May 18,
2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 21
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I would
like to welcome to our public gallery today Ms. Tammy Powell, who is the sister
of the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, visiting from Alberta.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of Virginia Waters Pleasantville,
Conception Bay South, Exploits, Stephenville Port au Port and Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to highlight that St. Paul's Junior High continues to
excel both in academics and co-curriculum activities. Creating a culture of
caring and support, the school provided an opportunity for students to travel
after school to the Conception Bay South arena to watch the finals of the 14th
annual Frank Roberts Junior High School hockey tournament. With over 70 students
and half the staff cheering on their school hockey team, the boys won gold.
St.
Paul's has also had tremendous success in their technology and science
divisions. The school has been named as one of five regional finalist schools
for the Samsung Solve for Tomorrow Challenge. The students will work on a
real-world project to help better their school and community while inspiring
them to engage deeply in the STEM projects.
Students
are hoping to win up to $50,000 in Samsung technology for classrooms. The
journey so far has been extremely educational and will provide a foundation for
success among students.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating St. Paul's hockey team on their
victory and wishing them the best of luck in the Solve for Tomorrow Challenge.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on May 16, I had the opportunity to attend and present gold, silver and
bronze Duke of Edinburgh Awards to 35 deserving young students at Frank Roberts
Junior High in Foxtrap.
To
qualify, participants must undertake a balanced program of leisure-time
activities such as community service, areas of self-development, adventurous
journeys, physical fitness and skill development.
This
group has been involved in many challenging and worthwhile activities under the
direction of committed volunteer leaders. In speaking with participants
individually, they tell their stories of personal growth and commitment as they
embarked on various challenges and opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to congratulate gold recipients: Steven Rideout,
Jonathan Payne, Ryan Letto, Carissa Haines and Jenna Broders; silver recipients:
Krista Greeley, Nathan Lake, Emma Jacobs, Kelsey Smith, Kristina LeDrew, Sarah
Fagan, Sara Burry, Katie Currie, Sara Priddle, Matthew Broders, Karley Morgan,
Leah Pomeroy, Luke Strickland, Madison Tarrant and Miguel Santos; and the bronze
recipients: Michael Chaplin, Anna Crocker-Kennedy, Benjamin Duggan, Michael
Judge, Rebecca Wiseman, Kyle Lynch, Madison Clairmont, Erika Hiscock, John
Peyton, Madison Fahey, Luke Budden, Tanner Hudson, Simon Smith, Amie
Crocker-Kennedy and Laura DeGruchy.
This is
quite an accomplishment and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize the Bishop's Falls Lions Club, which last year
celebrated its 50th anniversary. 2016 was also the 100th Centennial Celebrations
of Lions International, and the Bishop's Falls club joined Lions around the
world in reflecting back on their successes in community service.
The
Bishop's Falls Lions Club was formed on April 22, 1966 and currently has 35
active members, and two life members. Over the past five decades, they have
served their community with dedication and have raised over $1 million to
contribute to the development and well-being of the citizens of Bishop's Falls
and surrounding communities.
The
Bishop's Falls Lions Club contributes towards many causes such as the White Cane
project, the Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp, Freedom to Move, the Janeway
Children's Hospital, Ronald McDonald House, the Special Olympics, Red Cross and
more. Lions Clubs exemplify community service and selflessness and have always
been at the forefront of any community issue where their help is needed.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in commending the Bishop's Falls Lions Club on their
50th anniversary and five decades of exemplary community service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize four outstanding students from my district. Amber Murphy of
Stephenville, a graduate of Stephenville High School in 2013, and a recipient of
the Terry Fox Scholarship, completed a Bachelor of Health Sciences Degree at
McMaster University. Amber has been accepted at Queen's University Medical
School and has received an $80,000 scholarship.
Michael
Gilbert of Noel's Pond, a 2013 graduate of Stephenville High School and the
recipient of a $60,000 scholarship to UNB, has completed an honours degree in
science. Michael has been accepted to MUN School of Medicine.
William
Forsey of Kippens, a Stephenville High graduate in 2011, attended StFX
University and was the recipient of the President's Scholarship. He graduated
with a business degree. He's accepted at the University of Calgary Medical
School.
Bethany
Power of Lourdes, a graduate of Piccadilly High School in 2013, attended MUN's
Grenfell campus and received the Leslie Harris Scholarship. She recently
graduated with an honours degree in science. Bethany has received a summer
research grant of $8,000 and she will attend MUN School of Medicine in
September.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating these exceptional students and wish
them well as they embark in their medical studies.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
May I have your attention, please?
I rise
to recognize an extraordinary group of young people that recently showcased the
very best of Labrador theatre on stage at the Provincial Drama Festival in St.
John's.
May I Have Your Attention,
Please? is a
powerful and moving play that explores the theme of suicide a topic that is
all too familiar to residents of Labrador. It was the first time in 41 years a
team from Cartwright won the honour to represent their region at the
provincials.
Suicide,
Mr. Speaker, would be a difficult subject for a theatre troupe of any age, but
this group of students performed it with empathy, heart and sincerity. I believe
it should be performed in every school in the province to raise awareness of
this important topic.
On May
5, I had the pleasure of being in the audience at LSPU Hall when the Ponderosa
Players received a standing ovation for their truly exceptional performance.
Well done teacher, Ms. Piercey, Heidi, Claire, Aaron, Kieana, Andrew, Marcus and
special mention is warranted for Tyler Mugford, who won the Outstanding Actor
Award. Cartwright, and indeed my entire district, is tremendously proud of this
team.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the Ponderosa Players of Henry Gordon
Academy.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
rise in this hon. House today to outline a major milestone our government has
reached in the implementation of regulated midwifery into the provincial health
care system.
As
announced publicly this week, a midwifery consultant has been successfully
recruited. She will work with the regional health authorities, and other key
stakeholders, to lay the groundwork for midwifery in our province.
Gisela
Becker has been recruited as the provincial midwifery consultant and brings a
wealth of experience and knowledge to the position, including direct care,
leadership, advocacy, teaching and research. Ms. Becker has practised in a
variety of settings in Germany, the Caribbean and Canada and has extensive
experience in rural and remote midwifery services and collaborative maternity
care.
Mr.
Speaker, Ms. Becker's recruitment builds on the introduction of the
Midwives Regulations, which came into
force last September under the Health
Professions Act. She will begin work in September of 2017.
I ask
this hon. House to join with me in welcoming Ms. Becker and in marking this
significant step in bringing midwifery to our public health care system.
Thank
you.
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 his statement. We would like to join with
government in welcoming Ms. Gisela Becker to the new role of Provincial
Midwifery Consultant. The discussion surrounding the benefits and use of
midwives in this province has been happening for some time. I'm happy to hear
that we are finally ready to proceed.
Midwives
are professionals who work in partnership with women to give support, care and
advice throughout pregnancy, during labour and the post-partum period, as well
as provide care and support to the newborn.
The care
includes preventative measures and the detection of complications in mother and
child. In addition, the midwife has an important task in health counselling and
education. We believe midwives and their expertise will add great value to our
overall health care system and we look forward to further progress.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I too
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am pleased that the
midwives regulations are in place and that the department has engaged Ms.
Becker, who comes more than highly recommended. I know midwives are really
pleased.
We will
benefit from her experience and expertise in reinstating midwifery in this
province, but I'm disappointed that the implementation plan does not include
immediately setting up the midwifery program within the regional health
authorities so that midwives will be completely public within our public health
care system.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to recognize Mr. Paul Antle, Ms. Gloria Parsons and Mr. John Patten
as inductees into the 2017 Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame.
For 27
years Junior Achievement has recognized and honoured entrepreneurs who inspire
others through their investment and success in both business and community. This
year's inductees are certainly deserving of this distinction given their
achievements with their businesses and their efforts to improve the world around
them.
Paul
Antle started his first business venture from his mother's basement and he has
not looked back since. He used his master's degree in engineering to broker
hazardous waste disposal services, and later pioneered environmental industries
in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, Paul is a respected community builder and
is president and CEO of Pluto Investments Inc.
At the
age of 26, Gloria Parsons entered the construction industry in 1972 with a Grade
11 education, and turned it into the Parsons' Group of Companies. In the early
1990s, Gloria created Chancellor Park, a long-term care home in St. John's,
where she now serves as president and CEO. Gloria continues to receive
recognition for her accomplishments while quietly supporting her community.
After
graduating from university in 1978, John Patten worked his way up the family
business of Browning Harvey, until being appointed president in 2005. John has
never hesitated from his vision of growth, and has adapted to the ever changing
marketplace by making investments in plant infrastructure, facilities and
technology. I had the pleasure of touring his company, actually, just a few
weeks ago. He is a recognized leader both locally and nationally, and a proud
supporter of numerous charities.
Mr.
Speaker, these individuals are role models for the next generation of leaders,
and deserve to be acknowledged for their excellence in business leadership,
professional achievement and contributions to society.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Paul Antle, Gloria
Parsons and John Patten on being named 2017 inductees to the Junior Achievement
Hall of Fame.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, I join the
minister in recognizing the work of Junior Achievement and those who have been
recently inducted into the 2017 Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame.
I
congratulate Mr. Paul Antle, Ms. Gloria Parsons and Mr. John Patten on being
inducted into the Hall of Fame. Business leaders, including all the members of
the Hall of Fame, form a cornerstone of our province's economy. Their
contributions to our business community help provide jobs for many
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and create economic activity.
Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to recognize the valuable work the Junior Achievement
program undertakes. My daughter just finished her three-year program in the
Junior Achievement and this bracelet, actually, is one of their products for
this year. I've seen the value of this program and the valuable skills they've
learned and the communication, leadership and management along the way.
Once
again, I want to congratulate this year's recipients.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm very pleased to
congratulate the latest inductees into the Junior Achievement Hall of Fame. They
certainly are role models for future generations of entrepreneurs and leaders.
Small-
and medium-sized businesses are invariably started by people with ambition and
vision. Starting a business is always a struggle and a gamble and there is no
guarantee of success.
Government must provide resources to encourage new entrepreneurs, but they also
must be sure not to unnecessarily impede or harm them, and a $5,000 fee on
iceberg water comes to mind, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday, the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that government
will continue to retain EY for the Muskrat Falls oversight. Close to $2 million
spent to date, no reports, yet EY will be kept on by the Liberal government
indefinitely.
Why is
EY being given a blank cheque to stay on indefinitely with no idea of what their
scope of work is?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
correct the Member opposite. What I did say, and I have been saying, is EY is
being engaged to finalize last year's report, the interim report that clearly
laid out some very good recommendations to get the Muskrat Falls Project on
track. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as the people of this province know, this
government is working very hard to make sure the Muskrat Falls Project is on a
better course than it had been under the former administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, as for how we
might engage a company going forward such as EY, there are discussions with the
Oversight Committee on the value of that independent assessment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister referenced very good recommendations; indeed, they may be,
but why not share them with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as required.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The minister also stated the
Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee was too busy to report publicly.
When did
the minister find out they were too busy, and what actions did she take to have
them meet their quarterly reporting requirements?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Again, Mr. Speaker, I'll
correct the Member opposite. I think he might have some alternate facts in
there; he's using them liberally today.
Mr.
Speaker, the interim report contained a number of recommendations. It has been
available to the public since April of last year. As soon as we got the report
we made it available to the people of the province because we had to clean up
this government had to clean up the mess of the former administration with
regard to the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker.
Those
recommendations, we have been working methodically and diligently to implement,
and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, because the efforts of this
government have been bearing fruit, and the Muskrat Falls Project has been on
track and has been working well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, the challenges to preparation for the UNESCO designation Mistaken
Point are well known.
Can the
minister advise if the manager of environmental education and promotions and
World Heritage project manager was released from duties without cause in April
2016 when there was so much work to complete, to be done?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Mistaken Point and its UNESCO heritage designation is very important to
this government. One of the things in the management plan was the hiring of
three extra staff people this year. That has been done, Mr. Speaker. Our new
department had some management restructuring, Mr. Speaker, but that was done in
breaking down silos and in the best interest of the province.
Thank
you, very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the project management plan and the interpretation plan for Mistaken
Point are essential components to maintaining UNESCO status.
I ask
the minister: Who is now responsible for executing these plans?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, as the Member knows full well, that two weeks ago tomorrow I sat down
with the Member opposite and the ambassadors for Mistaken Point. We made a
sincere commitment to that organization that as a government we take our
obligations to UNESCO, to Mistaken Point, to the Portugal Cove South heritage
group, Mr. Speaker, we take that very seriously. At the end of the day, I'm
responsible for what happens at Mistaken Point this year and I will live up to
that responsibility.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I recognize the hon. minister, we did have a meeting and I give him
credit for that. At least we had a discussion. I think he has some understanding
of what the importance of this is. We haven't seen that in the first 17 months,
so I do give him credit for having the meeting, but there are still many
questions and much management that's not being done at Mistaken Point.
Can the
minister advise if the individual relieved of duties related to Mistaken Point
was indeed terminated without cause, meaning the individual was doing a good
job, and what was the cost paid out to that individual?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to get into individual human resource files in my
department. What I can assure the Member opposite, though, Mr. Speaker, is that
we've made commitments to Mistaken Point. We met two weeks ago tomorrow. I've
committed again to meeting with the ambassadors at Mistaken Point next week. I
invited the hon. Members opposite to join me in that meeting, and we will
continue to meet with those people to fulfill our obligations.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I'm not disputing the fact
that obligations have been met, but it's a great speech. All I'm asking for,
there's a management plan, there's an interpretation plan, this position was
overseeing those plans. That person is no longer available.
So I'm
asking you: Who is overseeing these plans for the implementation required for
Mistaken Point? A straightforward question: Who now has the responsibility to do
that? Because in our meeting you didn't identify it, so tell us today: Who has
the responsibility for it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm responsible for Mistaken Point. It's a part of my mandate and I
will live up to those commitments.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Again, I thank the minister
for his answer, but it doesn't answer the question I asked him. There was a
human resource person in that place. It was taken out, removed without cause. I
assume payment was made out to that individual and the requirement is still
there, so he hasn't answered the question.
