tax, the target wasn't met. So let's think about that for a second.
You're setting a gas tax. You increase it 16.5 cents, which is negative to the
economy, and we've seen that over the past year. We continue to see it, but your
own target you set for this tax that was way out of proportion then anybody
would think was even realistic, you didn't even meet your target.
So you
have to ask your economic plan and your vision for raising revenues: How can
that even be on target? You raised the tax; didn't meet your target. So this
year and I'll speak to that in a few minutes you're going to set another
target to try and balance your books on the ledger. You don't even know if
you're going to meet the target because you didn't do it the first time.
Not only
didn't you reach the target when, again, we keep talking about industries and
how this gas tax affects them. In my own district, I speak to people all the
time, seniors and middle-class families in regard to this gas tax, a bill like
this. I've got processing facilities in the fishery. I've got fabrication
facilities in my district, as I said, all kinds of small business. So every cost
for every time they filled up a truck or a vehicle, where do you think that
they have a margin that they need to make, that's why they're in business. Once
you get into that margin, where's the cost going?
Well,
the cost is going on to the consumer. The cost is going on the person who walks
in and whatever they buy or whatever service they want, that's passed on to the
consumer. So that's passed on to everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, when
they go in and whatever they buy, whether it's a service or a product, they're
paying that and they're paying this gas tax that we're talking about here today.
We've
seen it over the past number of months. We've heard from people in regard to
what it means to them and what affect this ill-conceived tax is doing. As I
said, based on unknown projections, they didn't even reach the projection that
they thought they would in regard to bringing this in.
This
actual gas tax wasn't done in isolation. It's just not one tax or two taxes and
say: This is part of a bigger plan. Through this gas tax, what we're charging
here, we have an economic development plan and we have targets and those targets
are going to be hit. Based on hitting those targets in employment, we're going
to raise so much personal income tax, we're going to raise so much corporate
income tax, so much business tax, whether it's payroll and that will offset and
that will show some of the revenue. So that's driving the economy with a
taxation system that's inviting, that allows investment, yet raises revenue.
So as I
spoke earlier in regard to this bill and this tax and fee structure that was
brought in, it's not balanced and that's the problem. When you negatively affect
the economy, you're not hitting your targets. You're not doing what you need to
do in regard to setting out that fiscal plan to make sure you can meet the
targets and what you need to do.
If we
look at Budget 2016, the Estimates
that the revenues projected for '16-'17 excuse me, Mr. Speaker. In
Budget 2016, if you look at the
Estimates, the revenues for the '16-'17 gasoline tax would be $328 million.
That's $328 million, as I said, taken out of Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians'
pockets, young families, middle-class families, seniors. That's gas tax that was
applied and would come out of all those businesses, various types, various
industries in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're a
natural resource commodity market very much in Newfoundland and Labrador; we
produce. To extract those commodities, to transport them, to get them for
processing, to get them to marketing all involve fuel and fuel costs and it's
related to this bill.
That's
all put on that cost of operations. That's less people you may be able to hire,
that's less period of time you may need to operate. Based on all that, it
reverts to this decision made in 2016 to implement the gas tax. Now we see some
other revision here today, but that's all directed to negatively affecting the
economy.
As I
said, in 2016 the Estimate for the gasoline tax was $328 million; the revised
number for '16-'17 was $305 million, so it didn't reach the target. My
understanding for this particular year the target is somewhere in the range, I
think, of $273 million, $274 million. Looking at, as I said when I started, the
300 fees and tax increases in 2016, in 2017 this is the only one that's been
modified or adjusted in any way.
Even
with this one, in terms of revenue projections last year was off, coupled with
the negative effect it had on the economy and I'm sure it negatively affected
other things like sales tax and other things like that because it has an effect.
There's a ripple effect throughout the whole economy and those revenue streams
that any government has the ability to extract them or get revenue from. It
continually negatively affects those and then this year there's another
projection for almost $274 million.
What
faith do we have that this projection and all the others are going to be where
they need to be based on what we've seen in the prior year? This economic
indicator doesn't even measure what the effect is on the others. Now I don't
have The Economy, the document that
came with this year's budget, but if you were to look at that and go in and look
at the economic indicators, when we look at this gas tax that was brought in
last year, it shows what the performance of many of those economic indicators
were last year. For the most part, they were heading in the wrong direction.
That's related, to some degree a great degree in some cases to this gas tax
and what we're talking about here today.
If you
look in that document, The Economy,
from the budget, you look at the current administration projecting what their
economic indicators and what the achievements are going to be this fiscal year
and they're not even the same. Most of them are worse than they were last year.
So,
again, if you factor in this tax and the effect it's having and the ripple
effect throughout, no doubt it's related. Whether you're building homes, you're
involved in extracting natural resources, whether you have a small business,
whether you have a fabrication facility, as I said before, it's all
interrelated. It's all a fee of operations.
If you
exceed that threshold and what someone can actually small business or a
family, what they can actually sustain and give back or give more of net dollars
out of their revenue, there's only so much they can do. So at some point they
have to stop consuming, or stop those activities, or stop buying, or stop doing
those things that drive the economy.
This
right here is one of the key indicators when people look at: Here's the income I
have, here's what I need to do to run my family. I have kids in school, kids in
recreational activities. We may take a vacation a year; we may go to the parks.
We may do a whole bunch of things, but there's a lot of reflection that's gone
on in the past year in this province, in 17 months, since some of these taxes
and fees were brought in. People are making tough decision, hard decisions
related to employment.
One of
the scariest things for anybody here who's elected and looks at the future of
our province is when you get young families saying: Is this too much? Can I
sustain our family here? Can we still stay here? Can we still pay the fees? The
gas tax is one of these that keeps coming up and is causing huge pain and hurt
for many families. That becomes where they make the decision of: Can we stay
here? Can we continue to build a livelihood here under this tax and fee
structure that's been put forth on them? This being what we're talking about
today, one of the ones that is concerning to them.
Back in
2016 when the budget was announced, the hon. minister at the time talked about
the fact that they needed to do revenue generation and this was one component of
it, this gas tax. Through that, there was going to be a matching exercise that
looked at reduction in cost. This gas tax was part of that revenue stream.
Months after, it was supposed to be a process for looking at expenditure
reductions and there was going to be a second budget. Would the second budget
look at these taxes and fees? We weren't sure. We didn't know but we were all
looking forward to it.
Lo and
behold, we never had a second budget. We never had an update. We still don't
know why. Then we flowed into the fall where there was supposed to be more
updates. Then we flowed into the next budget of 2017 and we see here today that
out of the 300, we're going to get a small reduction here in this particular
part of it and the results of that and what's it been over the past number of
years.
It's
concerning, this bill. We're certainly pleased to see some of the reductions.
But I have to say, based on what we've seen and based on the predictions in
terms of what the activity was going to be in the economy and what the returns
on this was going to be to the Treasury, they haven't been met. That's
concerning because, then, that questions further projections and where we're
going. Is there validity in those? Can we expect those to be achieved?
It's not
only the gas tax component in terms of the revenue. That factors into the whole
envelope of the budget and the whole envelope of revenues. Obviously, there's a
whole spectrum of areas where any government raises revenue. So if one component
of it is not hitting a target or any component, then where is that extra money
coming from at the end of the year? You've laid out what you believe your
expenditures are going to be and you've laid out what your revenues are going to
be, and one of those are tied to this bill we're talking about today.
If
they're not hitting those revenue targets, and more concerning, if you have a
piece of taxation or a bill that we believe and I think last year's economic
indicator certainly demonstrates it in some way slowed the economy. So if it's
slowing the economy and you have a tax that's supposed to deliver revenue based
on a buoyant economy and you don't have that buoyant economy, you're not going
to hit your targets.
So the
actual taxation scheme or plan is a disincentive to the economy and you're not
even reaching your other targets. As we look forward to we hope, certainly,
the targets are attainable, but what we've seen to date on this, it's
questionable on whether indeed they will be attainable and we'll hit those
revenue targets that allow us to deliver the services that have been outlined in
the budget and meet the needs and services of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Madam
Speaker, I certainly appreciated my time in terms of speaking to this bill. I'm
sure we'll have lots of questions when we get into the Committee. I'm certainly
eager to hear what Members on both sides of the House have to say in regards to
this particular bill.
The
amendment to it we're pleased with. We think there's more that could be done. We
think a more expansive and innovative approach to terms of taxation, fees and
reduction in costs on a broad sense, coupled with key indicators of how they
would drive economic activity, tied to job growth and subsequently to things
like other revenues, whether it's personal or corporate income tax, business
tax, which is a more fulsome approach in terms of the economy and management.
Rather than saying we're going to inundate Newfoundland and Labrador with a
whole scheme of 300 taxes and fees, and at some point this year reduce it a bit,
but still really drown the economy and the stability of the economy by this
approach.
As I
said, I look forward to debate as we move into the days and weeks ahead.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand here to speak to Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Revenue
Administration Act. What this act does is reduces the gas tax that we have here
in Newfoundland and Labrador by 8.5 cents on June 1 and another 4 cents on
December 1. The further 4 cents will be reviewed in the fall fiscal update.
I'm just
going to read a couple of paragraphs that I presented to the Bonavista-Trinity
Regional Chamber of Commerce during the Easter break, during their AGM
As a
government, we faced many challenges in 2016, but while others would run from
them and pass the buck to future generations, we faced them head on, as
unpopular as they may have been. In October, our Liberal Government released
The Way Forward document, which is our
action plan to achieve a strong, diversified province with a high standard of
living. This is a three-phase approach where we just finished Phase 1: Securing
our Footing. We all know that government has a spending problem and that we're
addicted to oil, that has to change.
Budget 2016
was tough but necessary to shore up our fiscal footing; however, we realized
that everything couldn't be put on the backs of the Newfoundland and Labrador
taxpayer. That is why over the past six months we have taken measures to reduce
spending and support economic growth. We're going to make every dollar count and
account for every dollar.
I don't
think there's a better place in our province than the District of Bonavista to
support diversification and drive economic growth.
Budget 2017will help do this and one thing we recognize is that we
need to give people more spending power. This is why we are reducing our gas tax
by 8.5 cents on June 1 and another 4 cents on December 1 with the other 4 cents
being evaluated in the fall fiscal update.
As well,
we will once again be investing $120 million in the Enhanced Seniors' Benefit
and Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement which supports low-income
seniors, families and individuals. These two initiatives will have a positive
impact on your businesses.
That's
just an excerpt of the speech that I gave the Chamber of Commerce back during
the Easter week. They certainly appreciated the comments I made. I talked about
agriculture, forestry, fishery, tourism and other initiatives that were
important to them.
When I
talked to my constituents last year, and I held two public meetings after
Budget 2016. I didn't hide away. I
faced the people head on. I firmly believe you have to do that. You have to
listen to people. One of the biggest concerns that I got through those town hall
meetings and throughout the year and said: If there's anything that we could
change right away, what would it be? The first thing that came out of everyone's
mouth was the gas tax. I made a commitment to those people to bring that
information back to caucus and I did time and time again, such as other Members
of the government caucus.
Budget 2016
wasn't the budget that we liked but it was a budget that we needed. I thank the
people in the District of Bonavista and the people in Newfoundland and Labrador
for standing with us and taking the brunt of this gas tax. It helped us get our
financial footing in order and now that we're able to reduce that tax, we're
going to do in June, December and, hopefully, with the remaining 4 cents
sometime in the near future.
What
also got announced in Budget 2017 is a
full tax review for taxation here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's long
overdue, Madam Speaker. I look forward to the results of that because it could
lead to some very sweeping changes to our taxation here and certainly that would
be a benefit to, not only people in the province, but businesses, anyone who
wants to invest here as well.
That's
pretty much the gist of what I wanted to talk about. I know others will echo my
sentiment, but I'm glad that we're here debating Bill 9 where we'll see the
reduction of our gas tax and I fully support it.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I am
pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Revenue
Administration Act. Of course, as has been pointed out by the minister and
speakers previous to me, this has to do very specifically with a reduction in
gasoline tax, but the reduction is in a very particular gasoline tax which was
leveed by this government in the 2016 budget, the austerity budget they put in
place. This tax, the tax they brought in 2016, which was a 16.5 cent temporary
tax, was quite a regressive move along with so much else that was in the 2016
budget.
It's
very interesting; I know it was called temporary and it's good to know this
budget is reducing the tax that was put in place, but it's interesting to note
that they had great plans for the new tax they brought in and had estimated $328
million as the revenue from that tax, as has already been pointed out by my
colleague from the Official Opposition. The revision of their estimate was
actually $23 million lower.
We do
know there actually was a reduction in consumption by the motoring public
there was actually a reduction. I think the minister already noted that herself
a few months after the tax was imposed. So when it comes to that tax, Madam
Speaker, the proof is in the eating for sure because the fact that consumption
went down showed that people in this province were basically negatively affected
by that tax. They obviously were using their vehicles more carefully. They had
to probably not do things for pleasure, using their vehicles because of the
extra burden that had been laid on them.
So, yes,
I'm glad the 2017 budget is reducing that tax not removing it completely, but
reducing it. I'm glad of that, and obviously I'm going to vote for it, but I
think we need to look at the context in which this is happening and make some
important points about that context and ask some questions as well.
As we
know, and has been said already but I will repeat it, we'll actually get the
first reduction on June 1, in a couple of weeks, and that will be a reduction by
8.5 cents. Then on December 1, it will be another reduction of four cents, for a
total reduction in this year's budget of 12.5 cents. So there's still a
four-cent temporary tax on gas. We still have some tax that is still part of
that temporary tax, that is four cents.
Now,
government has said it is looking at reviewing the idea of dropping that four
cents as well as part of the 2017 fall fiscal and economic update, but I don't
put too much hope in fall updates. When I think of 2016, the government had
everybody geared up for their big fall, fiscal update, which basically gave us
nothing. So we'll see whether or not the 2017 fall fiscal update will drop the
rest of this temporary tax.
Now, the
government has said this reduction will be in conjunction with a comprehensive
independent review of the tax system this fiscal year. I have to say, I really
am looking forward to some information from government on the independent review
of our tax system, because we have a tax system that is becoming more and more
regressive with more and more dependence on consumer taxation, which is very,
very problematic.
We have
to look at that budget in the context, not just of taxes that are called taxes,
but also fees and levies. We do know the 2016 budget had 300 very unpopular
fees, onerous fees in some cases, and taxes and levies on the people of the
province. So I hope when the minister says there's going to be review of our
taxation system, that that review would include not just looking at the levies,
which are actually called taxes, and consumer taxation in particular, but also
look at all the other fees and levies which are out there, which are part of
taking money from people.
What we
need to see, I think, in doing your review is what is the impact of all of those
fees and levies, and how could the money the government takes from fees and
levies be incorporated into a progressive taxation system, not a regressive
taxation system, which we are definitely part of and which is getting worse.
This year there was nothing new, but 299 things remained. The only thing that's
being changed is this temporary tax. We still have 299 other taxes and fees and
levies that this government put on the backs of the people of the province.
Now, the
thing I'd like to broaden into is the context. I have to ask if government is
doing this in anticipation of a federal tax that is going to be imposed,
depending on other things that this government does. Liberal Prime Minister
Trudeau has said he will impose an 11 cent per litre federal gas tax if
provinces do not come up with their own scheme by 2020, their own scheme with
regard to carbon emissions. He's imposing it.
This
government has an agreement with the federal government, has accepted the
agreement with regard to the greenhouse gases and with regard to the federal
plan that's been put in place. Part of that is if the government doesn't come up
with their own scheme, their own gas tax or some scheme around gas tax by 2020,
then there will be an imposition by the federal government of 11 cent per litre
federal gas tax.
We have
to know, what is government's plan with regard to this carbon tax imposition?
They have said, I remember hearing them say, they've suggested in the media that
at least part of the increased gas tax they had in place in 2016, but which is
now being reduced, could be converted into a carbon tax to meet federal
government requirements.
I
remember the Minister of Service NL I think that was the minister who said
publicly that the government certainly would not want to have both provincial
gas taxes, especially the temporary one and an extra carbon tax on top. They
would find ways to make the federal government understand that the tax they've
put on could be something that could be considered into the whole scheme around
the carbon tax scheme.
I don't
know where that sits right now when you look at the fact that they are reducing
the temporary tax. But, you know, just as they put the tax on and now they're
reducing it, they could also make a decision again to increase that temporary
tax. So everything with this government, we just have to wait and see for a lot
of the things that they're doing.
I would
like to know, it would be good to know, where the government is standing with
regard to the carbon tax. What are they going to do between now and 2020? That's
just down the road. They have to plan for it. I would like to know if there's
any connection between the reductions of this tax in preparation for putting on
a carbon tax which is being imposed by the federal government.
I think
that this is an important question. The very fact that we seem to just accept
it, that carbon tax is the way to go when dealing with greenhouse gas emissions,
is another issue. I really do want to know where the government stands on this.
Everybody in the province is being affected by our cost of gas. As I said, that
certainly is obvious in the fact that consumption has gone down. Consumption is
lower than has been anticipated.
I'm sure
the people of the province also want to know where government is really sitting
with the whole carbon tax because if the carbon tax goes on and it's part of an
agreement with the federal government, it's not going to be something that this
government is going to be able to put in one budget and remove in another
budget. It's going to be there. The people of the province have been heavily hit
by the increase, as I've said, in taxes, fees and other levies heavily hit.
People
are being impacted. Our economy is going down. Our GDP is going down. All of
that is true, and as we've pointed out before, all of the indicators are there
that we are in a repression time when it comes to our economy. That's a fact.
At the
moment, this one little move will obviously help. How much it will help, I guess
we're going to have to wait to see as the year unfolds, the degree to which this
small move by government is going to help our economy and going to help the
people of the province.
Having
said all that, Madam Speaker, I may have some questions for the minister in
Committee. Having said all that, obviously, I am voting for the bill because it
is undoing something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak to a bill that's going to amend the
Revenue Administration Act, one of which we will see a reduction in
gas tax by 8.5 cents per litre starting June 1, plus the HST that would be added
to that. So that's almost 10 cents, it's 9.8 cents per litre that consumers will
see relief in just a couple of weeks which is very important. As well, further
relief will happen on December 1 of another four cents per litre.
This was
a temporary measure. We have reviewed where we are financially as a province. We
are meeting our targets. It's very clear that we have a plan to get back to
surplus. This was one of the measures that we had to put in place last year to
deal with the financial situation of the province. As we have the ability to
act, we are doing so and giving back to consumers.
I want
to say, too, there are other aspects of the bill that deal with Labrador and the
Labrador border. I will leave it to my colleague, the Member for Labrador West,
to address those.
I want
to say, though, the Member opposite, when she talked about consumer and consumer
behaviour; I think consumption is an important issue when you talk about
consumption. Any type of temporary measure or a gasoline tax that exists and
they exist in all provinces across the country. Quebec has over a 20-cent
gasoline tax and it varies from province to province and other jurisdictions.
Some
jurisdictions have implemented a carbon tax as the Member opposite is talking
about. When you look at implementing a temporary measure and if it drives local
behaviour to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, that's not necessarily a bad
thing. As well, there's more effort being placed on people looking at the
choices they make about having more fuel-efficient vehicles, more vehicles that
are environmentally friendly, as well as vehicles that don't use fossil fuels
and gasoline such as those that are using the electric charge.
We have
a minister here that's using an electric vehicle. We talked about yesterday in
the House. The Member for Mount Pearl North advised of a business that's there
in Mount Pearl that's Green Rock. They have charging stations.
There
are different things that are happening; more effort and investment from the
federal government around enhancing public transportation. We're seeing where
bus service is looked at being added at the airport and other areas of Paradise
and growing communities. These are positive things that are happening. As the
minister responsible for industry here in this province, I want to talk about
that we're cognizant when we make decisions and the impact that it will have on
business and industry here in the province.
There
was a rebate that remained for loggers, for the fishers, for farmers, for
manufacturing and processing, for transportation by boat, locomotive, and other
measures that existed so that those industry players would get the full
temporary gas tax which was 33 cents per litre back. They could apply
through the Department of Finance for that mechanism.
I also
want to point out that from a tourism point of view when this temporary gas tax
was put into place, people were saying: You're going to drive away tourists here
in this province; people are going to cancel their trips, their vacations and
their bookings. That didn't happen.
Despite
the doom and gloom from Members of the NDP and the PC caucus, we saw the busiest
year at the St. John's airport driven by tourism; 836,000 passengers. The
busiest year in the 70-year history of the airport was during the summer season
last year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
The temporary gas measure did
not drive or detract from tourists coming to our province.
