April 28, 2016
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 19
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER
(Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Before we start the proceedings today, I'd like to welcome to the public
gallery a former Member of the House of Assembly, Mr. Glen Little.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in our
public galleries today we welcome members of the Association of Midwives
of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Newfoundland and Labrador Council
of Health Professionals.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
We also welcome
to the public gallery today Pastor Jeff White of Port de Grave
Tabernacle.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have
Members' Statements from the Members for the Districts of Ferryland,
Mount Pearl North, Bonavista, Mount Pearl Southlands, Labrador West
and St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Jill Curran,
owner and operator of Lighthouse Picnics in the Town of Ferryland.
Jill Curran operates her business out of a 130-year old lighthouse in
Ferryland, specializing in gourmet lunches sourced from local suppliers
along the coast. Meals are prepared, packed in baskets and brought to
the people perched on the cliffs taking in the fantastic view of the
ocean and wildlife.
Lighthouse Picnics was awarded the Doug Wheeler Award during the Tourism
Excellence Awards gala at the 2016 Conference and Trade Show. This award
is presented annually to a person or group which has made a significant
contribution to the tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Jill's entrepreneurial skills have made Lighthouse Picnics a tremendous
success, and she is a great ambassador for success in our tourism
industry in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating
Jill Curran of Lighthouse Picnics on winning the Doug Wheeler Award and
making a significant contribution to the tourism industry on the
Southern Shore.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for
the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Coffee Matters in Mount
Pearl and owners Scott Hillyer and Cyril Peach on recently being
recognized by the Huffington Post
as one of the best bakeries in Canada.
Coffee Matters recently opened one of its newest locations in the
District of Mount Pearl North. It is a state-of-the-art facility that is
able to accommodate anyone in our community. This business is a prime
example of the talent and skill that is possessed by local
entrepreneurs.
There's no doubt in my mind that Mr. Hillyer and Mr. Peach and their
team have all of the skills for success and will continue to be
recognized for their abilities and exemplary customer service. I
recommend to anyone who hasn't stopped in to Coffee Matters on
Commonwealth Avenue to do so and if I'm there, I'll buy you a coffee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. KENT:
That's true.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) and I'll be there.
MR. KENT:
Not all at once.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of this House on both sides to join
me in congratulating Coffee Matters Mount Pearl and their team on a
great accomplishment that they should be very proud of, and wish them
all the best as they continue to reach new heights.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for
the District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to acknowledge the students and staff of Bishop White all-grade
school in Port Rexton. World Autism Day was celebrated on April 2 which
took place during Easter break; however, Bishop White decided to
celebrate on Monday, April 18, to support one of their students Jaxson
Tremblett. Jaxson has autism but that has not stopped him from being an
active member of the student body.
Students participated in a number of events such as watching a video on
autism awareness, after which they were each given a piece of the
puzzle, a symbol of autism awareness, writing what makes them each
unique. Jaxson's sister, Emily, made bracelets for each student,
distributing them along with buttons, tattoos and stickers provided by
the Clarenville chapter of the Autism Society.
The highlight of the day was when ball hockey captain Compton Rose asked
Jaxson to drop the ball at the opening ceremony of the regional
tournament. Jaxson was unable to stay past the first period of the game
due to sensitivity issues, but being a true leader, Compton saw fit to
award Jaxson his sportsmanship award.
I ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating Bishop White
School.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker,
recently, community leaders and volunteers gathered at the Reid
Community Centre to select Mount Pearl's Citizen of the Year. As usual,
this year's nominees were all tremendous community volunteers who all
share a love for Mount Pearl and an unwavering commitment to community
service.
The judges had a very difficult task in making the selection again this
year, but in the end they decided to choose a very deserving lady who is
the true definition of a volunteer.
Emma Thornhill is a founding member of the Mount Pearl Seniors
Independence Group and has played a significant role in helping this
tremendous organization grow into the largest active seniors group in
the province.
Since 2003, she has volunteered with the group as a board member, Chair
of the Membership Committee, member of the Afternoon Tea Committee,
member of the Health and Awareness Day Committee and was also a founding
member of the Drop in Centre which is a program that helps seniors to
become socially active with other seniors in the community.
In addition to her many contributions to the Mount Pearl Seniors
Independence Group, Emma is also a volunteer with the Vera Perlin
Society, Special Olympics and the Canadian Cancer Society. Newfoundland
and Labrador is a better place because of the contributions of people
like Emma Thornhill.
I ask all Members to join me in congratulating this outstanding
individual on receiving this honour and thank her for her unwavering
commitment to the community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for the District of Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr. Peter Reccord on
receiving the Bishop's Award of Merit in the Anglican Diocese of Eastern
Newfoundland and Labrador. This award is given to individuals who have
contributed significantly to the advancement of the life and work of the
church in their parish, diocese and province.
Peter Reccord meets and, in many cases, exceeds all criteria of this
prestigious award. He has been a member of the Labrador West parish for
the past 50 years, serving on vestries, as warden, Chair of the Joint
Board of Management, and now delegate to Provincial Synod. Peter is
currently enrolled in the Exploring Faith program and is working toward
his diploma of theology.
As for his community involvement, Peter has served on town council,
school boards, Recreation Commission and President of Minor Hockey. He
is a long-time volunteer with the Labrador West Food Bank and a
long-time member of the Labrador West Lions Club.
If the church were to designate a person that exemplifies outreach,
Peter Reccord would be the one!
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Peter on being
awarded the Bishop's Award of Merit at Synod on April 23.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for the District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to salute the Newfoundland Outport Nursing and Industrial
Association or NONIA, as it will be much better known to residents of
the province.
Many of us will be familiar with the NONIA store on Water Street in St.
John's, but we may not all know its history. NONIA was founded in 1920
and incorporated as a non-profit business in 1924. It originally helped
people in rural Newfoundland access health services by raising money to
pay the salaries of public health nurses. The money was raised by
selling hand-knit garments.
In 1934, government took over the public health, but the industrial side
maintained and continues to operate today, paying approximately 150
Newfoundland and Labrador knitters and weavers for their work and making
their wares available to consumers.
The craft of knitting is handed down through the generations and it is
not unusual for NONIA to have grandmothers, mothers and daughters all
producing for them.
On April 29 tomorrow Judy Anderson will retire as store manager of
NONIA after 17 years in that role. Keelin O'Leary will succeed her in
that position.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking Judy for her service, and
to wish NONIA continued success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we move on
to Honour 100, the Speaker recognizes Churence Rogers in the gallery
today as well and I believe, if my eyes are correct, I recognize MP
Ken McDonald.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR. SPEAKER:
For Honour 100
today we have the Member for the District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will now read into the record the following 40 names of
those who lost their lives in the First World War in the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve, the
Newfoundland Mercantile Marine or the Newfoundland Forestry Corps. This
will be followed by a moment of silence.
Lest we forget: Lewis G. Hudson, Peter Hudson, Edward Hulan, Gerald
Hulan, Howard Hulan, Hubert Hull, Stewart Hull, Victor Willie Hull,
Alfred Humphries, Cecil Hunt, James Hunt, Robert Hunt, Arthur William
Hurdle, Robert J. Hurley, Thomas Hurley, Francis Joseph Hussey, Harold
Hussey, William Thomas Hussey, Alfred Hutchings, Richard Hutchings,
William S. Hutchings, Harold Hutchins, Aloysius Hynes, Harry Hynes,
James Joseph Hynes, James Walker Hynes, Lemuel Edward Hynes, Leonard
Hynes, Richard Edward Hynes, William Patrick Hynes, Herbert Stewart
Inder, Joseph Ingraham, Moses A.C. Ingram, John Alfred Ivany, William
Cox Ivany, William Garland Ivany, William M. Ivany, James Ivey, Arthur
Joseph Jackman, Bert Jackman.
(Moment of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It just has been brought to my attention, I don't see him, but
Councillor Danny Breen, I believe, is in the galleries as well.
Welcome to Councillor Breen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As well, before
proceeding to Statements by Ministers, last weekend the province did see
a tragedy in little Quinn. I'd like to recognize, many of the Members
here today are wearing either pink or purple to remember Quinn.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very pleased to rise in his hon. House today to announce the
introduction of new regulations that will facilitate the safe and
responsible governance of midwifery in our province.
Developed in consultation with practising midwives from across the
country, educators, the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals
and other stakeholder groups, the Midwives Regulations will officially
come into force on September 30 under the
Health Professions Act.
With the introduction of these new regulations, all practising midwives
in our province will be required to meet established educational, exam
and other certification requirements and follow established best
practices for the protection of all involved. These new regulations have
been developed in accordance with national standards and we are pleased
to introduce them for the benefit of families throughout Newfoundland
and Labrador.
The new regulations will provide advance notice of the registration
requirements to stakeholders, including those currently practising as
midwives and expectant mothers.
Ensuring a smooth introduction of regulated midwifery in the province is
an important public protection initiative for our government and it is a
necessary first step as we continue to work with midwives and other
health care professionals to implement regulated midwifery in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
On a personal note, I'm delighted to introduce these regulations. My
late wife was a midwife who, in her prematurely shortened career,
delivered over 2,000 babies.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement today. At a time in our province when we're seeing reductions
in health care investments and reductions in health care services, it's
good to see some positive news today.
We recognize the value that midwives can add to our system. We recognize
the importance that regulations can have. We see that all practising
midwives in our province will be required to meet established standards
including education, exams and other certification requirements.
Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased as a former premier that our government
initiated the process and moved this process along. I congratulate the
minister and the government in seeing it through to the end. This is
going to be very important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. At
long last the midwives regulations have become a reality, thanks to the
hard work and determination of the midwifery organizations and some very
committed officials.
Young families who have been asking for midwives to practice here as
they do in every other province will be happy at this news. They won't
be happy that this government has decided, unlike every other province,
to privatize the midwifery service. It won't be under our health care
system, so families with modest or low incomes will be shut out by this
government once again.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I
rise in this hon. House today to recognize that today is National Day of
Mourning.
On this occasion we take a moment to remember those who have been lost
or injured due to a workplace accident. This is also a day to renew our
commitment to improving health and safety in the workplace and to focus
efforts to prevent incidents.
I was honoured to participate in a wreath-laying ceremony today at
Confederation Building with the Premier, as we joined more than 100
people who laid a wreath in memory of a loved one or a co-worker. I want
to thank the St. John's and District Labour Council for organizing this
event.
I am pleased to note that WorkplaceNL has new information that shows the
incidence of workplace injury and illness in Newfoundland and Labrador
dropped to an all-time low in 2015.
Despite this positive news, there were 24 work-related fatalities in
2015 a reminder that we need to make safety our focus every day.
Mr. Speaker, promoting safe and sustainable communities is a priority
for our government, and we will continue to work with our partners to
help to ensure workers return home safe and sound at the end of each
day.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you
very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I
want to extend thanks to the St. John's and District Labour Council for
organizing this event today. I felt privileged to be there representing
the Official Opposition.
It's a very important day when you look at people that presented wreaths
here today that lost loved ones. It's so important that we remember them
and we also make sure that safety is first and foremost in any
workplace. It's important that we educate people and it's important that
we have proper training in place. It's also important that we have
supervision so that people can go to work and be in a safe workplace.
I saw a little girl there today with a T-shirt on saying that she didn't
get a chance to see her daddy. It's so important that we make our
workplace safe for the families. Not only for the workers but for the
families, so that people can go home to a nice evening with their
families after a long, hard day at work.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
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. We all
take time today to recognize those killed or injured on the job. Nobody
should be harmed or die while trying to make a living.
Today is also a day to push for more safety measures to protect people
in their workplace, measures such as presumptive cancer legislation for
firefighters, one of government's election promises. Another important
step would be to put legislation in place covering front-line worker
emergency responders with PTSD and heart disease.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I
rise today in this hon. House to highlight the strong potential for
growth in Newfoundland and Labrador's mining sector.
A total of 10 mineral commodities are produced or mined in the province,
and we are pleased to see that, over the last few months, the price of
iron ore has increased significantly.
Canada Fluorspar's St. Lawrence project is moving towards construction;
ERP Compliant Fuels is interested in Wabush Mines and talks are
continuing; and Vale is starting construction of the underground mine at
Voisey's Bay this summer.
Just this past week, I visited Vale's Long Harbour processing plant with
the Member for the District of Placentia West Bellevue. The plant has
now moved from processing a mix of imported nickel matte and Voisey's
Bay concentrate to processing entirely Voisey's Bay material. I was
impressed by this massive, modern, innovative facility and by its young,
enthusiastic operations workforce.
Budget 2016 is an $8.48 billion budget that includes a significant
amount of investment in the province; for example, our government has
committed an additional $100,000 for each of the next three years in the
Junior Exploration Assistance Program to encourage mineral exploration.
Just last week, junior mining company, Rambler Metals & Mining PLC
announced that it has secured financing that would allow it to extend
the life of its Ming Mine to 21 years.
The mining industry remains a valuable contributor to our economy and
our government is laying the foundation for well-planned and
well-managed resource development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly acknowledge and thank the minister for an
advance copy of her statement. We, too, on this side of the House
obviously Newfoundland, historically, have had tremendous wealth
generated from our mining industry. Certainly in past years and in the
future it is bright in terms of those resources and developing those
resources.
It is good to see the Canada Fluorspar project in St. Lawrence and over
the past number of years, our administration has worked with those
partners and it appears the market is now right to start the
development. We're certainly delighted to see that for the Burin
Peninsula.
As well, these are traditional industries that we continue to need to
grow and diversify. Under our administration we introduced the RDC to
look at research, to work with industries like mining, develop
innovation, to diversify traditional industries; but also to the
minister and the government on the other side, we're eager hear in terms
of overall diversification, what they're going to do to drive the
economy, because we need that and, to date, we see little details of it.
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 her statement. It is
great to hear about the growth in mining but, in reality, government has
little control over how this non-renewable resource sector develops.
What I would really like to hear is government's long-term economic
plans for growth in a sustainable economy not so dependent on the whims
of global commodity prices.
We heard plenty of promises about diversifying the economy from them
during the last election, but nothing since.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming quite clear the people have lost trust in
this government. There's growing mass confusion and concern about the
Liberal budget, and we're hearing from people every day. We're hearing
people every hour. Members of their own caucus are confused.
The Premier was on Open Line
this morning and couldn't provide any clarity on how they made their
choices. It sounded like he was confused on it as well, when asked about
the choices that have put our province into a tailspin.
So I ask the Premier: How can the people have confidence and trust in
your government when your budget will devastate people and the economy
in a budget that contains no hope and no plan?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, the budget contains a lot of plans, I'd say. The first plan, step
one, is to clean up the mess that was left by this previous
administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
PREMIER BALL:
That's plan one;
that's step one. Without making the decisions that we had to make in
this budget, we would have been left with an astounding $2.7 billion
deficit.
Instead, with the decisions that we've made, that has been down now to
$1.8 billion. We know there's a lot of work to be done because there's a
big mess to clean up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
I would like to
ask the former premier about how he made the decision back in 2007
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
and his Members
to decrease taxes to the highest income earners in our province, taking
away billions of dollars of money that could be used today to offset
this mess that we're in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Here we go, Mr.
Speaker.
Once again he can't explain why people should have confidence or trust
in him when all he can do is talk about what happened back in 2007 when
I and most of us over here were nowhere near this House of Assembly, Mr.
Speaker. It's 2016; he's the Premier of the day. He needs to figure out
why and how people can have confidence in him.
I'll ask the Premier this: Has your Cabinet and your caucus what you
call your team of leaders have they had a say in this budget, or is it
simply just a two-person show, yourself and the Minister of Finance?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
No, it's not a two-person show. We've engaged a lot of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. We have an $8.48 billion budget sprinkled throughout
every department right now. The minister you just heard her make some
comments today about things that are happening, things in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
We will have a good future, but first and foremost, we have to get the
financial house in order. You had over 12 years to do it, $29 billion;
$25 billion of it related to the oil industry and $4 billion in tax
decreases. Imagine today if you had a plan for the situation that we
were in instead of living in the day, living on hope that oil would stay
at $148 a barrel.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I guess he didn't like the response he got after his
Open Line appearance this
morning, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker,
hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are concerned about this
budget. We're hearing from not only citizens but also business owners
and entrepreneurs who are concerned about the approach that the Premier
and his Liberal team have taken in this budget. The business community
is concerned that Liberal choices are already smothering the economy and
killing investment.