Could
the minister advise if the individual who would have overseen UNESCO inscription
nomination planning and key to implementation of those requirements over the
past year is still receiving remuneration from the Provincial Treasury?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I said a few
moments ago that I'm not going to comment on individual human resource files,
but if that's information that I can provide to the Member opposite, I will
certainly get it for him.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
Estimates recently, we heard of a position with Government House which cost
taxpayers almost $400,000 to remove an individual, again, without cause. Now we
have a needed position for a World Heritage Site that was removed again without
cause.
Can you
explain why you would not have secured this position for Mistaken Point? As we
all know, it's much needed.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I think I've
been clear to the Member opposite. We understand our commitments to UNESCO, the
commitment we made at Mistaken Point. We understand the management plan.
Last
year, there were 10 employees at Mistaken Point. This year we are at 13, because
that was a part of the management plan, Mr. Speaker. We're going to continue to
live up to our commitments to Mistaken Point.
Like I
said to the Member opposite earlier, I've sat down with the group. I'll be
sitting down with the group again next week and we will live up to our
commitments for Mistaken Point.
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.
The
Liberal government is projecting that employment and jobs will fall every year
for the next five years by 1.9 per cent this year, 2.8 per cent next year, 2.1
per cent the following year, 1.2 per cent in 2020 and by another 1.4 per cent in
2021.
What is
your government doing to strengthen economic conditions for businesses in our
province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question because it was actually the budget of 2015 that the
Member is questioning, which was the budget that she voted for. It was the
previous administration that put it in place. If you go back to the economic
indicators in the 2015 budget, Mr. Speaker, it was their previous administration
that actually put those indicators in place.
Mr.
Speaker, the real impact there is not so much about the decisions in 2015-2016,
it's really about the poor planning of the 10 years prior to that where we saw a
government that were running deficits when oil was at $100 a barrel, were not
concerned about economic diversification, were not concerned about the fishery,
tourism, all those things that would have helped us in the situation we're in
today. They ignored what they could have seen and should have seen coming in
their future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Well, Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals campaigned and led the electorate to believe that their captains of
industry had a plan. A 10 per cent drop in jobs is no plan.
The Economy 2017 document reported
that in 2016 the unemployment rate averaged 13.4 per cent, and in 2017 the
unemployment rate is expected to average 13.9 per cent.
Will the
minister acknowledge that despite an election promise of an economic growth
plan, your government is actually projecting that the unemployment rate on its
watch will continue to get worse?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
been just over a year, a year and a half now, since this government has come in
place. The first thing we had to do was secure the financial footing. Mr.
Speaker, we could not even borrow based on the plan that they had put in place.
They
talk about their plan. Well, why don't they stand by their plan today which
would say that it's $80 a barrel? Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Member
opposite is completely out of touch with the realities around the oil industry
because the plan that they were campaigning on was completely false. It would
have led to not only just the economy, the province as a whole.
We have
secured the financial footing of our province, Mr. Speaker; now a focus on jobs,
a Cabinet Committee on Jobs. In case she missed it, a big impact in her own
district last week about the investments we are making into agriculture just to
start.
Stay
tuned, I say, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I'm certainly very proud of
the aquaculture industry that the Tories gave great strength (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
In Estimates, I asked the
minister for an update on the national housing strategy and this province's
position. She could not answer, saying instead that she would provide me with an
information note.
Minister, how come I have not yet received that information?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the provincial
government is working very closely with our federal partners to establish a
national housing strategy. We're partners in the plan. I'm not sure if the
Opposition understands what that actually means.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I believe in
Estimates we answered some questions on the housing strategy. I did tell the
Member that we were working on the provincial housing plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Well, we're getting a lot of
condescending attitude but not many answers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Minister, it's been two
weeks. This should be a file which you are very familiar with. A housing
strategy impacts many people of this province who cannot find suitable and
affordable housing.
Can the
minister provide this House with an update on the strategy today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
In actual fact, Mr. Speaker,
I am very well aware of the plan that we are putting in place. We've done
provincial consultations. We have evaluated every single program in Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing, Mr. Speaker, and we will put forward a plan the end of
June. This government will put forward a program and plan the end of June.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to showing the Opposition, and to showing the province,
the work that we have done on some of the programs that the Opposition put in
place, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, I asked for an
update on the strategy in Estimates, I asked for an update here again today. If
housing and homelessness was truly a priority for the minister she would know
this information.
I ask
the minister: Why does she not have this information readily available, or at
least an update, for this hon. House and the people who so desperately need this
housing today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all hon. Members the only individual I wish to hear from is the individual
recognized to speak.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I certainly
understand why the Member is saying they need it today because they didn't deal
with it at all, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my
previous answer, we have evaluated every single program at Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing. We are engaged in housing and homelessness, Mr. Speaker, and
we are working on a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In a
January 12, CBC story entitled: Biofuel timber decision coming soon, the local
MHA says an announcement is only days away. Through Access to Information we
discovered that was not reality. Officials from your department in a response to
the comments stated: I have no idea where he is getting his information.
Will the
minister tell me where the MHA for Exploits got his information?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
What I
can tell the Member opposite is the Member for the District of Exploits has done
an admirable job for his constituents in advocating for
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
this business opportunity,
and there certainly is a business opportunity there.
As a
department, we've worked with this company. We've had some back and forth
discussions. We've signed an agreement in principle for the fibre.
There's
a basket of fibre located in Central Newfoundland that was left to the province
after they expropriated the mill in Grand Falls, incorrectly expropriated the
mill, and left us with a burden of environment concerns.
Mr.
Speaker, we will work with the people of that region to make the best use of the
resource that's there.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
The January CBC story gave
false hope to many in the Botwood area, but we now know that a deal is not
imminent and much work remains to be done to even know if such operation is
viable. People deserve to know the facts rather than the political spin.
When
does the minister expect the deal with NewGreen to be finalized?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources has just stated, there's a tremendous
opportunity for the fibre that exists in Central Newfoundland and Labrador.
There is a company that is interested. They are certainly working through their
process. There was an agreement in principle put in place. They will go out and
do their financing or do their process that takes place to realize opportunities
that exist from this fibre and make appropriate investments and go through that
process.
We're
always open at the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for
anybody who has a business proposal or wants to do business in Newfoundland and
Labrador, to have that discussion with our team of experts that we would have in
business analysis and individuals to advance the economy.
We've
had a lot of great discussions with the MHA for Exploits and advancing that
issue for Central Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, why was the CEO
position at the English School District not made through the Independent
Appointments Commission?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm really glad
the Member asked this question because I think it's an important lesson about
the, I guess we call, signature legislation that we introduced here in the House
of Assembly last year.
The
English School District is by legislation independent of this House of Assembly
to a degree. Therefore, it is exempt from Bill 1, the Independent Appointments
Commission legislation, because the trustees who they prevented from being
elected for years, the trustees who were elected last November when we returned
democratic governance to the school districts, they decide that not the
Department of Education or any Member in here.
If he
wants to be involved with that maybe you should run for the school board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
This is the minister who
talks about the same trustees that he doesn't take their recommendations
seriously, particularly, around building schools.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
With respect to the new
contract, did the minister make any changes to the conflict of interest clauses
for the new CEO?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the
Member to listen when he asks a question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KIRBY:
I mean, really. I just said
we don't make that decision here. I have advised the chair of the board of
trustees of my concern. I can provide him with a copy of that letter if he'd
like. I have advised the chair of the board of trustees of my concern regarding
conflict of interest but, again, unlike the previous administration that decided
to run the school district from the eighth floor of this building, we are
letting the trustees do the job that they were democratically elected to do next
November. When they arrive at that decision they will make that determination.
I'm not
going to dictate to them like the four ministers that stood here when I was in
Opposition (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I think history will show
something different in the near future.
On the
day that the former CEO resigned, the minister stated that he was concerned
because of an indisputably perceived conflict of interest.
Did the
minister feel the same concern when he found out about the clerk's conflict?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly happy to stand up here today and speak about conflicts of interest.
Again, it's something the Premier has noted that we're going to look at this
legislation which is quite dated and the previous administration, which had over
a decade in office, had an opportunity to fix. As we've been doing in the last
17 months not 24, I would say to the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune
we'll fix this up the same way we've been fixing many things up.
The
Member likes to talk about conflicts of interest, but I still haven't heard a
good answer of why they let deputy ministers resign to run elections and then
get rehired the next day without any competition. I look forward to that answer.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
We've seen recently about
firing people and then hiring back some of their own friends, so there's a
conflict.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, last year,
Coley's Point Primary and the school in the Mobile region were axed from the
government's plan. One year later, and the Liberals fund a school in the Liberal
district but ignore the other.
Why is
the minister playing politics with our children's education?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, it's highly
ironic that the Member stands in his place and talks about hiring his friends.
He should look behind him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
During a hiring freeze in
this province he hired the gentleman who now is in the seat for CBS. He hired
him during a hiring freeze as his second executive assistant, which doesn't
exist anywhere in our government. He made a special position to hire his friend
after he didn't get elected in a by-election.
Now, if
that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I mean,
really.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Their leader said recently
that we should remember history. He should remember his own history. So the next
time he talks about conflict of interest, please just turn around and look at
the gentleman sitting behind you before you make allegations about this
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I must remind the minister,
it's not funny when people expect access to proper education and so does Coley's
Point, but so does Mobile and so does Riverside Elementary also.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
It's not funny around
education.
When
asked in Estimates about the cost of the EY library report, the minister told us
to check what the media had reported.
Considering the library report is months overdue, their cost of over $187,000,
are there any additional costs added to the EY consultant's costing?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know
where, again, the Member gets his information from. This report is not overdue.
When it was initiated, at the request of the provincial libraries board, I gave
a ballpark figure, I suppose I was trying to estimate when I thought, last
June, when it might be released.
So there
was no deadline put in place. We wanted the work to get down properly. I am
pleased to advise the Members of the House of Assembly that I understand that
report will be released imminently. When that report is released, I will provide
a full accounting of what it cost.
But
again, we're not going to be lectured by people about cost. They spent $40
million on the Corner Brook hospital and all we got is an expensive dog park.
They know nothing about financial management, and I'm not going to be lectured
by people who manage money like that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to point out to the Minister of Education in November of 2015
the people of CBS hired me, and I'm very proud to represent them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Minister, you confirmed in
Estimates that your government would be relocating Crown Lands to Corner Brook
on July 1.
Can you
confirm today that the move to Corner Brook is still scheduled for July 1?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
Member for the question. The relocation to Corner Brook is something that's a
priority of our government because of our emerging priority that we've placed on
agriculture, and it's about breaking down silos.
Mr.
Speaker, what I can tell the Member opposite is we're going to work with our
employees and we're going to work with our bargaining unit to make sure this
transition is as seamless as possible for those who wish to take positions in
Corner Brook.
Mr.
Speaker, right now we're working with our employees to have the relocation to
Corner Brook completed by the 1st of September.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
he confirmed there is a change of dates. You also said in Estimates you would
have all Crowns Lands records digitized by the end of August over 70,000 of
them; many of which are very fragile and require special care. We learned that
you just started to digitize Crown Lands records last week.
Are you
delaying the move to Corner Brook because now you admit the move was poorly
thought out and you cannot get the required work done?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.
The Member stands up here and asks us questions week after week about Crown
Lands. He never does bring out the facts; I guess it's the alternate facts
again. Because the reality is, the Crown Lands office in St. John's will still
be there. So if a person in this province wants to do a Crown Lands application
in St. John's, the office will still be there to do that, Mr. Speaker.
The work
in the vault is on track. The work in the vault actually came out of the
Lands Act review that was done by the
previous administration. This is not a new thing. They identified the problem
and we're fixing it.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South, for a quick question.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
second largest municipality in the province and one of the fastest growing,
isn't it time now to consider a dedicated police detachment of the community of
CBS?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
appreciate the question from the Member and recognize the growing community of
CBS. In fact, I'll be out there tomorrow to recognize the police officers of the
year, and I look forward to that and invite the Member to show up.
What I
can say at this point is that, on many occasions, my staff and I have had
conversations with the community about policing. This issue has not been raised,
but my office is always to open to listen to representation to ensure that we
continue to provide safe policing to every part of this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Government plans to eliminate the MCP fee code that pays doctors to give flu
shots. We are told people can go to community health clinics, but community
health clinics are limited in number and already have long wait times.
I ask
the Minister of Health and Community Services what extra resources has he put
into community health clinics to accommodate thousands of additional clinics as
doctors stop holding flu shot clinics.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
it would illustrate things better that if you have a patient with a belly ache,
they go to their family doctor. The family doctor bills the taxpayers $31. If
they're offered a flu shot at the same time, the family doctor extra bills the
taxpayer $17 for a service that can be provided down the corridor, free of
charge, no extra charge to the system. That is the logic behind the change.
There
has been no reduction in the availability of flu vaccines. The vast majority of
doctor-administered flu vaccines are done in the setting of existing community
clinics.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There's
no hall going down to a clinic when I go to my doctor, so I don't know what he's
talking about.
Doctors
administer flu shots to 60,000 people annually, half the provincial total. We
have the second lowest flu shot uptake in the country, which could get worse. In
2015-2016 there were 218 flu hospitalizations, 49 ICU admissions and 8 deaths.
I ask
the minister: How many more costly hospitalizations and deaths will occur by
closing off this vital access to immunizations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
If the
Member opposite wishes to visit her family physician for an office visit, she
can still receive the flu shot. It will be provided free of charge both to her
and the family physician concerned.
There's
no diminution in access, Mr. Speaker. It's simply a question of reducing extra
billing and using people to their full scope of practice. We really don't want
physicians with 10 years of training sticking needles in folks when there are
nurses down the corridor who can do the job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, on December 6
the minister held a news conference promising access to Suboxone for opioid
addiction treatment, saying it is a safer alternative to methadone and less
prone to overdose. Six-and-a-half months later the province is deep in an opioid
and fentanyl drug crisis, people are overdosing and some dying. Suboxone is
still not readily available.