As well,
Deer Lake Airport: busiest August in its history, 50,000 passengers. They broke
a record. Marine Atlantic last year saw over 100,000 non-resident visitors
coming by rubber tire traffic. That's year over year, two years, for the first
time in 20 years have we have had over 100,000 non-resident passenger traffic.
It shows
that people are coming to Newfoundland and Labrador. They want our product. They
want our experiences. They want our unique offering of our people, our culture
and our place, and tourism is driving and stimulating that. There are good
things that are happening in the economy despite what Members opposite would
like to think.
I'm very
pleased to support this bill, this legislation that's coming forward. I would
say the onus is on all of us to support a bill that is going to reduce the
gasoline tax by 8.5 cents here in this province on June 1, plus the HST, which
is almost 10 cents per litre in just a couple of weeks; another four cents on
December 1, plus the HST there.
You're
going to see a significant reduction in gasoline tax, which is good on the basis
that it's going to allow for people, from a consumption point of view, to do
more travel. We also want to be cognizant that we want people to be cautious of
the fuels they are using and how they use and how they spend when it comes to
travel, from a fossil fuel point of view. It is the responsible thing to do.
Seeing a
reduction in consumer or local demand is not necessarily an indication of what's
happening in the overall economy. I think this is a good thing, this is very
positive and I would say the onus is on all of us to support this piece of
legislation to reduce the temporary gas tax. It was a temporary measure. It was
something we said we'd look at and do as the financial situation of the province
improved.
Things
are improving. We have a very strong team here led by our Premier, our Finance
Minister, our team of Cabinet and our caucus that are feeding in to helping the
economy of Newfoundland and Labrador thrive.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm
certainly pleased once again to stand and speak to Bill 9. I will say, first of
all, obviously I'm supporting this bill; obviously all Members are supporting
this bill.
I'm not
going to give the government any pat on the back because they're the ones who
put all these taxes in place to begin with. I'm glad they're going to reduce at
least one of them. I will add this is the only one, but that is happening
nonetheless and we are going to see a decrease of 8½ cents in June and another
four cents on December 1.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Plus HST.
MR. LANE:
Plus HST, as the minister
pointed out. Interesting, he throws in the HST to make it seem bigger now, but
at the time when the tax was added didn't want to talk about the HST. They only
talked about 16½ cents. When we were talking about almost 20 cents, they were
saying what are you talking about, 20 cents, it's 16½ cents. So we were saying
no, no, it's 16½ cents and HST on top of that.
They
didn't want to talk about that but when we're going the old reverse, now all of
a sudden we're going to throw in the HST. He is being accurate but I wish we
could be accurate when we're debating both sides of the equation, not just the
one that suits them.
I would
say as well, Madam Speaker, the minister just spoke about the benefits of this
exercise. I have to say that the argument I believe the general public are
listening. I think they would feel that those arguments were pretty weak when he
talks about increasing this gas tax on people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That
was a good thing, because now more people are taking the bus. That was a good
thing, because now people have electric vehicles.
I'm not
sure who has electric vehicles. The Minister of Service NL does, but I'm not
sure who else has one. I don't know anybody else. Maybe there are a few people.
People can't even afford a regular vehicle, let alone electric vehicles. There
are certainly no used electric vehicles out there, I don't think. I have to say
that was a bit of a stretch but I'll give it to him for at least throwing it out
there. He did throw it out there and good for him for trying to defend the
indefensible, I would say, Madam Speaker.
Now,
Madam Speaker, when we talk about the gas tax, and, of course, this was one in
many taxes which I guess were thrown upon the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador last year. This has had a major impact. It has had a major impact and,
as has been said now by my colleagues in the NDP and the Official Opposition,
consumption is down. The numbers are there. Consumption is down, and consumption
is down for a reason.
I'm
going to just give you one example. This is an individual who lives in my
district, a couple. This is a retired couple. They are ordinary folk; they're on
a fixed income. They have very little expendable income to begin with. They're
not in a position to be able to go down to Florida for a couple of months to get
away from the snow and so on. They don't have that ability. They're on a fixed
income and they just don't have it.
In their
retirement days they get a little bit of pleasure out of life, I suppose, in
terms of they are involved in their community, very much involved in their
community. They're involved with our seniors' organizations. They're involved
with the sporting community. They're involved with the volunteer community. They
told me, they said: Paul, you know, when you talk about the gas tax, this is how
it impacts us. The one little thing we look forward to on a Sunday afternoon is
to get aboard our car and drive over to Bay Roberts.
They
usually go up through the old Conception Bay Highway and they go up to Bay
Roberts and Carbonear and whatever. They said we usually might stop at Fong's or
something like that and have lunch or whatever the case might be. That's our one
little thing we like to do on a Sunday afternoon.
Well,
that's been taken away from us. The ability to do that is gone. That was the one
little bit of enjoyment we got, that's gone. Now, I'm not saying we'll never be
able to do it, but we used to do it probably in the summertime they'd do it
every Sunday or every second Sunday. They said, now we might get to do it once
or twice over the whole summer, because we legitimately can't afford to pay the
gas. On top of the insurance and everything else, we can't afford to do that.
Obviously, if they're not doing that, then their consumption so when we're
talking about consumption being down, that's why consumption is down because
there are so many people who are in that same boat.
Now,
yes, there are lots of people in my district, I can guarantee you, who live over
in the Southlands area and Admiralty Wood and so on, they haven't change their
habits. They're still driving and doing everything they always did, for the most
part, because they have that extra expendable income and they're going to
continue on.
Their
attitude is we don't like the extra taxes but I'm able to suck it up. I have to,
I have no choice. I'm certainly not going to sit around the house all day and
not do things like I did, not take the kids here and there or whatever because
of the gas tax. I'll do it. People have to go to work and so on. No choice there
and they're not prepared to take the bus. That's reality.
We can
talk about buses and all that all we want, and I'm not saying that buses are a
bad thing and they're used more in other provinces and so on, but a lot of
people, you can put as many buses there as you like, they're just not doing it.
They want the convenience of getting aboard their car and going where they want
to, when they want to go and not be waiting, not having to go circling around
through different neighbourhoods to get where they're going. They're going to
take the car.
There's
no doubt, a lot of it's going to happen anyway. People will begrudgingly pay the
extra gas tax, but the people on the lower end of the scale are the ones who
couldn't afford it. As a result, the consumption is down.
When
you're looking at gas tax, or any tax for that matter, you have to bear in mind
those things. There is a tipping point, and the trick is finding that balance
because there's a tipping point. There's a point where you could increase the
gas tax or you could increase the HST or you could increase other taxes to a
point where people are able to suck it up, so to speak, but they will still
continue with their habits.
Once you
go too far, then all of a sudden people can't continue with their habits. All
you're doing is you're penalizing people who can least afford it and, at the end
of the day, you're not getting the revenues you projected you were going to get
because people couldn't use their vehicle. So all you did was tax people to
death for nothing, to some degree. You might have gained a little bit but you
didn't gain near as much as you thought you would because you went too far.
That was
what we were saying from the very beginning on
Budget 2016. It was a matter of how far it went. It was a matter of
degrees. We felt it went too far and that it would impact people.
Now,
we've seen the taxi industry (inaudible) talk about gas tax the taxi
industry. We see the issues they have. Now, I know their biggest issue is
insurance, which is brutal in itself, and I really hope we can work to,
hopefully, make some changes to the insurance system for sure, but another
factor in it for them is the gas.
Not only
are they getting hit with high insurance, not only are they getting hit with 2
per cent extra HST every time they get repairs on their taxi cabs and they buy
windshield wash, antifreeze, windshield wipers and do repairs, but they're also
getting hit by the gas. These are people that are working, in a lot of cases I
don't know if you know any taxi drivers. I know a number of them and, man, they
work an awful lot of hours just to survive. They're not making any big money.
Maybe the owner of the stand, of the business who has 100 or 200 brokers working
for them, they're doing fine I'm sure, but the average person who just is
taxiing with their own car, they're just barely struggling as it is and this
made it worse for them.
We also
look at the impact that it would have on goods and services. We all know when we
start increasing these taxes, other goods and services are going to go up. I did
hear the minister talk about for certain industries they could get a rebate.
That's a good thing, but not every industry, every business is getting that and
they're going to pass it on. That's just reality; they're going to pass it on.
And when they pass it on, who do they pass it on to? They pass it on to the
consumer. They pass it on to the same person who is hit with all the other
taxes. Now they're going to be paying more for goods and services because
businesses are going to pass that expense on. They're not going to absorb it,
the taxpayer will.
I'm very
glad to hear the minister talk about tourism and that tourism numbers were good.
I'm glad to hear that. We all are. Sure we are. It's fantastic, actually. I
don't doubt his numbers but I guess that's fine for people who are coming to the
province. In terms of staycations, I wonder how many residents who look forward
to taking their family out to Terra Nova for a holiday or out to Gros Morne or
whatever
MR. HOLLOWAY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
I say to the Member for Terra
Nova, I spent many, many a summer, year over year, with my family when they were
growing up, in your district in Eastport and all of that. It's a beautiful spot
beautiful.
I was up
to the Northern Peninsula last year. First time there it was only my second
time, I think, ever there. My dad was from the Northern Peninsula, born in
Englee. I was up there last year and absolutely spectacular. I can see why
people want to travel that district because it's an absolutely beautiful
product; pristine.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Good roads.
MR. LANE:
The roads weren't great, I
have to say. He said good roads; the roads weren't great. I hope they're in the
plan. I haven't seen the roads plan. I'm not sure. I hope some of them are in
there because they do need work, but a beautiful area.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Did you go across on the
Apollo?
MR. LANE:
No, I didn't go across on the
Apollo.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Are you going to Burin
Grand Bank?
MR. LANE:
Planning on going to Burin
Grand Bank this summer.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Yeah, a beautiful area.
Although I was there with the Member for Placentia West about a year ago, we
were down in that area, down to the we were in Marystown.
There's
no doubt we have a beautiful tourism product here to offer, there's no doubt,
and I'm glad the message is getting out. There's no doubt that all the work
that's been done on those ads, commercials and other initiatives that have been
taken by the former administration, and this administration as well, that we are
getting more tourism. That's an excellent thing. I think there's going to be
more opportunity to get even more tourists. I think the key now is to try to
enhance tourism in the winter and the shoulder seasons and so on. That's really
where we need to go, I believe, for sure.
In terms
of the gas tax, while it's not preventing those people obviously it didn't
I wonder does it prevent people within the province from taking those
excursions around the bay, if you will, which is good for all the districts and
all the towns. We all know a lot of the towns in Newfoundland and Labrador
really some more than others. I know the Terra Nova District and I'll just
use an example, Eastport, Traytown, that area rely very, very heavily in the
summer months in particular on tourism, because they have so many cabins and a
beautiful sandy beach. They have a lot there to offer and the location is pretty
good. It's only an hour and a half, a couple of hours out of town.
I wonder will that impact those towns in that area in terms
of people not travelling from, say, the Greater St. John's area, not going there
because of things such as the gas tax? I hope it doesn't have an impact but I
have a feeling it is having some impact for sure. Madam Speaker, really what
we're talking about here is a ripple effect that the gas tax has had, and
particularly combined with the other taxes.
I am glad. I will end off by saying once again that I am
glad to hear that we will now be
seeing a reduction in the gas tax at least. That's a good thing. It's obviously
something that we're all going to support.
I hope
that as time goes on it won't be going on now, I wouldn't think, in this
sitting of the House, but I certainly hope in the not too distant future we'll
see some movement on some other things, perhaps the levy comes to mind as one.
Hopefully, we'll see some movement on some other things as well that will
relieve the burden that's been placed on the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
As I
said, I will support this bill, Bill 9, because it does relieve that pressure,
at least, to some degree. Hopefully, as times goes by, like I said, we'll see
more.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I feel
honoured to be able to rise here this morning and speak on Bill 9, which is a
very important measure that our government is taking to reduce the burden on
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Do you
know what? We're not ignorant enough on this side to believe that the measures
we brought in during Budget 2016
weren't hurtful to the people. Of course they were. That's not something we
wanted to do, but when you're faced with a $2.2 billion deficit, you cannot
allow the province to continue down that road. They're measures that had to be
taken.
One of
them was a gas tax and we said it when we implemented that, that it was a
temporary gas tax. Here we are today, honouring that commitment. It is temporary
and we're reducing it in the next few months by 12½ cents down from 16½ cents.
Yes, of
course, people felt the hurt from increased taxes, not only in gas tax but any
tax that's increased is not good for the people, but, in fact, neither is a
bankrupt province, Madam Speaker, good for the people. So there were measures
that had to be taken. They were drastic measures and here we are today trying to
give some relief to the people of the province from those measures that we put
in place.
Madam
Speaker, I want to bring it a little closer to home and include your district in
this as well, at least the southern part of the District of Cartwright L'Anse
au Clair and the District of Labrador West, who, by the way, when you talk about
gas prices, the people in Labrador have always paid the highest gas prices.
When we
think of Labrador today, we certainly have to think about what's happening in
Lake Melville area with Mud Lake people. They've been evacuated from the
community. We pray and hope that everybody is safe and that the damage is
limited to their properties. It is unfortunate at this time of the year these
things are prone to happen.
I know
the Minister of Service NL, the minister who represents Lake Melville, is on his
way there. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment who's responsible
for Fire and Emergency Services has been on the air this morning explaining to
the people what's happening and all our resources have been deployed. We're
doing what we can to help the people of Mud Lake. We wish them well and hope
that they all stay safe.
Madam
Speaker, I just want to touch on the border zones. Now, as you know, when you
talk about gas prices in Labrador, my colleague the Member for Torngat
Mountains, when you're talking about capping it at $1.55 a litre, you have to
put that in perspective. We are talking about you go from the Avalon to that
part of the province; it's quite a disparity in the price of gasoline.
I
applaud the government, and I applaud the minister and Cabinet, when they were
implementing these measures around the gasoline tax, they took into
consideration that there are parts of this province, namely Labrador West and
your District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, that are bordering on the
Province of Quebec. There comes an issue of, I guess, competition and being able
to go across the border and get things a lot cheaper.
I know
when this happened they took this into consideration. No different than what has
been done with the tobacco tax. When you talk about the zone of Labrador West,
you're, of course, talking about Labrador City and Wabush. When you're talking
about Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the southern part, you're talking about from
L'Anse au Clair up to and including the community of Red Bay.
When you
look at the 16½ cents, if you put that on to those areas, when you can drive
like in the case of L'Anse au Clair and that area three kilometres or four
kilometres, you can get gas for 16 cents cheaper, you know what was going to
happen. You were going to destroy the entrepreneurs that are in that region
trying to make a living.
So we
implemented a subsidy, a rebate, I guess you can call it. No different than we
did with tobacco tax when we brought in 16½ cents, that limited it to 4½ cents.
Here we are today, we're lowering that. It's 10 cents or 6½ cents rather than
4½ cents.
Today,
we are looking at a bill here that reduces the rebate or the gas tax by 8½ cents
which means that the rebate now in the border zones will be 1½ cents until
December. When the gas tax is further reduced by another four cents in December,
then the rebate disappears so that everybody across the province then will be
paying the same gas tax. That's 20½ cents per litre.
Madam
Speaker, in the case of our border zones, that still makes us very competitive
with the cross-border shopping and gasoline price in Quebec. The Quebec tax is
21 cents per litre and we'll actually be at 20.5 cents. When you include the HST
in that, it makes it even more, but we become very competitive then. We remain
competitive with the Quebec border crossing area in those regions.
I think
it's very methodical that this has been done, taken into consideration and still
being realistic about the financial situation of the province. We're not out of
the woods yet but we have reduced the deficit from $2.2 billion, when we
implemented this, to just around $780 million today. Obviously, with the
measures that we've put in and the other not only the tax increases but all
the measures that we've put in are working.
I've
gotten up in this House a couple of times now and mentioned what the C. D. Howe
Institute has put forward. They confirm that the measures that we've taken are
working and we are being accountable. In fact, they've raised our accountability
rating from E in 2015-'16 to B last year. We're doing things right. We're being
very prudent and we're being very responsible.
As the
financial situation improves, of course, we'll be looking at other measures that
we can to ease the burden on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Of course we
will. That's what this government is all about. But until we get our fiscal
house in order, we just can't sell the farm, we have to still be responsible and
prudent.
Madam
Speaker, that's about all I wanted to say on this bill. I think it's a very good
bill. The fact that we can implement this bill so early in our mandate after
what we were faced with on December 1, 2015, when we were faced with the minimum
of a $2.2 billion deficit, and to be able to start giving relief less than two
years later speaks well of the measures that we've done and the work that we've
done and the work that we've done as a government to get our fiscal house in
order.
Madam
Speaker, thank you very much for the time. I look forward to getting support of
all the Members of this House on this very important bill today one that will
help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
good to get up to speak on this bill, Bill 9, reducing the gas tax by 8.5 cents
in June and another further 4 cents in December. We're pleased that this tax is
being reduced, obviously. Any reduction of any of these 300 taxes and fees that
were introduced in Budget 2016 it is
always good to see some reduction. We would have liked to have seen more taxes
and fees reduced, obviously, as most of the public would because any tax,
especially this gas tax, it has had huge impact on our economy, on our different
sectors and on just the general population, especially the middle class, Madam
Speaker.
If you
take everything in context, I guess the gas tax as a MHA for the district I
represent and Member of the House, it was one of the most talked about taxes of
all the taxes and fees, the 300 we had. It was one of the most talked about
taxes that people actually expressed frustration to me about.
On that
note, that's the good part, we're seeing some reduction, but it's still there.
We still have 300 fees and taxes and it's still having a negative impact on our
economy. You talk to a lot of business owners I know I've talked to numerous
ones in my own district. I guess a combination of all the taxes and fees had a
negative impact little by little, but, ironically, the gas tax appeared to have
one of the biggest impacts, they actually started to notice. Now, whether that
was the proverbially straw that broke the camel's back, I do not know, but,
ironically, that's the tax that people keep mentioning to me the most, among
others, but that one always seems to arise.
Generally, it's a good thing to see any reduction. We would rather not see any
of these or a lot less of these fees and taxes that we put on the backs of our
taxpayers, the hard-working people in our province that struggle to survive,
that were having trouble surviving without any of these taxes and fees.
You look
at a family that was struggling to make ends meet prior to
Budget 2016. Then with this extra burden placed on them, you can
only imagine what that's done to the family model and trying to make ends meet
in this climate.
When you
look at the gas tax, that was a 16.5, plus HST, that went directly on gas right
at the pump. As we know, in today's society everybody drives. I know in my
district, for argument's sake, I don't have public transportation. There are no
bus routes. It's either taxi, friends, family or have your own vehicle.
Obviously, I would say the majority if not all not all, obviously, but a high
percentage of my constituents drive. They have their own vehicles. They have no
choice; they have no other options. It's the only way they can afford to get to
their medical appointments and what have you.
Most
everything is in St. John's. If anyone is not sure, CBS is only 20 minutes
outside of the city so most of our commercial activity and most people who work
commute to St. John's. This has had a significant impact on my own district and
I'm sure a lot of other Members, my colleagues and the Members across the way.
Once again, I'll reiterate that it is a good thing to see some reduction.
A couple
of Members opposite acknowledged that this tax did hurt the economy; it did have
an impact on individuals, which is true. It's good to see they acknowledge that.
The only thing that jumped at me when I heard a few Members opposite say that
was, why would you take credit for it now, reducing something that hurt our
economy and hurt individual's ability to be able to pay their own bills, to be
able to operate in our society?
I guess
you take credit for something you shouldn't have done last year. There have to
be some small wins for everyone. That's how that's being portrayed across the
way.
The
Minister of Tourism, Culture, innovation and I always struggle with the name
so apologies for that TCII, got up. I heard him say it several times and I
had the opportunity to spend numerous years in that department in my previous
life, so I do have a fairly solid grasp on the tourism industry and how it
works.
He was
talking about the record number of visitors in our airports and what have you
last year. That's a result of 2015. Tourism was always that year behind so the
effects of the 2016 budget will come out in the data following this tourism
season. People plan a year ahead. Most of the stuff, the numbers, the trip
planner thing, they've done that in 2015 or 2016 and what have you.
The
record numbers that have shown up, that's good to hear. It's always good to see
visitors come to the province. Our tourism industry is a thriving industry and
it's great to see we have a record number of visitors. We applaud that and the
more the merrier. We think that's a wonderful thing.
I don't
think there's any need of taking credit for the record numbers of people showing
up based on this economic decision that's been made across the way, especially
this gas tax. I guess if he's applauding the record numbers, he needs to thank
the former administration for the benefits that this current administration
seems to be seeing with the travellers. It's always a year back and I wanted to
point that out.