I ask the Premier: You have positioned yourself as a team of business
leaders, how can you justify the measures that you're taking? Only six
months in office and you're already killing the economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, I would assure you that any business owner in Newfoundland and
Labrador, any community, any municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador,
they will tell you one thing. If you want to talk about smothering, you
talk about smothering Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in debt. That's
where you were leading this province. Just one year ago the budget that
you produced, you missed the mark not once
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
not twice but
three times, less than $900 million deficit last year
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm restarting
the clock again on the hon. the Premier. I'm asking for order and
decorum.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Your five-year plan this year, you missed the mark by three times the
amount by three times the amount. It would have been $2.7 billion.
I can tell you, as I said earlier when I started my comments to the
question, any business owner, any community in this province they know
one thing you have to do is get the debt under control. I'd asked the
former premier: Is he satisfied that interest costs and debt servicing
now outpaces education in our province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, now
we know the Premier can't justify the decisions he has made, his own
decisions. It is his choices, but we do know one thing, Mr. Speaker. He
has lived up to one of promises and his promise to make sure that
Newfoundland and Labrador is the least, lowest and last. And that's what
his budget is going to do, Mr. Speaker. He is going to make sure that he
lives up to that promise.
Extra money will come out of people's pockets, Mr. Speaker. I've spoken
with a hard-working family man just this morning. He is a man married,
two teenage daughters. He is going to have to pay an additional $1,000
just on the new Liberal tax on insurance an extra $1,000 just on his
family insurance.
I ask the Premier: How does your decision to put taxes on insurance mean
a stronger tomorrow for that family?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
One thing I will say and we provided some information to the Third Party
at least they had the wherewithal to reach out and start looking for
some of the information. We are still very competitive when you look at
the tax rates that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, still very
competitive when you compare us not only to Atlantic Canada, but many
other jurisdictions that we have in our country, and that includes the
levy.
I'm very proud to say too, very proud to say, that we have implemented
an Income Supplement program for low-income families in Newfoundland and
Labrador, for seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is very
competitive and will put money back in their pockets, much needed, I
would say, Mr. Speaker, and we're still very competitive in all tax
brackets. As a matter of fact, lower than we are in all areas in
2006-2007.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
One of the first comments we heard from the Premier on
Open Line this morning was how
important it was to take taxpayers' money out of taxpaying and put it
back in the economy. It was a good comment he made this morning
exactly what happened back in 2007 and what we did as a government when
we were in power, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, Mr. Speaker,
I'll let that father of the two teenage daughters know he can come in
for a briefing with the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, violent crimes are on the rise in our province. You just
check the news any day. Just this morning, armed robberies, home
invasions, violent crimes are simply everywhere and we hear it every
day. The Liberal budget is going to reduce policing in our province and
people are concerned about their safety and they're going to become more
concerned when they learn of these decreases.
I ask the Premier: Was there analysis done before you made the decisions
to reduce policing, and what impacts on these reductions what will
they have on public safety, Premier? Can you tell us that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Justice.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to answer this question and actually spent almost four hours
last night in this House answering questions from the Member across. So
he should know that there was actually no reduction whatsoever in police
services in this province with this budget.
In fact, there were positions that were announced last year that they
couldn't recruit for and were not filled, and those were the positions
that were eliminated. So there's actually no less boots on the ground
when it comes to policing in this province.
However, I can say the RCMP has enhanced 24-7 coverage in Grand
Falls-Windsor, and they're actually saving money by doing it and we
look forward to expanding that pilot.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, that's correct; we did have a good discussion. I thank the
minister and his staff for that last night in Estimates.
Mr. Speaker, the Harbour Grace court is a busy place, and that
courthouse and others are closing. So officers in Harbour Grace, in
Placentia, the Cape Shore, Whitbourne, Bay de Verde and all of those
areas are now going to spend hundreds of hours a year having to travel
to St. John's to go to court, instead of spending their times on the
streets protecting the citizens they're there to protect and the
communities they're there to serve.
So I ask the Premier: Has an analysis been done on how court closures
will impact policing in communities, and will you release those
analyses?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Justice.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I'm happy to answer this question again, as I did last night. The fact
is that we've got great police forces in this province, whether it's the
RNC or it's the RCMP, and we've enjoyed working with them and meeting
with them to discuss the challenges we face, challenges that have
existed for some time.
Again, when it comes to these court closures, we know that it will face
challenges. Again, challenges that the Opposition faced when they were
closing courts in this province over the last 12 years.
So, again, we will work with our forces, and they will work with us over
the next four months to ensure there is no reduction in policing
services to these communities. Again, we had to make very difficult
choices based on the financial mess that was left to us, but thankfully,
we have great police forces that we'll continue to work with to ensure
safety for all the citizens of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, when they're going to be spending hundreds of hours a year,
hundreds and hundreds of hours a year travelling from all those areas to
drive to St. John's to go to court. Some of them do it on a daily basis
while they're working, Mr. Speaker. That is not boots on the ground in
all those areas; that's a reduction in policing.
In Estimates last night during our discussion, the department identified
there are roughly 120 RNC officers who are eligible to retire today.
They're eligible to retire. It's more than a quarter of the entire
force, more than 25 per cent of the entire police service.
I ask the Premier: What is your plan to ensure that policing resources
stay strong in the years to come? We know it takes a long time to train
police officers; it takes a long time for them to learn their jobs.
Instead of reducing recruitment, what are you doing to ensure those
resources stay strong?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Justice.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As we discussed last night, we do know that there are 127 officers that
are eligible for retirement. This year so far we've actually had two
retire; compared to last year when there were 121 eligible to retire
and, I believe 15 retired.
I can say since 2005 there's been 151 sorry, 254 graduates of the RNC
program and 246, 97 per cent, are still working with us. Since that same
time, 152 retired and we actually recruited 246. I can say that we have
more recruits coming in. The Member opposite should know that there's no
reduction here.
We have a great working relationship with the RNC. I'm sure if it's a
concern for the chief of the RNC, he's more than willing to come and
discuss it with me. We'll have this conversation to make sure that our
policing continues to stay strong.
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, the
Minister of AES yesterday said in this House that it was the PC
government that closed the college campus in Springdale. I need to
educate the minister. It was actually the Liberal administration under
his former boss, Premier Tobin, who closed the Springdale, Lewisporte,
Bell Island and other campuses in the late '90s.
I ask the minister to now outline to the people of this province what
additional campuses and programs are the Liberals planning to cut this
time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I believe it was the former administration that did cut $22 million from
the College of the North Atlantic. With that big a number, sometimes you
can infer that maybe cuts would be coming to campuses. It was the former
administration that cut $22 million from the campuses.
Do you know what? There are a lot of campuses that, as a result of those
cuts, are not functioning, in my opinion, to their full efficiency.
We're going to work with those campuses to try and build up their
strength, unlike what you did.
Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
With that
response, obviously, I'm worried about where rural Newfoundland is going
in post-secondary in their second budget that we'll see later this fall.
The Minister of Education in one of his most bizarre comments to date
stated that the high adult illiteracy rates were reason to shut down 54
libraries.
I ask the minister: How will cutting these learning institutions in so
many of our communities improve our literacy rates? He can't possibly be
that out of touch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, what
I said yesterday was that we have had a long-term sustained high rate of
functional adult illiteracy. There is a reason for that. The reason is
what the previous administration was doing, including not delivering on
the adult literacy strategy they promised in 2007. What they were doing
was not working.
One thing they were doing was cutting and cutting and cutting the
library system and not keeping up with the cost of operating the library
system to the point where the library system was undergoing a slow
atrophication process.
The libraries that are slated for closure now had an average hour of
operation of 18 hours a week, that's all, frequently between 9 to 5,
Monday to Friday, when most people in the population simply could not
access them.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, I
ask the minister: He should check with those communities that have 18
hours and ask them, do they want to get rid of that? I'll tell you,
they'll say no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Does the minister
think it's reasonable for children, youth and seniors to travel for
hours to access books and learning materials now with the new setup?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, what
is unreasonable is to continue to cut and cut and cut a system and
expect it to operate optimally. That did not happen under the previous
administration.
The provincial libraries board, once we started the Government Renewal
Initiative in January it became quickly known to me that the public
libraries board had been advocating for a number of years to close
libraries due to the fact that they no longer could afford to operate
them. The cost of paying employees was going up and up with the 39 or so
percent increase in wages that occurred over the previous 12 years.
The cost of leases was going up. The previous administration got the
libraries board into several leases that were hundreds of thousands of
dollars. It just simply could not be sustained.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, the
minister, who was the critic in the previous administration, was adamant
that they should stay open and now he's flip-flopped on that also.
Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Education stated that libraries
have become a place for seniors to check their email, a remark that have
many of our province's seniors highly offended.
Mr. Speaker, libraries provide so much more than books. Libraries are
common centres in the communities. Libraries offer services like tax
return assistance, reading circles, homework help, public speaking
competition for students. For many, the library is their only source of
Internet access.
I ask the minister: Will you admit that by closing libraries you are
depriving the people of our province from yet another critical service?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
I'm going to tell
you one thing, Mr. Speaker, it's pretty evident that it's pretty easy to
sit there in Opposition with half the information uttering half-truths.
I did not say that libraries had become a place for seniors to check
their email. That's not what I said, and you should check the public
record and get your facts straight.
Mr. Speaker, this previous government
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KIRBY:
If you don't want
to hear the answer, don't ask the question is all I can say. We stand
here day after day trying to answer questions that the Opposition is
asking and they heckle right through Question Period. I don't think they
hear a word over there, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is the previous government cut and cut and cut
around the edges of the library system and expected it to operate
without sufficient numbers of funds. What we're doing now is introducing
a regional system that 85 per cent of the people in the population can
access.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Two years ago the Minister of Education said in this very House, I
believe that the Newfoundland and Labrador government should stop all
cuts to libraries
. He requested additional funding for libraries.
I ask the minister: Does he stand by his belief or does he blindly
follow the orders of the Finance Minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I
serve in this capacity at the pleasure of the Premier and I'm pleased to
do so. I'm pleased to work with the provincial libraries board who had
to make a difficult decision the other day around libraries and the
continuity of services. Those are people who value literacy, who value
reading and want to ensure that the public in Newfoundland and Labrador
has reasonable access.
The only glimmer of hope that I could see in what the previous
administration did is that the numbers of electronic materials
increased. In one of the annual reports it was said to increase by about
25 per cent. It's very obvious that people are accessing text
differently. We have to change the system, modernize it so we reinvest
in electronic access, the texts, books by mail and other investments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, we
along with many others were very troubled to hear the recent
announcement concerning cuts to the provincial Breast Screening Program.
Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed type of cancer among
women in Newfoundland and Labrador. My family, like most families in
this province, has been devastated by this disease.
Understanding the importance of early detection, I ask the minister: How
can your government justify making such a significant reduction in the
provincial Breast Screening Program, a step backwards in the area of
women's health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister
of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
In 2011, five years ago, the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health
issued new guidelines for low-risk women for breast cancer screening.
Those included removing the breast screening clinical exam and removing
the requirement for mammography under the age of 50. These were of no
benefit to low-risk individuals. If the Member opposite has concerns
that she's in a high-risk category, I would suggest she talk to her
primary care provider.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
With 20 per cent
of women under the age of 50 diagnosed with breast cancer, Mr. Speaker,
I say it's 20 per cent too many. We're going to come back to that again
in this House.
The aquaculture industry on the province's South Coast is a fine example
of how to diversify a rural economy. My district has seen prosperity,
population increases and more people working than ever before. But under
this Liberal government, I have people telling me that they feel like
they are being targeted for just trying to feed their family.
I ask the Minister of Business: What is your diversification plan for
rural Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member talks about the aquaculture industry. This
government realizes the value of the aquaculture industry. It's one of
the things the Premier had in my mandate letter. It's one of the
objectives we will follow.
We've had the opportunity, throughout our short time in government, to
work with the industry. I've worked closely with NAIA and we will
continue to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker,
losing $500 a month at least plus more in additional taxes and fees is
not going to help people eat or feed their families. In fact, it is
going to drive them away.
Mr. Speaker, I hear no plan from the Liberals on rural investment.
Actually, with their decisions to close support centres and libraries in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador, three in my district alone, all I can
see are cuts. Our Poverty Reduction Strategy showed that when people
have access to these services, they have a greater chance at success.
I ask the minister: As the Liberals rips these services from rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, what hope and opportunity is left for our
people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member opposite for her question. When it comes to looking
at the economy and looking at investment, we have a number of plans and
strategies that we have that we're working on.
When it comes to looking at investment in the tourism industry, we're
seeing incredible numbers this year already posted. When it comes to
planning and attraction of motor coach traffic, our actual numbers on
our website are up 16 per cent. We're continuing to work on regional
governance and work on that plan when it comes to how we deliver
services, like the public libraries.
People will have access to library services within a half an hour to
be able to access improved services with a minimum of 30 hours a week.
There are lots of things that we're investing in when it comes to trade,
when it comes to economic development, broadband, the list goes on and
on and on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, a
lot of people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador can't afford broadband
and without libraries, I don't know how they're going to access the
Internet. No plan, no investment, no hope. After all, it was the Liberal
Premier who infamously described our province as the last, the lowest
and the least. Well, another infamous quote that the Premier made and
it's currently making the rounds again is if you can't listen, you can't
lead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
I ask the Premier
if you were listening to the taxpayers of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, when you decided to close the medical clinic in Hermitage,
schools in Whitbourne and Conche or AES offices across the province,
just to name a few of the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
devastating
cuts that Liberals are making to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for her question. There are
certainly lots of investments in budget 2016-2017 when it comes to
looking at how we're going to diversify and enhance our economy and also
providing services all across this province.
If we look at the tourism industry, we have $13 million in a marketing
budget. We have $18.5 million in culture and heritage investments in our
province. We are also investing in venture capital. We're dealing in
infrastructure over $570 million is being spent in this budget on
roads, on schools, and infrastructure all over. In municipalities,
maintaining their Municipal Operating Grants.
There are a lot of good things in budget 2016-2017
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Mount Pearl North, for about a 20-second question.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the
people of Botwood and surrounding communities are deeply concerned with
the axing of 24-hour snow clearing; however, that concern only worsened
when they received news those emergency room hours at the Dr. Hugh
Twomey Centre would be cut in half with no after-hours care.
I ask the minister: What do you say to these thousands of people who
have real concerns about travelling the highway to Grand Falls-Windsor
to access emergency care, when they can no longer be sure that the
highways will even be cleared and fit for travel?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank the Member for his question. As I mentioned yesterday when we
talked about 24-hour snow clearing, we know that there were three
pressure areas of the province that we provided that. We did not provide
24-hour snow clearing for the entire province.
One of the things that we are doing that will be different next year
it will not be implemented until next winter is the fact that we will
not have a dedicated service to that, but we will make sure that safety
is number one. Our supervisors will have that in place so we'll have
snow clearing available
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
The Marine Atlantic service across the Gulf of St. Lawrence was a key
provision under the Terms of Union between our province and Canada.
Oceanex has launched an action in federal court which could lead to the
elimination of the federal subsidy on goods shipped by Marine Atlantic,
thereby driving up the cost of goods to consumers in this province.
I ask the Premier: If the province has requested or plans to request
intervener status in this case to ensure the people of the province
continue to benefit from the subsidy that Canada pays on goods shipped
via Marine Atlantic?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I agree with the Member opposite. The Marine Atlantic service to
Newfoundland and Labrador, which is really the main transportation link
that we bring in goods and services, that we all use to support our
province.
The current case that's ongoing right now there is a case management
discussion that's happening right now. It's our intention this case
will be heard, we understand to be late fall. We've met with the
officials of Justice who are preparing a position for us to be as a
province right now.
I can assure you one thing. Our job, working with the officials in
Justice, is to make sure we protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, and that is exactly the position we will be taking.
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 think the Premier just said yes. I'm not sure. It was hard to tell.
I want to add then, Mr. Speaker, that the already high cost of food will
necessarily go up if this subsidy is dropped. This would add to the
increase in food prices, which is inevitable because of the Budget 2016
hike in the cost of gasoline. People are not going to be able to feed
themselves.