I ask
the minister: Why has he not been able to make this happen and roll out Suboxone
as he had promised?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
I'd like to take the opportunity to also mention that whilst unfortunately there
have been some fatalities from fentanyl, there have also been 19 lives saved due
to the measures we took with the naloxone kits. The issue around Suboxone is
regulated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of this province, and we
have been engaged actively in attempting to reduce some of these regulatory
barriers. We continue to work on those.
Suboxone
is certainly a much safer alternative and I think ultimately will turn into the
first line of treatment. But there are some regulatory barriers that the
profession has to help me with at the moment and I'm working with them on that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, he has
six-and-a-half months and still no sign of a solution.
Mr.
Speaker, because of the fentanyl crisis, more people are desperately seeking
treatment for opioid addiction, yet still have to wait at least three weeks for
an initial screening appointment with the Opioid Treatment Centre. Then they
have to have a series of tests that can take up to 10 days or more for results.
Addictions do not do well on wait-lists.
I ask
the minister: What is he doing to put resources in place to speed up this
process as other provinces have done?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite, having sat on the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions,
would be quite familiar with a lot of the discussions that we have had around
trying to deal with this emerging problem. There is, in the very near future, a
full implementation plan for the All-Party Committee which will go a long way to
answer a lot of her questions.
In
addition to that, there is $5 million in this year's budget to begin immediately
implementing those. In addition, there is $2.7 million of federal money which we
can put into mental health and addictions at that point. She knows the answers
to some of her questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
In accordance with
subsections 273(3) and 299(3) of the
Elections Act, 1991, I
hereby table the supplementary schedule of contributions from the annual report
on election finances January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 by the Office of the
Chief Electoral Officer.
Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, in accordance
with provisional Standing Order 11(1), I give notice under the same order that
the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 29, 2017.
Further,
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the same Standing Order 11(1), I give notice
that the House shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 30, 2017.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
we insist that the well-being and safety of our families take priority over any
economic consideration; and
WHEREAS
we reject in advance any Nalcor-led plan to send its experts to Labrador to
inform; and
WHEREAS
we are calling for a process where independent experts are provided with
everything they need to ascertain the safety of the North Spur, i.e., the proper
mandate, documents, financing and time; and
WHEREAS
we demand this process have a public component where we the people can have
access and can ask questions; and
WHEREAS
the Premier promised to open the books on Muskrat Falls and so far that has not
happened;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to consider the establishment of an independent
expert review of the North Spur.
And as
in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Once
again, Mr. Speaker, I stand with this petition that is being sent in so that
this issue can be raised here in the House of Assembly. I'm very happy to do
that on behalf of the people who signed the petition in particular, and also the
people in Labrador in general who continue to get signatures for this petition
because of their great concern.
I am not
in any way saying that what's happening in Mud Lake right now is because of
Muskrat Falls, but I think what's happening in Mud Lake right now is something
that we really need to look at and look at what would happen if we have a major
fault of the dam in Muskrat Falls.
We all
know one place that will definitely get impacted would be Mud Lake. We also see
with what's happening today that even parts of Happy Valley-Goose Bay are being
affected by the flooding because of what's happening in the climate right now,
what's happening in weather in Labrador.
Once
again, I'm not blaming it on Muskrat Falls. That's not what I'm saying, but it
is a warning of what can happen if anything, a major fault would happen because
of the North Spur. I don't know, to me it's really timely, unfortunate I feel
awful for the people in Mud Lake and anybody else, especially there in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, who may be affected by this. It's horrible, but how much more
we should say we can't, we have to make sure everything is done to ensure that
this kind of flooding couldn't happen because of a fault at Muskrat Falls.
The
experts around the world who are questioning the stability of the North Spur
need to be taken into consideration, and I don't think this government has done
that. I don't think Nalcor has done it. I think what the people in Labrador are
calling for and what those who signed the petition are calling for needs to be
paid attention to.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has removed the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books which
will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and
WHEREAS
an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
bookstores, publishers and authors and the amount collected by government must
be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada and the
other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to encourage
reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS
this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers but we
will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government
a tax to read the books of our own writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sale tax on books.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't know how many times I've stood in this House and read this
petition, and then spoke to the petition in terms of how short sighted this tax
on books really is, and how detrimental it is in a number of ways. I can't
imagine there is any other argument that I haven't covered as to why this tax is
regressive, is detrimental, does not strengthen or empower our citizens, our
communities, our retailers. It just simply makes no sense. It's an ill-thought
out regressive tax that is harmful; harmful to the literacy rates of the
province.
Again,
our province has the lowest literacy rate. It's mystifying to people all over
the province, and I'm sure it's mystifying to people on the other side of the
House. I know there are government Members who feel this really makes no sense
whatsoever to put this additional tax on books. Again, reminding everybody that
this tax is not implemented anywhere else in Canada, only in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Once again, here we are with the lowest literacy rates, the highest
illiteracy rates.
I
believe this is a tax that is a result of a lack of understanding of really what
taxes should do. It's a tax that flies in the face of reason. It's not based on
any kind of evidence to show there is benefit to the people of the province.
Taxes really should benefit people. There is no perceivable benefit to this type
of tax.
We've
seen that government has had to rescind part of their gas tax. We've seen
government has had to roll back some of its levy tax, the Liberal levy tax. So
they should do the right thing and abolish this tax as well, reinstate the
point-of-sale rebate on books in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure today to rise and present a petition on behalf of
constituents of the Ferryland District.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Goulds Bypass is a major route that most residents of the Southern Shore use
to commute to St. John's; and
WHEREAS
the condition of the Goulds Bypass is in a very deplorable state; and
WHEREAS
the condition of this piece of highway is putting commuters safety at risk;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to take necessary actions to do the necessary
repairs to the Goulds Bypass.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
For
those familiar with the Southern Avalon, the Goulds Bypass or actually Robert
E. Howlett, it's in memorial of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That piece of
highway was built a number of years ago for the purpose of improving the traffic
link from the Southern Shore to the St. John's region.
With the
expansion of the boundary of St. John's extended up to Middle Pond, to the
border of Bay Bulls, that's significant piece of highway in regard to traffic
for commerce, for people travelling for work, for a number of activities back
and forth and for the companies and businesses that support along the Southern
Shore and the Southern Avalon. Whether it's the fabrication, whether it's the
fishing industry, small business, a wide array of activities there that this is
needed for.
Unfortunately, two years ago, in 2015, we did some upgrades in regard to six
kilometres of paving there, levelling, which held up well, but there are other
sections that certainly need to be done and we were hopeful that they would be
in the long-term plan in regard to what TW has put out.
We've
never gotten the list of all roads that were assessed, so I don't know where
that road has been in regard to being assessed. We'd certainly like to find out
and where the work is, to do the repairs to it. Because for economic, for
residential and for all those activities, it is needed. I think the criteria for
that, that the minister said when he assessed roads in Newfoundland and Labrador
whether they would fit the bill for the long-term maintenance of highways, that
it would fit in.
The
other unfortunate part of this administration, we had approved an extension to
the Robert E. Howlett to bring it 9.6 kilometres into the Bay Bulls region.
Unfortunately again in their wisdom, on the other side, they saw a lack of
vision and they cancelled this. When you look at the growth and the other things
we're seeing in the region and we know of the poor decision to cancel the new
middle school as well.
Nevertheless, the people of the region, there's growth there, a lot of activity.
This government talks about economic development and you have to put the
resources in place, whether it's highway or schools, to make sure we need the
needs of the region. We certainly implore government to revisit this and do what
needs to be done in regard to this highway, the Robert E. Howlett.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
A
petition to the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
school-age children are walking to school in areas where there are no sidewalks,
no traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks; and
WHEREAS
they have put the safety of these children at risk;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure safety of all children by removing the
1.6 kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
This is
not the first time that I've presented this petition; it's a petition that I've
presented now since we've been in Opposition. It's a concern I've had since I've
been here in government.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a lot of areas in the province that have sidewalks and have
safe walking areas to and from school. Some areas don't have the same traffic
congestion that I do have in my area. On Torbay Road where I have Torbay
Elementary School and now the new Torbay middle school there are 17,000 cars a
day travelling along those roads. It is very dangerous for the children to be
walking along those roads.
I know
it's a policy that's in there and there's a cost related to it and the distance
between school and getting home and stuff like that. And 1.6 kilometres may not
seem a long distance, but it is quite the distance for families to be concerned
about their children walking back and forth, especially in the winter months.
I know
that in some areas they do clear if you're in the St. John's area, the
sidewalks get cleared. Schools are a priority. But in the area like Torbay where
they don't have sidewalks and you have children walking back and forth to
school, it's very dangerous because there's a lot of ice and the snow doesn't
get plowed back as far as what it would if the sidewalks were cleaned.
I'd
really like and I know the minister had this concern himself when he was on
this side of the House because he presented a similar petition all the time. I'm
hoping that the minister will find the money and the resolve to be able to fix
this problem because it's a serious concern.
In
Torbay where there's a new school just opened I spoke to a parent just
recently and the concern was that the kids were used to going back and forth on
the bus but where the new school was put to, they had to walk. He said grade
fives and grade sixes, they are a bit rambunctious as they are going to school
and pushing and shoving, like we did when we were at their age. He was concerned
about the safety of them going back and forth.
I ask
the minister to seriously consider this, where safety is a major issue, to take
this policy out of place.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand again and present a petition.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
there's been an identified lack of mental health services in our province's K to
12 school system; and
WHEREAS
the lack is having a significant impact on both the students and teachers; and
WHEREAS
left unchecked matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious
issues;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs
in our province's K to 12 school system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we've identified, in our discussions around education for the last
number of years, that there are obviously some serious challenges there. Society
has some different challenges now than faced previous generations and, as a
result, kids are facing stressors. There are issues around mental health that
are now coming to the forefront. There are issues within the school system.
As we
change the dynamic of our schools geographically, they are larger. Class sizes
are larger. Integration is part of it. There are a multitude of students who
have some particular challenges, which indeed adds to the stresses within the
classroom system, adds to the inability, in some cases, of being able to
supervise in a proper manner and address some of the particular issues; but if
you have also societal issues around mental health, they obviously are going to
carry over to the younger generation.
What
we're hearing from experts, what we've heard from the All-Party Committee on
Mental Health in their report, was if we're proactive versus just being reactive
and I know we have to be reactive because certain situations already exist and
we have to be able to address those and we have to try to mitigate any impact
they have on students, our school system, the people who provide our education,
the families who take care of their loved ones and their children day in and day
out.
We have
to take a two-fold approach here. One has to be: We have to work with our
educators, provide them the resources, the education, the supports necessary so
they can help identify particular issues around mental health in the school
system, do some primary interventions, do some assessments and be able to guide
where the proper perceived intervention may be available. That has to come
through a partnership. To develop that partnership, you have to have all
stakeholders.
So we
need to take the lead here, government needed to take the lead and particularly
the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and the Department
of Health need to obviously look at how you integrate and develop programs that
meet the needs in our school. There is no doubt there is a collaborative
approach here by everybody that has the ability to put programs and services in
place.
As we
noted in the past, K to 12 are getting larger. There are more integrated
programs and services that are needed. We need to have a strategy around mental
health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Particularly as it relates to
students because the plan here and the investment here would be beneficial
because if we can alleviate some of the issues facing young people in the
younger years, that will eliminate it in the later years.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would call
Order 7, second reading of Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 10, An Act
To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 10 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act.
(Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
legislation change will ensure milk quality and a penalty program is in place,
but before I go into details on that program I would like to provide some
background on the Natural Products
Marketing Act.
In
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Natural
Products Marketing Act allows the minister to establish plans for the
promotion, control, regulation or prohibition of the production of marketing of
a natural product. These plans provide for an establishment of a commodity board
and outline their powers, functions and duties for the application and the
enforcement of that plan.
In the
case of dairy, the commodity board is the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the scheme is the Milk Scheme of 1998.
Newfoundland and Labrador's supervisory board is the Farm Industrial Review
Board which was established under the
Natural Products Marketing Act to control and direct the operation of
commodity boards. Given that the commodity boards are empowered to regulate
their own industry, there is a need for an oversight body. The Farm Industrial
Review Board provides a link between the commodity board and the government to
ensure commodity boards operate with the best interest of the public.
Currently, the act does not address issues governing milk quality or provide
commodity boards with the powers to enforce quality standards and penalties. As
a result, an amendment is required to the
Natural Products Marketing Act so that it will provide the Dairy Farmers of
Newfoundland and Labrador with the tools to implement the milk quality and
penalty program.
To
summarize on why we need this amendment, the
Natural Products Marketing Act only provides for the establishment
of commodity boards which doesn't include dairy. Currently, milk quality
standards are covered under food premises regulations but if this amendment is
accepted, the act will allow for it and will make the necessary changes to the
regulations.
This is
an important amendment, as it ensures we are becoming in line with the rest of
Canada and will continue to produce some of the best milk products in the world.
Canadian milk standards are seen as some of the most stringent in the world.
Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador are committed to maintaining their
place as an international leader for milk quality.
The
Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador have been working with their
counterparts in other provinces to move towards harmonizing their milk quality
standards, which is what we are doing today. This amendment will allow the
implementation of penalties for non-compliance through the new milk quality and
penalty program.
This is
a producer driven initiative to ensure processors located in and outside the
province have the same high level of quality standards that are applied to all
other Canadian dairies. Today's amendment will ensure that milk produced in this
province will have the same standards and quality for production purposes.
As
Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, I am mandated to promote economic
growth in the agriculture industry. Our government recognizes the unique nature
of this industry, and through Budget 2017,
we are following through with our commitment to expand this sector.
Dairy
farms are the largest of all of our agriculture commodities produced in
Newfoundland and Labrador, accounting for 36 per cent of our farm gate receipts.
Farms in Newfoundland and Labrador produced 48½ million litres of milk in 2016
worth almost $48 million at the farm gate.
This
industry is comprised of 28 separate enterprises. Approximately 60 per cent of
these farms are located on the East Coast. The largest amount of production
occurs on the West Coast of our province, and that's where we have farms on the
West Coast that are among the largest in the country. Over 20 per cent of the
milk produced in our province today is shipped to processors outside the
province for secondary processing. We are currently looking at opportunities to
attract proposals for secondary processing in our province, as this will further
expand our efforts to become more food self-sufficient.