Madam
Speaker, we've seen in the news this past week with the taxi industry and
insurance rates but, obviously, that's one piece that's being dealt with and
worked on. There's been a lot of back and forth on it and in the public media.
You're looking at they're struggling to pay their insurance. The gas tax; you
can imagine what effect that 16.5 plus HST has had on their day-to-day
operations because, as we all know, that's their lifeline. Obviously, it's a
huge cost to each individual taxi owner and cab company with the price of gas.
That's
hurt them, obviously. It's hurt the middle class, so much so even the food on
our shelves everything in our province, being on an island, as we all know,
it's trucked in here, it's shipped in here. Most of it is trucked across the
Island from Port aux Basques, so that additional gas tax does reflect on the
store shelves. That does reflect in what goods we buy, merchandise we buy and
furniture we buy. It all has an impact. Everything is always added on. As their
costs go up, our costs go up.
As a
consumer and a resident of the province, as most of us are, we're paying it at
the pump and we're also paying it when we go to buy a new piece of furniture and
we go to the grocery store. Again, I'll say to take credit for reducing it,
well, that's fair enough. I understand the politics of that. You have to score
some you have to find a win. I'll reiterate again that we are content to see
some reduction in this tax. I think it was one of those taxes that could have
been probably thought out better, could have been a better way around.
We know
you're trying to generate revenue. I just think it was one of those taxes of the
300 that there could have been more alternatives found to find that revenue
because that one really has had a negative impact. It continues. It's still
there; it's just less of a tax. On that note, we're going to have 12½ cents
removed; we still have four cents left, which if anyone has been paying
attention to the carbon tax topic that will be our new carbon tax thereabouts,
roughly.
I think
everyone is accepting of that fact because they know it's coming. Now, I'm not
so sure, I still think that's an argument for another day and I've made it many
times in the House. There's an element of: Should we have to pay that four
cents? Aren't we already paying our fair share on a carbon tax in the province?
I'm not
sure how people will react to a portion of this former gas tax becoming a carbon
tax at the gas pumps because I'm sure that's what's coming. I've said many times
that will be a new tax. This tax was introduced as a temporary gas tax,
temporary revenue-generating measure, but if you leave a portion of that four to
five cents on the gas, that will become a permanent tax. Realistically, we still
have 300 taxes and fees; although less, it's still there and it's still going to
have an impact on our individuals of the province.
I'll say
again, the middle class, high-income earners no one likes to see extra fees
and taxes or extra costs, they can absorb it. When you have the middle class,
a family of four two children, working, making average wages, it's a real
struggle to survive in this world.
Before
we had these fees and taxes, our economy was on fire. The cost of goods and
services are increasing, the cost of building a home everyone has seen the
cost has risen across the board. They were struggling as it was. Then, we
introduced this gas tax which, like I say, is putting an immense burden on our
middle class mostly. Middle-and low-income earners are struggling anyway and
this hasn't been good.
When we
speak of the gas tax, like I said about our store shelves, your trucking
industry, our fishing industry; we always talk about our fishing industry. That
has an effect on each individual fisherman. Everyone uses gas.
As I
said, it's not a luxury in Newfoundland to have a vehicle, it's almost a
necessity. We don't live in compressed areas where you can hop on a bus or you
walk around the block and you're at where you need to be. The geography of
Newfoundland prohibits or it makes it almost impossible not to have some sort of
transportation of your own. With that comes this extra cost.
You look
at your fishing industry; look at agriculture, another industry that we're I
give credit. The Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources is working to grow our
agricultural industry and I'm generally supportive of that. My community,
Conception Bay South, was always founded on agriculture. As opposed to a lot of
Members, the fishery was the foundation. Agriculture was always the foundation
in Conception Bay South and it still is to a lesser degree today.
You look
at all your farmers. They use gas, obviously. Again, it just affects every
industry, affects every single person. When you bring in a tax of this nature,
if some more thought could have gone into it I've talked to people that said
we could have adjusted probably with the income tax rates and adjusted on the
high-income earners, the middle, and done some tinkering to generate the
revenue.
It's
fine to say get rid of the gas tax but government is saying we need the revenue.
My argument is as an alternative, there was a way to find that other revenue and
it could have been done with less impact and less obvious impact. I'll go to the
middle-class and low-income earners again, if it would have been done
exponentially based on your income, you would have gotten the revenue and it
wouldn't have had that impact at the gas pumps.
When you
say 16.5 cents, in essence, it's almost 20 cents when you add HST. As my
colleague for Ferryland pointed out when he spoke earlier, we filibustered here.
We read email after email after email, and a lot of people had a real, huge
problem. I know Members opposite, when I say it I don't if they listened to them
all, but we read a lot of emails and lot of them had great concerns over this
gas tax.
In
saying that, the tax is still there. It's less, and it will never totally be
eliminated because it will go from that to be a carbon tax. So it's still an
issue and, like I said, we still have our 300 taxes and fees. I'll say it again:
The gas tax was by far the most discussed tax increase out of the 300.
I'm glad
to see there is a reduction. I would have liked to have seen a better plan in
place when the tax was introduced to find another alternate means to generate
this revenue that wouldn't have had the impact it had on each and every
individual in the province.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Again,
it's a privilege to get up here to represent the beautiful people from the
District of Cape St. Francis.
First of
all, before I start to speak about the gas tax today, I'd like to just say my
thoughts and prayers are with the people out in Mud Lake. I know Members from
Labrador, they're majorly concerned. The minister representing that area is gone
down to see if he can do any assistance at all.
I heard
earlier today the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying Fire and Emergency
Services are there. Our thoughts are with those people today. I know there are
some people evacuated. Please God, there are no injuries or anybody gets hurt
and people get back safely to their homes.
We're
all people of a great province, and Newfoundland and Labrador is that great
province. I just wanted to say that before I start off this morning.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Madam Speaker, reducing the
gas tax is a great thing. It's a great thing. Any time we can put money back
into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and relate I guess what
it is you're relieving burdens that they find every day in their lives.
When
people look at a person's health and people will tell you this all the time,
stress is a huge thing. Stress that people have in their lives can cause so much
havoc. And I don't know, I'm not a doctor or anything like that, but I know my
mom was a public health nurse. She always used to say stress was a killer just
like cancer or anything else because people really find it hard sometimes to get
by. If this takes a bit of stress off the people that are there finding it
really hard today, I hope it does because that's what we have to do, is make
sure we do the best we can for the people of the province.
When we
go back to last year's budget, we look at last year's budget and there were some
300 fee increases and 50 new fees added. That was a lot of stress added to a lot
of people. The comment I heard more so than any other comment was: It was too
much, too hard. Too hard on people to be able to absorb the bulk of what the
government was trying to do.
The
minister said it even this year in her statement and I get up every time I
talk on the budget I talk about it how it's reaching in the pockets of average
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's what was done last year because the
total amount to the average family last year, when it comes to what the fees and
the new costs, whether it's income tax or anything, was approximately $6,000 per
family. That's a lot of money and it's a lot of stress on families and
everything else.
It's
good; I have to say it's good. I would love to see the increases that were done
last year all of them reduced. To be realistic, we know that couldn't be done,
but there are some things we can do to take away the stress that's on every
family in this province.
The gas
tax is a tax that affects a lot of people. It affects so many, a different
variety of people. Sometimes you don't see it until you talk to people in
construction industries and you talk to people who are in different industries
where gas is used a lot.
The
other day we had taxicab drivers in here. I met with them also. I asked them a
question; I asked them point blank, if your cost is going up so much, well,
obviously you're going to have to put it on to the consumers. They said, no, if
we put this on to consumers consumers just can't afford to pay for it, so they
won't use it. They'll drive impaired. They'll leave and go this way and they
won't use our services. So we have to stay in that consistent rate.
I looked
at that and said, yes, you're right on. It's an expense, but then there's also
I'm sure the trucking industry and people that use the trucking industry, and
they all got families.
When you
look at small business, small business may employ 20 employees but overall, the
effect they have on the economy could be up to 100 employees. Businesses that
are shutting down and businesses that are finding it hard to survive in this
economy, they're finding it hard because they are paying out so much money.
Even the
other day, I know there were some questions asked here in the House of Assembly
on bankruptcies. As far as I know, I think it was 30 per cent this year or last
year; 30 per cent more bankruptcies in the province God, that seems to me to
be a hard number.
That's a
number that's not just affecting the big businesses. That's not affecting the
Walmarts or the Sears or the Sobeys or any of those. A lot of that is just
affecting a lot of families, homes, people who can't afford to pay for what they
had before, their vehicles, their home or whatever.
I don't
know, but I would imagine that's the last resort, bankruptcy is for a person.
When they realize they get to that much stress in their life, like I said
earlier about stress, they get that much stress in their life they have to go
and declare bankruptcy.
Once
small businesses leave our communities I come from a very small community,
1,400 people, but every time you turn around in that community and look for
somebody to sponsor a softball team or donate to a senior's party or donate to
anything and everyone over on the other side will know what I'm talking about,
because we can't survive without small businesses in our community. Not because
they employ people, because they do, not because they pay taxes in their
communities and they do, and keep our tax rates going, but because they support
our communities.
They're
the ones when we have a fireman's ball, and you need a few prizes, that the
volunteer fire department calls upon. When you have a senior's party at
Christmastime and you want to give out a few prizes, those are the people that
will come through every time.
Small
business this tax, the gas tax itself, the effect it has on small business is
unbelievable, because they don't work on margins that are millions of dollars.
They work on margins that are enough to pay they have to make sure they have
their bills paid and they have groceries on their tables during that month.
Not only
that, I spoke the other day to a company in my community, it was a roofing
company. He employs probably 10 or 12 people during the summer months and is
very busy. Every year he is flat out busy all the time. When I spoke to him the
other day he told me: Kev, it's going to be hard; it's going to be really hard.
I said how are you doing with it. He said this is going to be the worst year
ever, I can see it coming. He said construction is way down, people are not
building houses. The people who are trying to do renovations on their houses
have to make a big decision because they don't have the funds to do what they
wanted to do. So if somebody is going to shingle a roof, they said my shingles
are 25 years old, I should replace them this year, but if I don't have the money
I can't do it.
That's
what these taxes and fees have done to people. It's great that the gas tax is
coming down. It's great, it's good news. I listened to a Member earlier today
it's 8.5 and the minister apparently said it's 10, but there was a 20 cent
increase on our gas tax last year. That was a lot. I tell you, when you look at
the bankruptcies
AN HON. MEMBER:
Plus the HST.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Plus the HST, but when you at
the bankruptcies and what it's done to small business and the biggest thing
that any tax, and we listened to it when we were on that side of the House I
listened to Members, and I always listen to Members. I listen to everybody and
what they have to say in this House of Assembly, and it's important that we do
because everybody has a point of view. It should be expressed and it should be
listened to.
When we
were on the other side of the House we were told you can't increase taxes. You
can't do that. It's a job killer. Well, you did it and you saw the effects. You
saw the effects that these taxes and fees have had on the people. The numbers
don't lie.
Our
unemployment rate is the highest it ever was. We have more bankruptcies than
ever before. We have small business and like I said, small business is the
heart and soul of our communities are struggling. There are a lot of people
struggling.
I think
most politicians and most people in this House come to represent their
constituents, to make sure that if there's anything we can do for them, the
hardships they find, maybe there's some relief that we can get them. I know the
relief is coming through this gas tax relief and that's good, but I don't think
it's enough.
I think
the budget should have gone further this year to give people: our seniors,
people on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, people who are really
struggling out there they were looking for a break in this budget. They were
looking for a break, not only in gas tax; they were looking for a break on
over-the-counter drugs. They were looking for a break on insurance.
The
insurance is as far as I know we're the only province in Canada paying that
tax. I think Saskatchewan has a tax but the government subsidizes it to a large
tune. It's the effect that it's having on so many different individuals in our
province. Again, it goes back to taking too much and doing too much and hitting
people too hard. That's what last year's budget did. This year's budget, while
there is a little bit of relief, a small bit of relief, it's not enough.
Madam
Speaker, I look at students and I watched lately what's happening with students.
My two are not students anymore, but I can imagine when they were going to
school and they got their first cars. I tell you, dad put a lot of gas in those
cars to try and get them back and forth and make sure that they had to do it. I
know the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island is agreeing with me
because it's a huge expense, but the extra cost of the gasoline last year, the
extra cost of the high prices that we're paying for gas now makes it difficult
to do other things that you want to do for them. It makes it difficult for
families to do that investment.
Today,
they need the transportation to get back and forth to college or get to trade
school or university or whatever. Or most of them today, I know young people
today I look at the young Pages here in front of me now have that job. They
work hard for their money and they have to pay the taxes too. It has a big
effect on young people too, because there's so much more they want to do.
I
believe it all comes back to the fact that last year's budget didn't have a
plan. There was no plan in place and analysis that whenever you do what was
done last year with 300 fees that were out there. Now, these weren't new fees,
these were 300 things that were there, but there were 300 increases on those
fees. They increased everything they could and then they added 50 more on to it.
So you had 350 fees that were either increased or new fees were started.
Again,
that's a lot and it's hard on everyone. It's hard on people that are trying to
for example, over-the-counter drugs. I know that when I speak to seniors in my
district, it's only probably $5 or $6 or $7, but at the end of the month it adds
up to $30 or $40 or $50. When you're on a fixed income, to come up with that
kind of money month after month after month; this is not just a one-deal thing
that you have to pay for it and it's all done, taxes are something we continue
to pay and continue to pay.
I said
the gas tax; I would have liked to have seen it eliminated altogether, to tell
you the truth, because I think it would have had a good effect. I think that we
as politicians and the government on the other side should look and see the
effects that these taxes and fees are having on the economy, having on
individual families.
As a
province we talk about trying to keep people here, trying to make it better for
our families to live here. Recently, I had a friend of mine who came home from
Alberta. His mom died and he came home. We were at the house for a couple of
nights and he came by and he said: Kev, I can't believe it, everything is after
going up.
We don't
see it as much as they see it. He said: I don't know how you live here anymore.
It's so expensive to go anywhere now. He used to go out to I won't say the
name of the fish and chip place but out on Torbay Road. He said: I could get
fish and chips for $9.99. He said that he and the wife went out and had fish and
chips, the same thing they always had, and it almost cost $40. That's the cost.
Things
have gone way up because businesses need to survive. If they're going out and
they have deliveries to do or they got trucks that are coming to their place
with produce or fish or whatever, they need to survive because of the extra cost
of all these fees and all these extra fees that they're paying. So it's hard on
business.
Even the
people from away we don't see it. We go out and I know we see an increase in
fish and chips or chicken and chips or whatever it is and we just take it for
granted. But people that come from away and come home and see the changes the
last couple of years, they're amazed with it. They really are amazed with the
added cost of what it costs to live here.
Those
are the people we want to come back. We want people to come back to our
province. We want people to work in our province. We don't want to see anybody
leave our province, but it's a job to convince people to come back to this
province if it's so expensive to live here.
When you
look at our gas I know I go on gasbuddy.com every now and then and I have a
look at the prices right across Canada. When you see that ours is up over 20
cents to the next lowest and then you look across Canada and see that some
places in Canada are paying 30 cents a litre less than we are, people that live
in those areas are going to say: How can you guys afford to pay for that?
They're not going to come back and want to pay $1.30 or $1.40 for a litre of
gas.
That's
what's happening in the province. That's what's happening to people outside our
province. People look at this place and they say anyone that's lived here, grew
up here, or want to be here, they love it. We have the greatest people in the
world. We have the friendliest people in the world and it's a great place. Our
climate is not the best, we get a bit of everything, but it is a good place to
raise a family.
If you
look at your national news all the time, I feel we are in a safe society. It's
changing a lot these days because of different things out there, but I do
believe we live in a safe society and I do believe we live in a society where
most people know their neighbours and they can depend on their neighbours.
I know
that when things like that are happening in Mud Lake today, they can depend on
the people of the province. They can depend on government to go down and do the
assistance that needs to be done. I'm sure the people that are moved from Mud
Lake today, when they go into Goose Bay, I think it is. Is that where they're
going today? Anyway, wherever they go today, they're going to be treated well.
They're going to make sure they have food. They're going to make sure they're
going to be well taken care of. Fire and Emergency Services will be on the
ground, the Red Cross will be on the ground and people will be there to take
care of each other. That's who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Going
back to my point on the gas tax, while it's getting reduced we still live in a
society where it's too expensive to live. It's in a place where we want to live,
where we want to keep our families and where our families want to stay. The gas
tax, while relieving some and this year it's 8.5 cents and in December 4.5
cents, that's good. I'm pleased with it. I'd like to see it be all gone. I would
love to see it be all gone, but that's only one part of the total amount of
taxes and fees that were charged to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador last
year.
We
realize, just like everybody else in this province do, that our province is in
financial difficulty these days. There's no doubt about it. We depend on oil, we
depend on production. Last year, the production for oil was four times what it
was the year before.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Four times?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Four times what it was the
year before. So it took care of a lot of the anxiety that we had this year
because it brought us back to reasonable stuff, I think it was $400-extra
million and that's just on production alone. Now, with Hebron going out, I'm not
sure what the schedule is for next year, but that's part of who we are, oil and
gas is who we are.
There
are other provinces like it, but to do what we did, to reach into people's
pockets, like I said, reach into people's pockets and take out $6,000 from
individuals, a regular family in Newfoundland and Labrador. They all want to
live. They want to support their families. They want to do what they can for
their families and they want to live here.
So while
I will applaud the government for making this move, I would have hoped that it
would have been a whole lot more; a whole lot more to no matter if it was some
relief for senior with dentures. I know when we were government; first, we did
one set of dentures, either the upper or lower ones. Then the next year you
could apply for but last year, cutting them out completely, that was hard and
it puts a lot of stress on people.
I have
residents calling me all the time and they say: Kevin, what can you do? Now,
there are some ways of going about it. I spoke to the minister. They do have to
make special application, but the stress and the tension that was put on our
seniors is just unfair. That's what a lot of these taxes did; it put a lot of
stress on people. It put a lot of hardships on families. I think government can
do a whole lot more to help our businesses and help the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
While I
applaud taking away the 8.5; it's a good move, yes. I'd like to see much more
done, but I think we have to really consider all these fees, all the 300 fees
and the 50 new ones that you did last year. I think you should have a look at
the whole lot of them and reduce them so people can live right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
In accordance with
provisional Standing Order 9, this House now stands in recess until 2 p.m.
today.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I wish
to deal with the behaviour of Members in the Legislature yesterday. For the
course of debate, positions can vary and emotions can run high. As a result, it
is often a challenge to deal with the behaviour of all Members at all times. It
is equally challenging to control every word that the 40 Members of the
Legislature say.
However,
overall decorum in our Legislature has improved compared to what was the norm in
previous years, except for yesterday. Yesterday, our Legislature reverted to the
type of behaviour that was custom in our Chamber in previous years. This is the
very type of behaviour that we have recently strived to move away from.
There
are several points that I wish to address. Committee sat for six hours yesterday
and Members know that the Speaker does not interfere with the Committee process.
This does not give Members a licence for a different level of decorum.
Further,
the process followed yesterday evolved into something that was somewhat
different than a normal Committee process of 10 minutes speaking time back and
forth. While the Legislature can be flexible with the process, this should not
allow for flexibility to the rules for Members' behaviour.
During
Committee, the Speaker leaves the Chamber and the Deputy Speaker sits as the
Chair of Committees. During Committee, the Deputy Speaker assumes the same
authority over Committee as the Speaker has during General Assembly. The Deputy
Speaker, while sitting as Chair of Committees, is not a substitute and should
not be treated as such.
I don't
want Members to think that because we go into Committee and the Speaker leaves
the Chambers that the rules simply go out the window. I am disappointed at the
behaviour of the Legislature yesterday. The lack of decorum is one thing and
certainly not acceptable, but unparliamentary language such as the use of
offensive, provocative or threatening language is strictly forbidden.
Members
of the Legislature, while we don't always agree on the issues, we should be held
to a higher standard of debate and decorum. The words used in the Legislature
yesterday against another Member are strictly forbidden, as I have said. The
words that were used were: deceptive, unethical. This type of language will
not be permitted in our Legislature.
The
individual that was ejected by the Deputy Speaker this morning was not ejected
from the Legislature because of the use of that language but his refusal to
apologize. Other Members have used language in the past and have apologized and
were not ejected from the Legislature. I will say that I expect better from
Members of the Legislature, and Members should know the general public expects
better of Members of the Legislature.