So I ask the Premier: Will he commit that he will do his duty and ensure
that the province intervenes on behalf of the people? I still don't know
if that's what he said.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
What I said to
the Member opposite and I thank her for her question, by the way,
because it is a very important subject.
Protecting the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, working
with the officials at Justice, realizing that this is a commitment, a
constitutional right that we have within our province, we will take a
position that benefits Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the
position we will take. This is a case right now that we anticipate will
be heard later on this fall.
I want to go back to one other comment she made. There were two
questions there. She fails to recognize and fails to accept the fact
that we have put a program in place to help those people, those
low-income earners, those seniors you're talking about that can't afford
the food as you say.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
The fear
mongering you continue to do, will you please accept the fact that there
are supplements put in place. It is a temporary levy
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
that affects
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we will make sure that we protect
the vulnerable (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, last
week I attended the AGM for Bridges to Hope, the food bank in my
district. The number of people using their food bank has tripled in the
past few months alone. Many are families who had never used food banks
before.
I ask the minister: What is she going to do about the fact so many
hard-working people are forced to go to food banks even before they've
been hit by her regressive budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the opportunity to stand again
in this House and speak about the Newfoundland Income Supplement, which
is a program designed to make sure that those people in our province,
particularly low-income seniors, individuals, single parents, people
with disabilities, have a relief from the revenue measures that we've
had to implement as a result of the prior government's poor planning.
Those low-income individuals will have the opportunity to receive income
to offset the increases through the Newfoundland Income Supplement.
We're also enhancing the Seniors' Benefit program and also making sure
that we've provided funds to AES to help those individuals who may be
impacted by this budget there as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for
St. John's Centre for a very quick question.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker,
let's look at the minister's Income Supplement. A family of four earning
$36,000 must pay the minister's levy of $300. They lose the $250 Heating
Rebate, leaving them in fact with an Income Supplement of $38 a month.
Then they also lose the provincial portion of their HST rebate and get
hit with the minister's increases in gas tax, sales tax and her
additional fees. So her Income Supplement is no big help.
I ask the minister: Will she table a detailed analysis showing
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask the minister: Will she table a detailed analysis showing how her
Income Supplement is actually going to help hard-working, low-income
workers in this province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, I'll thank the Member opposite for the quick question. I'm
actually going to do better than provide her with technical briefings.
It's obvious the other side of the House here doesn't want the facts.
I'm going to do better than that. We're going to post online a tool so
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are in the low income and our
constituency assistants and their constituency assistants can provide
the facts to low-income people as opposed to falsehoods that the
Opposition have continued to perpetuate since April 14, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for
Question Period has expired.
During Question Period I heard rumblings from the Opposition that I was
being unfair with time for answers. I will ask the Clerk to provide to
the Opposition House Leader the times for both questions and answers.
I've been very clear with the House that questions are 45 to 50 seconds,
answers are 45 to 50 seconds. I've cut answers off at 50 seconds just as
I have cut questions off. The Clerk will be happy to provide the time.
The only exception to that is when heckling interrupts a question to the
point that I stop the clock and reset it for an answer. The same will
apply if the heckling is from the other side and I stop the clock and
reset it for a question. The Speaker is fair. If somebody wants to
challenge the Speaker, I ask them to stand and do so right now.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in this House a Member opposite asked me for the detailed
description of the status of layoff notices. I would like to table that
information in the House for the Member opposite.
I would also like to table for the Members of the Official Opposition
the information that the Third Party has been already provided, because
we haven't been asked for that by the Members of the Official
Opposition, which is the comparison of provincial personal income tax
payable for 2017.
I'd also like to provide for the Members of the Official Opposition, who
have not requested it, the 2016 Atlantic provinces comparison of
personal income tax payable.
I'd also ask the Speaker to allow me to also table for the Members of
the Official Opposition, who have not asked for the information, the
comparison of provincial income tax payable in 2006 and 2016, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling
of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act, Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices
of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not
adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 2, 2016, and I further give notice
under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 10
p.m. on Monday, May 2, 2016.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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 Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned
residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax
placing a higher tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levelled on the highest income earners
only, as currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as
Australia, Norway and other countries; and
WHEREAS government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the
personal income tax schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit
Reduction Levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on
progressive taxation principles and that an independent review of the
Newfoundland and Labrador provincial income tax system begin immediately
to make it fairer to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance in Question Period said that I need
a primer and that, in fact, she's going to give us information, the
facts on which to base the calculations for her wonderful Income
Supplement. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what I did. I used all the
information that government has given so far on their Income Supplement.
As I said in my question, Mr. Speaker, if we have a family of four with
one earner making $36,000, they are going to have to pay the minister's
levy of $300. They're going to lose their Heating Rebate because that's
been disqualified. That means they're down $550. They may get about $900
for an Income Supplement, but already they've lost $550. So that brings
it down to $450 for an Income Supplement. If you average that out over
the month, that's about $38 a month.
This same family is going to have to pay 15 per cent on their home
insurance. They're going to have to pay, with all the additional taxes
and the increase in the taxes on gas, about 20 cents a litre more on
gas. They're also going to have to pay more to register their car.
They're also going to have to pay a number of other fees. So I'd say, in
fact, that wonderful, great big Income Supplement will be a great big
zero. It will be a zero or maybe it will be a few cents a day.
We're talking about a family of four with two adults and two children
who are making $36,000 a year. That's not a whole lot of money, Mr.
Speaker. Their supplement, the supplement that this minister is so proud
of, basically amounts to nothing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
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, I bring the following petition to the House of Assembly:
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 Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure;
and
WHEREAS the continuation of the Hebron and Long Harbour projects and the
commercial and residential growth on our region has increased the volume
of traffic on this highway;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge government to continue to upgrade this
significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of
traffic to and from the Trans-Canada Highway;
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this piece of highway connects Route 10, the Southern Shore
to the Trans-Canada Highway. Over the past number of years, it has
certainly become instrumental in regard to just general travel for
residents back and forth between the two regions, but certainly from
commercial industrial activity and employment. Many residents from my
area travel back and forth to Bull Arm, Long Harbour, and even commerce
back and forth, even the fishing industry in regard to transportation of
various fish species back and forth across that piece of infrastructure.
Over the past number of years the previous administration we invested
somewhere around $1.5 million to the various sections of that piece of
highway. It continues to need upgrades, some maintenance work to
maintain it, but very heavily used.
From an economic development point of view and we've heard chatter in
this House from the government on economic diversification. We haven't
seen a lot of details, but from this piece of infrastructure it's
extremely important. I certainly urge government and the Minister of TW
to continue to have a look, do maintenance and continue to build this
infrastructure that's so crucial to the Southern Shore and the access to
the Trans-Canada Highway.
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.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned
residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax,
placing a higher tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners
only, as currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as
Australia, Norway and other countries; and
WHEREAS government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the
personal income tax schedule needs to be revised and promises to do;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit
Reduction Levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on
progressive taxation principles and that in an independent review of the
Newfoundland and Labrador provincial income tax system begin immediately
to make it fairer to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand and present this petition
on behalf of the people who have signed it. Many people, some of whom
turned out last night to a town hall that I attended here in St. John's,
a town hall where people spoke very specifically to this issue of the
levy. It is something that is weighing heavily on middle- and low-income
people, starting with people with incomes of $20,000, who just manage to
keep things together.
An individual, and sometimes families with that income, are just
managing to hold things together. A family earning under $25,000 and
having to pay $600 because of two people in the house having to pay $300
each because it's based on persons that is an extreme amount of
money for them. That family with one or two children is just managing.
They haven't got a cent from paycheque to paycheque.
Here on my desk I have hundreds of emails that have come into me
hundreds of emails. That's one of the messages from so many of the
families, Mr. Speaker. They live from cheque to cheque. They don't save
any money, not because they don't want to, it's because they cannot.
I've had a tweet from a person who said we don't know what else we can
do to live as a family of five, with five mouths, a family who no longer
has a land phone. They don't have TV. They can't pay for extras for the
children like dance classes. Now they are saying how are we going to be
able to pay not only this levy, but the increases in fees and the
increases in taxes that have been laid on them.
People really don't know what to do. We talked here in this House
already today about food and about the need of people to feed their
families. If we think the lineups at food banks are long now, it is
going to increase. This is not a joke, it's serious. One easy way for
the government is to adjust this levy, Mr. Speaker
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much. I'll continue the next time because I have many more.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you
very much, Mr. Speaker.
To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the federal government cannot justify discriminating against
Newfoundland and Labrador when determining dates for the recreational
ground fishery;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge the government to be vocal in calling the
Government of Canada to extend the recreational ground fishery in
Newfoundland and Labrador, promote fairness and safety in tourism in our
province.
Mr. Speaker, I've presented this petition a number of times. To tell you
the truth, I was hoping by the time the 1st of May came along that this
would be put to bed and people in the province would know what's
happening with the recreational fishery.
It's very important, Mr. Speaker, especially in these times of doom and
gloom and everything else in our province, that people can look forward
to going on the water and it's safe. That's the main thing I emphasize
every time, is safety, that they don't be pushed out on weekends when
the wind is high and they're taking chances, and taking chances with
their lives.
Also, Mr. Speaker, people are wondering because a lot of people want
to plan holidays and people are coming home. I have a brother that I
spoke to last week who said, did you hear anything on the fishery? When
is it? Is it going to be the same time? I said I don't know. People want
to know because they plan trips and they plan their vacations around
this.
It's important that we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, have the
opportunity to go out and catch a fish like we've always done. It's
important to all Newfoundland, rural and people in around St. John's.
Everybody loves to go out and catch a cod.
I emphasize that these they brag about their great relationship with
their cousins and I know they're speaking to their cousins in Ottawa.
Can they get this done and get it done so the people of Newfoundland can
know when this fishery is going to happen.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy, as introduced in Budget 2016,
unfairly targets the middle class; and
WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy asks low-income earners to pay more
than their fair share instead of increasing taxes to high-income
earners;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately stop the
introduction of the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this levy has been a great cause of concern for many in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The discussions we've had with people since
budget day are truly, truly heart wrenching.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand, I think, how someone who's never done
without food or done without heat probably don't realize the impact that
this levy is going to have. As a person who has great experience with
hard times, and having come from a rural area that has seen some really
hard times, I can assure you for a senior citizen or for a single mother
with two or three small children, trying to find $300 is a lot of money.
For someone who's working in the oil industry or making millions of
dollars, it's probably one less supper at Raymonds.
The people we're talking about don't even know what it would be like to
go inside the door of a place, Mr. Speaker, like Raymonds. We have to
live in the real world and the real world for many people in
Newfoundland and Labrador is middle to low incomes.
Of everything we've seen in the budget it's all devastating; it's all
deplorable. None of it is what the people asked for. None of it is what
the people voted for. The most upsetting thing of all we've seen is the
levy.
I really don't know who they're listening to, or who they're taking
their advice from. Just last Friday night, a former Liberal premier of
this province even suggested the levy be done away with. Listen to the
people; go with the higher income tax brackets. I don't know who they're
listening to. They're not listening to the Liberals. They're not
listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
The message is quite clear from every single resident of this province:
Stop the levy. It's absolutely terrible. The economic consequences and
the social consequences that we are going to see a result of this budget
and, in particular, this levy, are quite dire. Time will prove that this
is the worst ever budget ever seen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I call Orders of the Day. I would call from the Order Paper, Motion 3,
Bill 10.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured every day that I stand in this House to speak,
an honour that's bestowed on me by the people of Windsor Lake. I'm
honoured that I've been asked by our Premier to take on this very
difficult job, a job that I've been asked to do on behalf of the people
of the province. I have to say that I'm not pleased to rise in this hon.
House today to speak to Bill 10, the
Loan Act, 2016.
Since January to date, this government has been able to secure five
market issues of borrowing totalling some $1.985 billion. For Members of
this House and, Mr. Speaker, for those listening at home, I realize that
maybe we need to resolve to Committee because we're in the second phase
of this. With your permission, I will sit down and allow House officials
to move us to Committee and I'll start over once we go.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety,
that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole my
apologies for jumping into the debate that I'm so eager to have on
Ways and Means to consider certain resolutions and a bill relating to
the imposition of tax on the Loan
Act, 2016, Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's been moved
and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole
and I do now leave the Chair.
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole,
Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order,
please!
We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 10.
Resolution
CLERK:
That it is expedient
to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way
of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding
$1,600,000,000.
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution
carry?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you,
Madam Chair.
I appreciate the support of the House staff as we move to Committee of
the Whole to finish and move through the debate and discussion around
Bill 10, the Loan Act, 2016.
Madam Chair, I'm honoured every day that I stand in this House to speak.
It's an honour bestowed on me by the people of Windsor Lake.
I'm honoured to have been asked by our Premier to take on a very
difficult job. A job I've been asked to do for the people of the
province. I have to say I'm not pleased to rise in this hon. House today
and speak to Bill 10, the Loan
Act, 2016.
Since January to date, this government has been able to secure five
market issues totalling $1.985 billion: $235 million issued for a term
of three years; $300 million issued at a term of 31 years; $350 million
issued for a term of 10 years; $600 million issued for a term of 10
years; and most recently, $500 million issued for a term of five years.
Madam Chair, as I told my young son today while trying to explain to him
why the people of the province are disappointed at his mom and why they
have questions for our government, the government that she represents, I
had to share with him that I am the only person in the province who has
had to sign loan documents that would equal mortgages of $200,000. I
signed the equivalent of 9,500 mortgages for $200,000 based on the debt
I've had to accept on behalf of this government.
He understands mortgages and like many parents, we speak to him about
debt and why spending more than what you have is not wise. Budget 2016
reflects the very difficult choices we've had to make. Madam Chair, this
is what a person told me: That was a pretty tough budget but one that
was necessary. I personally think you are making the right decisions in
the right places. I know it's not easy on the people of the province or
myself
Sorry to say but the province needed this budget
.
Madam Chair, I know this has been a difficult budget for people to
accept. We have reflected on every single decision and wish there were
other ways. The magnitude of the $1.8 billion deficit that could have
been much larger leaving this province, and continues to leave this
province, in a very serious financial situation.
Since 2003, governments have spent too much money. They cut taxes at a
rate that we could not afford and now we must find our way back. We are
going to work with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to get back
on track. We all have a lot more work to do, but our government is
committed to finding the excess within Government Services, we're
committed to finding waste and we're committed to saving every single
job that we can save.
Madam Chair, I want the people at home to know that government
recognizes how challenging this is and that we are working very hard to
find ways to make it easier. We have significant borrowing requirements
this year, a total of $3.4 billion for this fiscal year alone as set out
in Budget 2016. That's hundreds and thousands more of those $200,000
mortgages that my son's mother has to sign on behalf of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Money that this government needs in order to
have the money to pay people, the money to pay for services, the money
to pay former administration's debts, the money we need to pay the
bills.
To ensure we can access this money, the money that we don't have, we
have to keep talking to the banks, convincing them to lend us money. We
need to be active in the bond markets while the budget approval process
is ongoing; therefore, the province requires interim borrowing
authority. That's why we introduced Bill 10 to establish the
Loan Act, 2016. The $1.6
billion interim authority stays in place and will be supplemented by a
request for additional authority requested to the passage of the budget.
Our government has had success in the long-term market in spite of the
challenges that we've been facing that are facing our province and
other provinces as well in the long-term bond market. These challenges
come from things like the sharp fall of oil prices and the resultant
impact on the provincial economy, and the further changing of the fiscal
situation in the province as outlined in the mid-year.
The recent reaction to this difficult budget by the banks and
bond-rating agencies makes me optimistic that we will get the access to
the money that we don't have. It is clear that this government's
commitment to action to deal with the fiscal situation is allowing
Newfoundland and Labrador to secure much-needed borrowing.
Our government is looking to the future and continuing to evolve the
relationships with our investors. We must be able to access the money
that we need to pay our employees, to pay for services and to pay for
the things that the province has a responsibility to provide.
In Budget 2016, we laid out a fiscal plan that allowed our province to
regain control of government finances. The choices we have made have not
been easy, but necessary to deal with the unbelievable unbelievable
lack of planning and mismanagement of the former administration. That,
coupled with our inability to manage a financial plan, has left our
province to deal with unprecedented debt, unprecedented borrowing and
unprecedented fiscal pressures.