The
implementation of this amendment will likely result in an expansion of our dairy
sector; agriculture development has reached a pivotal point in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Our government recognizes the importance of providing as much locally
produced food as possible to our residents. Current production is meeting only
10 per cent of our food requirements. We are making a number of strides to
increase our food self-sufficiency. Increasing food self-sufficiency is one of
more than 50 initiatives outlined in The
Way Forward: A Vision for Sustainability and Growth in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Newfoundland and Labrador produces enough of the supply managed commodities such
as milk, chickens and eggs for our own requirements; however, we import about 90
per cent of the other food requirements via marine transportation. Opportunities
exist to increase production levels of almost all agricultural products,
including dairy for secondary processing.
In
February, we announced that farmers and agricultural producers will have almost
double the amount of land available to them through Crown Lands reservation
prioritized for the agriculture production. We identified 62 areas of interest,
making up approximately 64,000 hectares to increase agriculture development.
These areas contain lands considered to be sufficient for agricultural
importance due to soil characteristics and accessibility. Reserving Crown lands
within these agricultural development areas is an important step for expanding
our industry.
Local
farmers and businesses recognize the need to obtain a greater share of the local
market or to expand into new markets, and it's up to us as a government to help
them achieve those goals.
In
conclusion, this is a good amendment to move forward on. It will ensure our milk
remains consistent with national standards and is on the same high quality, as
these amendments ensure quality assurance related to processing of dairy
products. Raw milk of a lower quality has a negative impact on the entire
sector.
Our
dairy farmers in Newfoundland and Labrador are aware of the statistics and are
aware the implementation date of this program will be August 1. In fact, the
decision was approved at the semi-annual meeting of the Dairy Farmers of
Newfoundland and Labrador membership and therefore applies to all dairy farmers.
This is
an amendment our dairy farmers want and are eagerly waiting to implement. I ask
Members to also support this amendment, and I do look forward to today's debate.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all I want to thank the minister's staff who provided us a
briefing the other day. They did a great job, very thorough, and I want to
acknowledge them and thank them very much. It was appreciated.
The
minister just stated in Bill 10, under the
Natural Products Marketing Act, the changes that were already read. It's
important changes. It's a quality assurance piece, I guess, is more the thing.
Our milk products right now are at a great standard, but this is just to ensure
they stay at those standards. It's tightening up quality assurance, which is a
good thing.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Farm Industry Review Board is an administrative
tribunal a statutory appeal body with additional responsibilities for the
general supervision of the marketing boards operating in the agriculture
sectors.
The
board's responsibility under the Natural
Products Marketing Act is to serve as a supervisory board with the power and
authority under the Act to control and direct the operations of the provincial
commodity boards including Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Egg
Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Under
the Natural Products Marketing Act the
Farm Industry Review Board is responsible for general supervision of the
operations of commodity board created under that Act; hearing appeals filed by
any person who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with orders, decisions or
determination of the commodity boards; and acting as a signatory to federal
provincial agreements for supply-managed commodities.
Currently, through the Natural Products
Marketing Act, the minister can establish schemes plans for promotion,
control, regulation or prohibition of the production and marketing of a natural
product. These schemes provide for the establishment of the commodity boards and
outline their powers, functions and duties for the application and enforcement
of the scheme.
There
are currently three commodity boards in Newfoundland and Labrador: the Dairy
Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Egg Farmers of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, as I already
stated.
Mr.
Speaker, these amendments to the Natural
Products Marketing Act will allow for the implementation of milk quality and
penalty program. The scheme that governs the milk board is the
Milk Scheme, 1998. The regulations
under the Milk Scheme apply to all producers and processors engaged in the
production of milk and marketing of milk. The regulations govern such things as
licensing, production quotas, production levies, production pricing and
inspections. The Farm Industry Review Board is also established under the
Natural Products Marketing Act.
The
board is a regulatory, adjudicated body responsible for the general supervision
of provincial agriculture commodity boards, and the Dairy Farmers of
Newfoundland and Labrador have requested approval to allow them to implement a
raw milk quality and penalty program.
As you
can see, this is coming from the industry, which anything that is industry
driven to approve quality assurances in something like this and helps the
industry is always a good thing. It's nice to see it coming from the industry as
opposed to the other way around. A lot of times government initiates stuff; this
is the industry asking the government to help them to make their products safer
and to help them grow their industry. So that's always good to see, Mr. Speaker.
This
program will include new stricter milk quality standards, increased testing,
frequencies and associated penalties for non-compliance. The program has been
approved by the board and would be effective following the legislative
amendment. The amendment will allow the minister to confer upon the commodity
board the power to impose penalties, prescribe quality standards and give the
board the power to hear and determine appeals in relation to suspension and the
revocation of licences.
Mr.
Speaker, I guess the next comments will be basically what we've kind of arrived
at, why the board wants this amendment Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and
Labrador, I should say, want this amendment.
Milk has
always been tested for quality according to the National Dairy Code standards
and is subject to inspection of quality control by Service NL under the
Food Premises Act and the
Food Premises Regulations. The Dairy
Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador recently entered into an agreement with
other provinces which will require the milk and quality testing to follow the
same standards across Canada. This is why I referenced the quality assurance
piece; it is actually improving upon what we already have, and I'll get to that
in a minute.
The new
program will allow the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador to prescribe
quality standards and issue penalties as a condition of the producer's licence.
All other provinces are set up this way. So again, it is keeping in line with
the remainder of all the provinces across the country.
It's a
nationally based program that will ensure all provinces follow a coherent set of
standards and testing. All provinces have committed to implementing this by
August of 2017, so in the very near future.
The
purpose of the milk quality and penalty program is to maintain and strengthen
current Canadian milk quality standards and initiate the enforcement of strict
monetary penalties associated with these standards across provinces. It's not
anticipated that this program will result in widespread application of
penalties; rather, it will provide an incentive for them to produce and maintain
quality milk. It will also strengthen our reputation with processors who expect
quality milk.
The
industry has provided strong support for the province and the Dairy Farmers of
Newfoundland and Labrador to proceed with this change. Because there is no
secondary processing in the province, our milk quota for secondary processing is
currently pooled with milk from the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick,
PEI and Nova Scotia, which is referred to as the P5 provinces, Mr. Speaker.
In order
to ensure the consistent quality amongst farmers is ultimately pooled milk,
implementation of a collective milk quality program is required. This will
provide processors, as well as other provinces, with assurances that all milk is
produced in accordance with the same high standards.
The
Milk Scheme, 1998 and the
Milk Regulations, 1998 will be amended
to provide the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador with the authority to
implement the program and include program specifics: milk quality standard,
penalty levels and shut-off levels respectively.
Mr.
Speaker, in summary, some remarks I want to make. Through the supply of
management, each province receives a quota for milk, eggs and chicken. The
provincial boards then allocate the quotas to existing and new farmers. These
quotas ensure that each province has enough milk products for their residents. I
learned a lot of this the other day through our briefing. It was pretty
educational. I thought it was quite interesting, actually.
Within
Newfoundland and Labrador, all the fluid milk, drinking milk that is sold here
is produced here, with the exception of lactose-free and UHT milk. Industrial
milk, which is produced in this province, is shipped to other provinces to make
ice cream, cheese, yogurt and other secondary products. This is done as the
facilities to process such volume of secondary products are not in our province.
The amount of industrial milk shipped out is relative to the amount of secondary
products shipped in.
The
Newfoundland dairy farmers have now signed an agreement with the P5, as I said:
Ontario, Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Quebec, which will see our
secondary processing take place in those provinces. In order to ensure this can
occur, the province needs to have the same quality standard as those provinces.
This agreement will guarantee that the farmers will have buyers for their
industrial milk and guarantees them a price for it. Newfoundland farmers will
actually get a higher price than PEI farmers for industrial milk.
The
quality of milk will need to be better than 400,000 somatic cell counts.
Currently, the testing which occurs is done by Service NL, as per the act. Dairy
cows must have a standard of better than a human health standard of 500 somatic
cell counts. Obviously, it's 100,000 less under this new proposal here which,
again, I'll refer to as a quality assurance piece.
During
our briefing, we were also told that, I think, there's one dairy farm that they
can recall ever reached the 500,000 level. So the odds of anyone ever reaching
that was the one time that it happened. Now we're lowering it to 400,000, and
once again, the dairy farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador are the ones
initiating and driving for this change. That's good to see, Mr. Speaker.
Through
the new program, the standard which will be enforced by the dairy farmers will
be better than the human health standard, which is a good thing. The enforcement
of this new standard is not expected to be an issue as the vast majority of
farms now well exceed the 400,000 somatic cell count standard.
The
Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador have asked for the amendment, and are
all in the support of the new regulatory framework which this legislation will
allow.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, and once again, his staff for providing
us with a briefing. This is a piece of legislation that we will be supporting.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. George's Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a few minutes to say a few words about this bill, and more
specifically, about the dairy industry in the province and to pay tribute to
some of the people in the dairy industry in this province.
It's
good to see this legislation come forward and it's good to see that it seems to
be accepted on all side of the House. That's very encouraging that people
recognize the importance of the dairy industry in this province and the
importance of this piece of legislation to the dairy industry.
I just
want to say, the dairy industry in this province has an interesting history.
There are some people who, at the beginning of the dairy industry, thought that
a dairy industry couldn't exist in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador
because we couldn't grow the grains here that we needed to support a dairy
industry. We had to import some of our grains.
A number
of families specifically, I want to mention a few of them that are from my
area: the Cormiers of the Codroy Valley; the Chaffeys from St. David's,
Maidstone; the Wells of Robinsons and the Simmons from Little Rapids. Those are
some of the families that sort of played a big part in the development of this
dairy industry in this province, when many people were saying that we shouldn't
have a dairy industry, that we couldn't have a dairy industry. They ignored all
of that. They went about their work day to day and created a dairy industry that
is such a big part of our farming economy in this province.
It's
interesting, Mr. Speaker, that these families continue to be innovative.
Innovative in the way they run their farms. Innovative in the way they use
technology on their farms. Innovative in the crops they grow. Only 20 or 30
years ago, people would tell you we can't grow corn in Newfoundland. Well, on
the West Coast of this province now there is over 1,000 acres of corn being
grown each year. That has a big impact on the dairy industry and the ability of
our dairy industry to survive.
Also, I
think we should mention the role of the department in terms of experimenting
with new crops and, in partnership with farmers, developing new crops such as
winter wheat and canola, the importance that these locally grown varieties and
the success of growing and processing these here in this province, have on the
viability of our dairy industry. The role of the department in doing that is
very important. I just want to recognize the role that the department has played
in encouraging that type of experimentation, partnering with farmers to expand
the types of crops that we can grow in this province.
Also, it
is interesting to know that we often think of farming and dairy farming as a low
technology sort of activity, but if you look at the modern dairy farms today
you'll find computers are a big part of the operation there. Several of the
farms are recognized as leaders in the technology that they're using in their
farms. They're dealing with environmental issues in innovative ways. They're
pushing things forward in the way they manage their herds, to manage their
reproduction.
If you
look at farms I visited, a number of the farms in my own district, some of them
have one of the farmers has a cellphone and he sort of manages the farm sort
of from his cellphone. He has sort of a robotic system that milks cows and if
there's a problem on the farm with the system, it notifies him through his
cellphone and he can sort of go and deal with the problem.
It's
very interesting that agriculture is becoming a high-tech industry and the
quality of the milk that we produce in this province is second to none in the
world. Milk is a very regulated product around the world. It's something that's
consumed and requires good regulation to maintain the quality. So I'm pleased to
see that farmers are accepting that and looking at ways they can continue to
improve their quality.
We
produce fluid milk, milk that we consume in stores, but also we've been making
strides in terms of industrial milk quota in this province. I think some of
these farmers are innovative enough that I think you're going to see some
secondary processing of that industrial quota in short time. So it's very
interesting. It's very positive.
I just
wanted to take those few minutes to pay tribute to the dairy farmers who are
really doing a positive job here in this province.
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
really pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to this bill, the bill to amend
the Natural Products Marketing Act
because I just believe there's so much that can happen in agriculture in our
province, so much that is happening and so much that we should be proud of, that
I'm delighted to be able to stand and speak to a bill that is dealing with that.
In this
case, of course, we're dealing with the whole issue of milk. I thank the
minister for his opening remarks, spelling out what the bill is about. I thank
his department, also his officials for meeting with MHAs and researchers to
explain the bill as well so that we can understand what it is we are voting for.
One of
the things that is very interesting I think there are a lot of things I've
learned because of this bill, and that's exciting. One is the wonderful quality
of our milk. Now, one of the things about this bill is it is dealing with making
sure we have regulations that prescribe in writing what is demanded in the
quality, if we are to continue sending milk for industrial purposes outside of
the province, to be used by industry outside of the province.
It turns
out that, in actual fact, while we'll prescribe it and put it in writing, we
have tremendous high quality. Milk is monitored and measured by what is called
the somatic cell counts. This testing is done not by the Department of Fisheries
and Land Resources but by the Department of Service NL under the authority of
the Food Premises Act and Food
Premises regulation.
In the
national standards, a cell count of 400,000 or less is required to meet the
standards of the provinces that we pool our milk with. It turns out the
regulations setting down that it's 400,000 or less is really way beyond what we
produce here in this province. In actual fact, our provincial milk quality is
almost always below 100,000. So the regulations are in place, they're
precautionary, but if we keep up this standard we have no worries. I think it's
marvellous that we have such a high standard.
The
breadth of the distance of where our milk goes, our milk is pooled with five
provinces that are called the P5 group: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, PEI and
Nova Scotia. That's where our milk goes and is used industrially; in other
words, in secondary processing.
One of
the sad things is that while we have fantastic milk producers and fantastic
farms, we no longer have any large-scale secondary processing. There are some
small artisan enterprises. For example, Five Brothers Cheese is one of the
things that come to mind, but we don't have any more secondary processing in the
province.