We
welcome today to our Speaker's gallery, Dustin Angelo, President and CEO of
Anaconda Mining, as well as Vice-President of Exploration Paul McNeil.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the Speaker's
gallery, we have Kallie Stone and her parents, Gail and Terry Stone. Kallie will
be the subject of a Member's statement today.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the public gallery today I
would like to welcome Terry Doyle. Terry is present today for the reading of a
Member's statement.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As well, in the public
gallery today we have, from the Town of Lawn, Mayor Johnny Strang, Councillor
Joe Jarvis, Councillor Dave Drake and Town Manager Arlette Strang.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of St. John's Centre, Baie Verte Green
Bay, Lewisporte Twillingate, Fogo Island Cape Freels, Conception Bay East
Bell Island and Terra Nova.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
thrilled to recognize a constituent who is one step closer to his literary
dream. Terry Doyle of St. John's Centre was the winner of the Percy Janes First
Novel Award at the Provincial Arts and Letters Competition for his manuscript
Union.
The
award commemorates one of Newfoundland's most influential writers, Percy Maxwell
Janes. Terry was encouraged by a previous Percy Janes Award winner, Sara Tilley,
to enter his manuscript.
Terry
was inspired by his work as a tradesperson, both as a residential plumber and on
an industrial site, a perspective we rarely see in fiction. Taking an
unflinching look at the underbelly of transient work, Terry writes about the
struggle to make this way of life work, and what happens when it doesn't.
Union
challenges us all to think hard about how a sudden influx of income and then
it's just as sudden a loss affects us and the ones we love.
I look
forward to reading Union when it is
eventually published, and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Terry
Doyle. Bravo!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Baie Verte Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
I rise today in this hon.
House to acknowledge the heroism, courage and quick thinking of several
residents of Baie Verte.
In the
early evening hours of April 6, fire broke out at the Baie View Manor seniors'
home. The fire was first noticed by Stephen Ackerman and his wife Pam. Stephen
rushed to alert residents of the home and asked his wife to call the fire
department. With assistance from another Baie Verte resident, Shawn Loveman,
Stephen escorted all 21 residents of the Baie View Manor to safety.
The
efforts were so efficient that all 21 residents were safely outside before the
building's sprinkler system even had a chance to activate. The home was
completely destroyed by fire, but thanks to the heroism of Pam and Stephen
Ackerman and Shawn Loveman, not a single resident was harmed.
Mr.
Speaker, these individuals are to be commended for their courageous actions
which prevented a tragic outcome and saved 21 people. I would also like to
acknowledge the Baie Verte Fire Department for its efforts in combating the fire
and the staff of Central Health for rendering assistance to displaced residents.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating all those involved.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Lewisporte Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize the outstanding contribution made by the
Lewisporte Lions Club. The Lions Club was first chartered on December 5, 1951.
Since then, they have provided 66 years of volunteer service to the area.
During a
recent visit, District Governor Valerie Clarke presented a number of awards,
including a 50-year service pin to Lorne Jacobs. Lions Bill Hooper and Les
Penney previously received this prestigious 50-year award.
I have
gotten to know each of these three gentlemen on a personal note. Over the years,
I can attest to their commitment to the community and their desire to enrich the
lives of those they serve.
The
Lewisporte Lions Club supports fantastic initiatives like the Max Simms Camp,
Children's Wish Foundation, the Calypso Foundation, as well as community
organizations such as minor hockey, figure skating, air cadets and the scouting
and guide movement, along with their ongoing commitment to the Lewisporte Fire
Rescue.
I ask
all Members in this hon. House to join me in thanking Bill Hooper, Les Penney
and Lorne Jacobs for their 50 years of service and the Lewisporte Lions Club for
honouring their motto We Serve.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fogo Island Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
honoured to rise in this House today and sing the praises of the many men and
women who serve as volunteer fire fighters and firettes in my district. The
District of Fogo Island Cape Freels is serviced by 19 volunteer fire
departments; over 350 volunteers keep our communities safe.
I've had
the privilege of attending several annual banquets over the past few weeks and
interacting with the volunteers. These men and woman sacrifice countless hours
without their families to give to their communities.
While
the numbers of emergencies may be low, each year their commitment is high. They
spend many hours training on various techniques of firefighting and vehicle
extraction.
Today's
firefighter is called upon to respond to many different emergencies from
searching for lost people, to medical emergencies, to helping bring a patient
over a snowbank which was the case in Gander Bay a few weeks ago. They assisted
ambulance attendants in bringing a patient over 300 metres across snow drifts.
At one point, they had the person strapped in and stood upright against a
snowbank.
I would
like everyone to join me in thanking these volunteers in my district.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
today to recognize the accomplishments of a citizen in my district. I speak of
Ms. Valerie Abbott who this past weekend was inducted into the Newfoundland and
Labrador Softball Hall of Fame. Valerie is the fourth member of the famed Abbott
family to be inducted into the provincial hall of fame. The Abbotts are
considered the first family of sports in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. Valerie
joins her brothers Vern, Keith and Collin into this prestigious club.
Valerie
is the only female to be inducted this year in the athlete category and that is
a testament to her decade as a star player at the local, provincial and national
levels. Valerie has won numerous individual awards in Senior Ladies Fastpitch at
all levels. She has been league champion on a number of occasions, has raised
the trophy as the province's best many times and has represented this great
province on the national stage both at the junior and senior levels.
Valerie,
in her acceptance speech, thanked all those who guided her along the way,
particularly her parents and her brothers. All three brothers joined her on
stage as she became the latest athlete from my district to be recognized for
their outstanding success in athletics.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Valerie.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure today to rise in this hon. House and recognize Ms. Kallie
Stone, recipient of the 2017 Canadian Association of Principals Student
Leadership Award for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Each
year, high schools across Canada nominate a Level III student whom they feel is
the paramount example of outstanding leadership, who demonstrates compassion for
others and who excels academically.
Kallie
has extensive involvement in her school council, having been president in grade
nine and again this year. While at school, she helps to organize special events
such as assemblies and she volunteers at the breakfast program. Kallie enjoys
music and is an active member of the school choir.
In
addition to her athletic interests in golf, basketball and volleyball, Kallie
volunteers at the Clarenville SPCA, the Young Leos Club and enjoys assisting in
the Flying Blades Figure Skating Club.
Recently, Kallie was nominated as Student of the Year at her school, Clarenville
High. Ms. Kallie Stone is a remarkable young woman who is intelligent,
responsible and mature.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Kallie for this outstanding
accomplishment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to congratulate 119 women who are being
recognized this evening at an event hosted by the Office to Advance Women
Apprentices. These women have reached their Red or Blue Seal status and obtained
their journeyperson in their trades. I am honoured to have the privilege to
attend this event.
Mr.
Speaker, each one of these women faced barriers at some point along the way when
coming through the skilled trades system but the event tonight is proof that
it can be done and it is such a positive accomplishment for these women, the
industry and the province.
Mr.
Speaker, we want everyone out there to know that the skilled trades offer good
career choices for women as is evident in the fact that so many women are
succeeding in these fields. In fact, the Office to Advance Women Apprentices
currently has over 1,600 tradeswomen registered in their database. I would like
to take this opportunity to encourage more women to step up and consider a
career in the skilled trades which in turn will help create a greater gender
balance in Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country.
We must
keep working until we reach a place that ensures we are all equal around every
table at which we sit. We still have a lot of work to do in order to ensure the
culture, the policies, the training and the workforce reality supports the goals
of gender diversity. I commit to this House that as long as I am the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women in this province I will never stop advancing
the role of women in business, in politics, in trades, and in every place where
a woman can make a difference.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, I join with the
minister in congratulating the 119 women who are being recognized for achieving
their Red and Blue Seal status and have become journeypersons within their
trades.
Mr.
Speaker, these women are proof that hard work and support can help overcome
great challenges. I encourage these women as they start their careers in their
respective trades. I'm sure they will all have successful futures ahead of them.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to take a moment to encourage other women to step up and
consider careers in the skilled trades. No matter which industry one is
interested in, they can pursue that desire. Whether it is in politics, business,
skilled trades, science, industry or other areas, women can and should be
involved in every industry. We cannot be held back by traditional gender roles
anymore.
I
encourage each and every person in this province to support gender diversity and
to encourage women to push back for equality. Together we can make a difference.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I'm delighted that
women are getting the support they need to go into trades training. It's been
part of my own background, working with women, but there is still work to do
regarding women in male-dominated workplaces. While their numbers are
increasing, there are way too many cases still of workplace harassment. We need
to put a better system in place to ensure that women in male-dominated
workplaces feel safe.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia held
annually on May 17. This day represents the largest LGBTIQ solidarity event to
take place across the globe, with more than 1,000 events taking place in over
120 countries around the world.
With a
focus this year on families, the International Day against Homophobia,
Transphobia and Biphobia draws attention to the lack of inclusion and often
violent acts still experienced by LGBTIQ people. It was first celebrated in 2004
to elicit the attention of policymakers, opinion leaders, social movements,
general public and the media to the discrimination and violence still
experienced by the LGBTIQ community internationally. It places a much-needed
focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, and all those
who do not conform to majority sexual and gender norms, and the hardships they
often encounter.
Mr.
Speaker, while the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and
Biphobia is one day of the year when we draw attention to this important topic,
eliminating discrimination of any type needs to be our focus every day of the
year. We all have a right to be respected and treated equally, and to be active
participants in an inclusive society. We know that achieving full inclusion
requires a new way of thinking. Let's continue to put that thinking at the
forefront of all we do right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, I join with the
minister in recognizing International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and
Biphobia. I also want to recognize the tremendous and continuous work of the
LGBTQ community.
Mr.
Speaker, the many LGBTQ groups work tirelessly to advocate for change. I
recognize their dedication and encourage their continued advocacy.
Mr.
Speaker, as today is the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and
Biphobia, today draws attention to the lack of inclusion and the violent acts
which those in the LGBTQ community unfortunately still face. Violence against an
individual because of their gender, sexuality or identification is not
acceptable. We all have a duty to encourage inclusion.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As a
proud lesbian I am happy to stand in the House to join people around the world
marking International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. This is
a result of years of activism, lobbying and working within the LGBTQ community
and with our allies.
We have
gained much in our province but still there is more to do, especially in access
to medical services for trans folks and addressing the lack of LGBTQ curriculum
in our school system and services for our LGBTQ youth. Today we celebrate, but
we mustn't stop working for the change and full equality.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, in June of last year, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and
the federal government announced funding to determine whether it is feasible to
implement a Drug Treatment Court in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce that following a tremendous amount of work by
our working group and advisory committee, the feasibility study is complete and
we are now proceeding with the planning for a new Drug Treatment Court pilot
project in St. John's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would like to take the
opportunity to thank the working group, John Duggan, Trish LeGresley and
Michelle Greene, for their hard work and their dedication to this project. Also,
I'd like to recognize the advisory committee which consisted of various
government agencies, Provincial Court and the private bar. I'd also like to
thank community groups for their participation and their collaboration
throughout.
Mr.
Speaker, this court, which we expect to open in 2018, is intended for offenders
with serious drug addictions, who commit non-violent, drug-motivated offences.
It brings together treatment services for substance abuse and the criminal
justice system to deal more effectively with drug-addicted offenders. This
problem-solving approach offers an alternative to traditional criminal justice
responses by addressing the underlying problems that contribute to crime.
This
government strongly believes in restorative justice and recognizes the need to
find innovative approaches to the administration of justice.
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 thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. Mr. Speaker, knowing
that reductions are happening in government, in Justice and enforcement, today's
announcement is certainly a positive one.
We know
that issues associated with drug use are on the rise and are growing in
seriousness throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We're pleased to see that
government is engaging in ways to proactively address the serious drug issues
that are facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. But as the minister points
out, treatment services at the back end are vital as well.
I, too,
would like to recognize and thank the members of the working group, the advisory
committee and the passionate and dedicated groups and individuals who have
contributed to this. I thank them for their work.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
good to see our province moving in this direction on this very vital initiative.
I remind the minister that this new court will only succeed if government also
provides the appropriate programming. These programs must be based on the
recovery model, addressing the underlying trauma and mental health issues that
lead people to addictions in the first place. This will be the key to the
success of this new court.
Thank
you to all those involved in making this a reality, let's keep on moving
forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure
all Members of the House of Assembly today share in having the people of Mud
Lake in our thoughts today as they face a very serious circumstance.
I ask
the Premier today if he can provide the Members of the House of Assembly with an
update on the situation in Mud Lake and how the government is providing
assistance and support.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Certainly, everyone in this
Legislature and indeed people across the province are thinking about the
situation in Mud Lake today.
Last
night, we had representatives from Fire and Emergency Services on the ground who
worked through the night. The evacuation process has started with the support of
5 Wing Goose Bay. Minister Trimper is on the ground today.
As we
speak, there's an organizational meeting, as the water continues to rise very
quickly, and working with the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay as well,
involved in the organization up there, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the people of
Mud Lake and the area that all government services will be available to the
residents of Mud Lake, supported by this Legislature, supported by this
government and supported by people in the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday here in the House the Finance Minister had some difficulty in
giving us an answer when asked how much a former employee of Government House
had received when he was dismissed so the Liberals could put someone else into
that role.
I ask
the minister today: Why did she only give a portion of the cost when she was
being asked for the total cost to terminate that employee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
grateful for the Member opposite asking the question. Yesterday, it was
somewhere in the vicinity of about six hours I spent here in this House
answering questions in Committee, in an Estimates process.
As
Members of this House know, in typical Estimates, officials are in the room. In
the Committee Estimates that we did yesterday, officials were not in the room
and they were providing information off-site.
As the
information was coming in to me to provide the answer to the questions, I was
doing that. I provided the information yesterday in the House as soon as I had
it. And I believe for the remainder of the day there were numerous questions
that as information from officials came in, I provided the information.
I was
very willing to answer the questions. I think having sat in the seat for six
hours, I certainly am proud of the effort that I put in.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the minister it was very, very early in yesterday afternoon's sitting that this
discussion took place. The minister had originally told the House and the
Committee here that the cost to remove the former employee was $111,000. But
after repeatedly being asked for more information it was later revised to
$378,000.
Minister, are you saying the reason that you never gave the total information in
the first place was because you only provided us what officials were providing
you? Is that what happened yesterday?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to stand. I think the minister provided information yesterday during the
six-hour Estimates process and certainly provided an answer here now.
I
appreciate the questions from the Member opposite. It's unfortunate that other
Members of the PCs had to take that opportunity to conduct themselves with
behaviour that's unparliamentary in this House and, in fact, curse while in this
House while asking those questions.
The fact
is that while you're in government and Members opposite should know this full
well. The fact is sometimes you don't have the information right away at your
disposal. I've sat through these Estimates and provided information at times
that I realized was incorrect and provided the right information right away.
The fact
is the minister provided the information as soon as they had it. I appreciate
the questions here which have been done in a respectful manner and certainly in
more of a respectful manner than was done in this House yesterday.
Thank
you.
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 of Justice providing an overview of what took place
yesterday. From our perspective, it became quite frustrating in trying to
determine and actually get all of the information, which is what led to the
events that were dealt with earlier this morning.
Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Finance Minister is very simple: Is she saying here
in the House that the reason why she changed her number from $111,000 to
$378,000 was based on the information provided to her through officials? Is that
why the number changed from what she stood by to what she later provided during
the discussion yesterday afternoon?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I think for the
Member opposite, the information that I provided initially in answering the
question was information from an ATIPP that was released earlier this year or
even I don't remember the exact time it was released but it was an ATIPP that
was released.
Further
to the questioning from the Members opposite, as I heard the words that they
were referencing because there's a difference between a number of benefits an
employee may get paid officials reviewed the ATIPP information and provided me
with more updated information and that's what I referenced in this House, Mr.
Speaker. I spent a tremendous amount of time here answering questions and I was
happy to do so, on behalf of the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we
were in this process yesterday we were trying to find out the full amount. It
was quite clear, we were asking about severance. Severance is known to be
payment and benefits provided to an employee upon termination from their
employment. That's what we were asking about. That's the information we were
looking for.
The
minister first sent us to tabled document that she provided last week in our
discussions yesterday and then soon after, sent us to go look at an ATIPP
request when she had made a commitment right here in the House to provide
detailed discussion on line-by-line items.
I'll ask
the minister: Are you saying that you weren't open and completely transparent as
you said you would do? Is that because of the information you were provided by
officials? Is that what I understand? I'm just trying to understand. Is it what
the officials had provided to you yesterday that you provided us as you received
that information? Is that what transpired yesterday, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it's quite unfortunate that we're standing here four questions into Question
Period and talking about a shameful episode that occurred in here yesterday when
a Member, a former leadership candidate for the PCs, stood here in this House
and conducted himself with behaviour that brings shame on this entire House.
The fact
is the Leader of the PCs knows full well what it's like to get here and
sometimes put out information that is later found out to perhaps not be
accurate. He's done it himself. The fact is what's going on here now is that
accurate information was put out there. I'm certain that the Minister of Finance
is not going to throw staff under the bus.
The fact
is that we were sat here for six hours answering questions yesterday. The
information has been provided, yet the Member opposite wants to stand here and
throw staff under the bus and, again, commit the same accusations that the
Member for Mount Pearl North did yesterday.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
making any accusations. We're just trying to understand the information and
exactly why and how this transpired yesterday.
The
Minister of Justice is right. There are times you come in here, you provide
information with your best efforts and best intentions to find out that the
information wasn't completely accurate and you correct it. We're just trying to
understand exactly what happened yesterday.
The
person that was terminated at a cost of almost close to $400,000, we finally
found out that information yesterday. I know this government is about good
fiscal management.
Minister, are you telling us that terminating a person without cause which
means they were doing their job perfectly well, but you terminated them anyway
at a cost of $400,000, is that good fiscal management?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, Mr. Speaker, we sat
here for six hours yesterday. In fact, the PCs had 2½ hours extra that they gave
up last night and decided to vote on the budget. They had 2½ hours extra that
they chose not to use. The minister sat there for six hours and provided all the
information that was asked by the Opposition.
By the
tenor of the questions being asked by the Leader of the PCs today, the question
that I have to ask is: Are you condoning the behaviour of the Member for Mount
Pearl when you continue to perpetuate the attacks that he did yesterday, which
brings shame on this House and certainly shame on that side.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Minister of Fisheries was directed to set up a Fisheries Advisory Council to
help inform fisheries policies and programs. Money was included in last year's
budget but there was nothing spent and nothing done.
You're
well into the second term, your second year. Minister of Fisheries: What is the
delay?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, back, I think it was on March 8,
if my memory serves me correctly, we appointed Mr. William Wells as chair of our
Fisheries Advisory Council. He, at that point in time, started to do a piece of
work for us to build a terms of reference and a structure of this council.
I can
assure the hon. Member on the opposite side that we're going to make sure we get
this council correct because it's an independent council; it's going to provide
us in the Department of Fisheries and this government, information and guidance
as we go forward.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Minister, you've stated in
public that there's a crisis in the fishery. Last year's fishery came and went.
The Fisheries Advisory Council has to look at many things.
For the
next two months there's fish on the water to be caught. People need to know,
when will this council be put in place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. What I can assure the hon. Member is we're
putting this independent council in place so that we can get the best
independent advice we can.
I have
to remind the Members opposite; the Leader of the Opposition said last week it's
important to remember the past. This is the same former government that promised
a market advisory council, Mr. Speaker, back in the 2011 election and never
delivered. What I can assure the Member opposite is we will deliver on the
Fisheries Advisory Council.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
in a time of transition in the fishery. DFO increased the quotas in the Gulf cod
last week. The council was supposed to be created to create a strategic action
plan for revitalization of the cod.
When can
we realistically expect this strategic plan to be put in place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we all realize there are tremendous challenges right now facing our
fishery, whether it's in 3Ps or in the Gulf in 4R, on the Northeast Coast, 3L,
3K, 2J. Every area of the province has its own challenges. I can assure the
Member opposite that we speak to our federal counterparts on a regular basis on
this.
We put a
proposal forward to the cod advisory committee a few weeks ago. We're asking
that the Northern cod quota this year be increased, modestly increased. We think
it's important that as we transition as the Member said, it's important that
we have the ground fishery there to help us bring us through that transition
from shellfish to groundfish. I can assure the Member opposite we will work with
Ottawa to make sure that this happens in the most expedient way.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The town
manager of Dover said she was threatened with possible jail time and fines
because the town was not following the federal waste water regulations.
Does the
minister think this is appropriate or even reasonable for a town clerk to be
threatened by federal enforcement officers for something she has little or no
control over?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the question. I don't think anybody should be threatened over that work;
but, Mr. Speaker, if we go back four years, it was your government that allowed
Stephen Harper to bring those regulations in.