As I've indicated, we know we will have to borrow in the '16-'17 budget.
In order to continue to avail of the market opportunities, we need to
begin to establish our borrowing authority this year. The
Loan Act, 2016 will give us
interim authority, Madam Chair, to borrow $1.6 billion to begin and
continue our borrowing program for '16-'17.
Our total borrowing requirements, as I've said earlier, for the budget
for '16-'17 are outlined in the budget and are $3.4 billion. Our
government is working very hard to make sure the cost of borrowing money
is the lowest it can be so we don't need to borrow even more money. A
budget is not an easy one for any finance minister, but I can say with
confidence that had we done nothing, the debt of our province would have
doubled in five years.
The unprecedented fiscal situation left us demands that we have a loan
bill in place as early as possible for '16-'17. We cannot miss an
opportunity, sadly, to borrow funds while the budget approval process is
ongoing. The success this government has seen in the long-term market in
the last couple of months is a testament to the fact that the Premier
has been having many conversations over the last months, as I have, with
our financial advisors.
I personally spoke to the major banks earlier this week, as a result of
the budget, as we continue to listen to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
on their concerns about the difficult nature of this budget. We are
giving our lenders confidence that despite the difficulty this budget
brings on, that we are beginning to get our province back on the path
forward, a path to recovery and a path to getting our province back to
stable financial ground.
With that, Mr. Speaker Madam Chair, my apologies I will take my
seat. I look forward to continuing to discuss the government's financial
plan on how to reshape Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal future, and
how I need to continue to explain to my 12-year-old that his mother
continues to borrow record amounts of money on behalf of the people of
the province.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Before debate continues, I will ask the Clerk to read a correction into
the record.
CLERK:
That it is expedient
to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way
of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding
$1,600,000,000.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member
for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Like the Finance Minister, I'm also not pleased to rise and speak to
this bill today, but it is a necessary bill. I thank the Minister of
Finance for providing an overview of the legislation that we're debating
in the House this afternoon here in Committee.
This bill will authorize government to raise money by the way of a loan
to a maximum amount of $1.6 billion. It's important that we have an open
and frank debate about all aspects and all implications of this budget.
The need to borrow that kind of substantial amount of money definitely
needs to be subject to debate in this Legislature.
It also highlights the concern that I think a lot of the members of the
public have, but certainly Members on this side of the House have, about
the approach that the Liberal government has taken to this budget. It's
very much about taxation; it's very much about borrowing, with no
reduction in spending. Overall, in addition to borrowing more money to
pay the bills and keep government running, this government is going to
spend, in this fiscal year, an additional $400 million over last year.
I recognize we're receiving some criticism right now as well. I
understand people are angry. I understand that people are frustrated. I
have to say, Madam Chair, we take responsibility for decisions that
we've made in the past, and they haven't always been easy decisions
either.
Over the last decade or so, we've seen record investments in
infrastructure in our hospitals, in our schools, in our roads, in our
ferries, in our bridges. We've seen tax cuts. We've seen improvements to
social programs that are much needed. I am prepared to stand here and
defend many of those decisions and those investments. I'll also
acknowledge that we were far from perfect and we made mistakes. This
government will certainly be far from perfect and will make mistakes as
I believe, I'll respectfully say, they're making with this budget.
The decisions aren't easy. Facing this complex fiscal challenge that we
face is not easy. I would suggest, Madam Chair, the answer can't be
simply about increase levels of taxation and increase levels of
borrowing, without any real plan to stimulate and grow the economy.
This loan is, unfortunately, necessary, but overall, in terms of the
budget, there is a better way forward. It can't just be about taxing and
borrowing. Fundamentally, no matter who is in government right now,
there are difficult decisions that must be made around the level of
government expenditure. One of my biggest concerns with this budget is
the Liberal government has failed to make those tough decisions to
reduce spending.
Government spending has grown at an unsustainable pace, and those of us
who were in government have to acknowledge that as well. I'm very
surprised that we're not seeing significant reductions in spending.
Instead, we're seeing government tax and borrow. I think it's
irresponsible and I think it's unfortunate. I think it's part of the
reason why a lot of people are upset with this budget.
We will debate this afternoon Bill 10, which is an Act to Authorize the
Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province. It gives us an
opportunity it gives all Members of this House an opportunity to talk
about the implications of this budget and to talk about any other matter
that they wish. I think, given the nature of this bill, it is a good
opportunity to talk once again about the budget. I hope Members on all
sides of the House, from all parties, will take the opportunity to speak
and share their views and hopefully, also take the time to express
concerns on behalf of their constituents.
The Minister of Finance acknowledged in her remarks that she's hearing
from her constituents and she's hearing from people of the province. I
also acknowledge that she's in a very difficult situation right now.
When I spoke to the budget unlike most Members of the House, I did
take the opportunity to participate in the budget debate on a couple of
occasions so far. I hope we'll hear from all Members in the days ahead
in this House.
I made a point that I want to emphasize again. You can be angry, you can
be frustrated, you can be upset, but there's no need for us to attack
individuals and their families. I don't support the decisions the
Premier and the Finance Minister have made I don't but the personal
attacks I don't believe are warranted. I appreciate the frustration of
Members who are being subjected to that at this point. They're taking
the brunt of it, but we're certainly seeing those kinds of attacks on
our side as well. I think there's a better way to have public debate and
discussion about the decisions of government without getting nasty and
personal.
People are upset. They're legitimately upset because this government
promised a plan and doesn't have one. Taxing and borrowing us to death
is not a plan and it's not sustainable. It's actually going to make our
problems in this province worse.
We had a plan. One of the things I've heard repeatedly during the last
couple of weeks that the budget has been a hot topic everywhere in our
province is what was the PC's plan? We campaigned on our plan. We
brought down a budget last year and Members opposite have said that
didn't go far enough. I recognize that we would have had to go even
further based on the further drop in oil prices that we saw later in
2015 and into 2016.
We did have a plan and clearly people of the province made a decision,
which I respect. They chose the Liberals. They were made a lot of
promises back in the fall and they received a huge vote of confidence
from the people of the province. So I respect that the people spoke.
We had a plan. People didn't like it, but at least we were honest about
what our plan was, Madam Chair. Was it perfect? No, it wasn't. Would we
have had to adjust it based on the further decline in oil revenue?
Absolutely, we would have, but we were honest about what we were
prepared to do and not do.
Our plan was not simply to increase spending, increase borrowing, raise
taxes and raise fees that will impact every person and every family in
this province. There is a better way. I hope during this budget debate
that will ensue while we're talking about bills like this, and also in
the formal budget debate that we'll have an opportunity to talk about
some of those ideas.
What I'd like to do, as I speak to Bill 10 this afternoon, Madam Chair,
is also highlight some of the concerns that I'm hearing from
constituents. Not just my constituents but people from districts right
across the province, many of whom are now represented by Liberal MHAs.
The Minister of Finance referenced some of the concerns from her
constituents. I have a note here from one of her constituents that was
copied to many Members of the House of Assembly. We're all receiving
many, many emails.
I'm also receiving a lot of replies to emails from the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island who has mastered the reply all
function in Microsoft Outlook. I thank him for being prompt and thorough
in his responses to emails. He's definitely responding and it's
important to respond.
It's a huge volume. I would say to everybody out there, just because
your MHA hasn't responded yet doesn't mean they won't. I know I'm
getting dozens and dozens a day that do require a thoughtful response.
It's sometimes impossible to get to them all right away. I'm sure
Members opposite are facing an even greater influx of correspondence
from their constituents, but I hope they will all get responded to.
This constituent from Windsor Lake is writing regarding the proposed
2016 Budget. She says while she finds the budget as tabled to be
regressive and overall lacking any vision or innovative thinking, there
are two particular points she strongly opposes that I'd like to
highlight. One is the Debt Reduction Levy, the Liberal levy. I haven't
talked to anybody yet in this province who's supportive of that
approach.
We will stand on this side of the House and oppose that levy. We will
fight for the Liberal government to eliminate that levy and come back
with a better plan, with a better approach. The two points this
individual, from the Finance Minister's district, is most concerned
about: one is the Liberal levy and the second is the fuel tax increase,
which has gotten some discussion during the public dialogue about the
budget. There are issues like the levy that seem to be getting even
greater attention.
This constituent had left a message with the Finance Minister's office
but hasn't received a response. She describes the levy tax as punitive
and says that it should be removed from the budget. It's unfairly
implemented to the point of undue hardship on low- to middle-income
earners. It's nothing more than a cash grab that will never be repealed.
I think that's where a lot of the concern lies, Madam Chair. The Premier
says over and over again, well, this is temporary. In 1917, income tax
was temporary as well. I recall other forms of taxation and fees
implemented by governments in the past that were supposedly temporary,
but people don't believe that. People feel they've been lied to and they
don't believe this levy will only be a temporary measure for a couple of
years.
Regardless, even if it is temporary, even if you accept that premise,
people still feel the approach is just unfair. Frankly, it's just income
tax by another name. What's even more frustrating is that at the same
time we're going to face this levy, all of us, we're also going to pay
increased income tax. So we're being hit twice just in terms of income
tax alone.
A fee to live sorry, I want to make sure I quote the email correctly.
This individual feels: The fee to live in Newfoundland and Labrador
heralds back to an undemocratic social hierarchy and is governed by a
fish merchant mentality.
This constituent of the Finance Minister is saying: As my elected
Member, I want you to readdress this issue. I want you to revisit it and
come up with a better approach. The astronomical increase in the cost of
fuel as proposed will drive significant inflation on goods and services.
It will limit consumer buying power and confidence and mobility, and
directly hit the tourism sector of our economy. This individual is
absolutely correct. It will do all of those things.
The Leader of the Opposition asked a question to the Premier earlier
this week about the impact on the cost of food. This individual, in the
Finance Minister's District of Windsor Lake, clearly sees the connection
that we are all going to pay more for goods and services. We're going to
have less buying power. We're going to see growing sectors of our
economy, like the tourism sector, impacted by lots of what's proposed in
this budget.
This budget was so poorly planned that in anticipation of its
economically punishing effects, my husband and I have already cancelled
our plans to visit Gros Morne this summer and to attend the Shakespeare
By the Sea Festival. Those are the kinds of discretionary spending
decisions that many, many middle-class families are already making.
We're still trying to get our heads around the full impact of the
budget.
As we dig into it, we're finding there are many things in this budget
that haven't even received a lot of public attention yet that I think
are going to be devastating. The revelation that the Liberal government
plans to shut down 54 libraries in our province, it's devastating to
small communities, Madam Chair.
I think in the days and weeks ahead the full impact of this budget will
be discussed in greater detail. We'll see that as bad as the levy is and
the increases on fuel tax, the increases on insurance and all of the
other taxes and fees, all of the taxing, all of the borrowing and all of
the spending, beyond all of that, there are some other cuts to programs
and services that people are really going to feel.
This constituent of the Finance Minister says: I voted for you and it's
a decision I now deeply regret. This budget, as tabled, is regressive
and it's placed my future as a young Newfoundlander and Labradorian in
jeopardy. The Liberal campaign promises and rhetoric of November have
transformed into quoting the Finance Minister's words a tapestry of
bologna and lies. I have no faith in the dismissive governance that I am
currently witnessing. As your constituent, I ask you to please review
this budget.
When we're voting on Bill 10, when we're voting on the budget and when
we're debating the budget in the House of Assembly, I urge all Members
of this hon. House to listen to their constituents, to bring those
concerns to the floor of the House of Assembly and to speak to them.
That's what we intend to do on this side of the House, Madam Chair.
I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate this
afternoon.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Madam Chair.
I had to stop for a minute. I couldn't believe that nobody was standing
up from government. This is unbelievable.
We are dealing here in this House with a budget that I am absolutely
convinced is going to be so hard on low-income people and
low-middle-income people, on people on fixed income, on people who have
no choices. It's a budget like I've never seen before in the 40 years
that I've been involved as an activist, both in community, in social
justice work and also politically, through my party and now as an
elected person in this Assembly.
I've never seen a budget like it. I cannot believe that nobody on the
other side of the House is willing to stand in Committee and explain to
us why they believe in this budget, explain to us why they support this
budget. I can't believe they are not being accountable to the people
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
of this
province, Madam Chair, that they're not seeing their opportunity to be
accountable to the people who elected them, to be accountable to the
people that they go back and face in their constituencies as I do. I'm
in shock.
To have a Minister of Finance stand in her opening comments and paint
this as a personal responsibility, what is she trying to do? Once again
I ask the question, Madam Chair: Do they think the people who are
watching, do they think the people out there are stupid?
What kind of heartstrings is she trying to pull on; how do I explain to
my 12-year-old son how I signed a cheque? We're not talking about
personal issues here. We're talking about a government doing its work.
Bringing it down to that level is completely unacceptable. I can't
believe it. You would think the Minister of Finance had put up her own
personal assets for the loan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
I couldn't
believe it. That was unbelievable and unprofessional. That's not the
level of a government budget. A government budget is something they are
responsible for. A budget is not difficult, a budget is a process.
There's no such thing as a difficult budget. They may have found it
hard, but that doesn't make a budget difficult. A budget is a process. A
budget is how government looks at how they're going to give the services
to the people of the province, how they're going to take care of people
and how they're going to find the money to do it. It's not a thing. It's
not an object. It's not something difficult.
For the minister to be putting it down to the level of her personal
responsibility just completely belittles what the budget is all about. I
can't believe it; I absolutely cannot believe it.
She better learn how to explain to her 12-year-old son what politics is
all about and what economics are all about because economics is not
about mommy signing a cheque. That's not what it's about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
I ask the
minister, when the minister speaks in this House about the budget, to
please treat us all as adults and realize that people watching are
adults. They know it has nothing to do with her as a person and her own
personal responsibility for putting her signature on a cheque.
If they want to take responsibility over there, why aren't they all
standing up and explaining why they're supporting this budget instead of
sitting silently. That's what I ask.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Madam Chair, the
bill we're dealing with is asking for us to approve a loan of $1.6
billion. That's not problematic. What's problematic for me is that this
government wants us to approve a loan of $1.6 billion to keep things
going obviously, as a government, and to put in place their budget I'm
not going to call it a plan because it's not a plan but without really
explaining things to us.
I have a 10-page document here, Madam Chair, a document done by
government. It doesn't actually say which department of government put
it together. I presume it must be Executive Council because it takes
every single division of government.
It looks at the measures that are in the budget. It talks about those
measures and what you have is the initiative, the measure that's in the
budget; you have what the budget was in 2015-16 for that line item; you
then have the savings in the 2016-17 budget; the annualized savings, and
then you have what's called the rationale.
I was really happy when we were in the budget lock-up to receive this
document because I thought it was going to explain to me what the
initiatives were all about. In my understanding of English, rationale
means giving the reason behind something. Well, when I read through
these what, 12 pages I think it is, 14 pages actually. When I read
through this I looked at it and I said rationale? This is the rationale?
I had to try to figure out for myself what government meant.
There are sometimes when what they have listed there is a reason, it is
a rationale. In other cases I'm going to choose one; this one is under
Health and Community Services. Here's the initiative: Eliminate the
Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the NL Provincial Drug
Program under the Access and 65+ plans. That's the initiative, get rid
of the Adult Dental Program.
In getting rid of the Adult Dental Program, government is going to save
$2.5 million. Here's the rationale: Program will be modified and
brought in line with similar programming in other jurisdictions. That's
not a rationale, that's just stating a fact. What was the rationale for
doing that? Did the government, for example, look at the situation of
people in this province who access this program?
At the town hall we held last night, we had a denturist who stood at the
microphone and told us how overwhelmed she was when this program was put
in place. What she was overwhelmed by were the numbers of people living
all around poverty who were eligible for the program, for the Access and
the 65Plus Plans. They were eligible. They were just above poverty, they
were in poverty, they were just under. She was overwhelmed by how many
people.
As a denturist, she has really been worried and concerned about the fact
that since last September so this happened going way back her
clients, people needing dental plates were coming to her, were waiting
and waiting and waiting; waiting for months to have the approval for
them to get the dental plates they needed, since last September. We're
told there are 1,600 people on a waiting list that now is meaningless.
Overnight, the day after the budget came out, she had clients calling
and saying, Joanie I've gotten word, I can't get the plate.