We used
to process in a large scale cheese, yogurt and ice cream. Of course, recently
with the closure or the loss of the Scotsburn factory, we ended any secondary
processing in the province. That is sad for a couple of reasons. One is part of
the food security that the minister was talking about, we're certainly
self-sufficient in milk for consumption, that's not the problem but we certainly
are not producing anything as a secondary product. That is disturbing. Again,
not just because of the whole issue of food security but also because of jobs.
Because when we lost the Scotsburn factory we also lost almost 200 jobs. This is
very disturbing.
It would
be very interesting to see could we, once again, in some of these areas become
competitive if we got more secondary processing going on. Maybe we can't. If we
can't, I understand part of that would be, I would imagine, economy of scale.
We're a very small population spread over a very large area, so that does
dictate some things. But at the same time, I wonder are we encouraging enough of
people, entrepreneurs, in the industry with milk who might get into secondary
processing of cheese, of yogurt, stuff that we did have secondary processing in.
In the
meantime, making sure that our producers here in Newfoundland and Labrador can
get the milk off the Island is extremely important. That's what the amendments
are about. The provincial dairy farmers' milk quota for secondary processing, as
I said, is currently pooled with milk products from the five provinces that I
mentioned. It's really important that our dairy farmers and we've had a
description of how successful they are, but it's really important that our dairy
farmers can continue to pool their product in this P5 group. The amendments to
the act and the regulations that will be brought in because of those amendments
are there to make sure that we will continue to meet the standards of the P5
provinces.
It's
absolutely important that all producers produce good quality, because one
producer pooling milk, one producer who does not have good quality can spoil it
for everybody else. So this is why it's so important that we now are putting in
place, in writing, prescriptions with regard to our production of milk so that
it can move off the Island. It can, because of being sent to industrial
customers, maintain a really strong industry here in the province of milk
production.
That
milk, the milk for consumers, we are sufficient in that, just as we are in eggs,
for example. So we have security when it comes to milk. We have security when it
comes to eggs.
With
these amendments, we are allowing or we are ensuring actually, that our milk
production will continue, will continue in a way that is good, both for the
producers of milk as well as for the economy of the province.
But I
do, once again, want to say I really would like to see whether or not government
is looking at can we support getting some secondary processing back here and tie
that with the need for jobs.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
once again an honour to stand here in the House of Assembly to speak to an issue
that's very important to the District of Bonavista. The agriculture industry is
a growing industry in my district. We actually have five families in the dairy
industry in my district, so I just wanted to acknowledge them, like my friend
and colleague did for Port au Port.
AN HON. MEMBER:
St. George's Humber.
MR. KING:
St. George's Humber, sorry.
I got the name wrong the other day.
Eric
Greening, Frazer Greening, Jeff Peddle and Jeff and Olive Greening and those
last two farms, Sunrise and Peddle's, they were recipients of awards last year
through the Newfoundland and Labrador dairy association. So it's great to see
that they're producing a very all farmers are producing high quality, but it's
nice to see some recognition, locally.
Finally,
I want to talk a little bit about William and Lucas Strong. Lucas is a very
young man, 20 years old and he's has Hillside Holsteins in Harcourt. I'm
honoured to take the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources there on Thursday
and we're going to, hopefully, do a tour sometime soon.
This act
itself is an amendment to the Natural
Products Marketing Act. This is a big step forward. I sat into the technical
brief on Monday and it was quite interesting. I was there for about an hour and
I took lots of notes, but this is a step forward for the Dairy Farmers of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It allows the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and
Labrador to self-govern themselves and have an ability to impose fines on
themselves, so that meets standards that are similar to other jurisdictions, Mr.
Speaker.
What
that does is it allows them to get into an agreement with other Eastern
provinces by August 1, 2017. Currently, from Quebec East to Nova Scotia, they
are all part of a group and hopefully this summer, with this legislation, that
will aid them getting into that group.
What the
group does, Mr. Speaker, is it allows us to export our raw milk, industrial
milk, out of the province. As the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi
stated, we would love to see more secondary processing here; however, given the
circumstances we're in, this is going to allow our diary producers to get a
better price in other parts of the country, and we can work hard towards
bringing secondary processing back here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I just
wanted to speak a couple of minutes on that.
One of
the things I did last fall when the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources
visited my district was visit a dairy farm: Sunrise Dairy on the road from
Musgravetown to Bunyan's Cove. Jeff and Olive have quite the operation there.
You go in and the first thing you notice is how clean everything is, how
organized everything is and how modern.
You look
at that facility, you walk in, you see where all the cows are and then you look
at how everything is automated. Then you look at another part, you go over and
see where the little calves are and rearing them up. They do everything so
precisely, so properly that they value, not just the milk that goes out, but the
animals there as well, because they realize that the animals there are their
livelihood. So they're treated very well. The young are treated very well
because that's the future of their business, of their farm.
It was
very, very interesting. It was the first time I had been to a dairy farm. I met
with dairy farmers previously when the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry
and Innovation was the minister. The five farmers that were there that day
certainly gave us some good input on how they would like to see our government
handle this industry. I think this legislation goes a long way in supporting
what they want to do.
The
great thing about this legislation I think all parties will support it is
the fact the industry supports this amendment. That's very important to note. We
consulted with industry. We listened to them. This will allow them, as I
mentioned, to form with the other eastern provinces when it comes to dairy
production; allows them to ship out their industrial milk to get a better price.
I will
fully be supporting this, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to stand and have a few comments on Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Natural
Products Marketing Act.
In my
own district, in regard to milk production, I have a number of dairy farms,
particularly in Bay Bulls and the Goulds region, and a long history of a
connection to agriculture and the dairy industry in those regions. It is
certainly important to our economy and important to the well-being of those
regions.
I was
just looking through the piece of legislation, I'll make some comments here and
maybe the minister, when he gets up in Committee or to close debate, can maybe
just respond to them. Just a couple of general thoughts I had reading through.
I know
we're talking about supply management here in regard to the particular piece of
legislation, I'm not sure and maybe you could comment if there's any change
or any effect in regard to supply management with this piece of legislation on a
provincial level. Then when you look at the recent agreement on internal trade
that was amended and now we've transferred over to, I think, the Canadian Free
Trade Agreement, which is in the process of being completed and signed off.
Are
there provisions in this that are needed or provisions here that are being
amended or are being enacted in legislation that are required, as requirements
to meet specific clauses of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement? If the minister
could give some comment on that. If there are, what they would be and what
connection there would be to this bill and the proposed Canadian Free Trade
Agreement.
Obviously, supply management, when entered into that, and as well the free flow
of products between provinces, between regions. I guess that's what the
amendment to the internal agreement on trade and the new agreement is all about,
to break down some of those boundaries, but yet recognizing, under supply
management, there are other protections that are there.
The
other one that I just wanted to ask about, I note going through, is obviously
it's about developing a Canadian standard in terms of quality. I think everybody
understands that. That's certainly in the right direction.
The
other one was the secondary processing piece. I think my colleague from the
Third Party just mentioned when she was up; talked about secondary processing in
the province. Our milk quota for secondary processing is currently pooled with
milk from, I think it's called P5 provinces: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, PEI
and Nova Scotia.
So maybe
the minister could speak to what the current status is in regard to secondary
processing and, in the future, if secondary processing and someone had quota
here and they wanted to invest in secondary processing, are there any
limitations to doing that or to opting out of this group? Could they do that?
Are there any limitations in this bill to do so?
I guess
that goes to the independence of someone here who wanted to go down that road
and get involved in secondary processing. So maybe the minister, when he gets
up, could comment on the whole secondary processing piece: where we are today,
what the rules are, how this legislation will affect it, if it will, and if it
does affect it, what those changes will be?
Then if
he could just comment on the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, some of the changes
here, is it required for the Canadian Free Trade Agreement? If not, why not?
I guess
the last piece is in regard to the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, CETA,
that Canada has with the EU from dairy products and what we're talking about
here. Is there any relation to that and is this, in any way, meeting any of the
requirements from a provincial jurisdiction perspective related to CETA?
So
that's my commentary, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'll do
my best to address the hon. Member's questions before I close debate.
This
change in the legislation we just reached an agreement with the P5, so the
agreement now is the P5 and NL. This legislative change is for that agreement,
not for the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. This was a part of our commitment to
the P5 for letting us be a part of that pool. It's now not going to be the P6,
it's going to be the P5 and Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope that answers one
of the questions.
The
question around secondary processing and it's linked to CETA. Under the CETA
agreement there is a new TRQ that the Government of Canada has received. It's
about 17,000 tons of cheese. Currently, there is about a 20,000 ton TRQ. So what
has happened I know our dairy industry has applications made for parts of this
TRQ.
The TRQ,
under CETA, is destined or designated for existing industry. We would hope that
our industry receives a portion of that. That would increase, obviously, our
secondary processing because one of the things that we see as fundamental for
the expansion of our dairy industry is secondary processing. It's fundamental to
growing the industry.
We have
support from the P5, and even the Canadian Dairy Association is supporting the
fact that Newfoundland and Labrador needs to become a part of secondary
processing in dairy because, I guess, if you look at it from a Canadian
provinces point of view or perspective, our milk is going into Atlantic Canada,
for example, and they would much prefer that our milk were to stay here and we
would use it ourselves instead of putting it into their markets.
I'm not
sure if that answers all the questions the Member opposite had, but certainly in
Committee, if there are more or if there's something that I need to get
clarification for them, I certainly will.
Mr.
Speaker, I do want to close debate now on second reading. I thank the staff at
Fisheries and Land Resources for the work they've put into this. I'd like to
thank the Dairy Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. They've done a
tremendous amount of work on this. Our Dairy Association has been very, very
active. They were just in Europe actually a few weeks ago looking for
perspective industry players to come to this province and establish secondary
processing.
I thank
all the Members who took part in the debate this afternoon. It's important, and
when we look around the province and we look at areas as the Member for
Bonavista pointed out quite clearly, his district is a hub for dairy production
in this province. Along with the Member for Ferryland, who has a considerable
amount of dairy production in his district as well; the Member for St. George's
Humber as well, who has one of the largest dairies in Canada located in his
district. I had the pleasure last year to actually tour that dairy and see the
tremendous operation they're running there, state of the art, and our dairy
industry in this province is state of the art.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, there are exciting opportunities in the dairy industry in this
province. We're going to continue to work extremely hard with the Dairy
Association, with Dairy Farmers NL, Young Farmers NL, to make sure that this
industry gets to a point where it's what it can be because this industry has
exciting opportunities before it. This change we're making to this piece of
legislation today will only be another tool for our industry.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 10 now be 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 (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Natural Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act, read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bills.
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.
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!
We are
now considering Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
minister, in second reading took up a question. So I'm just wondering if he
could clarify. He referenced CETA and (inaudible) ton TRQ. Is that related to,
and is in the CETA related to dairy products for Canada, and if Newfoundland
wanted to do secondary processing, would we have to apply to get a component of
that to export into the EU? Could you explain that, Minister, please?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's my
understanding that under that TRQ we would have to apply to get a piece of that
to go into Europe as tariff free. We can still do secondary processing and
export it into Europe or anywhere, but it would be subject to tariff if it
wasn't a piece of that TRQ.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Natural
Products Marketing Act.
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 10
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 Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam
Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 10.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 10.
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 (Warr):
The hon. the
Deputy Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 10 passed without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Deputy Chair reports
that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed her to report Bill 10 carried without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I
call Order 5, second reading of Bill 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 7, An Act
To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's been moved and
seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 be
now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service
Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy today to stand in this House and speak to Bill 7, which is An Act to Amend
the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.
As I
often want to do when I debate bills, I often talk about the purpose of them and
the size of them. So when you look at the actual bill and I would point out
that it's my understanding that Members of the Opposition have had the
opportunity to receive a briefing from the Department of Finance and their
staff.
This
bill has been on the Order Paper for some time now. I always want to make sure
and recognize the fact that (a) everybody has had a chance to review the
legislation, which I think is important, and (b) to thank the members of each
department who take the time to brief Members opposite, as well as the Members
of the caucus.
There's
a significant amount of time that goes into this and, as we all know, our
Department of Finance has certainly been busy, given the fact that our budget
just passed this week. We know how much time goes into that. So the fact that
they've been dealing with that, as well as dealing with these important pieces
of legislation, we want to thank them for all they've done and they do to make
sure that we're aware of the relevant legislation.
As you
can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill itself is not significant in terms of its actual
size. What I will do is I will discuss the explanatory notes and discuss the
actual provisions that are being changed here.
This act
is not an act that is being repealed; it's an act that's being amended. So we're
just amending the act from 1991 to reflect the quarterly payment amount required
to amortize the promissory note. It allows the name of the corporation to be
changed by a resolution of the board made by an affirmative vote of all the
directors and it amends the objects of the corporation.
Basically, this is something that was announced in the not to recent past.
Subsection 6.01(2) of the act is now repealed and the following substituted: The
promissory note that deals with this shall amortize $2,685,000,000 over 30 years
payable in quarterly instalments of $47,000,000 beginning March 31, 2015. So as
you can see, this is a backdated amount reflecting when this amount, this
promissory note is effective from.
Section
36.1 of the act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (5) the
following this is a new section (6) The name of the corporation may be
changed at any time by a resolution of the board made by the affirmative vote of
all the directors and notice of the change of name shall be published in the
Gazette and the change of name shall
have effect on the thirtieth day following the date of publication.
And
subsection (7) says: A change in the name of the corporation shall not affect
any rights or obligations of the corporation or render defective any legal
proceedings instituted by or against the corporation and any legal proceedings
that may have been continued or commenced by or against the corporation
.
Basically, what it's saying is that if, for some reason that would be
obviously identified if there is a change in name which has to be agreed to by
all the directors, said name change would not discontinue legal actions for or
against. That's a pretty standard provision.
Subsection 36.3 of the act is repealed and the following substituted: The
objects of the corporation are (a) to act as a trustee
; (b) to act as an
administrator of the pension plan, and to exercise those other powers and
perform those other duties as may be expressly conferred upon the corporation
under the joint sponsorship agreement; (c) to provide pension administration and
pension investment services
; and (d) to carry out other activities or duties
as may be authorized
.