What
we're trying to do now is work with towns, work with the federal government to
bring funds in to help with waste water, help with sewer treatment. The federal
government has come onside, this Liberal federal government has come on the
regulations that were imposed by Stephen Harper which your government agreed to,
did not oppose. Although you didn't sign on to it, you did not stand up for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, we are working with all municipalities. We are dealing with
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador on it. Last year, it was $140 million
spent on water and waste water. More to come this year; next year is phase two
of water and sewer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, can I remind the
minister that these town clerks and town managers are underpaid because of the
work they do in all municipalities in this province. They're very hard-working
individuals.
Upon
learning of this ridiculous action, has the minister contacted his federal
counterpart to speak against such treatment to our municipal employees?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank
the Member for the question. I know he's very concerned. I'm going back a year
now, nine, 10 months when we met with our federal MPs. We're trying to change
the regulations. We're trying to help out municipalities, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
need to wait for the Member to stand up what are we trying to do? We're being
proactive. I've been working on this for over a year to explain the regulations,
even to the towns that feel that they have to have waste water by 2020. We are
helping the towns with their flow data that they have to put into the federal
government. This is something that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is
helping with the towns and municipalities. We are working with MNL. We're
working with every municipality in the province.
I was at
the symposium two weeks ago. I spoke at the symposium in front of 350 people
about this same issue. We will work with all municipalities in the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
mayor of Dover and the vice-president of MNL, Tony Keats, said he has no problem
doing it but when it comes to no money involved and the time frame that you got
to get it done today, he has a big concern.
Is the
minister confident that the funding will be available for all communities in the
province to meet the requirements before action is taken by his federal
counterparts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of
respect for the hon. Member I really do but a year and a half ago, your
government, which you were a part of, left $34.6 million on the table that could
have helped people
AN HON. MEMBER:
Unspent.
MR. JOYCE:
Unspent and no money put
aside from the federal government unspent. You're standing up here today: What
are we going to do? You had the opportunity, but we are taking the initiative.
We are taking the steps to help municipalities to work through these
regulations, to make sure the data is sent to Ottawa. We're working with the
federal government to secure funding.
There
will be another Canada build fund in 2018-2019. There will be a Green Fund for
Newfoundland and Labrador across Canada. So we are taking proactive steps to
help the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador and we are working with MNL
on these major issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I just want to
remind the minister that they've been in power now for 17 months and this only
happened last week.
What I'm
asking is: What are you doing for municipalities in this province to ensure the
federal government don't come down and threaten people with jail terms?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I
hear the Member as if this government Minister Sohi was in Western
Newfoundland last week; I met with him. The Premier of the province met with
Sohi. We discussed all these issues. We are working with the federal government
through our MPs on all these issues.
Mr.
Speaker, here's what I find strange. We're working with MNL. I went out to MNL
and I spoke; I stood up and I was honest with the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I spoke last year at their convention 800 delegates in the
convention. I explained the situation with the water and waste water. I
explained the roles of what we can do with the help from the federal government.
Guess
what, Mr. Speaker? I haven't seen one of them at the last convention or the
symposium last weekend, but they're standing in this House now as if they're
concerned. They should have been out there where they would have heard the
answers and the concerns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Liberals promised that Budget 2017
would be open and transparent, but yesterday showed anything but that.
Minister, who made the decision to reduce access to flu shots to the public?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question. It gives me an opportunity to explain quite simply that there is no
reduction in flu shots to the public. They have and continue to be available
free of charge.
What we
have done is looked at scopes of practice, Mr. Speaker. We are encouraging and
moving the vaccine schedule into the hands of the public health nurses and
community nurses and avoiding the extra billing that was happening from those
physicians.
There is
no reduction in availability of the flu vaccine in this province. It remains
free of charge, as it always has.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Many of the province's
physicians are concerned about the negative health impacts that will result from
government's latest proposal to eliminate coverage of flu shots from the MCP
payment schedule.
How will
government ensure that 65,000 people who depend on their local family physicians
to get flu shots will continue to have access to this affordable health care
process?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
There
will be no reduction in the number of flu vaccines available in the coming
season. Of the number referenced by the Member, the vast majority of those flu
shots given by doctors at an extra charge of $17 are in actual fact delivered in
clinics with public health and community health nurses.
It's
simply a matter of going down the corridor and getting the flu shot in a
different room. It will encourage the use of public health nurses and community
nurses. It will free up physicians' time, and will not impact the delivery of
the flu vaccine to the people of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I would like to remind the
hon. minister that in rural Newfoundland, particularly, the citizens there rely
on their family physicians. Health care is supposed to be about accessibility,
affordability and convenience.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
In this case, it's taking
away those potentials.
Cutting
dialysis supplies, slashing home care hours, wiping out the Adult Dental
Program, charging low-income seniors for over-the-counter medications and now
they want to cut the flu shots. Can the minister table in this House the cost
analysis that was undertaken as part of this proposal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Just to
correct a little alternate fact there; there is no reduction in the number of
flu shots available. A physician in any setting is still capable of
administering a flu shot and billing for an office visit. He simply cannot extra
bill for a vaccination which can be done at the same time.
There is
no reduction in the availability of flu shots to any member of the public in
this province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So with all the other cuts
that have been done by this government, taking money out of the pockets of
middle- and low-income people, now there's going to be an additional cost if
they go to their family physician that they must pay because the doctors can't
bear to; they have overhead expenses as a part of that process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
So you're back loading that
back onto the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I always thought that
our health care system was supposed to be proactive and we're not taking that
avenue here. The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has voiced
serious concerns over the latest proposed cuts.
I ask
the minister: Did you even consult with the province's physicians regarding this
decision that will affect patient safety and immunization rates in this
province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, some
alternative views of reality. There is no diminution in the availability of flu
shots. There will be no reduction in the number of vaccines supplied to the
public. There is no cost to any individual who goes to a community clinic or to
a family doctor to get the flu shot. There never was, nor will there be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
An
overwhelming majority of the travelling public feel that for months the road
conditions in our province are worse than they have ever been. Mr. Speaker, two
days ago, the minister stated the equipment in his department used to fix
potholes is being used in the minister's own district.
Out of
the four asphalt recyclers in the province, which ones are currently in use?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd
certainly like to make some corrections to those alternate facts as well. I made
it clear the last time I answered this question; I mentioned the one on the
Avalon Peninsula was not operational. The one in Central Newfoundland was. As a
matter of fact, we have two in Eastern that are operational. We have one in
Western that's operational. We have one in Labrador that's operational. So
that's one out of three, four, five, six that's not operational.
Mr.
Speaker, our machines are out there. We're certainly utilizing them. We've had
some issues with the mechanics on the Avalon Peninsula, but that certainly
doesn't jeopardize the work that our crew members are doing throughout the
province and will continue to do. We're working through those situations, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to point out to the minister that's not what he said the other day. He said
there is one operational in Central, no update on the rest, but I appreciate the
update on the others.
Mr.
Speaker, this equipment is designed to repair roads in all seasons, but over the
past number of months, as potholes grew larger, vehicle damages skyrocketed and
the risk to the travelling public increased, the Transportation Minister had his
repair equipment collecting dust in a storage facility.
When did
the minister instruct his department to actually use this equipment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for the question from the opposite Member.
Certainly, in the capacity that he worked in or served in before this government
opposite were taken out of office, he would have been able to answer that
question as well. The same (inaudible), Mr. Speaker, we know, and the Member
opposite should know, there are conditions in Newfoundland and Labrador that
sometimes are not conducive to having those recyclers out at periods of time
when the weather, the temperatures are below freezing, when you have snow
conditions on one day, you have clear conditions, warm conditions on another
day, followed by snow.
So
really when you look at a lot of these situations, the equipment is designed to
do the job when the weather conditions permit, and as soon as weather conditions
improve, Mr. Speaker, we have gotten the equipment out. We will continue to do
that and our crews are doing an excellent job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South for a quick question, no preamble.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on April 5, there was a news release on chemical water testing; a delay
in the testing. So without any preamble: Minister, at the time you said they
were investigating the situation and results would be available online within 10
days. Can you provide any further details about the situation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
you very much for the question. The information has been gathered. It's either
online now or will be online in the next day or two.
I can
assure the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in Central, there
has been no change in any conditions of the water whatsoever. It came back the
same as it did before, normal, safe drinking water as I suspected.
It's
either online today or will be online in the next couple of days. All the
testing has been done and completed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry, the hon. Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I wondered.
MR. SPEAKER:
My apologies.
MS. MICHAEL:
You have to mark out those
seconds there now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I will.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, heavy ice conditions in parts of the province have left many fish
harvesters and fish plant workers without a source of income.
I ask
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources: Will he inform us of any response
he has received from the federal government to industry calls for income
support, including a timeline for when harvesters and plant workers might have a
decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for her question. I thank her for her concern. I will recognize
that she did write me a couple of weeks ago on the same inquiry.
I can
tell her as recently as yesterday, I was in contact with DFO. This process
actually crosses a number of federal government departments so, unfortunately,
it does take time to work through the system.
I can
assure her that we are following through on our commitment to our harvesters and
plant workers to request this compensation. I can assure her that we're hoping
to hear something in the very near future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to hear the minister say that they're still on top of this. People are waiting,
as we know.
The FFAW
has recommended that what is expected to be a significantly reduced cod quota in
fishing area 3Ps be made available to the inshore sector only, which is what
happened the last time the quota was 10,000 metric tons or less.
I ask
the minister: Does he support making the 3Ps cod fishery inshore only at those
quota levels?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
Member for the question.
Mr.
Speaker, we all realize the challenges that are facing the 3Ps fishery,
particularly inshore with declining crab stocks and cod stocks. That decision
hasn't been made by Ottawa yet this year to say what their quota is going to be,
but what I would assure the Member opposite is that we want to put the
priorities of our inshore harvesters first.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government has identified aquaculture as a priority industry. Jobs in this
sector are important to many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We therefore have
a collective responsibility to build an industry that is sustainable for the
environment and for the people who want long-term employment.
I ask
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources: When will we have the same robust
regulations for aquaculture that exists in other jurisdictions to ensure we have
a state-of-the-art, world-class sustainable industry?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, just last week in an announcement with the Jobs Committee, one of our
main focuses and in the early stages of this is going to be aquaculture. We see
the opportunities in aquaculture, $161 million in our province last year.
I can
assure the Member opposite, we have some of the strongest regulations in
aquaculture anywhere in the world, particularly in North America. Our
aquaculture industry has received sustainability recognition and certification
long before others, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we're going to do our work to make sure that this industry is
sustainable for the long-term future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not so sure
the minister's regulations will stand up to that kind of scrutiny. The Norwegian
industry has halted open-pen salmon aquaculture because sea lice are costing
them millions and they can't get rid of them. New technology is being developed
for salmon aquaculture in order to minimize adverse impacts on wild fisheries
and the environment.
I ask
the minister: What research and development is this government doing to ensure
the industry provides sustainable employment and adheres to science-based best
practices around the world?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I would
encourage the Member opposite this season or this summer when this House breaks
to take a trip to the Bay d'Espoir region of this province and see what the
aquaculture industry has done, and if she's got questions about the value of the
aquaculture industry, maybe she should have a conversation with the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
Mr.
Speaker, our industry is first notch, our companies are first notch. We support
the industry. We support the sustainability of our industry. We have what I
would call one of the best aquaculture health labs in this country located in
Bay d'Espoir, Mr. Speaker. It's an absolutely wonderful facility.
We have
four veterinarians; we have four aquatic veterinarians on staff at my department
and I can assure you that we have the best aquaculture industry anywhere in
North America.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
I will
seek guidance from the House. It being Private Members' Day, will we stop the
clock and continue with the Orders or will we go to
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. I will stop the clock
at 3 o'clock. We've got about half a minute left.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
We don't
have time for petitions? Are we going to go with petitions?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, we're not going
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
It being Private Members'
Day, I call on the Member for Cape St. Francis to present your motion.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to get up here again today and represent the District of Cape
St. Francis and the beautiful people in the District of Cape St. Francis. I've
been here now for a little over eight years. This is a private Member's
resolution that I'd really look forward to hearing debate on today.
The
private Member's resolution that I'm moving forward today:
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House urges the Government of Canada and the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate action to establish a joint
fisheries management.
This was
seconded by the Member for Ferryland.
This
private Member's motion today, I am sure this House will agree, is a very
important motion. It's very important in the time in our history that Mr.
Speaker, it's a very important time in our history.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a job to hear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
understand we have guests in the back of the room. I would ask the guests and
the Members greeting the guests to go out to the scrum area if you would so the
Member for Cape St. Francis can continue with his private Member's resolution.
The hon.
Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I know
it's nice to see so many guests here in the gallery, but it is a very important
motion today that we're putting forward. I look forward to hearing from Members
across the way and from the Third Party on this motion because this fisheries
joint management is an issue that crosses party lines in this province. I think
we all realize the great role that fisheries management plays.
Today's
question is not who will deliver or how much longer we need to wait, this is
something that needs to be done immediately and needs to be done by all parties
and press our federal counterparts to make sure that we get a little bit of
control over our fishery.
When
Canada carved out provinces and territories in Western Canada, they gave those
provinces jurisdictional control over most of their resources on the land. The
Prairie provinces had jurisdictional control over agriculture, mining, petroleum
and so they should. In the mid-'80s after years of work, the Peckford government
secured an agreement with Joe Clark and their federal counterparts on offshore
petroleum resources in our province that we brought into Confederation.
Mr.
Speaker, if you go back to the Atlantic Accord, Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie
delivered Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a pivotal time in our history and we
are reaping benefits of that vision and that hard work today. In the '80s it was
Ottawa negotiating the Meech Lake Accord when our province and Premier Peckford
insisted a clause be added according to and make constitutional changes to
discuss roles and responsibilities of the fishery. Now, we know what happened in
Meech Lake; it died in 1990.
But just
two years later was the fish moratorium, something that really took heart and
soul of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Northern cod stocks depleted at such an
extent that Canada, by way of Fisheries and Oceans Minister John Crosbie, felt
there was no other choice but to impose a moratorium on the Northern cod.
Close it
or lose it: that was the advice from the scientists. Twenty-five years later, we
see cod stocks recover, not to where we want them to today, but they are
recovering and we see it all over this province. I know first-hand talking to
fishers and harvesters in this province in the last number of years they've seen
cod, greater amounts of cod and also healthy cod.
Also in
this time in our fishery we're faced with our shell fishery with stocks being
depleted. We see it today because, again, speaking to harvesters that are on the
water and I'm sure from all hon. Members across the way, they speak to
harvesters in their districts also they're seeing a big decline in the crab,
in particular, this year. We saw what happened in Area 6 where the federal
government has come down and cut 62 per cent of the quota in our shrimp fishery.
That has a huge effect on harvesters in this province.
I've
gotten up the last couple of weeks and I've spoken to a petition that basically
wanted to see a buddying-up system. That is completely controlled by the federal
government. But for those harvesters that are out there that can't afford to
make that trip to the North to get the shrimp where they are, it's hard on them
because it's not worth the trip. If there was some management control that we
could do and force the federal government and be at the table talking fisheries
with the federal government, these are things that can change.
Management; you know if you look at our Northern cod stock and if you look at
the international waters and we always talk about the nose and the tail of the
Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. They were vacuumed up by the technology
employed by numerous countries all around the world. They went out there and
they said it's for anybody and it's for all. We had the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization, NAFO; they did an unacceptable job of managing and
allowing this overharvesting to take place. Even inside our 200-mile limit,
where you'd think we'd have some control as a country, there were vessels
breaking the rules and reaping our resources.
I can
remember back in the day when Brian Tobin made international news by hanging an
illegal turbot net by a crane in New York City in front of the United Nations.
Remember the turbot war when there was a firing of a machine gun right across
the bow of a Spanish vessel in international waters. It was important to draw
attention to the ecological crisis of overfishing and what it was causing to us
here as a people and to us as a province.
It's not
only foreigners who have been responsible for mismanaging our fishery, the
Government of Canada over the years has traded and sold our fishery resources at
the expense of the people who brought the resource to Confederation. Under the
Terms of Union, fish processing is a provincial responsibility but harvesting,
including setting and allocations for quotas, fall within the federal
jurisdiction.
Also, if
you look in the federal jurisdiction and it's something I talked quite
critically about with the Minister of Fisheries and I know I talked to different
Members across the way about it it's the safety of our fishery. Far too often,
we see harvesters out on the water in vessels they shouldn't be in when they
have vessels that are onshore that they could fish in. But because of federal
regulations, they're forced to use smaller vessels. We've seen this too many
times. We've seen too many people in our province lose their lives at sea. That
happens on a regular basis and it should never be happening.
When the
Northern cod stocks collapsed, Ottawa admitted it had a role to play. They
compensated the impact through NCARP and TAGS programs with efforts to deal with
tens of thousands of people displaced in the fishery. It was the most economic
and ecological disaster in Canada's history.
Some
areas have never recovered. Our province's population has never rebound. No
province has invested in sustainable management of the fisheries to the extent
ours has. The resource would not be a part of Canada if we weren't a part of
Canada. It was the most important industry at the time of Confederation and it
remains the most important industry today. We should have a greater role in our
management and we should insist that we get it.
While we
can't undo what has already been done, we have the right, moving forward, to ask
for it to be done correctly. Joint management is not a guarantee that there will
be no errors made in judgement moving forward; there's no guarantee in it. All
we want is the guarantee that the people who are impacted by the decisions, the
ones with the greatest stakes, the ones with the historical claim of management,
will be at the table making the choices.
That's
what management is all about. What we want is for us as a people, as a province,
to be at the table when decisions are made in our fishery so we can first-hand
and not let the bureaucrats in Ottawa decide how our fishery is run. We have
to be very responsible in what we're doing, but at least our harvesters, our
plant workers, the people in our province will know that we have a say. That's
what this PMR is about today. The idea that Ottawa protects us from having made
tough decisions is really condescending when you think about it, because I'm
sure we can make them ourselves.
In the
offshore petroleum industry, through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Offshore Petroleum Board, we're managing offshore oil and gas resources very
effectively. We have become respected international leaders in the offshore
petroleum resource management. We're dealing responsibly as partners with some
of the biggest companies in the world. If we can accomplish that in our
petroleum industry, we can accomplish it in our fishing industry.
Finally,
in the last five centuries of harvesting, we need to have a collective role to
managing our resource. I believe our resource can recover and management
sustainable for the good of people and the communities of our province.
Obviously it cannot be a free-for-all. We know that; harvesters know that.
They're the ones that will tell you.
When you
talk to harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador, they'll tell you. They don't
want to catch everything this year. They want to make sure because in most
cases, Madam Speaker, it's family. If you look at most of the harvesters in this
and I'm sure the Minister of Fisheries and all over this province, if you look
at most of the harvesters, it's a family industry. It's a family enterprise.
I
listened to a guy the other day talking about his son on the vessel and how they
had eight generations of fishers in their family. If you go back to the
harvesting industry in our province, you'll see that most of the harvesters in
our province come down through the years. That's how it works and I'm sure it's
the same thing in your district also.
We don't
want to see a free-for-all, we want to see it managed properly and we know that
there will be some difficult decisions. But it's better that we be at the table
to make those decisions because we're the ones that care the most than the
bureaucrats do in Ottawa. It's our best interest.
Like I
said, we've seen what's happening to our resources and we saw what happened to
stocks that have been traded, bartered and handed away too long. Other provinces
would never stand for this, and it's time for us to stand and demand a
long-lasting management position on our fishery.
I think
the case is most effective if we, politically, put everything aside and let's
work together. We have done it in the past. We've recently done it when we
talked about shrimp and the Northern cod, when we talked about LIFO, when we did
an all-party committee here in the House of Assembly and we went to Ottawa. We
presented our case and we got results. That's what needs to be done.
This
issue is not a political issue; this issue is an issue for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. It's an issue for the people that the reason we came here in the
first place. It was John Cabot when he got here first, the thing he noticed the
most was the cod. The cod will come back and the cod will be here forever. It's
something that can sustain our future for years and years to come.
We can
all agree to make this happen and we can all work together to make it happen.
But this is a time in our history where we have to stand up and we have to say
listen, enough is enough; we want some control of our fishery. We want control
of the management of our resources. We want a say at that table. When we hear
regulations again I heard a gentleman on talking about the scallop fishery on
the Southwest Coast this morning and he talked about Nova Scotian boats being
able to come and he cannot go out and catch.
I don't
want to hear any blame today. I don't want to hear blame that it's your fault;
it's this one's fault. I don't think it's anybody's fault. I think there are
solutions that can be made. I think there are solutions that should be made. I
think that if we work together it's a good time in our history. All I hear
from the other side is about their cousins in Ottawa. We have seven federal MPs
and a Liberal government here, so it's time for everybody to stand up in this
province and fight for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's an
important time in our history. It's an important time for our people.