She told us about the person who was made public in the media today. She
told us about him last night, an elderly man who, for health reasons,
had all his teeth taken out with the expectation of having plates put
in. He has learned that he can't get his plates put in. Now he's left
without any teeth in his head, can't eat, can't chew, just has to
swallow mush. That's what's happening. They don't have that in there, do
they, as their rationale for getting rid of the Adult Dental Program.
That's what you call a rationale. What was the reasoning there? To make
our elderly people suffer? They did no analysis of who was needing this
service and what was going to happen to the people who needed the
service. Not one person over there is going to stand and speak to Bill
10 allowing us, really, the whole government, to borrow $1.6 billion.
I see my time is up, Madam Chair. I look forward to standing up again.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Madam
Chair.
This is my first go about with budgets, but, you know, it's amazing when
the email accounts are full, the airwaves are full. You can't turn. I
flicked on the radio this morning, the Premier is on defending it or
the news tonight. No one will get up and speak on the budget or the
bills or anything. It's amazing.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's not a
budget b'y (inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, it's a money
bill. It's all the same, it's a budget.
Madam Chair, on that note, like I said, it is amazing but I will speak
on the bill is raising I mean they're raising the loans for
borrowing.
As my colleague said, there's been wastage over the years, no doubt. I
don't think there's a government ever going to be elected in any
province or any country that's not going to be guilty of wasting money
from time to time. Mixed with that, what some classify as waste, there's
been an awful lot of great investments made. Some not so great, but
overall the intent was always there to do the right thing.
It's fine to look in the rear-view mirror and say that maybe this
shouldn't have happened or that shouldn't have happened. At a time when
not only this previous government but many governments, when they have
the ability to provide different programs, different services, they tend
to always do so because when you have people coming it's easier to say
yes than say no when you have bona fide, qualified programs or asks, I
should say.
The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions I guess. When
you look around at the great investments that have been made in the last
10 years and longer, it's a job to say many of them are a waste of
money.
I had the privilege to get up last week and speak. I highlighted a lot
of those so-called wastes of money. I could go through that again, but I
have some other items I'd like to speak on today.
We all hear everyone is talking and all you hear is levy. Everyone
talks about the levy. Sure, fair enough, that's after hitting a nerve
with a lot of people. The tax on insurance is having an equal effect on
residents just as much as the levy is. In some cases it's having a
bigger impact.
As my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition had questioned today
during Question Period, a family with two teenaged children who have
their licence and are in university, trying to keep insurance on their
home and their vehicles and whatnot, it's a thousand dollars, which is
more than the highest end of the levy. That's an eye-opener. I know from
a personal standpoint the tax on insurance was removed by the previous
government and a lot of people were very happy about it because our
insurance rates are very high. If you put 15 per cent on insurance, it
hits the pocketbook. People feel it.
A lot of emails I get from residents, they seem to be very focused on
the levy like I said. I've had discussions with them. When you're back
and forth, it's almost like to say, yeah, that's true, they're not
really playing into the insurance tax.
The gas tax being another one; there's not a lot of talk about that
because there's focus on the levy. When you take all of those together,
your insurance tax, your gas tax, your levy, your personal income tax
speaking of the levy and your personal income tax, no one knows how the
levy is going to be collected.
I had a gentleman this morning that stopped me out in my district; he
doesn't know how you're going to get it from employers. How are
employers going to collect this? He's not a rich man but he gets three
small pensions. Who collects the money? There is no clear direction.
The Minister of Finance keeps saying that we're all over the place with
it and the Premier will say, no, you're going to collect it from
paycheques, you're going to collect it in income tax, you're going to
collect it in July but no one really knows the answer.
This gentleman today was in no way he wasn't pointing fingers, he
wasn't nasty. He just wanted to know how is that going to be done.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Members opposite seem to know
all the answers. I have no doubt they probably do but the public want to
know the answers as well and they're not getting them. We, as an
Opposition, would like to know a lot of answers and we're not getting
them.
Maybe if we had better answers to some of these questions we'd be able
to help you communicate this because right now the general public are
angry. I've never seen it before. I know some of this becomes an email
campaign. You'll get groups that will email you en masse but I get a lot
of emails from your average, regular family who live in all of our
districts. We all get them.
I said it before; a lot of them really pull at your heart strings. One
stuck with me today, this lady from my district emailed and she was
saying: I feel compelled to add my voice. I cannot recall a time when I
have felt so stressed and anxious about my family's future in
Newfoundland. How am I going to provide for my children? We don't go to
Disney, we do local tourism.
Anyone is welcome to read that email. I have it there. I get a lot of
those emails and I'm sure you all do, too. You're not human if you don't
read those emails and feel something inside your own self. This is not a
party thing and a blame thing. This is a reality. It's a reality we're
all living.
As my colleague for Mount Pearl North said, we're getting it on this
side too. We get some fingers pointing, but it's a general sense of
anxiousness and anxiety. People want answers and they're not getting the
answers. They're very frustrated. I told a gentleman this morning, I
said we'll try to get you an answer. I was sincere. When we get an
answer, we'll let you know. He's just asking out of courtesy. He doesn't
know how this is going to work.
That to me, when you add in the stress of the measures brought forward
in the budget, you put that on the average families and we all hear
about the levy, but there are a lot more things in there outside the
levy that's going to cause a lot of grief to a lot of people. It's going
to make life tough on them. Middle income families it's not cheap to
live in our province now as it is. The cost of living, as we all know,
is going to make it very difficult.
I really would like someone to provide answers to the people because
that's all I'm hearing. I said this before, if anyone wants to read my
emails, I'm not into bashing people, I don't. I just try to answer the
question or I'll sympathize. I'll say I understand where you're coming
from.
That's not me, but I have to say it is pretty frustrating because you're
going back to people and you're not giving them the answers they want.
You know they're anxious. You know they're stressed. They feel you
should have the answer. You're the representative. I agree, but we're
having trouble getting it. I don't know maybe Members opposite are
having trouble getting the same answers. If they're not, feel free to
share the information because I'm sure all Members on this side of the
House would love to hear it because I know the general public would.
You flick on the radio this morning I heard the Premier on. With all
due respect, he's on taking calls. That's good. That needs to be done.
It's getting your message out there. I give him full credit on that.
It's not easy to do, but a lot of these answers are never clear. We say
to them sometimes a plan to make a plan, we play politics, whatever you
want to call it but they're not clear answers. I don't know if the
comments that have been said you make it up as you go, but I know people
are pretty desperate, frustrated. They're looking for answers and not
getting them. Madam Chair, the public do deserve to have their voice
heard.
The time is getting close. I received a lot of emails lately too on
another budget items: class sizes, teacher cuts, I guess, peer teaching
and I suppose really the full-day kindergarten thing. A lot of people in
my district have concerns. There are a couple of schools there that say
they're not prepared to handle full-day kindergarten. There are a lot of
teachers and parents concerned about the class sizes and the number of
students in classes. They don't feel it's the same quality of education.
Then on top of that, yesterday, we heard about all these library
closures across the province.
It just seems like every day there are new things coming up and it's
causing a lot of stress on individuals. I can't be more sincere in
saying people want to know the answers. I'd love to know the answers
because, as I said, as the representative I feel it's incumbent upon me
to answer their questions. That's what we're elected for. We're supposed
to represent our districts and provide reasonable answers.
Until I get those answers, I have no ability to pick up the phone or
pick up my Blackberry and give them the answers they require. I really
would like to start getting some clear answers so we can message it to
our people.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam
Chair.
I'm just going to spend a few minutes on this, Madam Chair. This is a
bill for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to borrow. Of course,
I just push it off as a Member who's a rookie, he just don't understand
what this bill is. It is to give us to borrow. I'll just give you an
example. There hasn't been a Member over there yet who said here's what
we need in our district for capital works for roads. How are we going to
do it if you don't stand up and say yes, we need to borrow this money?
You can stand up as much as you like and rant, but at least speak to the
bill.
I was not going to bring politics into it, but the Members opposite are
talking about here's what we're doing over here. How about the 1,300
people who were laid off last year? Does that make a big difference? How
about the 1,300 now you're going out to rallies; oh, what a sin. There
were 1,300 people laid off, gone out through the door. All of a sudden
we're the big, bad bullies. The same people who laid off twice as many
as when they were on this side.
Madam Chair, I don't usually get too upset but I can tell you, I know
the Member here for Coley's Point the school and the Member there
for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. JOYCE:
Well, wherever
he's from Conception Bay Bell Island. Here's the hypocrisy. This
Member is standing up and saying: How about Coley's Point school? You
can't vote for the budget. Where was Glenn Littlejohn for the last three
years when the school wasn't done? Where was Glenn Littlejohn? Did you
see him standing up and saying, oh, I can't vote for the budget? How
hypocritical.
Here's something even worse. Do you know the Minister of Transportation
and Works who was supposed to do the design for the school was the same
Member who is asking questions, why isn't the school done? The same
Member who had it in his office to do the design work for the school for
Coley's Point and he delayed it himself personally, and he's standing up
now being the big hero for Coley's Point when he personally, as the
minister, was supposed to get the design done and never got it done.
Now, Madam Chair, I don't mind in here but when you want to attack
someone in this House, especially someone who's coming in and it's the
first year and don't have the history that some of us have. I know what
this minister did last year with capital works for highways for the Bay
of Islands. So don't speak to me about being fair and honest.
Two days before the tender he told the department take back the $500,000
for the Bay of Islands. There is a place there called Plant Hill, there
were two accidents there this winter and he personally got the money and
took it back two days before the tender. Madam Chair, do you know how I
know that? I went out with orders from the department to measure up what
the priorities were. We did that, myself and the regional manager.
When you get in government you can see who did what, and he personally.
This is the same Member who was the Minister of Transportation and Works
who is now saying, oh, you can't vote for the budget because Coley's
Point is not in it, but Glenn Littlejohn stood up, clapped every time
the budget came through. This is the same minister who sat right there,
Madam Chair, and wouldn't even do the design work for the Coley's Point
school. How hypocritical.
Now, Madam Chair, this bill is about borrowing money for the budget. We
heard, what's good in the budget? I don't have time to go through it
all. I will just look at Municipal Affairs.
I hear the Leader of the Opposition and I hear a few more over there:
how about Ottawa? How about Ottawa? I can tell you one thing, this
Premier wasn't sitting outside the doors of the Prime Minister at minus
20 degrees because he kicked him out of the office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Here's what this
Premier got done with Minister Judy Foote. First of all, there was $34.9
million they didn't even sign off on. They didn't even bother the only
province in Canada that didn't even sign off on it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Why not?
MR. JOYCE:
They didn't have
time. That wasn't a priority, $34.9 million to the province. Judy Foote
and the other MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador have come through with
a Canada Build Fund, with a green fund, with a picnic fund, Madam Chair,
that there's going to be over $600 million of capital works in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Madam Chair, this
is not a knock. I know the Members opposite, and I sat down with a lot
of them and said, what can we do to help your district? I'm not knocking
because that's what you should do. This is what this bill is for, so we
can do the things.
I know the Leader of the Opposition got up and tried to embarrass us
saying: every day they came and asked for more and more and more. Don't
you find that hypocritical? How many of you guys have to come over and
say here's what we need? But I don't blame you. That's part of being an
MHA, but you should tell your leader that. You should tell your leader.
That's part of your duties as an MHA, to bring concerns to the
government. I applaud you for it. I sit down, I do it. I did it last
year myself.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I can't
wait to get up.
MR. JOYCE:
I can't wait for
you to get up either.
That's what bothers me. I'll tell you another thing that bothers me,
Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
When we get in
there, Madam Chair, you find out a few things. This is all for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you want to talk about the
mess we have to clean up here on this side of the House, I'll give you
one little mess.
There was $30 million put aside for three years capital works. The
Member for Mount Pearl North started it. In two years the $30 million
for capital works was all spent. They sent out a letter to every
municipality last year saying we need the letters in by November 3 for
capital works. There wasn't one cent in the budget for capital works,
not one penny.
Do you know something? The Member for Mount Pearl North, the same one
who's over there saying, oh, you broke your promise. Where's the
hospital in Corner Brook? You walked out there and said it will start in
2015. You made a commitment and you have the hypocrisy to stand up here
and say you broke a commitment. This is just unbelievable.
I don't mind having a debate whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition is
the same one who walked out in Corner Brook, Madam Chair, a year ago
when he was Premier and said, we're starting a long-term care facility.
When we get in there's not even a design done; not even a design
completed to put to tender. Then all of a sudden we're hypocrites.
I ask the Member for Mount Pearl North to stand up. He never spent $30
million the first year in capital works. Here's an opportunity. I'll
table it $30 million. It was supposed to be over three years. They
spent it all in two years. Had an election coming up, let's push it out,
writing everyone and saying put in your money for the capital works, put
in your money for capital works not one cent there. That's the kind of
mess we have to clean up for the municipalities of Newfoundland and
Labrador. That's the kind of mess we have to clean up around here.
I have no problem defending the budget. I know it's a tough budget. I'll
be the first to say it. I know Barry Wheeler, a good friend of mine, had
problems with it. Do you know what the media said? He said: The
president of your association says it's a tough budget. I said: I agree
with him. It is a tough budget. I'm not to argue with that; it is a
tough budget. But when you are faced with the facts that are put in
front of you, you have to make tough decisions you have to make tough
decisions.
I will tell you one thing I won't do, Madam Chair, I won't put my head
in the sand, let Nalcor be out of control, spend, spend, spend. Have one
budget here's one budget $2.1 billion and we get in oh, by the way,
there's a second pot over here which is another $700 million that no one
even knew was a deficit. You put it all together and we end up with this
massive budget. No one knew until we got in and you see this second pot.
I tell you one thing I won't do, and I'm sure I'm speaking for all
Members here, we won't put our head in the sand and do everything that
everybody wants because it's the right thing to do. We need to do the
proper thing. The proper thing, Madam Chair, is get our finances in
order. Anybody who says to me it's a tough budget I'm going to say, I
agree. I apologize, but it's the measures that we had to take.
But I can guarantee you one thing, Madam Chair, a lot of municipalities
are going to be happy when they get water and sewer. A lot of
municipalities are going to see when roadwork is done on a priority
basis, not because of some political hack don't like you or don't care
and so let's see who we can get elected. It is done on a priority basis.
That's why I'm proud to stand with this government over here, I'm proud
to stand with these Members over here because I have seen personally the
stuff that went on.
When you write every council and every municipality in this province and
say we are putting in money for capital works and not have none it's
just not right. They don't deserve it, Madam Chair. They don't deserve
it.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind the Member his time has expired.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam
Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Madam
Chair, it's a privilege to get up again today to represent the district
that I represent. Again, I'm up speaking every time a bill comes
across and it's a budget bill, a money bill, it's an opportunity to get
up and speak on the budget.
Now, Madam Chair, I walked into Tim Hortons this morning and a gentleman
said to me: Kev, I never thought I'd see you with a pink tie on or a
purple shirt. And I had to explain to him why I had it on today. I'd
like to congratulate and I think we all should give a good round of
applause to the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
for
suggesting people in this House of Assembly today wear purple and pink.
She said either purple or pink. I dug in and I found a purple shirt. I
didn't think I had one, but I wanted to wear one.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, it's
not the Member for he wouldn't fit me anyway. He's too big.
I really commend you because it's a real nice gesture. What happened
this weekend affects so many people in this province, not only in your
district. It affects a lot of people any time we see a young child who
dies for no reason. I think today is good. I'm glad to see so many
Members here in the House of Assembly doing it. It's a really nice
gesture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
I don't
know if I can return the same thing now. Listen, we're all here to do a
job. Again, it's nice to see today that we can recognize that little
girl. If she liked pink and purple, I'd gladly wear it for her, I
guarantee you that.
Anyway, Madam Chair, we're all here and we'll debate. The Member just
got up that time and he slammed this Member over here and that Member
over here. Sometimes we'll do that stuff. That's what he does and I do
it a little different. Everybody does it a little different in the House
of Assembly, but I look at the personal part of a lot of things. I
always try to look at that lens, the lens that's coming from people who
are really concerned.
I had a phone call recently yesterday actually from a lady asking
me: Kevin, what effect does it have on me? She lives by herself. She's
50-odd years old. Her salary is $36,000 and what effect I tried to
explain what the taxes were. I told her about the supplement that I
think she's going to get. I'm looking at the figures and I think she
will.