Finally,
the commencement date, as we noted before, which is under Section 4: Section 1
is considered to have come into force on March 31, 2015.
Mr.
Speaker, as you can see, in terms of its actual size, there are only four
sections that are being either added or amended or repealed here. So I just
wanted to talk about a few of the different points that you see from this act.
Basically, this act doesn't contain new provisions, per se. It's basically
amendments that allow for greater clarity in the administration of pension plans
themselves. We're talking about quarterly schedules, name changes allowed by
resolutions and we're amending the objects of the corporation to enable the
corporation, which is administering this, to provide administrative and
investment services to other plans. I would assume that would be done to allow
for better administration of pension plans, because it doesn't matter which
pension plan you subscribe to or are party to, you want it to be administered to
the best benefit of the beneficiaries and the members of any plan.
We all
recognize the fact that our pension plans were not sustainable as they were.
We've had that discussion. Certainly, that's not something that's new. It's for
that reason that we, as a government, are working to bring sustainability to the
plans over the long term and to meet the needs of the public employees into the
future. We still talk about the unfunded pension liability that remains and work
continues to address this pension liability.
I know
that administrations in the past have had to deal with financial difficulties
that they faced. It seems like, as a province, we've dealt with that issue.
Certain administrations have faced, we'll say, greater challenges than other.
Other administrations, in fact, have had greater resources available to them
than perhaps others.
I don't
think it's any surprise that since the time we've come in here, the financial
challenges faced by our administration, I think, have been well documented and
well known. We've made that quite clear since we stepped in. As a government,
we've taken steps to reform the two largest public sector pension plans. These
are further steps in that direction.
These
amendments will allow for the continuation to reflect our obligations under the
Joint Sponsorship Agreement. All of us, any pensioner, want to see their plan
continue to be: (a) we need sustainability and (b) we'd like to see growth.
We're trying our best, as a government, to allow for these things to continue on
and to increase.
Our
Minister of Finance has done yeoman's work to make sure that this is happening.
She has taken on a significant challenge. I can't imagine I don't think I'm
overstepping my bounds by saying that I'm not aware of any other Finance
Minister that maybe has had greater challenges. The challenges that she faces
are just as great as those ministers previously have faced. She's done a great
job, but she's been able to do that job with the support of a great department
around her.
There
are a lot of good people who are working here, who have been doing that work for
some time. So I commend her for that work and I'm happy to support her in that
work.
Mr.
Speaker, on that note, I will take my seat. I look forward to the debate by my
colleagues opposite. I will get an opportunity at the end, obviously, to stand
and speak to this piece of legislation again.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Public Service
Pensions Plan.
The
changes proposed here will be retroactive changes to the Pensions Act to
reflect an amount to be required to be amortized in relation to the promissory
note, allow the name of the corporation to be changed and amend the objectives
of the corporation.
This was discussed as well in regard to the promissory note
in this particular budget. If we go back and look at our previous
administration, we had started this process, as the Government House Leader had
indicated, in regard to the unfunded nature of the public pension plans and the
realization that, based on current status and direction we were going in, there
was no opportunity to have these plans fully funded over a period of time.
During our time in office, we had met with, negotiated
with, the various unions, starting with the public service union, to set up a
corporation, joint management plan where the fund would be managed by members of
the various unions, reflective of their pension plans, and government. In that
way, the decisions that are made are shared decisions
in regard to investments, when there's surplus, where that's invested to, and in
the shortfalls, where they would go.
It will
be jointly managed, which is a new perspective, and shares joint responsibility
and joint risk. That will be done over a 30-year period. Through that period, we
would get to a fully funded pension plan for those involved to ensure the
stability of the plan, and ensure that those who had paid into the plan have a
return from that plan as they expected they would have at their time of working
and at the time at of contributing to the plan.
So the
Public Service Commission and the new corporation were set up, which exists
today as I said, from the Public Service Commission. My understanding is the
amendment now looks at allowing changes for other union groups to be brought in
under the legislation, and particularly to be able to deal with the unfunded
liability nature related to those plans.
This
does not alter the framework in any way of what was put in place originally at
the time. The bill makes, as I said earlier, three changes about amortizing the
promissory note and that's the money that's put up by the provincial
government in regard to those 30 years and making, not annual contributions
anymore, but I do believe the Auditor General looked at the setup and rather
than put in an annualized contribution on the promissory note, it was suggested
that it be done on a quarterly basis.
I
believe the amendment to this act recognizes that and puts in the requirement of
the quarterly investment. That's one of the changes that are here. It will allow
the name of the corporation to change and amend the objects of the corporation,
as I said, to look at other pension plans being able to be administered through
this entity. As I said before, all of the changes are to be retroactive, I
think, to March 31, 2015.
To
clarify the quarterly payment and I talked about amortization of the
promissory note the original legislation or previous legislation included a
yearly amount for the promissory note of $195 million per year. And that's
getting us over that 30-year period to making those contributions to get us
sustainability in the pension fund.
So the
note of $195 million per year paid in quarterly installments, that's how the
original legislation spoke to. The bill will amend this clause to clarify the
exact value that needs to be put in for that quarterly period. That quarterly
period and that value is $47 million.
This is
made, as I said, upon the recommendation of the Auditor General who did a
review, looked at the legislation and suggested having clarity in a quarterly
amount in the legislation instead of a yearly amount. The board, which is a
joint board between the unions and government, has agreed to this. So it's an
example of the joint management of this and how this decision was made based on
the two parties that are heavily involved in it.
One
thing to note is that you divide what is in the legislation now of $195 million
to four quarterly payments. Each payment would equal about $48,750,000. When
that number is used for the quarterly payments over 30 years, government will
actually pay too much. This was part of the AG's commentary and it's one of the
reasons specifically he asked quarterly that the number be $47 million in regard
to quarterly payment related to the promissory note. That would be included in
the legislation instead of that yearly amount that was in the original
legislation.
As well,
there are two clauses to section 36.1 of the act, which allows the name of the
corporation to be changed by the board. The name will have to be published in
the Gazette. The name change certainly
does not void legal proceedings which may have been started under a previous
name. It will just flow on and transition in.
I
understand the board has chosen the name Provident10. They are
currently using that name for marketing and branding but also would use it for
legal purposes as well. The name Provident10 comes from the fact that
Newfoundland and Labrador is the 10th province of the Federation, and actually
the i in the logo is actually shaped like a person or an individual and it
relates to our standing in the Federation.
The
third part relates to the objectives of the legislation in the bill: to provide
pension administration and pension investment services for any other pension
plan
. So as I indicated originally, this was set up and the corporation dealt
with one specific plan with the intent to move them through discussions with and
coming to an agreement and understanding of how sustainability would be achieved
and a fully funded plan over a 30-year period.
for
any other pension plan that retains the services of the corporation and is
approved by the board. As well, to carry out the activities or duties as may
be authorized by the board. As I said earlier the pension corporation is now up
and running. Staff is now located there. I know we went through in Estimates
with the Minister of Finance last year and as well this year in regard to what
resources were available. So I think there were some positions, if I remember
correctly, within Finance or within various parts or divisions of government
which dealt specifically with the pension plan. I think they were moved from
that, from the public service, or with the department into that corporation. So
you had those expertise and those individuals that worked in that department
under the administration of the pensions when it existed solely with government,
and they transferred over to the shared corporation to provide those duties.
So we
had some discussion in Estimates from the minister on that, how that has taken
place, and the structure, how it's been developed and how it will be used
further, those services, as they're made available through the board, through
the particular pension plans in terms of administration.
The
original vision, according to some of the information from department officials,
was to have the corporation use the expertise for other plans. I know that's
exactly what it was, because I remember my days in government and in Cabinet in
discussing this and this was meant for any and all, hopefully, the pension
plans, to make sure because ultimately at the end of the day, and I know the
Government House Leader spoke to it as well, the issue here is to get to a fully
funded pension plan for all of these that's sustainable and is available to all
those that have paid into that plan and are participants in the plan, so it is
available to them. So this is the process that we had set up over a 30-year
period to make sure we get there. This legislation was enacted and is now being
amended to make sure we can meet those goals, and it's there to provide that
function.
As well,
the entity that was set up, as I said, could market and provide services to
other plans. Whether that be the minister, Memorial University's plan, for
example, if that was to happen, the amendment to today would allow that to
happen. So these services could be marketed through this entity and provide
services to other places.
Other
notes of interest, before the pension reform and before we had introduced it in
our administration, there were five plans in the pooled pension plan. It was the
Teachers' Pension Plan; Public Service Pension Plan; Uniformed Services Pension
Plan, which would take in areas like police officers, correction officers, I
understand some firefighters; then we had a plan for judges and as well, MHA
pension plan.
So the
Teachers' Pension Plan is now in their own corporation. The Public Service
Pension Plan is now on Provident10. So this act deals with moving
forward and addressing some of the issues with the other pension plans and
ability to provide services for them.
I know
as well, in Estimates and with Budget 2017,
there were some numbers in regard to a new actuarial analysis that was done in
regard to those annual contributions I spoke of and what the amount was. With a
new actuarial assessment done, if I remember correctly, there was a $350 million
shortfall for the contribution that needed to go in to keep that 30-year
amortization period where it needed to be to make those adjustments. I
understand this amendment as well, if I remember correctly, allows that to
happen so that adjustment and payment can be made. I think it's already been
made from the Provincial Treasury to make sure we meet the obligations, which
was the intent of this piece of legislation.
So,
Madam Speaker, from my perspective as Finance critic, I recognize the work
that's been done in the past, certainly from our administration in terms of
setting up the original joint management, joint partnership to look at the issue
of the unfunded pension plan. I thank those that were involved from the union
perspective in terms of the negotiations, along with government and staff and
those now, the board that runs the or participate in the board, gives
oversight to the corporation and continues to approve the benefits that are
available to those who are participants of the plan to make sure it is
sustainable.
At the
end of the day, that's what we all want, all Members of the House want to ensure
it's done. You get sustainability, and liability is now shared between the
unions and the government which is the public, people, the population of the
province to make sure we get to where we need to get. We'll be supporting Bill
7.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The hon. the
Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Once
again, I'm pleased to get up in the House and deal with legislation. One of the
main reasons why we are elected, actually, is to be parliamentarians. It always
makes me feel proud to be able to stand and take part in discussion on the
legislation that is important to the people of the province.
The
piece we're dealing with today is very important, actually. I'm not going to go
into great detail of explaining it again, because there have been two speakers
ahead of me, including the minister, who've done a wonderful job. As has been
said by my colleague from the District of Ferryland, we're dealing with the
Public Service Pensions Act.
What was
exciting was when we put into place in this House of Assembly the body, the
corporation which is now being called Provident10 and which, legally,
after we pass this legislation will be able to legalize its name as Provident10,
as has been said, which is a corporation that is in charge of managing the
pension plans of four of our major public service sector unions. So covering the
pension plans for thousands of our public service sector workers in this
province.
I think
what's really important everything in the legislation is important, but
something that's really key, I think, is when we first put the corporation into
place the objects of the corporation this was in 2014 were very simple. It
was first to act as trustee of the fund, and then to act as administrator of the
pension plan and to exercise those other powers and perform those other duties
as may be expressly conferred upon the corporation under the Joint Sponsorship
Agreement.
What
we're doing today, among a couple of other things, is adding to the objects of
the corporation. The two things that do that are very important. Section 36.3
will add two new objects for the corporation that will widen its mandate. One,
the first new subsection, the corporation can administer other pension plans
that requested services, subject only to approval by the board. This corporation
is an independent body and its board will have the power to do that. Then the
second subsection, it can carry out other activities or duties as authorized by
the board.
What
really is important about this, which I find extremely exciting, is these
amendments stand to increase the pension corporation's ability to increase
revenue. I think that's so important because increasing revenue will make our
pension plan, that pension plan stronger. The pension plans of those four bodies
that are represented by Provident10 will be made stronger as revenues
increase, because the increasing of revenues, of course, will also mean
whether that increasing of revenues is by getting involved with the other
pension plans, increasing its investments, et cetera. The increasing of revenues
will make sure that the pension plan has no liability down the road.
I want to talk about one of the pension plans in Canada
that's very, very successful; a public service sector pension plan that's very,
very successful. It's the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. It's well known in the
pension world for its success.
I remember when this happened in 2015, toward the end of
the year they reported a $6.8 billion surplus in the Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan. They were able to, through that, because of really increasing the revenues
of that pension plan, successfully making investments, et cetera; they were able
to give teachers who had retired before 2009, to make up for, partially, for
inflation they were suffering from because of the economy, they were able to
give pensioners who retired after 2009 a one-time increase in January of 2017,
which restored their pensions to the levels they would have had at
full-inflation protection, if full-inflation protection had been provided each
year since they retired.
They've been so responsible as a pension plan management.
The whole plan, of course, is $154.5 billion, but the fact that in 2015, toward
the end of 2015, I understand the status is the same, they had this amazing
surplus of $6.8 billion. Pensions plans, I think it's really important to note,
and I'm not sure people are aware, that strong, healthy pensions are really
important because pension plans do not only help the employees in the pension
plan, but pension funds contribute to our economy.
I think that's really important for people to understand
the role of pension funds in our overall economy. They're a huge pool of
investment money, because that's how you keep the pot going is by investing the
money. Good investments they made tremendously wise investments with the
Ontario Teachers' Pension Fund. Wise investments are good for those who are
going to benefit from them, but it means the
money, the pension money that's being held, is going into investment and
that is so good for our economy.
It's
really interesting, I always get blown away when I read this statistic but it's
a really accurate statistic: Canadian pension funds have over $1 trillion worth
of assets. That's an amazing amount of money. It's the second largest source of
capital after the chartered banks in this country. That's how important pension
funds are to the economy of Canada.
When we
think about pensions, well, we had to do that last night here in this House,
when we think about the pensions of the public service sector and all pensions,
not just the public service pensions, they are not a liability. They are an
asset. Seventy percent of all pension fund assets are invested in the Canadian
economy.