I ask
the Minister of Fisheries and I ask the Premier of this province to put that on
their priority list. I know that the Minister of Fisheries had it in his mandate
letter. It's in his mandate letter since day one, but it's 17 months and I know
there are a lot of things that had to be done and there's a lot of good things
happening in our fishery, but 17 months in let's, get at it now. Let's do it
now. Let's force the federal government into making sure that our people have a
say in the biggest industry that is in this province, and an industry that will
be here for years and years to come when oil and gas and everything else is
gone.
I talked
a little bit about it when I got up and spoke; this is an industry that brings
generations of people together. It's an industry that brings our communities
together. We look at rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we look at people who
live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They want to stay there; they want to
stay in their communities.
I don't
think we'll ever go back to the day that there was fish plant in every
community, but I think there's going to be a day that we'll get fair market
value for the cod. We'll get fair market value for whatever we harvest on the
water, and that's what we need to do. But we need to get back and we need to
have some control of how we catch our fish, how we market our fish and how we
take care of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only rural
Newfoundland because here in St. John's it's probably the fishing harbours in
the province, but take care of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I'm sure
on the South Coast of Labrador that people are very concerned about the fishery.
They're concerned about shrimp; they're concerned about crab. We need to do
everything we can to ensure the industry that we came here to settle with is the
industry that our grandchildren and other children get to see in the future.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I thank
the Member for Cape St. Francis for bringing in this private Member's resolution
this afternoon. I'm pleased to stand here this afternoon and speak to today's
PMR. This is a very important topic for our province and one this government
takes very seriously. The fishing industry today still employs about 17,000
people in this province, and brings about $1.5 billion a year into our economy.
Madam
Speaker, since becoming minister, I've raised this important issue of joint
management with the federal government on every single occasion. I have often
spoken to the federal minister about it any time we speak. Every single time,
this is one of the topics that we, as a government, raise, and it is a priority
of ours.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis just mentioned the fact that it was a part of the
mandate letter that the Premier gave me when he invited me into this department.
Of that mandate letter, it's very interesting, because this portfolio really is
a portfolio that deals directly with Ottawa on a fairly regular basis. As the
Member pointed out, joint management was there, a fairer arrangement on the
Northern shrimp, and that is one, as the hon. Member pointed out, that we were
able to achieve as a people or as a House of Assembly to have LIFO removed.
One of
the other things that were in the mandate letter was full stock assessment on
Northern shrimp. That's something we were able to achieve. Unfortunately, that's
not resolving the problems that we have today in the shrimp industry. But it is
important to note that one of the other things we have been able to achieve is
now a $14 million five-year annual assessment on cod. Because as the hon. Member
mentioned, as we go through this transition from shellfish back to cod, there's
a lot of work that needs to be done. There are going to be a lot of tough
decisions and it's going to bring a very tough time for many people in our
province while we're going through that transition period.
I'm
going to respect the hon. Member's request not to look at the past this
afternoon and talk more about the future and how we go forward. I am just going
to mention for one quick moment, back in 2002 a former Liberal administration
did do a White Paper on joint fisheries management, and that's a paper now that
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
In 2002.
That's a
paper that we as a department have now taken back off the shelf and are looking
at it to see what updates it needs, but again, this is a very important issue
for us as a government.
The
rationale for the joint fisheries management is based in goals to make our
industry more efficient and decentralize decision making. Because I think, as
the hon. Member mentioned, one of the biggest challenges we have today with DFO
is the centralization of a lot of the decision making. One of things that I've
often said, as I stand here as the Minister of Fisheries, is we have to be
listening to our harvesters; their input has to get to the table. It's important
to have science, it really is, but it's important that we listen to our
harvesters as well.
One of
the other things I think we see today that we didn't see 25 years ago in the cod
moratorium, we see things today like MSC Certification. Unfortunately, just last
week, our 3Ps cod voluntarily removed the MSC Certification. That's unfortunate.
MSC is
achieved by managing our fishery, not only with governments, but managing our
fishery with NGOs, like the World Wildlife Fund. One time, the World Wildlife
Fund was seen as, I guess, not a supporter of the fishery but that's different
today. The World Wildlife Fund now is a very big supporter of our fishery.
They're involved in many projects around the province to help manage and help us
attain MSC Certification as we go forward for our products.
Joint
management measures would provide influence over decision making affecting the
economic and social direction of the province, securing access through
confirming the principles of adjacency and historical adjacency. As we move
forward, we're going to have many challenges, I think, as groundfish recovers
throughout the province.
One of
the brightest spots we see in the province today in the ground fishery would be
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence when you look at redfish. There's an immature
biomass of redfish now in the Gulf of St. Lawrence of about 2.5 million tons.
This would be an enormous fishery. If you can imagine this fishery being
exploited at a 10 per cent exploitation rate, you're going to see an extreme
amount of redfish being landed in this province. It's going to be really crucial
that we ensure the harvesters and processors in our province and plant workers
are getting the benefit of this resource.
Madam
Speaker, the federal government has stated quite clearly that they want to do a
better job managing our oceans. We see this in the $1.5 billion oceans fund that
was announced in this year's budget. It is important for us, as a province, to
make sure that we make the case to Ottawa that we're getting our share of that
money to ensure that our resources around the province, in the fishery,
particularly, are looked after and sustained. We need to work with our
Indigenous people. We need to work with every corner of this province.
There
are important points where we have to hold the federal government to their
commitment, now more than ever, as we go through that transition. I've called on
the federal government to listen to harvesters many times and include what
harvesters are saying in their decision making. That's so important.
I think
one of the biggest frustrations we hear today from harvesters around the
province is they don't feel they're being listened to by DFO, and it's very
important that they are listened to.
The
fishery is a common-property resource, this resource needs to benefit the people
of this province primarily, Madam Speaker; closer provincial involvement and
significant improvements, and the capabilities of both levels of government to
frame policies that complement the industry and promote growth.
The hon.
Member mentioned it a few moments ago, we have policies in place today and I
hear from constituents in my district all the time about this, about having to
tie on one boat to use another boat to harvest a quota. At this point in our
industry, we need to make sure that these policies that may have been effective
25 years ago, vessel policy sizes the primary reason for vessel policy sizes
in history was most of our fisheries were competitive so there was a competitive
advantage to have a bigger vessel. There were ranges put on those vessels.
Today,
when we look at vessel sizes, one of the most important things I think we need
to look at is safety. We've seen way too many times in this province where fish
harvesters have really sacrificed their lives to get a livelihood, and it's
unfortunate when some of these circumstances, unfortunately, do deal with vessel
size.
To date,
we have, as a government, had a good working relationship with DFO when it comes
to our fishing industry. I'm quite proud of some of the achievements we have
made. Again, I mentioned the All-Party Committee and the LIFO achievement. We've
just seen the recent investment in the cod science assessment. We're going to
see a capelin assessment again this year.
When you
talk about things that affect our fishery, I had the opportunity on Monday to be
in Ottawa to have a discussion around seals. If you look at the seal population
in this province today of about 7.4 million animals, we're talking about a seal
that would eat approximately 1.4 tons of seafood a year, because as a former
Minister of Fisheries said they don't eat KFC or turnip, Madam Speaker. So it's
important that that factor is also considered here. It's good again to see DFO
this year doing a seal count because it's important, as we go forward, to
understand the fact that the predation on our seafood by seals.
We have
to better understand capelin. If you look at the food chain for cod, capelin is
the primary food source. So it's extremely important as well that we realize
that capelin has a role here to play. As I said a few moments ago, we do have a
commitment this year to a $2.4 million capelin study by DFO.
Since
becoming government, we've seen the creation of 28 science positions at the
Newfoundland and Labrador regional DFO office. I believe the actual number now
is closer to 40 when you include some of the support staff. Many of these
positions were eliminated by previous federal governments.
Just to
note, Madam Speaker, I didn't label those federal governments; I said previous
federal governments. These investments in science are crucial to understanding
what's happening in our oceans, in our marine environment and is consistent with
representations that we have made to the federal government on the need for more
fisheries research in our adjacent waters.
If you
look at, in lots of cases, some of the things that have happened with fisheries
science over the last little while, it's interesting to note that DFO just last
year accepted Dr. Cadigan's model that he developed at CFER and now they're
using that. So it's important that DFO look at the resources that we have here
in our province when it comes to that.
Madam
Speaker, this government understands the challenges that are faced by our
fishing industry. The hon. Member this afternoon in Question Period raised the
question of: Where is our Fisheries Advisory Council? I can assure the hon.
Member, Mr. Wells was appointed I think it was in early March.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
Yeah, and he has. He was
appointed about two months ago.
I can
tell you, Mr. Wells has done a substantial piece of work that structures a
Fisheries Advisory Council. It's going to bring independent, non-biased
information, I think, to this government, to this department as we go forward
because it is important that we get these eyes on the industry.
Again, I
can assure the Members opposite that this council is something that we will have
in place in the very near future. This will give industry stakeholders an
ongoing opportunity. This is not a one-shot deal; this will be an ongoing
opportunity for stakeholders around the province and in the fishing industry to
help move this industry forward as we go forward.
We
understand that if we're going to have a successful transition in our fishery,
we need to have direct involvement. We need DFO to look at the whole management
structure that we see today and make those improvements. Take the suggestions
coming from this province, from our harvesters, from our stakeholders to make
sure that the best decisions are made as we go forward.
We plan
to continue to work with the federal government on behalf of the people, the
communities and our fishing industry. The challenging issues that are before us,
surely we need a more collaborative approach. Working with the federal
government will give us the best opportunity to address these challenges as we
go forward.
It's
interesting; July 1 will be 25 years from the cod moratorium. I don't know if
that's something that should be recognized. I guess we should recognize it in
the fact that the mistakes of the past should not be repeated in the future.
This is why we have to look forward as the fishery moves forward.
The hon.
Member also mentioned a buddy-up system and I guess a three-for-one combining.
These were announcements of the federal government this past Friday where they
announced a three-for-one combining in 3PS.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
Well, three-for-one
combining, I say to the hon. Member, already existed in the rest of the zones in
the province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. CROCKER:
It did.
But no,
what we're going to see is the buddy-up system is a little different. We have
three-for-one combining in 3Ps, but there are also measures going in place now
for a buddy-up system for this year's shrimp fishery. The two are a little
different.
There
are other challenges, too, referenced in the Member's remarks earlier. He talked
about compensation. There was compensation for the fishers on the Northeast
Coast through TAGS, NCARP, and all those programs back in the early '90s, but
this government has constantly and consistently pushed the federal government
for an income improvement project in 3Ps. In 1992, as the fishery was failing on
the Northeast Coast of the province, the 3Ps fishery still was doing relatively
well, so there was no income improvement or buyout, whatever you want to call
it.
This is
one of the things that we've consistently pressured the federal government for.
We will continue to do so. As a province we're committed to an income
improvement project in 3Ps. I would hope that the federal government comes
onside as well and provides their part of this important project.
The
Member referenced difficult decisions that will have to be made. There certainly
will be difficult decisions. But when I talk to harvesters, processors, and
plant workers around the province I think more than ever they're willing to
throw in and have input on this to bring our fishery further.
Just
last year we introduced our Seafood Innovation and Transition Program, Madam
Speaker. It was, to some extent, uplifting to see the amount of commitment from
our harvesters particularly, on wanting to change their technologies.
Our
harvesters want to invest in the fishery. They realize the ground fishery, in
all likelihood, is the fishery of the future. They're committed to it, Madam
Speaker, and I can assure the harvesters and plant workers of this province that
as a government we're committed to their future success.
Thank
you very much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm
certainly delighted today to stand and speak to the private Member's resolution
brought forward by the Member for Cape St. Francis. It speaks to the hon. House
urging the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to take immediate action to establish joint fisheries management.
My
colleague for Cape St. Francis went through, from a historical perspective, some
of the dates, times and initiatives since our joining Confederation in '49, not
only related to the fishery but related to at times when we embarked on
collaborative agreements, initiatives with the federal government that were the
stimulus for growing industries in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
He
mentioned the Atlantic Accord dating back to who would have thought back then
that the offshore and the original discovery of oil and gas off our coast that
we would get to a point of development let alone exploration, and then have
something like the C-NLOPB, joint management with the federal government having
a say in how that's managed. Obviously, originally with the Atlantic Accord
those resources would be reflective as if they were on land and the benefits and
value would certainly be given to the people of our great province. That's
important.
That's
an example of I think the resolution today of what the Member for Cape St.
Francis is suggesting, that it's time to move with our history to a point in
time with the fishery in our province and what it's meant for over 500 years. He
also referenced the fact that every harbour and cove in Newfoundland and
Labrador was settled, if it was, because of an inshore fishery.
Now
we've changed, evolved; the fishery has changed. Groundfish; we know what
happened in the moratorium in '92, the transition into shellfish industry and
where we've gone. Out of natural process that is carried on and there's been
downsizing and rationalization based because the industry did it on its own,
it had to happen. We've gone through all of that where we see ourselves today
with some of the challenges we face in the shellfish fishery in particular, but
in terms of that overall control. It's not only control with the shrimp or the
crab; it's control of the ecosystem.
I heard
the Minister of Fisheries just mention that time he talked about seals. The
harp seals, in terms of the population, may be 7 million or 8 million, who
really knows. We have the grey seals on the South Coast and in the Gulf that's
causing huge challenges in regard to the groundfish in 3Ps. We look at what we
see in the past number of years in terms of the temperature of water and what
that's done or what we speculate is done based on shrimp, the reduction in that
resource.
We talk
about crab; we talk about groundfish coming back, what the change in temperature
of the water has done in regard to those species and where they've gone in terms
of their growth or decline. So all that is interconnected in an ecosystem that
needs to be managed and it needs to be managed collectively by Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians and as well by Ottawa.
If we're
going to control it and maximize the value to it, we need to sit at the table
and have a management structure portfolio method, call it what you will,
parameters of how we do that. We've seen variants of that over the years. We've
seen input from here in the province. I know from my time serving in government
I had the privilege and I do say it's a privilege to serve as minister of
fisheries and agriculture in the province. Through that and through my own
district which has a long history in ground fishery and cod industry dating well
back you can look at somewhere like the Town of Ferryland, but dating well
back and many processing plants over the years from Trepassey to its heyday,
right down to Bay Bulls, Petty Harbour, right down through.
So there
has always been a strong connection and there are still a lot of harvesters, a
lot of people involved in the processing sector and small business in my
district. So I hear first and foremost from them on where the industry is, where
it is to today and where we need to go.
We've
seen, as I said, a lot of rationalization to where we are today. But taking all
of that and where we are and getting back to the collaboration, the integration
of getting together and managing that collectively so we can maximize
opportunities.
The
ecosystem is there and we talk about the species we have today and what we've
harvested in the past, but there is also an array of species out there. There's
research being done on expanding the species that we harvest. That's where we
need to get to in terms of a 12-month fishery. I heard the minister speak to
marketing. All of those are components that need to be developed collectively.
We need a say in that and a control in that.
To have
success on that side, you need to have a say in things like quota management,
allocations, the regulatory frameworks for the inshore, for the offshore. There
was mention in regard to the buddy-up system, buying out licences, buying out
quotas. I can't go out in the same vessel and prosecute a particular fishery and
get all my resource on one vessel. I have to license them all, I have to insure
them all and I have to take turns going out on vessels, so I have to put fuel in
all these vessels to go out. The complications and the bureaucracy in that is so
overwhelming, it doesn't fit a business model that maximizes the opportunities
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We don't
make any of those decisions. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we don't have the
opportunity to make any of those decisions. That's where we need to get to so we
sit together collectively or whatever the arrangement is to get to that point
where we can have insight into that and provide an opportunity to come up with
solutions for the immediate term, but also long term.
Some of
the things over the past number of years we tried to do in our administration,
recognizing the lack of science, lack of data, lack of baselines that were
available, we invested some of the revenues from our royalties and from taxation
we collected to get into fisheries science, to start that process of groundfish
knowledge and expertise.
As I
often said, through the Marine Institute, we've developed a scientific community
here in the province that's probably the best in Canada for groundfish. That's
through the Marine Institute. That's a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
masters in Ph.Ds., wonderful programs of the Marine Institute. Programs like
innovation, like CFER which, unfortunately, I think the money was cut, but my
understanding is the federal government is going to backfill that. We haven't
seen that yet, how that's going to work, but those are the innovation programs
in the industry that works with the players that allow our industry to grow.
As well,
on that side of it, the Marine Institute, I mentioned CFER, working with
industry in terms of technology and innovation, but all that needs to grow. That
needs to grow in the context of and that expertise with the ability, as I said,
to control some of the allocations, the quotas, some of the regulatory
frameworks and all of that allows it to move forward.
On the
science side, as I said, we invested through the
Celtic Explorer out of Ireland for four to five years. Again, I
think that's discontinued, but that started the process of getting the
groundfish data available that allows to start because if you don't have a
baseline, you can't measure as you go forward where you are. But that allowed
some of that information to be available and start the process.
I think
it was in the Bonavista corridor, the scientists once told me it's an area where
traditionally the biomass of Northern cod would congregate in terms of breeding.
That's where they do a lot of their work in regard to looking at so much metric
tons. I think in our heyday, we were up around 800 million metric tons of cod. I
think now we're somewhere in the range of 200 to 300. While we're not back
nearly to where we were, it's starting to grow and come back and give a sound
basis.
So with
all of that in mind and with the science side of it, and I know there's been
reference by the federal government in regard to investing in science and
starting to rebuild what has been degraded over the past number of decades in
the fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador, they have started that process.
We certainly welcome that, but we haven't seen, if you will, the boots on the
ground in terms of what you're doing, how many is here, what's the baseline data
they are starting to build and how can we put all that in place because that's
going to be essential as we move forward.
Specifically to the issue of joint management, if we're going to move forward,
we're going to need all players, all stakeholders, everybody involved in regard
to advocating to the federal government to make sure that, as a province of this
great federation we call Canada, we can play a key role in managing a key
resource for us, a renewable resource. The oil and gas is great but that's not
we certainly prosecute that. We want to maximize the opportunities with that for
the people of our province, but the fishery is a renewable resource. If we
manage this properly, that ecosystem I spoke of, the bounty that comes from that
is multi-faceted and will serve us for decades and centuries to come.
We can
only do that if we have a say in some kind of joint management in making sure we
maximize the opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Not just those,
as my colleague said, all over Newfoundland and Labrador because the returns on
the fishery are not only in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they provide
sustainability, it provides opportunity. A new, innovative, technology-driven
fishery can bring new players to it, succession from family-held enterprises
now. People coming up and growing up can see it as an option, can grow that
fishing enterprise.
When you
look back to 1992 and the cost of those enterprises, it's enormous from what
they were to what they are today. So those are significant businesses, small
businesses that need operators, as people retire, people from the family move in
and succession, new entrants into the industry. All of that plays a role in the
management so we can get to where we need to be.
I know
back in October 2015, Mr. Trudeau, the current prime minister, did reference the
fact that he's committed to a smarter co-management of fisheries and oceans.
Well, at least that's a start. I know it's in the mandate letter of the current
minister. I was pleased to hear that he talked about some discussions he had
with the federal government in that regard. When he speaks to the Minister of
Fisheries there are discussions about how he can move this forward.
I think
as part of this, and I think we need something definitively to get this started
and to start the process, so why not I challenge the minister and the current
government, let's collectively strike a committee of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians that are involved in the fishery, that have been involved in it and
those special people, whether it's economists, people involved in the social and
economic policy field, people involved with interjurisdictional understanding,
people involved with constitutional expertise, all of that.
Let's
bring a group together and start the process of looking at how you would go
about developing, co-management for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador
with Ottawa, and with all of that expertise and with those stakeholders that are
involved today. That, collectively, at least then we're working toward
something.
Through
all of that data that's collected, create a framework in terms of what something
like co-management would look like. Encourage the federal government to be
involved from their perspective. If not, we can certainly present our proposal
to them in regard to what a co-management plan would look like, collectively.
Whether it's Atlantic Canadian, whether it's Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
what that would look like, and bring it forward to the federal government
because it's fine to say let's go, we want something. But it's much more
informed and much more credible if we proceed to say here's what we researched,
here's what we consulted with. We've looked at other models.
I know
when you look at jurisdictional control; you can look at Europe and states there
in regard to how they handle natural resources. How the federal European Union
works in terms of jurisdictional control. How other states work in regards to
their control. We can look at this internationally and come up with a
presentation to the federal government that, hopefully, we could start that
process of joint management.
Even
here, provincially, in Canada, under the constitution, we have various rights
and privileges that are controlled by the provincial jurisdiction and those that
are controlled by the federal government. We've seen it through CETA in terms of
the jurisdictions and how it works and the huge opportunity that allows in terms
of our access to markets. But that can all be envisioned in regard to how the
fishery is going to work in future and how we can work in partnership with all
the stakeholders to make this happen.