We heard today about a calculator. I hope the calculator can because I
really want to see this calculator because then I can just take the
calculator and show people what they're going to pay. I hope
everything's on the calculator because when I spoke to her, we talked
about the increase in personal income tax and this is what I had. Her
personal income tax she's in bracket number two is going to go from
12.5 to 13.5 and then it's going to go to 14.5 the next year. So it's
going to go up a percentage point each year. So we figured out how much
that was going to cost her.
Then I looked at the gas tax, the extra 16.5 cents a litre. She works 22
kilometres from her house to her workplace. She drives back and forth
every day. Now, on $36,000 a year, you don't have a lot of money to
spend. So, obviously, when you do up your budget for the month, you look
at how much gas you're going to spend in that month. She could tell me
exactly how much gas she's going to spend in that month.
Now it's gone up by 16 or 17 per cent, plus I think there's a little of
the HST I'm not sure on that, if that's going to affect it a little
bit even. But it's gone up 16 per cent I told her. So we looked at her
gas bill for the month. She had exactly what it cost her for an average
month. Then she has a car to drive. Her vehicle is not a fancy one. It's
not a brand spanking new vehicle. It's not an Audi or it's not BMW; it's
nothing like that. She can drive it. It's a nice rig that she gets back
and forth to work with it, but she needs insurance, so she has to pay
for insurance.
Now her insurance bill has gone up 15 per cent. She lives in her home.
It's unbelievable the amount of work that she does around her place. Her
garden is absolutely beautiful; her yard is absolutely beautiful. But
now she has to come up with another 15 per cent to pay for the taxes on
her home.
I ask the Members opposite, and I'm waiting to hear from you, are you
getting the same calls that I'm getting? Most of you are shaking your
heads and saying yes, you are.
This lady says: Kevin, I'm stressed. I'm so stressed over this because I
don't know where I'm going to get the extra bucks. And you're getting
the same thing. She said: My anxiety, I don't know if I can handle it.
That's what we are doing to people. It's too much too fast, folks. It
is.
Listen, some people can afford it; some people can't. This lady
struggles on $36,000 a year. She has a car payment and now we are
putting all this other stuff she won't go out and buy a new
chesterfield this year because the HST is gone up a couple of extra
points. Maybe she can't afford it. Maybe she got to wait until next
year. She'll put away a little bit of money and on $36,000, you can't
put away a lot. There is not a lot we can put away, but just think about
it
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
What are
you saying, we go back to 2007? This is 2016; it's not 2007. In 2007
things were a lot cheaper than they are today, b'y. They're different
today, 2016; we're not living in 2007 because in 2007 the price of gas
could have been 60 cents a litre.
Get up and talk about 2007 if you want to. It's different. Things are
more expensive. Go buy food. You tell me when you go to a grocery store
in 2007 and $100 worth of food would you get the same amount of food
for $100 today? No, so don't go talking about 2007 because you don't
know what you're talking about.
Talk to the people. That's what that lady said to me last night. She
told me that in 2007 I could get $100 and go to the grocery store and
I'd probably come out with four bags of groceries.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I am
talking to you.
This time when she goes to the grocery store now with $100 for food it
probably gets two bags. People have to realize we're affecting people's
lives. People have to eat. People have to be in their homes. You can't
have people in the cold in the wintertime.
Car insurance; she showed me a bill. Car insurance in 2010 was x-number
of dollars. That's gone up by 25 per cent. They're talking about taxes
back we gave everybody a break on their income tax in 2007 so they
could spend money and they could go and invest, and they could keep
small businesses going which was a great thing. I will not apologize for
it. I'm not apologizing for cutting people and saying, listen here,
here's more money in your pocket so you can go and spend it on your
children, or grandparents can spend on their grandchildren.
Madam Chair, I'm talking about 2016. The Premier today and all week long
has gotten up and said, well, we're back to 2007. I'll tell the Premier,
in 2007 the average Newfoundlander could live on a lot less than what
they can today. We can't go back to 2007. In 2007 groceries never cost
as much, gas never cost as much, house insurance never cost as much.
People have to live. People have to live and you're taking away.
A person with $36,000, in 2007 they could live a whole lot better than
what they could today, no doubt about it. I don't think anyone over
there can argue with that. What are you doing to them? What are you
doing to the people who are making low incomes, hardworking
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Why are we doing it? These are the
people who are struggling to survive. They're struggling to survive.
Madam Chair, it's unbelievable that we can even think about what we're
doing. I know there are people out there who can afford it but think
about the people who can't afford the extra money that you want out of
their pockets, because that's what it is. This levy is coming right out
of the pockets of people. The insurance on their homes and on their cars
and the increase in their fees is coming right out of their pockets.
If somebody can afford to go buy something and the HST is a little
higher, well that's it. If you decide to buy that, I can understand that
one, but a levy is money that has to come straight out of their pockets.
You're asking people to pay for insurance on their cars and you're
asking for people to pay extra insurance on their houses. That's coming
right out of their pockets.
I ask all the Members on the other side, I really ask every one of you
who are after getting the emails that I have gotten and have talked to
people because I know you all have, I get your emails too. I ask you
to get up and justify taking money away from a person who makes $36,000
a year and can't afford to pay what you're asking them to pay. That's
the bottom line. They can't afford to pay what you're asking them to
pay. So what are you going to do to them? They're going to end up with
no insurance. They're stressed out like you wouldn't believe.
That's just one instance. My 10 minutes is up, I know, but that's just
one instance. I have 10 or 15 more, so I can get up all day.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind the Member his time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so
much, Madam Chair.
Like my colleagues here in the House, it's a privilege to stand in this
hon. House, especially given we are here to represent the people we
serve, but it's certainly not a pleasure for any of us to stand here and
debate this budget in particular.
Madam Chair, we are debating a bill to do some borrowing. I am a
Conservative. I'm a fiscal Conservative. I've been a fiscal Conservative
all my life. The budget that was handed down today, as a fiscal
Conservative, I could not support. It has no Liberal policies in it
whatsoever. I have no idea where the Liberals were when this budget was
being developed.
In my mind and I've said this in the hon. House before the only
person who must be happy with it is Preston Manning because he's an
extreme right reformer and this budget is as extreme right as anything
can possibly go. Talk about how to kill an economy and how to kill a
province, politics 101, look at Budget 2016-2017 because this will go
down in history as the worse possible way to address an economic crisis.
For goodness sakes, look to your colleagues. Every time you get up in
this House and condemn borrowing, you're condemning the Prime Minister
who has run a $30 billion deficit to stimulate the economy in
recognition of the fact that there's a global oil crisis.
You can stand here all day and try and play the blame game. The fact is
we are dealing with a situation today and we're trying to improve
Newfoundland and Labrador for tomorrow. You misled the people into
thinking you were going to be a government that wasn't going to raise
any taxes and you weren't going to lay anybody off. Well, look what we
have seen just four months later, but the people won't forget.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall when you knock on some doors because
there's going to be some interesting conversations, I have no doubt, in
2019; and if we're strong enough in a few weeks' time in 2016, because
something has to be done to change this budget.
You don't have to bring your government down, though. You do have the
authority within your caucus to negotiate and as backbenchers you do
have that ability. I truly hope you raise your voices loud and strong
with your Executive Council, Mr. Chair.
Bill 10, as I've said, is a borrowing budget my seven minutes is going
to go way too fast. It's a budget unlike we have ever seen before in
Newfoundland and Labrador. As the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi
spoke about earlier today St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I'm sorry in
her 40 years in this province, in various capacities, never seen
anything like it. None of us have ever seen anything like it, and it's
definitely not a Liberal budget. Say what you want about it; it's not a
Liberal budget.
I'm going to talk today about just in my district alone and I'm so
furious. My blood pressure was on bust for the last two weeks and I said
I'm not going to allow that to happen back in the House this week, so
I'm trying to stay calm but as you listen to some of the things we hear
in this House, it's incredibly infuriating.
Three libraries, Mr. Chair, in my district and I believe I heard the
minister say somewhere along the way and you hear so much, you don't
know what to believe anymore no library is going to be closing within
50 kilometres. Well, let me tell you from St. Alban's to Harbour Breton
it's 102 kilometres, one way. How are the kids in Bay d'Espoir, where
4,000 people reside, going to avail of a library service?
In Hermitage, 70 kilometres away and not only are you closing the
library in Hermitage, you are closing a clinic. It's the only place
where someone who's having a heart attack residing in McCallum, Gaultois
or Hermitage can be stabilized before being sent on to an emergency
centre like Harbour Breton, Mr. Chair, and you're taking away that
stabilizing opportunity.
They are going to have to be stabilized on roads that really need to be
upgraded. We need a lot more money from the provincial roads budget if
you are going to be putting people in an ambulance from Hermitage to
Harbour Breton 24-7, then you really need to get the roads done because
it treacherous, Mr. Chair. I fear a great tragedy is going to happen in
very short order as soon as you close the clinic.
We are going to do what we can to fight the clinic closure. My residents
are having a protest this Sunday and I'm going to be happy to join them.
The guts are being ripped right out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador
by this budget. It is absolutely deplorable, and I truly hope that every
rural Member stands up and speaks against this budget, Mr. Chair, and
makes it clear to their executive that they won't be bullied; they will
speak and represent their people in the House of Assembly. You do have
negotiating power; you really do. I will talk about that when I get a
20-minute opportunity.
Mr. Chair, I wanted to talk about some Hansard highlights from May 4,
2015, by the hon. Minister of Finance and I quote May 4, barely a year
ago, talking about Budget 2015, which was nowhere near as draconian as
this one:
this Budget does nothing to help families, nothing to help
the unemployed or seniors. In fact, it makes them worse off. Well, how
would she describe her budget? I'd like to know.
Mr. Chair, this government will let you believe there are only two
options: tax and borrow. That's what this budget is a reflection of.
It's a reflection of tax and borrow. Yet, less than a year later, what
does she do in her capacity as Minister of Finance? Exactly that, only
worse because not only did she raise the HST, she raised the corporate
tax. She raised the income tax. She raised 15 per cent tax now on
insurance for cars, 15 per cent tax on home insurance, an extra 16.5
cents for gas. People who have home care now, their financial
contributions increase from 15 to 18 per cent. How much money are you
taking out of people's pockets?
Oh my goodness, have you done an assessment I would like to ask? If you
were worried about HST, how could you impose all these taxes, increase
300 fees, create 50 new ones make them up 50 new fees that didn't
even exist this time last year have been introduced to this province by
the Liberal government who mislead the people and said we're not going
to give you any taxes, no, we're going to do everything's hunky-dory.
A Member earlier spoke about hypocrisy in this House. It's so
frustrating when we get up and have to debate these types of things. Mr.
Chair, in addition to creating 50 new taxes, they made up a new tax a
levy, unlike anything we've ever heard of before. It is the most
absolutely deplorable the people don't like anything in this budget,
but of all the items in the budget, that levy is absolutely deplorable.
Now, let's talk about some more things. I'm not going to get anywhere
near close to quoting some of the comments from Hansard last year. She
said: Liberals would grow the economy. If necessary, we would borrow
over increasing taxes so we do not risk the revenue side of the ledger
at a time when our economy is contracting.
Well, single-handedly, the Liberal government is responsible for
imposing the largest contraction on the economy of Newfoundland and
Labrador that we have ever experienced. As the businesses close their
doors and as the people pack up their suitcases and move away and as you
redo your budget next year and you see how little you made in taxes
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR (Lane):
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
because nobody lives here anymore and so many businesses have closed
down, then you're going to scratch your head and say oh, we made a
mistake.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
It's time now to revisit it before this budget passes, before you impose
the complete degradation of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. I implore you, please, make the changes
necessary to ensure that this province can at least limp along for the
next year or so. Please God, Mr. Chair, the people of this province will
have a new government in four years' time, one that actually is
representative of the people it serves.
This is a quote from the minister's speech last year again. The people
of the Province deserve better.
MR. K. PARSONS:
The people
of the province deserve better.
MS. PERRY:
That was her
words last year. She also said, we had four months to put forward
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair has asked for order several times. I'm asking all Members to
please maintain order.
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I thank you, Mr.
Chair, for your protection. It's greatly appreciated.
The people of the Province deserve better. We have for months put
forward the ideas and the priorities of our party for this Province.
Well, we now know that none of these ideas were true and the plan really
wasn't a plan at all.
She goes on to say: Let me be clear Mr. Speaker
there is nothing
more important for a government than to engage with the people who are
the stakeholders in the decision and listen to them. Not listen to them
but really truly listen to them.
Those were her words, Mr. Chair. I call upon the Minister of Finance and
the Premier, all members of the Executive and all Members of government
opposite, to please listen to the people. Please cancel this levy and
change a lot of things in your budget that more suitably reflect what
the people asked you for.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't think I'd get an opportunity to speak so quickly to Bill 10
once again but, unfortunately, government Members are choosing to stay
in their seats this afternoon.
You're hearing some noise in the House, and I appreciate your ruling,
Mr. Chair, to give the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune the
opportunity to be heard.
One of the things that's being shouted across a number of times is:
we're not debating the budget; we're not debating the budget. Well, I'd
like to remind hon. Members that Bill 10 is, An Act to Authorize the
Raising of Money by Way of Loan by the Province.
What the Liberal government will do through this bill is get permission
to get a loan to a maximum amount of $1.6 billion. That's what Bill 10
is about. It directly relates to the budget. It's not the budget bill.
Members are correct that it's not the budget bill, but it directly
relates to the budget. Because of the nature of the bill, it's an
opportunity for Members in this hon. House to get up and speak as many
times as they like about whatever they wish on behalf of the people of
the province, particularly their own constituents. It's disheartening
and concerning, Mr. Chair, that Members of the government are choosing
not to participate because we only have so many opportunities to talk
about the budget in this House of Assembly.
I understand we may sit Monday night and Tuesday night. I suspect there
will be lots of discussion about the budget. Hopefully, we'll hear from
government Members at that point in time, in prime time. So it will even
be easier for people of the province to tune in and hear what their
representatives have to say.
We are debating the budget this afternoon, Mr. Chair. While the bill is
not the budget bill, it is a necessary bill because of the budget. There
are a number of other bills that we're going to debate in this House of
Assembly in the month of May and perhaps June where we will be
debating bills that directly relate to the budget. So that's what we're
doing this afternoon.
Mr. Chair, following the Finance Minister's opening remarks, one Member
of the government did speak. The Member for Humber Bay of Islands did
speak and continued to make irresponsible statements about the history
related to the West Coast hospital, the Corner Brook hospital.
Now, Mr. Chair, the Liberal government has now chosen to further delay
the West Coast hospital. That is a fact. It's in the budget. There were
funds in the budget last year to continue the detailed design and
planning for the Corner Brook hospital. The Members quote the millions
of dollars that have been spent. Well, when you're designing a project
that's costing hundreds of millions of dollars, there is detailed design
that is required. There is a detailed functional plan required.
The functional plan is done. The detailed design when I left office
was well underway. There's a team called the Corner Brook Care Team that
is continuing work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Chair, unless the
Minister of Transportation and Works or the Minister of Health and
Community Services, or even the Member for Humber Bay of Islands, can
table evidence in this House that shows that work can't possibly be
completed in 2016, then I remain convinced it could have been. We did
enough work on continuing the work on the detailed design and finalizing
the functional plan in 2015 that there is no reason this government
could not have called tenders, could not have gone to market and made
this project a reality in 2016. Those are the facts, Mr. Chair.
It's fine to point the finger at the former Administration. We would all
love to see the West Coast hospital already built. There have been many
reasons for delays over the last number of years, but what I can tell
you is the functional plan is complete. The detailed design is near
completion. There is no good reason, I say to Members opposite, why they
couldn't complete the detailed design and go to market in 2016. It's
just not true. What's being said repeatedly, particularly by the Member
for Humber Bay of Islands, is not true. It may serve him well in his
constituency, but the facts will show that there is no reason why they
couldn't have gone to market in 2016.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You may not like what I'm saying, I say to the hon. Members opposite,
but at least I'll tell the truth. I encourage them to do the same.
I'd like to get back to the correspondence that we've been receiving on
the Liberal levy. In my previous opportunity to speak this afternoon, I
spoke about a note I received from a constituent of Windsor Lake
District, where the Minister of Finance is now the Member. I think it's
only fitting that I share one from one of my own constituents as well.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would like to stand on a point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. Government House Leader and I would ask what section of the
Standing Orders.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) offensive language.