That's
the other thing, when you get pensions public service pensions in particular
and others they are really aware of investing the money in the Canadian
economy. They may have investments obviously in corporations or ventures outside
of Canada, but 70 per cent of all pension fund assets are invested in the
Canadian economy.
I just
think it is so responsible that we are here today making the amendments to the
Public Service Pensions Act because
the amendments are going to give the Provident10 the ability and the
responsibility to increase revenue, to increase revenue through their
investments, to increase revenue that will be good for the employees who are
represented, but at the same time, if we're investing wisely and we're looking
at ventures within our own country and our investments pay off well, as they
certainly have for the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund, then we will see a
pension fund that is helping our economy and a pension fund that is helping
retirees and a pension fund that is strong.
I'm
delighted that the objects of the corporation have been changed by adding the
two new pieces to it. I'm delighted that we have a corporation which is already
showing itself to be responsible and to understand what its responsibility is.
I'll be
delighted to vote for this bill, Madam Speaker, and with that I'll take my seat.
MADAM SPEAKER:
If the hon. Government House
Leader speaks now he will close debate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I want
to thank my colleagues across the way for their words about this important piece
of legislation. I think this is significant. I think it is the right step
forward. I appreciate the fact that again, I will recognize the Department of
Finance for all the work they put into the preparation of this bill and allowing
for the briefing.
Without
belabouring this, I'll sit down. I'm sure if the Members opposite have
questions, we'll allow for that during the Committee stage when we reach there.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 7 be now a read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 7)
MADAM SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 7)
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Madam Speaker, I call
from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 9.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Madam
Speaker.
It is
indeed a privilege to rise in this hon. House once again and speak to the bills
before the House. This bill in particular, we are happy to see at least somewhat
of a reversal of the gas tax that was imposed on the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Budget 2016.
We
certainly feel very strongly on this side of the House, as an Opposition, and I
would think the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that this
bill doesn't go far enough with respect to reducing the amount of taxes that
have really crippled the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador since the Liberal
government has taken office.
I speak
regularly to people in my district and across the entire province who are really
feeling the pinch and the burden of these additional taxes. We're seeing it hit
businesses, particularly small businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador,
where every dollar counts, Madam Speaker, every single dollar counts.
You
struggle to make a living as it is and with the increased cost of insurance and
the increased burden from the gas tax, many of them are really not sure that are
going to survive, and indeed we have lost some. Many people who would otherwise
be hitching their campers up to their pickup trucks and travelling across the
beautiful parks we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador and visiting the
smaller rural out ports are not making these trips because of the excessive
price of gas.
We truly
believe on this side of the House that there are other methods and other
policies available to government that, as opposed to restricting our economy and
making us go backwards, would help propel our economy and move us through a
difficult time.
The
philosophy of the Progressive Conservatives is that the more you lower taxes,
the more you stimulate the economy, the more disposable income that individuals
and companies have available to them to spend and generate economic spinoff.
So it's
certainly a positive move to see the gas tax being reduced, but nowhere near far
enough, Madam Speaker, in terms of the burden that the people in the province
are still very much feeling.
Just the
other day, I was sitting down getting my hair cut. It's always a great place to
go to get your hair cut and you find out what people on the ground are really
thinking. The lady who cut my hair said to me that she is absolutely astounded
at the number of her friends and family and neighbours who have moved away in
the last year or so because of the excessive tax burden placed upon the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
She
said, no joke, she can count 15 houses in her immediate area that have for sale
or for rent signs and the families have packed up and moved away. They're gone
to Ontario. They're gone to Alberta. They're gone to BC. They're gone somewhere
where they think they can eke out a better living than what they can do right
here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
With
such excessive taxation, Madam Speaker, for many families it comes down to a
choice between food or paying the light bill or paying the gas, especially for
people with young children or seniors who they need to care for. Again, looking
at my rural district, we have to incur the price of gas just to get to a
doctor's appointment or a specialist's appointment because our medical services
are over two hours away, for the most part. We have clinics but if we are going
for cancer treatment, if we're going for a dentist appointment, we have to drive
at least 180 kilometres to avail of those services. At the same time, we see
cutbacks in the Medical Transportation Assistance Program. So they're being hit
on every single angle.
In terms
of opportunity for revenue generation, we strongly believe that the government
should really get serious about looking to alternate ways to stimulate the
economy, to drive job growth and creation, and taxation is not the answer. I
truly believe by reducing this taxation we're going to see some reprieve for
some of the companies that otherwise would have had to declare bankruptcy this
year. So from that point of view, it will be helpful and certainly something the
people of this province are very elated to see.
But we
strongly feel the tax should never, ever have been imposed in the first place.
It was regressive. We're the only province in the entire country facing a
recession, despite the oil collapse. The price of the oil collapse has hindered
every province but we are the only province into a recession. Why is that? The
Conference Board of Canada has stated it's because of the regressive taxation
policies that are in place.
Certainly for our part here in the House of Assembly, as Members of the
Opposition, we will stand up as a voice for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and vehemently oppose the taxation policies that are in place and
continue to call for reductions in the taxes that were brought to bear in 2016.
With all
of the potential that's out there in Newfoundland and Labrador, we truly believe
there are opportunities that we can avail of. Again, with respect to the gas
tax, that in combination with the insurance tax, the increased cost of
insurance, along with HST, it has really, really, really hurt a lot of families,
a lot of individuals and a lot of our businesses and people who were even
contemplating entering businesses. We've even quelled our entrepreneurship
because many young people who were contemplating taking a chance and starting a
business in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, or in urban Newfoundland and
Labrador, have taken pause and stood back to say this is probably not the place
to do it because we don't know what tax is going to hit us next and how we're
going to make ends meet.
People
deserve better; they truly deserve better. They were led to believe there'd be
no increase whatsoever in taxation. We, as a people, went into complete and
total shock with the arrival of Budget
2016 and we're still trying to recover.
I truly
hope that most people are able to withstand the rough times because good times
are coming. I truly believe that Newfoundland and Labrador is going through a
rough patch we always go through a rough patch in this province. We've been
through it many times over the last five centuries and we've always prevailed.
We will prevail again, I have no doubt.
I guess
the message I would like to impart to the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador: If you can hang in there at all, please hang in because better times
are coming. It's truly great to see the government opposite recognize the error
of its ways in imposing this excessive taxation, regressive taxation, and make a
move to reverse some of it.
We do,
as I said a little while ago, firmly believe that government is not taking this
far enough. They need to go further. We believe that the gas tax should be
eliminated in its entirety. It is certainly a deterrent to expats or people who
may have been looking to jobs they see posted in Newfoundland and Labrador and
then they talk to the locals and then they say maybe it's not a province we want
to live in. We won't be able to afford to drive our vehicles. We won't be able
to buy food. It's all far too excessive.
This gas
tax trickles down far beyond going to the pumps and filling up your car, because
the price of gas is hitting every single person and every single business. It's
also led to an increase in the price of our groceries. When we go to the grocery
store to buy food, because of the gas tax, we are paying more for our groceries.
When we go to purchase lobster even, our fisherman now, to get their product out
of Newfoundland and Labrador, have to pay more in trucking costs and some of
that burden is being shared by the consumers of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Anyone
who is looking at renovations to their homes and going to the hardware store,
that price of lumber costs all that much more today because of the additional
cost of freight and trucking that the business has to bear. We have to pay more
for any renovations that we want to do, whether it's in our kitchens or in our
gardens or with respect to patios. Every single item that we are purchasing as
consumers in this province has been affected and increased because of the
excessive gas taxes that have been imposed by the Liberal government who
promised they would have no taxes and, instead, delivered 300 tax increases and
50 new fees 50 new taxes. Made them up; created new ones. It's absolutely
astounding, Madam Speaker.
I
certainly will stand with my colleagues to support this reduction in taxation.
I'm glad to see that they're moving in the right direction but they're moving
far too slowly. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador need reprieve today. We
need more reprieve than what we have been given in
Budget 2017 if we're truly going to encourage people to move back
home, as well as encourage those who are already here to stay.
I will
be supporting this bill. I will, as I continue to stand in this hon. House and
speak to various legislation, call upon government to continue reducing, not
just the gas tax, which is absolutely terrible, but the 350 other taxes that
they have created and, in fact, caused our economy to be far worse than any of
us ever anticipated, far worse than it needed to be in terms of battling the
drop in oil prices.
We truly
hope that within the next year or so they continue to see the error of their
ways and continue to drop taxes. We also truly hope that, come 2019, people will
remember that what we expect from our politicians is honesty. If you pledge to
do something in your campaigning, then you should deliver on what you pledge. If
you deliver something that is the polar opposite, like what we have seen, that
people hold politicians accountable and, in future, we never see any politician
of any political party or any stripe mislead the people in such a way as to
believe there'll be no taxation and then burden them with taxation to the point
that bankruptcies have reached record highs. It's something that's not
acceptable. It's not acceptable to the electorate. It's not acceptable to the
businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So we
are truly happy to see a reduction, but we definitely want to see more of a
reduction. We will be supporting this bill and we will be calling for further
reductions in all of the 350 taxes that have resulted in our province having the
worse economy that it's had since the 1990s.
Thank
you so much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm
sorry for the delay in standing up. I was just going through the EY report that
has just been released on the libraries and trying to see how it would relate to
the gas tax. I can see the relevant connection there because with the reduction
in the proposed gas tax, obviously now, hopefully, it will help citizens,
particularly those who come from low-income families, the ability to be able to
get to their local libraries now that we feel fairly confident that they'll
continue to stay open for the next period of time.
I think
that's another positive. We can tie two things together. The gas tax itself will
make it more accessible for people to be able to move to it, and obviously any
regressive tax has a hindrance on people being able to have access to any
service. Those services would include libraries, they would include grocery
shopping and they would include anything that causes them to have to make
decisions when it comes to the availability of their finances. I am glad that
there's a movement to get rid of this regressive tax. It's a move in the right
direction to address a move in the wrong direction this time last year.
Would we
have liked to have seen it all gone right away? Without a doubt. Do we all
realize at the end of the day that the revenues that were proposed or were
thought would be generated that would go into the general account to offset
other expenditures didn't materialize and I think any economist would have
seen you can't dramatically increase a particular tax and still think there is
going to be still the same uptake on that commodity or that service. That I
think was what was lost on the government last year when they were making
decisions like that.
Did we
all realize and acknowledge that there are some financial challenges? Of course
we do. We may get over here and we may jostle back and forth, but there was a
realization this time last year that there were some economic challenges and
there were some decisions that had to be made and there were, no doubt,
approaches that could be used to generate some taxes. The average citizen in
Newfoundland and Labrador understood because of the fiscal situation, they would
probably have to dig a little deeper. They would probably have to modify their
expenditures. They would have to do their part to ensure that we move to the
next level when it comes to financial security and get over this hump in the
road.
But the
dramatic effect of having nearly, with the accumulated tax on the tax, a 20 per
cent increase, did nothing only to generate less revenues and make it a hardship
on every citizen here, also to stifle potential economic development from
businesses.
I think,
at the end of the day, this is a great start that we're talking about moving the
tax back. For people who don't know, I just want to acknowledge again how this
is going to work. As of June 1, once this passes through the House after some
more debate, there will be a reduction of 8.5 cents off the generalized close to
20-cent tax on a litre of gas right now. That will reduce it then by 8.5 cents.
Then December 1, again there will an additional 4 cents off a litre, so that
will take it down another small bit. There still will be remaining the HST cost
that's on it and the additional gas tax.
As the
government outlined their plan is if the economy goes the route they want and
they are generating the revenues that they anticipate, that they'll consider
reducing the rest of it. That's good to hear. I would encourage them not to
consider it but to set a time frame now and to ensure that. Because I think if
you take this regressive tax off now, you'll generate more on the standard tax.
What people forget here, this is not just the only tax that's on our gas. This
is not just the 20 cents a litre that was put on this time last year. There's
already accumulative tax base that's on our gasoline that we generate
constantly.
The
benefit to that tax and I say the benefit because it goes into the general
revenues to be used for all kinds of programs around health and education and
road maintenance and all the things relevant to that was that people sort of
accepted that. They knew what our base tax was and they knew what they could
afford when it came to filing up their vehicles, when it came to the size of
vehicle they purchased, to businesses in what they did, to what excursions
schools took or youth organizations because the cost would have to be built in
to the travel cost.
So that
was all acknowledged and known and people had budgeted accordingly. But when
this tax came in, very few organizations, if any, have disposable income that
they can just blow and add an extra 20 per cent to some of their expenditures
for travelling, nor does the average person. So there were issues around the
type of vehicles and the type of vehicle obviously generates the cost of a
vehicle. The norm is the larger the vehicle, the larger the engine, the more gas
it consumes, the more costly it is to purchase, the more taxes paid on that
product.
There's
a whole cycle there where you can generate additional revenues in certain areas,
but if you stifle one part of it or you put a hindrance into an area or you put
it so encompassing that it's not attractive, then it has a ripple effect. What
people haven't thought about here and what the government didn't think about
here was if we put in this regressive, overwhelming, far too encompassing tax
immediately and all in one place, you're going to have an effect on everything
else. I think that was the issue that wasn't thought out.
We've
had the best sales in Atlantic Canada or in all of Canada, I think, for the last
eight or nine years, in trucks. Trucks, as you know, are a little bit more
expensive, burn more fuel, as part of that it's very necessary in Newfoundland
and Labrador because of the nature of how active we are, the type of people we
are. We do our own work, our travel habits and these types of things. I've had
hundreds of people tell me in general conversations, car dealers, that their
sales have gone down in those vehicles because people had to make a decision; an
extra $30 or $40 or $50 or in some cases $100 a week in gas has effected exactly
their budget lines. So that has been part of it. That has been part of what goes
on there.
As part
of that whole process, we've done an injustice to the economy because all of
these vehicles, if they're $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 or, in some case,
$50,000 more than an average car that somebody would buy, we're losing our 15
per cent and what that generates into our provincial and federal coffers here.
So that's a standard piece of our revenue that we're losing automatically. That
has an effect on how exactly we drive our own economy.