So,
obviously, we'll be supporting I will be supporting this resolution brought
forward by the Member for Cape St. Francis. It's long overdue, as he said. It's
probably best to leave the political side out of it, but say collectively, as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as a Legislature, let history show that it was
this Legislature that finally started the process to put in place the framework.
Whether it's through that committee I spoke of, whether it's through a
legislative body, to start looking at what it would be like for Newfoundland and
Labrador to co-manage its fisheries with the federal government to make sure we
are the benefactors, for today and for years to come, of the fishery of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This
afternoon is a great opportunity for all of us in the House to enter into a very
important debate on joint management. I've listened attentively to the Members
opposite.
While I
was sitting here, I received a message from a constituent who highlighted that,
I have an individual, Harris Richards from the
Lady Kendra, who next month will be fishing for 50 years. We all
have people across Newfoundland and Labrador that have tremendous amounts of
experience on the water, fishing in smaller or larger vessels, and involved in
the fishery in various forms whether they're plant workers. These have
tremendous value and tremendous experience.
When you
talk about the involvement, I would say, Madam Speaker, like many in this House,
we have relatives that are in the fishery. My father was a fisherman, my
grandfather, great-grandfather and everybody else. I'm the first in the family
line that would not be involved in the fishery.
I will
say that being in this Legislature and having the ability to talk to fishers, to
have influence on fisheries policy and find ways to advance our industry, the
fishing industry, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that last year
represented $1.4 billion, the first time that it saw such a significant
increase, is important. To work collaboratively with the Minister of Fisheries
and Land Resources because there are 17,000 people employed in this industry.
I would
say that the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources has taken his job very,
very seriously. There are lots of things that are happening when it comes to the
fishery with the quota impacts, the resource management from DFO. When it comes
to shrimp, in particular, that has negative and adverse impacts to harvesters
and plant workers because of the quantity of the stock that's available, as well
as the reduction in crab in various areas of the province but reflective of
where price is.
There
are lots of things that are having an impact, whether it's the return of the
ground fishery not happening as quickly as we would like, but the minister has
been meeting quite consistently with Ottawa, with the industry, with
communities. I don't think there's anybody who's reached out to him that hasn't
received a return call or an answer to a meeting or availability. That's really
important to have a fisheries minister who has that interest in his portfolio.
I want
to go back, while we're talking about joint management, it's always been a
Liberal Party policy committed to having an increased presence in fisheries
management, evident from past Liberal red book policy platforms of 2003, 2007,
2011 and 2015, which all sought joint management from the fishery with the
federal government as a policy objective.
When we
sat in Opposition we asked questions on joint management, co-management of the
fishery here in this very Legislature. The Premier had placed this in the
mandate letter of the Fisheries Minister, Fisheries and Land Resources, in 2015.
These are initiatives that are very important to us because there's a rationale
for having joint management, and it's based on goals of improved industry
efficiency, decentralized decision making, coordination for economic and social
priorities and a more predictable management system. That couldn't be more
important than it is today for us to have those shared goals.
We're
seeing where we all need to find ways to operate more efficiently. So what are
the best policies and practices that can be put in place? It has been referenced
around a buddy-up system or different policies that could be implemented. How we
look at using the technologies at our plants to make sure we are competitive and
from a Workplace NL and health and safety position, that we do have competitive
policies in place, because we need to also look at this from a provincial
policy, also a pan-Canadian and international when we look at the trade policies
that exist with CFTA, as well as with CETA.
With
CFTA, we will have a committee that will be able to advance seafood trade within
Canada and our Atlantic Canadian provinces. Because we need to find a way to get
more value, create more employment and more opportunity in our fishery here.
There's
potential for research and development when we look at the life sciences in
nutraceuticals have a very good entity. The St. Anthony Basin Resources
Incorporated that's been managing a public resource on the Great Northern
Peninsula, a quota of shrimp which has been drastically cut, but they have been
pursuing initiatives where they can create value in the economy. Things such as
mussel powder and how they go about and create a product that can add value and
create local jobs.
There's
opportunity through our regional innovation systems pilots. If we look at what
the federal government is doing through its Oceans Program and the ability for
all the companies we have that are in that ocean space and partnering with
entities like the Marine Institute, with CFER, with CCFI, with the Oceans
Holyrood Initiative that exists, as well as other entities. There's ability for
us to really look a super cluster for oceans and where our fisheries play a key
role.
We want
to make sure that fisheries management not only includes resource conservation
and quota management, but also the provincial matters related to the fishing
industry like training, quality of our seafood, licensing of our fish plants,
fisheries development and much more such as the marketing.
Closer
provincial involvement in fisheries management through joint management
significantly improves the integration of federal and provincial government
policies. It was referenced by the Minister of Fisheries that a previous premier
had put forward a private Member's resolution on this and there was a white
paper that was developed by a previous Liberal government to advance this
particular matter.
A
provincial voice in the federal government's fisheries management decision is
really important. It's important for our people, our communities, our fishing
industry and our province as a whole. There's opportunity when we look at the
return of cod, when we look at the immature redfish, as the Minister of
Fisheries talked about 2.5 million tons, and what that could mean in transition
as we're moving from shellfish to groundfish or other resource. Then we have all
of our underutilized species such as sea cucumbers, sea urchins, eel and how we
deal with the seal and the abundance of seal that's out there in our oceans.
We also
have to take a broad look at our transportation and our logistics when we talk
about the fishery. Once product is landed at ports, whether it's at St. John's
or St. Anthony, how it gets to be processed, where it actually goes. With
lobsters, are they flown out live with cargo? Are they trucked 10 hours to a cod
processing facility? How do we find the best utilization of resource and
capacity that we have on the ground. These are big decisions, and I think having
a Fisheries Advisory Council is a step in the right direction with the key
players on that council to provide insight and advice.
A good
integrated approach is positive. We've seen where working with the federal
government has led to success, such as annual scientific assessments on Northern
cod, increased research in capelin stocks. These are signs of progress. As well,
the $100 million that's been earmarked for a federal fisheries investment fund
to be innovative in our fisheries.
We have
investments as well provincially when it comes to the fishery, but I do want to
make some remarks from the Member for Ferryland as to what he said about CFER.
He talked a lot about investments that the previous administration made in
research.
Scientific research is a responsibility of the federal government. We've seen
this in other departments in other areas where the previous administration used
oil royalties and other revenues from the taxpayer to fund things that could
have been funded by the federal government. This as well can be a situation like
with CFER.
Given
fisheries science is part of the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and it has increased funding in this area, the province would encourage
the federal government to consider funding for a long-term plan for the future
of CFER and also applications under the oceans program. There's opportunity to
do so where the federal responsibility, where those dollars are attached, get
used for that responsibility.
I think
that's important to reference and make that point here because we all in this
House, collectively I believe, want to see joint management, would like to see
greater influence and input as to how we look at this common resource policy of
the fishery because it is so important to our communities all across this
province. From the very northern tip of Labrador, to the South Coast of
Labrador, to the Great Northern Peninsula, to the South Coast of this province,
to even Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, to looking at as well, the East Coast
of this province, whether it be in the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources'
District or St. John's or the Southern Shore. The fishery touches each and every
one of us, all Members in different ways.
I have a
significant attachment to the fishery, especially the ground fishery of this
province and the shell fishery. There are 10 processing plants that are
operating in various capacities on the Great Northern Peninsula and that leads
to a significant amount of employment. That's so important when you look at the
processing jobs that are attached, the trucking jobs as well as the potential
for marketing and R & D.
This is
why I feel there's a great opportunity, as the Minister of Industry here in this
province, to work collectively with the Fisheries and Land Resources Minister as
we work through, not only our CFTA agreements but CETA, to pursue policies and
initiatives so that we can make sure that we're capitalizing on the right
markets, that we're doing the right research and development. Provincial
responsibilities should be funding when it comes to being innovative, when it
comes to advancing and dealing with competitiveness and technology for our
harvesters, for our companies and our processors.
Mr.
Speaker, we toured a processing facility in your district and we had that
opportunity to talk about it. They could benefit from having more innovative
technologies and we have a provincial program to do so. But the point is here
that we must not lose sight. We must make sure that the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans is very much connected to the harvesters, to the people on the ground
and having those conversations.
As I
started my debate here in the House of Assembly, I talked about Harris Richards
who has 50 years of experience fishing in June. Now that's a lot of experience.
It's people like him and there are dozens and dozens and dozens, whether they
have five years or 10 years; there are plant workers that have 40 years. These
are all valuable experiences that require input in the process.
I talked
to MP Hutchings who represents the Long Range Mountains. As she's up in the
district and area she's made the same commentary that it's important to have DFO
officials be connected, be on the ground, be in the community and have that
conversation. I think that we need to have that same ability so that when
policies come forward, we can have that input with the federal government.
We need
to see joint management so that we can move forward to create the maximum amount
of jobs, create the maximum amount of opportunity to not only look at primary
processing but secondary and tertiary processing, and looking at all of the
waste product that comes with the fishery to add value for the harvester at the
beginning. There's a lot of opportunity to be integrated, just like in the
forest industry where things are integrated.
As is
the case when you look at fur farming or in farming, there's integration of
waste product that comes from one area that can go and support another industry.
I think we need to have that broader discussion through a joint management
process about policies that aren't working, like some of the vessel fleet sizes
and things you've seen in the media where people have to cut a foot off their
fishing boat or two feet and be in an unsafe position because they need to get
to a 39 feet 11 inches.
I talk
to fishers on a regular basis. I would think that probably in my district there
are more people employed in the fishery directly, indirectly and induced, than
anywhere else in the province. It's a very important topic to me and my
constituents and we have broad conversations. The onus is on all of us. It's a
collective resource from the community, to the harvester, to the company, to the
plant worker: we all have a stake. The onus is on all of us to continue to work
on achieving joint management for our fisheries.
I
certainly support the motion that's been put forward by the Member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
It's a motion that's been
asked for previously, when we sat in Opposition, when the Fisheries critic at
that time asked for joint management. We have a history of acting on that
particular matter.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (WARR):
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
delighted to stand today and speak to this private Member's motion by the Member
for Cape St. Francis. I want to thank the Member for bringing this issue to the
floor of the House so we can talk about the issue that he's raised with regard
to joint fisheries management for our province with the federal government.
I have
to say I'm delighted to hear the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation say that he supports this. The way I look at it, Mr. Speaker, is that
this is something I would assume is non-partisan. It's something I would assume
all three parties in the House would stand for the same way we worked together
on the Northern shrimp and on the LIFO issue. I think we've proven that we all
know what's good for the people of the province and especially for the people in
communities who are involved in the fishing industry.
I'm
delighted that it looks like we all will support this bill and we'll together
realize it's something we have to work for. I don't see what I'm going to say
today as something that's getting at any party in the House, getting at the
government or getting at the Official Opposition. I want to talk about the main
issue that's involved here and realize that no matter how hard everybody works,
no matter how hard the current Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources works
and no matter how hard other ministers work, we have a system in our country
that is problematic and a history that shows how we have suffered from that
system that we have in our country.
What I
have to say, and I'm sure what the Official Opposition has to say, has nothing
to do with how the current government is operating. It has to do with the
situation of where our fishery is situated and how this country works.
The
demands for joint fisheries management as well as for custodial management of
fish stocks off our shores have been proposed off and on for decades. Just from
a personal perspective, back in the early 1970s when we were looking at the
200-mile limit issue, I was an activist at that time, a volunteer with Oxfam. I
was still teaching, actually, but I was a volunteer with Oxfam. I remember here
in St. John's sitting with the new fishermen's union, the new FFAW, and we were
talking about these issues 1973. It's been around for long this issue of us in
this province not being happy with how our stocks were being managed.
It's
long been our view as a party that an office on 200 Kent Street in Ottawa is not
the place to make informed decisions about fisheries policy issues off the coast
of Newfoundland and Labrador. And the one time that we went together as the
All-Party Committee to meet with the minister in that building, I have to say it
was the most off-putting experience of my life. Even in the way the building is
in Ottawa is not a welcoming spot, let alone a welcoming spot to talk about our
fisheries.
We have
no difficulty whatsoever supporting this private Member's motion. I do have to
ask my friends in the Official Opposition why they didn't do something about
this maybe when they were government, but let's put that aside. We've got to
work together now and I think it's really important that we do it.
Mr.
Speaker, it would be an understatement to say that the management of our
fisheries under exclusively federal jurisdiction has left a great deal to be
desired. To put it bluntly, it's been a mess. But our own management of those
aspects of the fishery that fall under provincial jurisdiction has been nothing
to write home about either, so we all have to accept responsibility.
A
serious proposal to the federal government for a joint fisheries management
regime, a serious proposal, would have to be very carefully thought out so that
increased bureaucracy is not the main outcome of the exercise. That's not what
we need, that's not what we're looking for.
Before
we formally propose such a significant departure from the current arrangement
and to repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of it we need to give serious
consideration to exactly what it is we want such a new regime to achieve and
what kind of decision-making structures would be required to achieve it.
That
involves the articulation of clear policy principles that we would expect out of
a new regime; enshrinement of the adjacency principle as a cornerstone of access
to fish stocks, which we all agreed to; a commitment to the owner-operator
principle as a key building block of the inshore midshore fishery. I believe we
would all agree to that.
Continuation of the fleet separation policy to keep the harvesting and
processing sectors of our inshore and midshore fisheries separate; I think I
heard us during the All-Party Committee agree to that. A commitment to
sustainable fisheries management; of course we all agree to that. A commitment
to protection of fisheries habitat; again we all agree to that.
Ongoing
international efforts to develop a robust regime for managing all stocks on the
Canadian continental shelf, including those that straddle our 200-mile limit;
very, very important, and as I said a minute ago, something I talked about with
fishing people 40 years ago. First priority to inshore fleets and access to
recovering groundfish stocks; I think we all importance of that. I hope to hear
from the other two parties today as to whether or not they support an inshore
only approach to the 3Ps cod fishery, in light of expected quota reductions.
I want
to point out something that I think all of us are probably aware of. In Iceland,
for example, Iceland has regulations to fit every situation that can happen
during the fishery. They recognize that you have good times and bad times, times
when stocks are in decline, sometimes when they're coming back, that there
always all kinds of different situations and they have regulations in place to
meet all of those. So you never have to make a political decision about what to
do in a certain situation because the regulation is there.
Just
imagine if we did have a regulation that said that the first 115,000 metric tons
of Northern cod quota will be set aside for the adjacent inshore fleet. In the
situation that we're in now with the 3Ps cod fishery, the regulation would say
inshore only. So it's not a decision to be made by whoever is in government at
the time and not a decision to be made by Ottawa. You put the regulations in
place.
That's
something I'd like us all to work on. Wouldn't it be great if we did have all of
us working together? I appreciate the Advisory Council that the minister has put
in place, but I think it falls short of what we could be doing if we all were
working together, and we all together, with people with knowledge, and people
throughout the province started to look at how can we lobby Ottawa with regard
to really making this happen, to really make joint fisheries management happen,
to really make sure that in doing it we would have these principles that I just
outlines in place.
It's our
contention that quota-sharing decisions by DFO on fisheries in the Gulf have not
served the fish harvesters and the industry of our province well. That's what
makes us different from the West Coast where BC is the only province accessing
the ocean. Here, unfortunately on one level, we have the complications of five
provinces: the three other Maritimes, Quebec and us, and we have suffered from
that.
People
in this province who make their living from the Gulf of St. Lawrence fisheries
have been poorly served by the current regime. Change is needed. And I don't
mean the party political regime there; I mean the fisheries management regime.
One of
the things those who propose and those who support this motion would have to
think about is how to establish an appropriate management structure for
resources that are adjacent to one more province. We can't run away from that.
It has to be dealt with, but it can't be something that's just left in the hands
of a federal minister.
I won't
name names, but those of us on the All-Party Committee will certainly remember
the federal fisheries minister who made decisions with regard to access to stock
benefit benefit the industry in her own province while our people suffered. It
was awful. It was terrible.
That
wasn't the only time it's happened, but that is in our recent history that that
happened and it was absolutely shameful. It was unjust. It really was one of the
most unjust things I've ever experienced. Not even meeting with us, treating us
like I don't know, I don't want to use awful words here, but having no respect
for us; absolutely no respect for us. I think the Member for Cape St. Francis
may know the word I was going to use but I won't say it.
We have
to look at how we get what we should be getting when it comes to the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. There are other stocks. For example, the halibut stock from which so
little access is given to adjacent fish harvesters in 3Ps. That's unjust. That's
not right.
There
are many other stocks too that are adjacent to more than one province, and it
seems like we lose out all the time when it comes to the access. So a joint
fisheries management that would take into consideration there are others, but
they've always been getting it. So how do we get the share as well, and working
together to do that, to really present to the federal government we are serious
about this and we need to make it happen.
It's
complex, it's not simple, but we can't let that stop us. We can't let the
complexity of the situation stop us. We can't just continue with the status quo
as it is. Things are never going to be different if we do. I'm not saying that
people in Ottawa, like the researchers, don't know what they're doing. We have
good scientists in DFO. I'm not going to deny that. We've had excellent
scientists up at White Hills and had a lot more of them before the Harper
government, and it's something that has to be rebuilt.
That's
something we have to be saying to the federal government that we have to rebuild
from the damage that was done by the Harper government when we lost so many
scientists in general in this country, but especially when it came to the
fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There's
an old saying, Mr. Speaker: If it ain't broke, don't fit it. But there is ample
evidence that when it comes to the management of the fishery here in our
province, the present system is broke. So by all means, let's put our
differences aside and try to fix it. Let's not our debate or our discussion be
the government trying to prove we're doing okay, and this is what we're doing.
Us on this side, the Official Opposition and us saying yeah, but you know you
got to do better.
I'm not
into looking at what the relationship is with this particular Liberal government
with the federal Liberal government, that's not the issue here. The issue is we
have an age-old problem, and the age-old problem is we have not had the voice
that we need to have when it comes to the management of our fisheries. We
haven't had that voice.
We know
what can happen when we get together and fight for something. We got together on
LIFO and we won that situation. We haven't won everything, we know that, but we
got together and we won the LIFO situation. As bad as things are right now with
the Northern shrimp, it'd be worse if we hadn't saved LIFO, and we did that
together.
So I
think that's right. I think that's what this joint fisheries management motion
is all about. We work together, we gather people in the province. The three
political parties work together. We show Ottawa that, number one, it needs to
happen, and we show them by coming to an agreement on the points I've raised. We
give to them, this is what needs to happen, this is what needs to be done. We
know, and we do it together non-partisan, non-political, doing it for the good
of the people, showing that we all are the same people here. This is not a
political issue, a partisan political issue.
Unfortunately, in Canada the decisions around our fishery are the most political
of anywhere in the world. We've got to change that. George Rose talks about this
all the time. He talks about how we've got to change it, and he's the one who
talks about having a regulation-based fishery. You agree to, what we need to
have in place. We know all the different scenarios that can happen. What
regulations do we need to deal with the different scenarios at different times
with regard to the fishery? Then we have those regulations, we all have created
them together, we agree to them and we remove the partisan politics out of the
decision making. The joint fisheries management could do that.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
truly an honour to stand here today to speak on this important issue. The
fishery in the District of Bonavista, as many are aware and most are aware, goes
back 520 years when John Cabot first landed in Cape Bonavista, threw the basket
over and hauled up the fish. I know that my friend and colleague for Ferryland
mentioned the science done off the coast of Bonavista.
Before I
get into the main motion of this private Member's resolution, I'd just like to
thank the minister for giving us an update on the conversations with DFO and
other government departments on the ice and conditions. I'd also like to thank
the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi for bringing that question forward
to the House of Assembly today.
I know
the Minister of Fisheries is sick of hearing from me about that issue, but it is
a very important one for the people of my district because right now you have
Bonavista and Trinity Bays blocked in with ice. This is preventing fishermen,
both crab and lobster fishermen, from getting out, getting their pots out in our
area. It's also preventing people from getting the work they need in the plant,
especially in the OCI facility in Bonavista. People are hurting right now
because you've got people whose EI is running out or has just run out.
I'd like
to thank the minister, again, for the update. I know he'll continue to push
Ottawa for a timely response in that.
Getting
back to the fishery, I grew in a fishing community called Catalina. My
grandparents were fishermen, so I know a great deal about the fishery. When you
sit in the House of Assembly and you listen to the Opposition, you listen to
Members on our side of the House, you always learn a lot more in you get facts
and details which you didn't really know about.