Again, the Member opposite just referenced in his comments and said at
least I will stand here and tell the truth, which would imply that the
Member he is referring to is not telling the truth, which is
unparliamentary. I would ask that the Member retract those comments as
they are clearly not parliamentary as per the Standing Orders.
CHAIR:
The Chair will take
that matter under advisement and report back to the House of Assembly at
a later time.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I said I will tell the truth; at least I will tell the truth. There is
nothing unparliamentary about making such a statement in this House, and
I will tell the truth because the truth needs to be told. I challenge
Members opposite to table the evidence that says the detail designed
couldn't have been finished in 2016. It's just not true. It's not true.
There was enough work done in 2015 that there is no reason that they
couldn't go to market if they so choose in 2016.
Now, I recognize the fiscal challenges that the government faces. They
undoubtedly faced really difficult decisions about which infrastructure
projects would proceed and which ones wouldn't, but the facts are that
the Liberal government is now choosing to further delay the construction
of the West Coast hospital.
They have some money in the budget for planning. Perhaps less money than
was in the budget last year. I recognize that at this point in time the
detailed design drawings may not be ready to go to market, but there is
no reason in this fiscal year that couldn't happen. There was enough
work done previously in the last two years that I know for a fact that
it could happen in 2016, which was the intention.
I look forward to seeing the evidence. I know there are multiple
ministers involved with the file and if there is such evidence, then I
look forward to seeing that, Mr. Chair, but I will continue to stand on
my feet in this House and I will continue to tell the truth on behalf of
the people that I represent and on behalf of the people of the province.
I'd like to now quote the next email that I've received about the levy.
Again, this relates to one of my constituents. He's contacting me about
strong displeasure with the so-called Deficit Reduction Levy. Not that
I'm happy with the plethora of other tax and fee hits, but this one is
absolutely over the top in that low- and middle-income families are hit
with a much higher percentage than the richer among us.
He says he is sure that we've heard this from other people as well, and
we have, but he asks me to add his family to the list of my constituents
that are unhappy with the financial impact of this budget and, most
especially, with this levy.
As an Opposition, on behalf of the people that we're hearing from in all
districts, we're calling on the government to eliminate the levy; it
doesn't make sense and there is a better way.
He goes on to say: I realize the money has to come from somewhere, but a
better job could have been done to go easier on people with lower
incomes especially. That is a really critical argument as part of this
discussion we're having about the budget.
There's a petition going around against the levy. People are organizing
protests, and I suspect we'll see more. Members are being called on to
resign or to cross the floor, or at the very least vote against the
budget and stand with their constituents. This individual in my district
says he'll be keeping his eyes open for opportunities to make his voice
heard. What he is saying to me, as his MHA, is anything you can do to
oppose this levy and bring about a more equitable sharing of the
financial burden would be appreciated.
So we will do our part. We're happy to talk about ideas and we're happy
to talk about alternatives that we see because the solution can't simply
be about taxing and borrowing. It can't. You've got to address spending
and that will require tough decisions no doubt, Mr. Chair. The result of
this budget is going to have a devastating impact on low-income
families. It's going to have a devastating impact on middle-class
families.
I look forward to further opportunities to get up and discuss Bill 10,
and to discuss the budget. I hope that all Members will take every
opportunity they can to take part in this discussion about the budget,
which is a critical one, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair.
People are really having a hard time getting used to that new name
everybody, both here in the House as well as outside. It's not Signal
Hill anymore; it is St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
I'm happy to stand again, Mr. Chair, to speak to issues of concern with
regard to government's rationale for so many of the initiatives that are
in the budget. When I spoke earlier this afternoon I referred to a
document which is actually 10 pages I gave a wrong number before of
initiatives and showing what was spent on these initiatives last budget,
'15-'16, the savings in this year's draconian budget and the so-called
rationale.
There are so many things I can pick out of here. I will choose another
one right now. It has to do with the initiative to eliminate the HST
point-of-sale rebate on books purchased by individuals. In other words,
Mr. Chair, we are going into a situation where people will now have to
pay 15 per cent tax on books.
The rationale given by the government I guess put together by the
Department of Finance because that's the heading that it's under.
Somebody decided that the rationale to be put in here for us to
understand this initiative, because that's what the rationales are
supposed to do, they are supposed to help us understand the initiative,
it says: This decision will reduce program and/or operational budgets.
Now, that really is a mind-blower. This decision will reduce program
and/or operational budgets. So by putting a tax on books, a program is
going to be reduced. Now, I don't know what program is going to be
reduced there. I haven't figured that one out. I'm trying to get my mind
around it.
Maybe it's the process of paying the rebates, but that happens at the
point-of-sale. It's not something that people have to send in their
receipts for in order to get the rebate on tax. They don't have to do
that. It's all done at point-of-sale. So it's going to reduce program
and/or operational budgets, and guess what? Government is going to save,
in this budget, $525,000 and overall in annualized savings, $2.1
million.
I ask again, I would like to know what government's analysis was that
led them to this initiative to think in any way that this initiative was
a logical thing to do. There are many positions from which to take it.
The first one is what happens when you put taxes on books? What is the
impact of putting taxes on books? It has been proven in other
jurisdictions, one of those jurisdictions for example well, I have two
examples here that I want to use where taxes were put on books. One was
the country of Latvia. In 2009, Latvia raised book tax. They had a book
tax and they raised it from 5 per cent to 21 per cent. The result was a
35 per cent decline in book sales and a 35 per cent decline in the
number of new books published. That's an extremely important point.
Conversely, in 2002 Sweden reduced the book tax that they had from 25
per cent to 6 per cent and the result was a 20 per cent increase in book
sales. So the lesson is that the cost of a book, surprisingly not, is a
major determinant to book buying. Certainly, it's a major determinant of
literacy.
We have heard from the other side of the House here, and from the
Minister of Education, that this doesn't seem to have any impact on
literacy, but such is not the case. That is proven in other places. The
reality is that not buying books and books not being available is a real
factor when it comes to literacy.
First Book Canada, which is an organization that provides access to
books for children in need, says the number one barrier to book
ownership is price. There's no doubt about that. That relates, of
course, to why libraries are important also, because many low-income
people don't buy books period, and that is because it is expensive. Many
people on fixed incomes find it difficult to buy books even though they
may have bought them earlier in their lives, because again, it is
expensive.
If we add the tax that's being talked about here by this government
without any analysis of the impact of putting the tax on then we are
going to be running into trouble. We are going to have what has happened
in other jurisdictions. You will see that, number one, the buying of
books will go down and there's going to be an impact on the economy
because, again, at the town hall that we held last night I referred to
it earlier today we had a book publisher. That book publisher held up
a book in his hand and he said: This book was written by a local writer
of this province. This book was edited by local editors. This book was
printed by local printers. This book was published and marketed by a
local company.
If the sale of local books, in particular and we have such wonderful
writers in this province. If the sale of their books go down, and
they're going to all experience shows that's what going to happen
then the government may save slightly over $2 million in annualized
savings but we will have fewer books being published. I believe that is
really true. That's what happened in other countries. That's what
happened in Latvia. The opposite happened when tax was taken off in
Sweden. More books got published again.
You're going to have fewer writers becoming published. You're going to
have people who edit books not having enough work here in this province.
You're going to have workers who print books finding they may become
unemployed. Keeping to government's promise, this budget is going to add
to unemployment in the province. That's what they say on page five of
the Budget Speech.
So what is the rationale? What is the rationale, saving $2.1 million?
The rationale has nothing to do with encouraging writing. The rationale
has nothing to do with wanting to have writers working in this field
earning good salaries. The rationale has nothing to do with wanting
children to have access to books. The rationale has nothing to do with
understanding literacy. There is no analysis.
The only goal of this budget which says to me it wasn't a budget; it
was a bookkeeping exercise was cut, cut, cut. Find wherever you can to
cut. Don't do an analysis of the impact on our economy. When I say that,
we have to understand that every piece I mention is the economy. So
having a low level of literacy is a determinant of how strong our
economy is going to be. Having writers who are able to make a living and
produce good books becomes a determinant of a strong economy. This
government apparently did absolutely no analysis. We had the Premier
stand yesterday and say, oh yes, they looked at everything. They really
made sure.
They looked at nothing. All they looked at was how much can we get away
with cutting. That's all they looked at. That is the rationale, so that
is what they might have well put down here. The only rationale is
cutting to make savings and to hell with whatever else goes on here.
The impact on people's lives, the impact of our overall economy, nothing
means anything. That's the rationale: Forget people and save a few
cents.
I'll have more to say later on, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair,
I wish you'd say the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis so I would
not, because you know I'm going to say it.
CHAIR:
I'm sure it is
beautiful.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You know
I'm going to say it.
Mr. Chair, it's a privilege to get up again today, the second time. I
enjoy getting up here and talking about things and there's so much to
talk about, it's unbelievable. I have lots of stuff and I'm sure I'll
get up a couple of more times.
During Question Period today the Premier mentioned investments in the
fishery and talked about the fishery, so I just want to talk a little
bit about the fishery. Myself and the minister are after having some
great conversations. Actually, I used to enjoy the former member for
Carbonear I used to have some great conversations with him over the
fishery because he's down to earth.
He knew the fishery better than anybody in the House because he's an
actual fisherman. He was on the water and he knew what it was like to go
haul a crab pot. We'd talk afterwards and he'd be telling me where he
was to down off Bauline, that's where they used to catch their crab, and
how the crowd down their way used to come and set cod traps down off
there. His knowledge of the fishery was good because it came right from
fisheries.
I'm sure there are a lot of rural MHAs over there that have great
knowledge of the fishery. Yes, I'm sure you all do and so do I.
Actually, my brother is gone they left 12 o'clock last night and they
should get in, I'm thinking, tomorrow. They're gone to the midshore one,
which is about 160 kilometres off. They got
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Speaker is finding it difficult to hear the hon. Member.
MR. K. PARSONS:
To
understand the fishery and to understand what these guys and ladies do,
because there are lots of ladies out there today fishing on these boats
also, they have a time frame that they have to get out to get. So they
look at the forecast. Last night was a good time to go at 12 o'clock.
They look at the three- or four-day forecasts so they'll know. Can you
imagine that is the type of job that it is?
I know the Minister of Natural Resources knows exactly what I'm talking
about. They have to wait to get that certain time of day to get out to
get the fish. It's a stressful time of the year for them and everything
else, to be able to catch their catch. What they do to our economy
this is my whole point. I really believe that the fishery is probably
one of the brightest spots that we have.
I'm proud to be on the committee with the minister and Members opposite,
with LIFO, and we're going to examine that. I think next week the
committee comes to St. John's and it will start on doing what they
should do. I'm hoping they revisit it so that our hard-working fishermen
really get their just right to be able to go catch shrimp when they can
and bring it in and communities survive.
This budget is a lot about survival. There are areas in the budget I
got up the other day and I talked about a lot of good things. I'm not
going talking negative all the time. Some of the time I will, but not
all the time am I going to talk about the negative things.
The fishery is such a positive thing in our province. I went through
Estimates here the other day with the minister. In case people don't
know what Estimates are out there, it is just that the department comes
in I'm the critic for the Department of Fisheries, so I get the
opportunity to go through the book, which is the Estimates Book, which
shows all where they are spending their money and investments that
they're making in the fishery and stuff like that. We go through it and
see this is what changed from last year to this year and we get a chance
and I have to thank the minister.
I asked the minister beforehand because sometimes you can't ask policy
questions; you have to stay basically to the Estimates that are in the
book. I have to say I did three Estimates so far and the ministers I
thank them for it have been really good to me.
I really believe that in this budget we should invest a little bit more
in our fishery. My concern with the fishery is and I know the union
and the processors are working together to make sure that our ground
fishery when it comes back I really believe that the ground fishery is
going to save rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I really do.
I can remember back in the day when you'd go down the Southern Shore
now maybe there were too many fish plants. There was one in Witless Bay,
there was one in Bay Bulls and there was one in every community down
there, but the communities were going crazy. There were young fellows
out in the hopper cutting out tongues and I could get a pail of tongues
then for $7. That wasn't the little one; that was the seven-pound one.
That's what it was called. It was a fine lot of cod tongues.
It was unreal. I had people down my way say Kev, get me some cod
tongues. What I did, when I first started my first job, was driving a
fish truck. That's what I did. The very first job I had was driving a
fish truck. I met a lot of good people over the years in different
communities in rural Newfoundland from Hant's Harbour out in the
minister's way. Where's the one down in Twillingate? Herring Neck? We
hauled a lot of capelin out of one of the places down there Comfort
Cove and all these places. Rural Newfoundland was so vibrant back then.
I really believe the one part of this budget we kind of missed is our
investment in the fishery, because I really believe we have to be ready.
I think the cod fishery is going to come back. I think the ground
fishery is going to come back, but we have a problem. Our biggest
problem with the fishery is going to be marketing what it is.
Today, the markets have changed. What happened years ago, the cod block
what they call the cod block, everything was frozen. Basically, I
think most of it went to the New England market. That's where it went,
down in that part of the United States. We had no problem selling our
cod block.
Since the moratorium, competition for that market has changed so much
because there are so many new players. There's Alaskan pollock, there's
haddock. There are all kinds of new players. There's the Russian cod.
There's Norwegian and different parts of the world.
I know the minister was down recently to the Boston seafood market. He
can probably tell you that we're just a very, very, very small part of
what's happening in the fishery worldwide. So it's a job to get back in
that market again.
The market that's going to need to develop I think the market we're
going to need to see is going to be a market where whole fish is sold at
restaurants. We have to figure out how to get that people will pay. I
think they will pay for what the market is but it has to be fresh.
I'll tell you a little story now of how our fishery used to be. I can
remember I said my first job was driving a fish truck, but actually my
first job was weighing for the crowd from Newfoundland quick freeze who
used to come down and I used to get on the truck. I used to sign the
slips and weigh the fish. Do you know what? The trucks used to come down
they were open-back trucks with no ice in them and you'd send the
fish up. You can imagine now, it's about 80 degrees and the fish has
been in the back of a truck for three or four hours, what the quality
was.
We've come a long ways in our fishery. We got to, because we got to
adjust to what the market the market back then, they could take it and
they sold it.
My point is this budget we talked about it today. The Premier
mentioned the fishery, everybody mentioned the fishery. It's a bright
spot in our province. It is a bright spot in our province but government
has to invest and we have to invest in making sure the markets are
there.
The fishery will be back. I'm so convinced of that. I know talking to
fishermen, I know talking to other Members who are from rural
Newfoundland and Labrador that the fishery we're all hoping. I'm sure
most people who are from rural Newfoundland are really saying: Listen,
this is the one thing we can do.
I don't know how many fish plants were around back in the '70s and '80s.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. K. PARSONS:
Over how
many?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Over 200.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Over 200.
What that did to so many communities. Not only did it employ people in
the community, what it did to the grocery store; what it did to the
fellow who was trucking fish; what it did to people who were selling
different things in their communities.
That's what we need. That's what rural Newfoundland needs is that boost.
We need it, but I tell you this government we have to get ready for
it, and you better be ready for it because it's coming. Right now we
have the processors, and I applaud the processors and the union. They
got together and had an announcement just a short little while ago. They
said okay, we're going to focus marketing was the biggest thing they
talked about because they realize how important the markets are.
Yet, what we saw in the budget was very little money put into our
fishery, the one resource that brought everyone here to the province.
The one resource that we can all I'm sure everybody can tell a story
about fishing or cod fishing or cutting tongues or whatever. I'm sure we
all can tell a story of what it was like when we grew up and how
important the fishery is. We need to make sure we're ready because the
fishery is going to be important again, folks. The fishery is going to
be important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador again and more
so, it's going to be important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
What you're doing with this budget, you're killing rural Newfoundland
and Labrador. You're killing people on fixed incomes, low income and
hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. But, there is a bright
spot. It's not all negative. There is a bright spot, and the fishery is
a bright spot. I believe that we, as a government, have to be ready for
the fishery. We have to be ready to do investments.
Listen, the investments we do today in the fishery are going to pay off
thousands of times over because it's going to bring back who we are as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's going to bring back our young
people. It's going to bring back the traditions we remember.