That's
why I think we need to think out any tax that comes in. Nobody likes taxes. No
government would like to introduce taxes. We realize that, but if you're going
to introduce something, you have to look what impact does it have on every other
revenue-generating stream in society? What impact does it have on people's
ability to sustain a quality of life?
Most
societies are based on the principle that the next generation should be able to
have a better quality of living and a better access to services. Services in
this case could be recreational services, it could be travel services, it could
be the quality of the products they own.
This tax
put people behind at least a year. While we're glad to see that it's moving,
we're still another six months away or longer before we get to that point. So we
would have had two years of stalling our economy because we didn't think about
the tax when we put it up front. From an administrative point of view, would we
have considered implementing some kind of a gas tax? No doubt, because it's one
of our revenue generators here.
No
doubt, our plan would have been to introduce something that was tangibly
accessible for people, affordable for people, would not stall the economy, would
be sold to the point where people would understand the monies generated would go
back into other types of services and programs that would be beneficial to
everybody in society and would still keep our bond-rating agencies happy to the
point that we have a generating revenue plan of action. That wasn't done here.
Unfortunately, because of that, we had a real impact on people's lives. We had
businesses that got rid of vehicles because they felt that extra budget line;
there wasn't the ability to do that.
So what
that in turn did, it changed around how many employees they need in some cases.
It took money out of the coffers of garages that do maintenance on these
vehicles. It took away from the car dealers who sell these. It took away from
the insurance companies who sell insurance. Because if you have 20 in a fleet
and now you can only afford to have 17 or 18, all of the expenses attached to
that come off your bottom line, which means you don't pay taxes on any of those.
The 15
per cent tax that was put on insurance was to generate revenue. In some cases
we're having less vehicles on the road because people at the end of the day
companies particularly, or families who have two, three and four vehicles are
saying we have to make do because we hadn't planned to have an extra $5,000 in
gas expenses this year. That had a major impact on from our perspective how
we generated additional revenues as part of that.
I talked
to a couple of friends of mine who happen to be in the gas station business. I
talked to them about the effect and what they've seen. They've seen peak times.
Right now, as we know, people are waiting for Thursday mornings to see how
devastating it is. Wednesday night there's a big influx, and that fluctuates
with the price of gas. I know government has no control over that. That's done
by the international industry.
The
issue here becomes, people didn't think that way before because before the 20
cents went on everything, people understood the tax was almost their way of
giving back. While we might have been the highest in the country and we might
have been taxing the highest, the gap wasn't that dramatic between this province
and other provinces, particularly the Atlantic Provinces. When you added the
extra 20 cents, the cumulative 20 cents here with the HST, then obviously people
said, you know what, we've really got to time when we buy gas. When is it
efficient for us to do it, how do we build it in to a trip when we're going past
a gas station.
That
became an issue of a different mindset. Now you had gas stations that were boom
and bust sometimes. Sometimes they got to have two or three or four attendants
on because they know Wednesday afternoons, Wednesday evenings, there's a crowd
coming in. Normally they'd have one person on from 8 in the evening until 12,
but they now know there's going to be a lineup of 20 or 30 cars going through to
get their gas before the announcement the next day if it goes up; knowing that
the industry, that gas in the last year has gone up more often than it's gone
down. We were lucky a couple of weeks ago, we had a couple of small drops, but
again today it's gone up a couple of more cents a litre.
So
that's made people change their whole approach to buying gas. You would have
thought that we wouldn't have changed people's mindset. You change people's
mindset about their healthy living, the environment, being volunteers, engaging
their role in society, but you wouldn't think people have had to sit down and
think of a strategy so that they can save a few cents. We've put it so
encompassing by adding so much money so quickly they've had to change their
approach to even buying gas. Not only is it hurting the economy, it becomes
foolish on what we've done here in making people have to change their patterns.
I've
talked to a couple of gas station owners who said you wouldn't believe where
they've lost on one end of course, I wouldn't have thought of it because I'm
not in the industry, but things that you didn't realize. Gas stations are
telling me they're down 40 per cent on car washes. Of course, I had no idea what
that meant. I said, well, explain that one to me.
Somebody's coming in and their regular fill up is $60 a week, now it's $74.
Well, once a week they'd get their car washed. They'd spend the $12.The carwash
was taxable. Government got it's 15 per cent; it was great. It was a service
that was done. It generates other revenues. The people who maintain those, the
products that go into those, that's down. That's a product we were taxing that
was providing to people and was actually generating revenue, not only for the
gas station, but for the taxpayers here.
When you
look at that, it made sense to me. I thought of it after, I said that really
makes sense. If you budget out a lot of people work and live by their weekly
budgets. They're fixed incomes. That's what they'd do. They weekly or monthly or
biweekly get their car washes or do whatever else it is they're doing, that
becomes a difference.
Then
they said in the convenience part of it, the products there; regular customers
they used to see for years who would come in and when they'd do their fill up
they'd buy a candy bar or a soft drink or a ticket or something, they're not
doing it, because that $75 was what they'd spend for that week. Well, before $56
of it was gas and the rest was to buy a lottery ticket and a few things like
that, something to bring home to the kids or whatever it may be. It doesn't
exist anymore. He said you wouldn't believe the sales that are down on things
like gum, for example. That was always something you'd pick up.
When
people go in they're thinking, here's the amount of money I've got allocated.
This is what I'm going to spend. Now they go in, they have to fill the car up
and it's $91. People look at that and it becomes a shock to them. Then that
obviously has a ripple effect on our economy because part of that, the same
supplier who has to go around these gas stations who would normally be driving a
truck, buying gas at our regular price or a tax price that was acceptable, and
is paying insurance, and is paying maintenance and all that, now all of a sudden
has to make a decision. You know what, because we're not selling as much of that
product we don't have to go twice a week or once a week. We can go once a month.
Now we can get rid of one of our vehicles. One of the vehicles is gone. Now all
of a sudden one of the drivers is not necessary.
That's
the impact we're going to have. That's the impact we're having on the economy
here. That's where it's concerning and disconcerting at the same point that that
administration didn't think about the impacts.
I would
have thought we've got some great civil servants. We got all great civil
servants, but we have those who are visionary and think forward. There is no
doubt they had said, look, if we impose this amount of tax, while you might
think upfront if you add in, if you sell 50 million litres of gas in
Newfoundland and Labrador in the course of a month, another 20 cents on that,
you're going to make an extra $2 million, $3 million. Do the math on that.
That
sounds great, $3 million a month. Add that in, $36 million additional revenues
above and beyond. Then when you equate the fact people have changed their
habits, they've dropped 20 per cent driving. Now automatically, not only are we
not getting the extra 20 cents, we're not getting our 33½ cents gas tax that are
automatically there. So now all of a sudden that's gone.
Now all
of a sudden they were going in with the extra $10 or $15 they had in their
pocket and they were buying a lottery ticket that we get our share of. They were
buying a particular confectionary product that we were getting our share of, and
because they were buying those things, that was driving another part of the
economy. The suppliers who come there, who drive to that location through gas
that they would buy, that they pay tax on or through a vehicle.
It was
things like that that sort of became to me very alarming. I said I am not an
economist and don't profess to be, and no doubt I don't
think anybody on either side of the House are economists by trade but it didn't
take an economist, in my opinion, to sit down and say let's really determine
which taxes we can impose that will generate revenue, particularly more revenue
because that's what we need. We have a spending issue. We have a spending issue
and we need to cut out some of our expenditures, but we also have to generate
some more revenue. How can we come up with a revenue generator that doesn't sow
hindrance to development and people's ability to sustain a quality of life,
while at the same time generating additional revenues, but not in some cases
actually taking away from the potential income that we have?
In this
case, that was one of the things that really caught me off guard when I started
to talk about it. This time last year if you know, underneath my desk I have a
folder there; I suspect there are 300-400 emails from people around the gas tax
and some of the other taxes but they're all cumulative. The cumulative thing
comes to there are certain people in society, maybe all of us, who have to have
a vehicle.
Unfortunately, there are certain people who don't have vehicles; can't afford
it. But in this case, there was a fine line between a number of people have sent
me emails and said I've had to give up my car. Because with the insurance tax
and now with the gas tax, I just can't afford it. That extra what averages out
to be $70 or $80 a week because that's what it is when you take in the
insurance tax also I don't have it; I don't make that. I make $11 an hour. I
pay my rent. I pay all the other expenditures anybody would have to basically
live in our society.
So that
became a major issue, and the more and more I started to read these emails, not
only did I get sympathetic for those individuals, but I got fearful for us in
this province that these people are not going to be able to stay here. It won't
be attractive not even attractive, it's not sustainable to stay here.
Then we
started to get the emails. The emails came from people who were saying, we're
done; we got to leave. It's unfortunate that the people got to that point where
they're saying I can't sustain that. I can go somewhere else, maybe make an
extra dollar or two an hour, but at least that's a dollar or two in my pocket,
because gas is 99 cents a litre and it's not taxed beyond control as part of
that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BRAZIL:
The Member heckles over there
about certain cars that people could buy but he's right. Because you can buy a
larger vehicle now at probably a 30 or 40 per cent reduction because people are
forced to sell them, unfortunately. People didn't want to part with their cars.
They're forced to sell them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
That's what's happened here.
They've put in such a regressive tax that not only did you not generate revenue,
you forced people to get away from what they have worked for all their lives,
that was a certain standard of living that was sustainable for them. They
weren't getting rich on it, but they were having a quality of life that they
wanted. Because of that, they forced people to change things because they didn't
think this out. And, as a result, generated less revenue, which means less money
for health care and for education and for roads.
So just
look at the cycle we've got here. We put in a regressive tax that kept
businesses away, generated less money than it was supposed to. Caused other
industries to pay less taxes because they had to get rid of the different
services they provided or the vehicles they had or the insurance they paid as
part of that. Then it forced people who had a certain standard of living, and it
may not be a high-end standard of living but a basic standard of living, to
change their style.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
I have had people talk to me
about snowmobiles; they put that off. They do a run once a month now because
that extra $20, because of the extra cost, doesn't fit with their budget line.
So
issues became a little bit confusing as to what the intent of a gas tax
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The next
time I stand, I will name Members and you needn't stand anymore today if I have
to call you out to be recognized.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Madam Speaker, my time is
winding down. What would have been good to see here would have been a
progressive gas tax, enough that it would have generated revenue, would not have
hurt the economy, would have ensured that people understood and they were
contributing back so that we get over this crisis, but instead it was a purely
regressive one and we have seen the outcome now. I'm glad to see that they're
changing this, to a certain degree.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I'm just
going to stand up and say a few words as we close second reading on this bill,
on the Revenue Administration Act. I
listened with interest to the commentary by the Members opposite. I think
again, I would invite him to stand on a point of order. I'm not being facetious.
I believe that I heard him say during his commentary, the Member for Conception
Bay East Bell Island I want to make sure I got it right that he said car
sales are down and truck sales are down. I think that's what he might have said.
If I'm wrong, I ask that I be corrected.
The
reason is, I'm going to stand and I'm to give a shout out to the media. It's
called allNewfoundland and Labrador.
It's a great outlet. I like reading their pieces. It's funny because as the
Member spoke I said, hang on a second, I just read an article that I think may
contradict what the Member said.
Again,
if the Member opposite wants to say that they're wrong and that they're fake
news, I'll leave that between him and them, but it says here: Motor vehicle
sales continue to outperform expectations in Newfoundland and Labrador, most
recently on the back of record-high truck sales.
This is
where they get it from. This is why I think it's verified. New information from
Statistics Canada shows booming truck sales boosted total revenue for car
dealers in the first quarter of 2017, traditionally the slowest time of year.
I'm
going to continue: Motor vehicle sales revenue rose to $229.4 million in the
first quarter. A 2.9 per cent increase from a strong first quarter in 2016
here's a good one and a 21.1 per cent increase from quarter one of 2015 when
they were there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now, I have to continue on.
The rise in revenue is largely based on turbo charged truck sales. The province
set its highest mark for first quarter truck sales and sales revenue since 1981.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
And for Stats Can purposes,
the trucks category includes: minivans, SUVs, vans and buses.
Madam
Speaker, I think I'm going to rely on Statistics Canada which is, I think, a
source of actual data and statistics that are verified, as opposed to the Member
opposite.
Now, if
he wants
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
If he wants he can blame the
researcher, that's fine. All I'm saying is I wanted to put out actual
information here in this House of Assembly that contradicts directly the
testimony from the Member opposite.
Now, I
would suggest if we were in a court right now and at the end, if the judge was
to weigh the evidence and the testimony of both sides, I have a feeling that
he's going to weigh higher the evidence of Stats Canada than the evidence from
the Member opposite.
What I
would say, Madam Speaker, I'm not going to belabour this point. We've had a
number of Members who have spoken to this positive piece of legislation about
the fact that due to the strong fiscal management displayed by our Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board, by our caucus, by our government, the
fact is we took a measure that was necessary to fix the drastic fiscal
experience that we've, basically, inherited from the previous administration.
The fact is while no doubt it has been tough, no doubt, the fact is that some of
the information that the Members put out opposite is not correct. In fact, we
see here that the increase in gas tax did not lead to a decrease in sales. In
fact, it has led to record high sales.
The
Member opposite had his chance and stood up. I've offered him the chance to
stand up again on a point of order if I'm wrong, but I'm not wrong. I'm not
wrong.
What I'm
suggesting, Madam Speaker, is when you listen to what people have to say, you
should consider the source of that information. In this case, the information
we're putting forward comes from Statistics Canada which shows that it's not as
bad as the Members opposite would say.
The fact
is, right now, I'm going to close second reading on a positive piece of
legislation which shows that we have had
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
That we appreciate the patience of the people of this province who have no doubt
gone through a tough time based on the mess that was left to them. We appreciate
their patience and the fact is this is just the first step in trying to fix the
situation. There will be more positive news coming.
The fact
is we are on the way back from the financial brink due to the strong fiscal
management of this government, led by our Premier and our Minister of Finance.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
motion is that Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, 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.
MADAM SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend the Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 9)
MADAM SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 9)
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Madam Speaker, at this
time I would move, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North, that the House
do now adjourn.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
This
House stands adjourned until Monday, May 29.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.