Growing
up in the '80s it was a boom time in my community of Catalina and on the entire
Bonavista Peninsula. You saw the Port Union FPI plant running three shifts, 365
days a year. You saw groundfish plants in operation in Bonavista, Trouty,
Charleston, other areas as well.
Times
were good in the '80s, but leading into the 1990s and into 1992 when we saw the
collapse of the cod fishery and the moratorium which we have the 25th
anniversary of that coming up early this summer you saw a change. You saw an
out-migration which we had never seen before. We saw people displaced, people
with lots of potential but nowhere to focus on, people who have worked years and
years and years in the fishing industry automatically just displaced and out of
work. You saw some retraining. Some people took advantage of that, others
decided to get into other fishing industries.
In the
late '90s into the 2000s, you saw the prevalence of crap and shrimp. The former
FPI plant in Port Union transitioned to shrimp. You saw Bonavista go into crab.
Those plants flourished for a long time, until 2010 when Igor came through and
saw the destruction of the OCI plant in Port Union. That displaced hundreds of
people as well.
You see
the ups and you see the downs in the fishery, and that's certainly true in the
District of Bonavista. That plant hasn't opened yet. We're hoping to do some
good things. I know the town is working hard to take over that facility and
we're going to keep pushing that forward.
Right
now, you've got over 300 people employed seasonally at the OCI plant in
Bonavista processing mainly crab. This year there's a bit of a challenge because
of the reduction. There is a bit of worry of people getting their hours, getting
their weeks to qualify for Employment Insurance. So that's the ups and downs
that we see all the time. We saw a boom of the shrimp and the crab in the late
'90s into the 2000s, and now we're seeing it peter off again.
What
we're seeing as the shrimp and crab stocks go down, we're seeing an increase
after 25 years of the cod fishery. One of the good things I saw last year is
fishermen actually going out every week and catching codfish. I believe the
quota was 2,000 pounds a week. It started off, initially there was a set quota
but then it changed to every week, a weekly quota of 2,000 pounds.
The
biggest challenge we have right now in the fishery is the amount of places that
we have to process this fish. We have Icewater in Arnold's Cove and we have
another on the Bonavista Bay side. My friend from Fogo Cape Freels will be
able to better tell me where that is.
MR. BRAGG:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Beothic fishery, but as we
see our quotas increase we need to focus and find other processing facilities
because the biggest challenge the fishermen had last year and they expressed
that to me time and time again when I talked to them is they had nowhere to
transfer their fish. They were waiting time and time to get it to Icewater, to
get it to Beothic.
This is
why I like the idea of the $100 million fisheries fund. That can help
processors. They'd have to chip in their own money, upgrade their facilities. As
we see cod increase, you're going to see more demand to have that product
processed.
I talked
about it in my budget speech the other day where we'd love to see some
renovations done to the OCI facility in Bonavista. Right now, they're doing
crab. I'd love to see that as a multi-species, crab and capelin. I'd like to see
that into crab and codfish processing. That's certainly a big dream of mine.
Getting
into a little bit of background on joint fisheries management, people at home
may not know what that means. The rationale for joint fisheries management is
based on the goals of improved industry efficiency, decentralized decision
making, coordination of economic and social priorities and a more predictable
management system.
As a
number of people talked about here today, DFO and Ottawa calls the shots on
everything related to our fishery. What this private Member's resolution does
today is calls for a joint fisheries management. The Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador partner with our federal counterparts and we also include industry
stakeholders. What a collaborative and integrated approach does between the
province, the feds and industry, it supports industry development. You're
getting feedback from all the stakeholders in the fishery.
As I
mentioned before, as we transition from shellfish to groundfish and one word I
liked today is sustained ecosystem management, where as you see one species rise
you have the other one that falls, but you get a balance where you can fish
multi-species without the impact on others. I think that's a great approach, Mr.
Speaker. I know there's some good fishing up in Baie Verte Green Bay. Fleur de
Lys and La Scie and all those wonderful places have a great, vibrant fishing
industry.
One
thing that we've had for years in Catalina was seal processing. I know that
you've got a seal processing facility there, Mr. Speaker, and only 80,000 seals
were taken this year. This is why I'd like to see new players come into the
scene and get those numbers up. We've seen the pictures on Facebook where
80-something female crab were eaten by a seal. So if we get the seal population
down, we get an expanded fishery, within the seal, looking at new markets, I
think that would be a great thing as well.
What
we've done as a Liberal Party through the years, you've seen that part of our
commitment to joint fisheries management brought up in our red book in 2003,
2007, 2011 and 2015. The Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources had that in
his mandate letter. So we have been committed to this since 2003. In fact,
former Premier Roger Grimes brought a private Member's resolution to the floor
of the House of Assembly about this matter back on May 8, 2003. This issue is 14
years old, Mr. Speaker. It goes back further than that but, as a party, we've
been doing work with this for that long.
With our
Way Forward document, Mr.
Speaker, we are putting a new, renewed focus on our groundfish. As the
Lieutenant Governor said in the Throne Speech earlier this session, the
cornerstone of our economy will lie in the groundfish industry.
I'm just going to read a little bit from
The
Way Forward, Action 1.17: The
provincial fishing industry is currently experiencing changes in resources with
the decline in high valued shellfish and increased abundance of groundfish
resources. As this change proceeds, the industry will require supports to
develop the groundfish industry through quality assurance initiatives and market
development opportunities in order to access new markets and maintain
competitiveness. Building on investments announced during Budget 2016, our
Government will work with industry stakeholders to establish the Fisheries
Advisory Council and will assist the Council in its planning and implementation
activities for transitioning to groundfish.
As I said, the Throne Speech highlighted this. The
groundfish industry will be a cornerstone of our economic growth, Mr. Speaker.
We talk time and time again about being addicted to oil. We can't put our eggs
in one basket. We did that with the fishery years ago with the cod fishery; we
saw that collapse. We did that with the oil industry and we saw that collapse a
few years ago. What we need is diversification which will see our province grow
economically, and groundfish and other species as well will be a big part of
that.
Getting back to
Budget 2017 we are investing more than $5 million in our wild fishery and
aquaculture industries which will leverage significant investment from private
sector and the federal government. This includes $2.8 million for an aquaculture
capital investment fund, $2 million for the Seafood Innovation and Transition
Program, $100,000 for our Fisheries Advisory Council, where William Wells was
named the chair and is currently doing terms of reference for that group. We
hope to get that up and running. What that will do is it will take key industry
stakeholders and advise
government on how best to deal with our fishery, Mr. Speaker.
Also
within Budget 2017 we see $500,000 for
the Fish Plant Worker Employment Support Program. That's those who are displaced
from the fishery, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier
this winter, I had the distinct honour of attending a major announcement at the
Marine Institute, the place where I got my education through the Marine
Engineering program there and the Bachelor of Technology. It was nice to be back
there but it was also nice to sit there with our federal counterparts, Minister
Judy Foote, our Premier, to announce $100 million
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
Judy Foote, she delivered
$100 million in a Fisheries Fund that will benefit Newfoundland and Labrador.
Contrary to the phantom fund of $280 million that they didn't deliver, zero they
delivered; we delivered $100 million. And to quote Minister Foote, there's more
to come.
As I
mentioned before, if it comes from Judy Foote's mouth, I'll believe it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
She delivers. She talks about
not only Newfoundland and Labrador getting their fair share, but getting more
than their fair share. What I also liked about that announcement it was $330
million for Atlantic Canada for the fisheries, but $30 million of that is for
Atlantic Canadian marketing of our fishery product. And that is something we
haven't seen in a long time; $30 million will go a long way.
As I
mentioned about in my budget speech two days ago, the days of the cod block and
the salt fish getting shipped out as the cheap white fish, those days are gone.
What we need to do is better marketing of our crab, our lobster and especially
our cod fish
AN HON. MEMBER:
We never got it from them.
MR. KING:
No, that's right.
Especially our cod fish to get it to market because we want our cod fish to be a
high-quality product that gets you the high-quality markets, that gives our
fishermen the best value for their product.
Mr.
Speaker, I will be supporting this resolution today.
Thank
you for your time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is my
pleasure to stand in this hon. House today in support of this resolution. Mr.
Speaker, as many of my hon. colleagues have talked about thus far this
afternoon, this motion is about taking immediate action to establish a joint
fisheries management committee.
It's
very clear, Mr. Speaker, that we need action now. The fishery is at another
critical juncture and it's time, it really is time, that joint management
becomes a reality.
The PC
Party has long supported joint fisheries management. We've supported it in our
policy platforms for decades as I'm sure many other governments have as well.
Since 1949 we have not found a willing partner in any federal administration,
but perhaps now things will be different. Perhaps now if the friendship that the
Members opposite so often celebrate truly means something, then they will have
the chance to deliver the role that has always eluded the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Do you
know what? If that happens, every person in this hon. House will celebrate it.
If we can work together to make it happen, why would we squander that
opportunity? If it's in the best interests of our province, why would we let any
other interest prevail? What considerations could possibly trump the best
interests of our people, our families, our communities and our economy?
Some
might argue that the fishery is yesterday's industry, that we've acquired all
the benefit out of it that we can expect and it's time to move on to a different
future in innovation or technology. Burn your boats, I think was the cry that we
heard before. But there is no Member in the House better positioned than I am to
challenge that very idea because no district has seen its future transformed by
new fisheries opportunities more profoundly then mine has in the past decade.
Mr.
Speaker, because of the arrival of aquaculture we now have a strong and thriving
traditional fishery and aquaculture industry. Both industries work in harmony.
We see fisher persons who are able to work in the aquaculture sector. That
sector has shift work; it's usually six days on and three days off. Fisher
persons are able to work in both. They can work in the aquaculture sites and on
their three days off they can still manage their fishing enterprises. It's truly
been a win-win in Fortune Bay Cape La Hune and it can be win-win for many
other rural communities across this province.
My
district was one that was in serious trouble because of the decline in the
fishery. In fact, our population dropped from a base of 14,000 or so back when
the fishery was strong, and it declined as far as 7,000 people, Mr. Speaker. We
really needed something to turn it around. The fishery of the future became
aquaculture in combination with the wild fishery for us and it has worked.
You
visit my region today and you will see a true success story. You will see
optimism and confidence. A sustainable future in the fishery is not a fantasy
for the people of my region, it's the new reality. Aquaculture is a relatively
new approach to the fishing industry and we're still learning how to do it
effectively. We're learning from others and we're learning by doing, taking the
initiative ourselves. From time to time, yes, there are setbacks, but the
positives far outweigh the negatives. We are quickly becoming the mentors that
other are looking to for advice.
If you
go to Europe or Asia or Africa, you'll recognize that seafood is not a luxury
but a staple food that the hungry planet relies on. We see projections that the
demand for fish protein is going to continue well into this decade and possibly
be a problem by 2050 if we have not identified other means of sustaining our
fish protein. It's also a source of tremendous economic activity for many
millions of people. It is our choice whether we are on the producing side and
the earning side of that equation. It's entirely our choice.
If we
had done nothing here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we would have been left
behind or in the Coast of Bays empty harbours and empty communities. Today,
in other communities we see across rural Newfoundland, there are harbours that
are in danger of emptying out. But it's our choice whether that emptying occurs
or the community turns the corner into a brighter future by embracing the
fishery of the future.
Some
people wonder if Newfoundland and Labrador is destined to slip quietly into
abandonment while the rest of the world grows, particularly in light of the hard
economic times we've experienced in the last two years. But if a hungry world of
7 billion people in need of protein were not opportunity enough for us to seize,
then perhaps we would deserve to slip quietly away.
Fortunately for us and some of our communities, we are fighting back against the
prophecies of doom and we are turning the corner. This is just the start. The
South Coast is not the anomaly; it's the beacon on the hill, the inspiration for
others to follow. The new fishery can be a foundation of the sustainable future
that our province needs to secure.
Why not
the fishery? Who said the fishery is the industry of a bygone era? Don't people
still eat fish by the ton? We have just gained entry into the European Union
marketplace without the burden of exorbitant tariffs and that is a phenomenal
game changer.
Who else
needs seafood other than Europeans? Well, we're selling seafood into Asia.
Consider the size of that marketplace. Consider the strengths we bring to the
sector, centuries of experience, a unique natural environment, a clean marine
environment that others can only dream about, trade networks, infrastructure,
professional expertise that makes us recognized leaders.
Some of
the greatest opportunities are the ones sitting right before our very eyes, but
there is something that we need to change first. We need our country to
recognize that our exclusion from the table when it comes to harvesting
decisions is a wrong that has to be corrected. If it's not going to be through
constitutional change, which is nearly impossible to achieve in this country,
then let's take the Atlantic Accord route and create the fisheries equivalent of
an offshore petroleum board. It works for the petroleum sector and it can work
for the fisheries. Now is the moment to do that.
Let's
stop pondering about it and talking around in circles, let's get this done. The
time for letting others determine our future is passed. This is Canada's 150th
anniversary. So Canada here's how you can celebrate your birthday: By granting
to Newfoundland and Labrador the save that we require to turn the fishing
industry, we brought to this country, into a truly sustainable 21st century
enterprise.
Throw
off the shackles of colonialism, that's what Canada did 150 years ago and that's
what we need to complete now, by taking a seat at the table where the harvesting
decisions and quota allocations are made. What a legacy that will be for
Newfoundland and Labrador to celebrate Canada's 150 years.
We truly
hope that we can all work together with our partners, all parties across this
hon. House, all organizations and stakeholders directly impacted and the
Government of Canada. We truly do hope we can make this a reality. We are
committed to working with our colleagues to make that happen.
I'm
going to take my seat a little early because our colleague, the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands, would also like to rise and speak a bit to this motion here
today. Again, strong support for this motion and very pleased to see strong
support from everyone who has stood to speak to this very important motion,
possibly historic motion here in the House today.
Thanks
so much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a very few minutes. First of all, I just want to thank the Member
for the District of Cape St. Francis for bringing forth this private Member's
resolution today. I think, as has been said, there are times in this House of
Assembly when obviously there are a lot of times when we disagree on various
things but there are also times when we all have to work together. This is
certainly one of those times for sure.
The
fishery is very important to all of Newfoundland and Labrador. While I might
represent an urban district in Mount Pearl and Southlands, and the closest thing
we have to fish really is the few trout down in Tyrrwits Brook and Powers Pond
and so on, that's the reality, but with all that said, I can recall back in the
day when we had the cod moratorium and our former federal fisheries minister in
very colourful terms, I might add, stated that he didn't take the fish out of
the water, didn't take the cod out of the water. We remember the fallout that
came from that.
Part of
the fallout, surprisingly perhaps to some people, was actually in the City of
Mount Pearl because there were a number of businesses in Donovans Business Park,
and there are still business there today that are, a large number, that are very
much involved with our oceans and with our fishery in terms of supply and
service and support and so on.
When we
see issues around our fishery, declines in our stocks and so on that impact our
fishers all throughout the province, it also impacts all of us. It impacts all
of our districts in one way or another and it certainly impacts the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador from a global sense.
It is
something that is important to us all. I think it's something that we all need
to be working on. So I will be supporting this motion. Anything we can do come
together to come up with a united voice, a united strategy, as we've seen in the
past with the committee on shrimp and LIFO, we've seen it where parties have
worked together on mental health issues and so on. So there is a precedent
there. We have had success in the past when we've actually worked together. This
is certainly a time that we need to do that.
With
that said, I'll be taking my seat. I certainly support this motion and once
again thank the Official Opposition for bringing it forward and thank all
parties, the government and the NDP, for supporting it and recognizing the
importance that this is to our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I know
you listened intently to our talk today because the fishery is important in your
district also, as it is important in most people's districts here in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It was
an interesting day. I want to thank all the Members who took part in the debate
here today. It's a good day in the Legislature when we see all Members in the
House of Assembly basically agreeing; not all on side with some comments but
basically agreeing.
I want
to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources and the Member for
Carbonear-Trinity Bay de Verde for participating and giving us some good
insight into what's happening in the fishery. I want to thank my colleague from
Ferryland, another very knowledgeable man in the fishery, also former Minister
of Fisheries. I want to thank the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation from St. Barbe L'Anse aux Meadows. I want to thank the Member from
St. John's East Quidi Vidi who I had the opportunity to serve on the All-Party
Committee that was very effective in helping the fishery, especially when it
came to LIFO and shrimp. I think we did a good job and we worked well together.
I want to thank the Member from Bonavista. I know that historic Bonavista, it's
a very the fishery is huge in that area, it always has been and it's a
beautiful district.
I want
to thank my colleague from Fortune Bay Cape La Hune who gave us great insight
in the fishery and who I always enjoy listening to here in the House of
Assembly. I also want to thank the Member from Mount Pearl Southlands. I don't
know if there's either harbour in his area or not, I don't think there is either
wharf or anything in it, but I thank him for his participation here also today.
It's a
great debate. It's a good debate and it's nice to see all hands on side, but now
what we need, we need commitments. We need commitments from the government. We
need commitments from the Minister of Fisheries. I know in debate today we heard
of the talk of a committee; a committee to get together because, as we know,
things can be kicked down the road and pushed for periods of time. I think,
minister, and the government across the way, this is a time we all can stand
together and say this is something that we need done immediately. It's something
that we need done.
As was
said here today, and was said before, we're talking five centuries of fishing in
this province. I'm sure that the talk of joint management has been brought up
with all parties in this House of Assembly for many, many years, but now is the
time that we know the importance of our industry. We know how important it is to
the people of our province, that we need action immediately. That's what this
motion was put forward today for, it was asking for immediate action.
I ask
the minister I know it's in his mandate letter to discuss it with the
federal government and that's good. It's nice to see that you do have talks with
the federal government. But I'd ask today if you'd put a committee together to
ensure that fisheries managements gets put on the table. This is not going to be
an easy process; it's going to be a difficult process. It's not just a matter of
just saying we want fisheries management and it's done. There are a lot of
aspects to our fishery. There are a lot of different provinces.
The
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi said there are five different provinces
that fish in our waters and I know that they're going to want their part also.
But we have to be firm and we have to stand strong and make sure that our
fishery's interests are expressed. We want the management; we want to be able to
talk at the table. The stakeholders in the industry, our harvesters, our
processors, our labourers, we want those people to have a voice and say how
their industry is run. That's what this is about today.
I'm
going to call on the minister again. I want to see a committee formed to go and
give to the federal government, this is what we want, this is what we demand and
do the process, see what the process is going to be. We need that done. It's no
good of just coming here to the House of Assembly and all hands say that's a
great idea and two years down the road say, yeah, it's a great idea again. We
need action right away. Our fishery is so important.
I know
that for my District of Cape St. Francis, the fishery is a major industry in the
district. I have a lot of harvesters; I have family members that are harvesters,
so it's important. We need to look at all aspects of the fishing industry.
I know a
couple of people here today mentioned about the seals. Yes, there's a count
going on the seals and we want to know how many seals. The Member for Bonavista
said 80 baby crabs. Actually, it was 180 baby female crabs that were inside one
seal. We know that the amount of food
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
And the other thing too and
that's an important point that we always talk about science and we agree with
science. There's nobody in this House of Assembly that's going to say that
science is not a part of it, but I heard only recently that a scientist said he
doesn't think that seals eat cod. Ask harvesters. Ask the people in the province
that are on the water. Ask the people that see it.
These
things have to be done. That's why it's important for us to be at that table to
talk. There are a lot of aspects to our fishery. Harvesters and people that are
on the water, while I respect science, I respect harvesters also. I respect
their wisdom and their knowledge of what the fishery is about. I also respect
what they can bring to the table.
Like I
said earlier when I got up and spoke, people in this province don't want to see
our fishery gone in a couple of years. It's been here for it's our history. In
most of our families, it's been handed down from generation to generation. And
it will be in the future; it will continue to be handed down.
There's
something about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I don't know about all of you,
but I love being on the water, and most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians love
being on the water. I know you do, Mr. Speaker, to be able to have the
opportunity to go out and catch a cod and have a day, no matter it's just the
point of having that day. It's who we are as people. The fishery is important to
us in so many different aspects.
It's who
we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's the reason why we came to this
province. It's not because of the weather. It's because this province is such a
great place to live. We need to make sure that our fishery is sustainable in the
future. In order for it to be sustainable, we need to a say at that table. That
say at the table cannot be shoved down the road for years and years' time. It
needs to be done immediately. We need to get people in place right now to have
action to make sure that we have some say in how our fishery is run in the
future.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Is the House ready for
the question?
All
those in favour the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
I
declare the motion approved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It being Private Members'
Day, this House is adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow.
I will
remind Members of the Management Commission, we have an in-camera meeting in my
office the sooner the better, we can conclude and get out here for the regular
part of the meeting and get wrapped up for the evening.
Thank you.