I'm not a great filleter at all. There are a lot of bones in my fillet,
but do you know what? I love doing it. So many Newfoundlanders love
doing it. I love watching a person who can fillet. There is such a skill
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair reminds the hon. Member his time has expired.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay. Can
I just clue up for a second because I am talking about something I am
very passionate about which is the fishery?
I think as a province we have to get ready. It's a tradition. It's who
we are.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Member's time has expired.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you
very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to echo the comments of my colleague. I, too, strongly believe
in the potential of the fishery. I really do believe that as a renewable
resource we really need more focus on the fishery. Rural Newfoundland
and Labrador does have great potential. Renewing the fishery is the
answer, I do strongly believe, Mr. Speaker.
If we have such a great relationship with Ottawa then in addition to
seeking some support to helping us with our current financial fiscal
situation, then certainly we hope they would deliver results in terms of
getting more ownership and control of our fishery back as well.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to resume where I picked up the last time because
when you get up and speak in this House and you're so passionate about
what you discuss and what you believe in, the 10 minutes goes by way too
fast.
There were a lot of things that I wanted to pull from the minister's
Budget Speech last year, Mr. Chair, because I find it appalling. I find
it absolutely appalling that someone could stand in this House less than
12 months ago, make these kinds of statements, and then stand in the
House this year, in 2016, and deliver a draconian budget like we've seen
done right here in this House, one that still has us all in shock. We
are still reeling from it, Mr. Chair, and we haven't even begun to see
the devastation.
Quoting again directly from the Minister of Finance's speech last year
on May 4 and again, this would be when she was critic, in her role as
critic. Her words are: This government would like you to believe that
they have two options: to borrow or to tax. They want you to believe it
because those are the only two options they have.
Government has to
if necessary, look at borrowing before you increase
taxes.
So here we are and we're debating a bill on borrowing. But I would
challenge, Mr. Chair, why we aren't borrowing more with a Liberal
government, to be honest with you, and why there has been such a
devastating increase in every single tax. These are the words of the
Minister of Finance from her speech last year, I say to Members
opposite:
look at borrowing before you increase taxes.
When you look at fiscal economy policy, Mr. Chair, any person who truly
understands monetary fiscal policy knows that you stimulate an economy
by spending and you stimulate an economy by decreasing taxes. This
Liberal government have increased spending. We'll come back to that in a
minute.
But anyone who truly understands fiscal monetary policy and the longer
I sit in this House I'm not convinced that any members of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Party do because they would never have
brought down a budget like this if there was a genuine, true
understanding of what the implications of these measures are going to be
on the economic and social well-being of the people living here in this
province. It is absolutely devastating.
In terms of me being fundamentally conservative, I've always believed
that the private sector is the engine of growth. Government's role in
any society is to create laws, laws that ensure the safety of their
people and ensure the well-being of their people. It is not government's
job to run businesses.
I would say that a budget of the province is nothing like the budget of
a corporation, and you must have social empathy for the people you
serve. You must do what you can to help those who are not in a position
to help themselves. What this does is drive the knife right through the
heart, because there is nothing in this budget that will help people. In
fact, there is so much in this budget that will literally hurt people,
people who we have been elected to serve. It absolutely devastates me
that we are in this House debating a budget of this terrible, terrible
calibre, unlike anything we've ever seen.
Mr. Chair, let's go back to that quote again where she said,
if
necessary, look at borrowing before you increase taxes. Just before
that quote she had, Even in this Budget, which was supposed to be where
they made the tough decisions
and we did; we made the decision to
raise the HST and we made the decision to go with attrition, not job
cuts of people who were going home and wondering how they were going to
pay their mortgage or buy their groceries or feed their children. We
were talking about attrition. Those who retired with a pension, with an
income, for every 10 that went out, seven would come back. That was the
plan, Mr. Chair, that the Progressive Conservatives brought in and that
we were criticized ferociously for by Members opposite. We all know now
how that wasn't very truthful.
Anyway she goes on to say,
where they made the tough decisions, they
actually increased spending by 1.7 per cent, $110 million. Well, Mr.
Chair, another thing that has not
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
been talked
about a lot yet in this House but will be talked about over the course
of this debate, Mr. Chair, and over the course of the coming months is
that the Liberals did increase spending this year by another $400
million.
Now, let's talk about two areas, $500,000
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Okay, the Members
opposite are heckling me and asking why. Let's talk about it; $500,000
for a new seniors' advocate office. Let's talk about it. Is that what
the seniors' resource council and everybody asked you for? I heard the
other day when I asked a question, well, you are going to be spending
money on marketing because that's what all the groups wanted you to do.
There are so many programs and so much out there that people don't know
about it. So you criticize us on one day for doing advertisements and
you get up the next day and say oh, but we're going to spend $100,000 on
advertisements.
Mr. Chair, I really don't think that's what they meant. What they meant
was to improve things, to make it more efficient, not to add another
layer.
I'm going to speak very honestly, Mr. Chair. I have no doubt that a
seniors' advocate would be a wonderful thing, but it is a luxury as
luxuries go, I would challenge.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you. I
thank you, Mr. Chair, for your protection.
In terms of adding to the bottom line, what have you done? You have
created another civil servant. You've created another pension liability.
You've created another person who's going to avail of all the benefits
of government. Who's going to answer the phone when seniors call?
Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, I don't know what you guys do as MHAs in
your offices, but I know what I do in mine. I know seniors come to my
office so they can sit with me because they don't want to make the call
to the stranger they don't know sitting in St. John's. They don't want
to make the call to the stranger they don't know sitting in Ottawa. They
come to my office. So I sit down with them and help them make their
calls, Mr. Chair.
Do you really think having another person for them to call is going to
help? Five hundred thousand dollars, Mr. Chair, would take care of a lot
of Home Heating Rebates for seniors. It would buy a lot of groceries for
seniors. I really do hope your evidence-based decision making shows you
that this is actually something better for the seniors because I'm not
convinced of it, and none of the seniors I represent are convinced of
it. So we'll see, but you add into the bottom line and add into the
liability of the civil servants, and you're increasing the size of the
civil servants.
Now, I'm going to say something that's really contentious because even
my own colleagues and I debate this one, but you're adding to the bottom
line.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Thirty million
dollars for all-day kindergarten. Again, all-day kindergarten is a great
thing. I will say the same as I said of the seniors' advocate office;
it's a great thing but in a time of fiscal constraint is it a luxury or
is it a necessity?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
I truly ask: Can
we afford to be adding $30 million in new expenditures
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair has asked for order now several times. I'm going to ask
Members one more time to please remain orderly. We are debating a bill
here, Bill 10, to borrow $1.6 billion. I ask all Members to please have
decorum.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you for
your protection, Mr. Chair.
I say they can heckle all they want. I will not be quiet in this House.
I will stand up and speak for the people I represent, and I call upon
each and every one of you Members opposite to do the same.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair,
I just figure I'd take a few moments. I am going to speak to Bill 10,
which is talking about the significant borrowing our government has to
undertake due to the situation we inherited. Usually when you inherit
something it's nice, but in this case we inherited a mess that the
Members opposite, including the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune,
caused.
One thing I'm going to say is I'm glad the Members opposite, including
the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, are speaking out because some
of them sat on their hands for a long time when they were over here. I'm
going to give one example. We want to talk about I'm just going to
provide one example. We want to talk about rural Newfoundland; truthful,
factual answers here and information.
I represented probably one of the most rural districts in this province
and it's adjacent to the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune. If she
has any issues with it she can certainly respond. One of the areas I
represent, when you go down Route 480, a road that actually collapsed
last year and hasn't been fixed because it wasn't deemed worthy. There
are three communities down there. There's Burgeo, Ramea and Grey River.
Adjacent to Grey River is Franηois. They are serviced down there, Ramea,
Grey River and Franηois. They've seen decreases in their health care
coverage for decades. They used to be serviced by a doctor but with
out-migration and everything else these things go.
When I got elected they had no actual full-time professional there. What
they had was a nurse practitioner is the position that was there but
it was vacant. They were lucky in many cases to get a local. The nurse
practitioner is based in Ramea but they travel to Grey River and to
Franηois. So they travel to an area outside of my district.
When I got in and had meetings, I used to include the community of
Franηois in those meetings because it affected us all. I said I don't
care whose district it is, at the end of the day we're all on the same
page.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's
right. So here's where I'm going.
I want to put this out there. If we want to talk, let's talk facts. When
we didn't have the nurse practitioner position filled, I said well one
of the things I'm going to do is I'm going to work with the Members
opposite. I used to deal with the former minister of Health, Susan
Sullivan. I won't get into anything here. She's not here. She wasn't the
issue.
I said what I'll do is I'll deal with the Member who represents Franηois
and together, let's work on this for the betterment of our constituents.
I said let's have a chat. I emailed and said let's have a chat about
what we can do to get a nurse practitioner to serve our constituents.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Good idea.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. Oh,
it was a good idea.
I was told you do what you got to do. You do what you got to do. I was
turned down. So when we want to talk about rural Newfoundland and
working together, I say put your money where your mouth is. That's what
I would say.
I'm going to put this out here. We're going to get to the budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm
hearing it over there now. The Member for CBS is talking about rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm hearing the Member for CBS listen, if
you want to get up and talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador you're
going to get your 10 minutes. I haven't said a word to you all day. Now,
if you want a chance, get up and talk about it.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair would ask the hon. Member to please address the Chair.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm going
to continue on.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess protection goes both ways.
I'm going to get another chance to speak to the budget. I'm going to
talk to the phone calls I've got, the responses I've given, the
information I've provided, that we have provided. I'm going to speak
about the Department of Justice.
One thing I hear, and it boils me to no end, is when people talk about
rural Newfoundland and Labrador and those people haven't been there in
their life. In fact, I ran in a district where I didn't see a PC the
entire time. Do you know what else? They have that in common with the
NDP because they never showed up once not once. If we're going to talk
about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and you're going to talk about the
issues affecting my constituents, I would say come out and talk to my
constituents.
I say to the Members opposite, as the minister said earlier, we're going
to keep working together. You guys are going to ask for stuff. We're
going to do our best because it's in the best interest of all of our
constituents. The other thing is the Opposition is going to do their
job. Their job is to get in here and hold government accountable.
Now, it's funny. I don't think so much for Members on the other side
they used to get over here when they were in government and say: You
guys got it some easy over there. I don't know if that's changed or not.
I found it hard work. I used to work hard. I bet the Members on the
other side
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's
right. What I would say is being on each side gives you a different
perspective on it. I certainly knew government was hard work, but I've
also had the opportunity to work in Opposition and know that is hard
work. An opposition's job is to hold government accountable.
I get the political side of this because I've been over there. I get the
political side where we talk about the effects on people. Some of it is
a bit overblown. There are times when we actually do speak facts the
Members of the Opposition will say this is a concern. Do you know what?
We hear. We listen. We do listen. But there are other times too when the
stuff that is put out there is factually incorrect.
I heard the Member for Mount Pearl North, he had some good comments. He
said do you know what? We're going to do this, but it's not about being
personal and nobody should take it personal. I think he was talking
about a tax, because we have all dealt with that. What I'm saying too is
you're going to continue to do your job as Opposition and that's the
proper thing to do because that is your job on behalf of those people. I
think good Opposition leads to better government. That's what I think.
There have been lots of politicians and premiers who have said that
before.
What I would also say is if you do have concerns from your constituents,
then feel free to contact us. I have a great example I'm actually going
to put out when I speak to the budget about a constituent that wrote to
me. I'm going to read it verbatim, if I'm allowed. He wrote to me with
concerns; I wrote him back and gave him the answer. I have it here and I
will refer to it. I wanted to save it for the actual budget debate as
opposed to the bill here that we're dealing with which is for borrowing.
But he came back and said thank you for that information. Do you know
what? I'm actually this is there I'm actually better off.
There are some people that will see improvements in their life through
these measures. That being said, if Members opposite have concerns I
strongly suggest reach out and again, I've seen it on non-budget
matters. I've dealt with Members and we've done that for years where you
have a constituent issue, you come to us, to our departments, and I've
done it before, you say this is an issue, look into it. You always do
your best because it's for the betterment of the people we represent. So
I'd say the same thing goes here.
I know you're going to do your job in Opposition and question. We know
that there's a lot of hyperbole that goes on. We get that and I think
the people say that, but at the same time some of the fear that has been
created could be alleviated due to us actually getting the information
out there. That's our job. That's what we're going to hope to do.
Even when you do that, you're still going to have concerns that there
are philosophical differences in where we are on that. You're going to
complain about something. We're going to say why we think it is right. I
get that, but my big thing is when we talk about I think we've all
seen it; the people actually do have concerns, as they should. The best
way to address those concerns is with facts and actual information as
opposed to fear mongering.
I'm not saying that in a bad way. I'm not trying to cause a racket, but
what I'm saying is if someone has a real concern, then let's work
together to figure that out. Do you know what? In many cases they may
find out the information they're looking for.
That's my contribution to this. I just wanted to put that out there. I
felt I had to make some of these comments in response to some of the
comments from the other side. I guess there's always a bit of
grandstanding that goes on in here and sometimes we have to respond in
kind.
What I would say is the bill we are debating here today is a very large
borrowing bill. The reason we're borrowing is to pay for the services we
are trying to require, that we need for the people of this province when
it comes to roads and health care and everything else. We know the
spending is unsustainable. Do you know what? The Members on the other
side have known that for years too because the Auditor General said it
and the former minister said it.
We are in a tough situation. We're taking the steps we need to get out
of it. One of it is Bill 10, which is that we need to require a large
amount of borrowing.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair.
I'm very happy to stand and speak to this bill. Mr. Chair, many of us
I believe probably everybody here in this House has received phone
calls or emails or letters, even hand-written letters from many of our
constituents who are very afraid.
Now, I'd like to say that nobody on this side of the House caused that
fear. I believe what this government did have created an atmosphere of
fear, despondency and uncertainty. The Minister of Finance for months
before coming down with her budget constantly talked about how bad the
situation was. She constantly said this was absolutely unprecedented,
that the province was in horrible trouble. She kept on and kept at it
and kept it and kept at it. She instilled an atmosphere of fear and
desperation and uncertainty.
What we would have expected and what we would have hoped because the
people of the province voted for the government because this government
promised them there would be no job cuts. They promised them there would
be no increase in HST. They promised and promised and promised they
would have a steady hand on the wheel. They would help navigate through
this storm. Instead, they created the fear. I have people calling my
office as everybody else here in this House has people calling their
office people who are afraid.
Then when the minister presented her budget she talked about both her
and the Premier how bad they felt, how sad they were, how sorry they
were. Instead of having a government who said: We know how bad this is,
but we're going to get everyone through this. We're going to make sure
that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has the opportunity to roll up
their sleeves and we're all going to work our way through this. That's
not what they did.
Now, with the looming mini-budget coming out in the fall, people are
very afraid. People are very afraid of their jobs, and this government
has said that the budget we are debating now is just the beginning. Of
course people are afraid. But that fear and that anxiety and that
loathing are not from the people, it's what the government has done.
I am hoping that this government can turn it around because it's not
right. It's not right to instill that kind of fear into the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador did
not create this crisis. The people who least benefited from our
prosperity are the ones who will be carrying the heaviest burden in
terms of what we're going through right now.
Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance during Question Period said that she
was going to give me a technical briefing on the rollout of the budget
and the cuts and her Income Supplement, and I am looking forward to
that. I can hardly wait. She also talked about putting an online tool so
that people can calculate the effects of this budget on them personally,
on their families. I'm really looking forward to that.
I trust that what we're going to see online, this online tool, will be
accurate and give people the opportunity to really see what this rollout
will be. I have people calling my office whose income is about $16,000 a
year and they're worried about paying the levy, and I'm saying to them
no, you will not have to pay the levy. You're not going to have to pay
the levy, and people need to know what the rollout is for them because a
lot of people are so afraid.
Again, that fear has been fed by the government, by the Premier, by the
Minister of Finance who kept talking about doom and gloom and doom and
gloom and unprecedented situations. Madam Chair, in the meantime what I
did do, the exercise that I did and I put to the Minister of Finance,
was I looked at the situation for a four-person family who is making
$36,000 a year. What I did is I used all the information that government
has given out so far. I would just like to go through that to show, from
what we know so far, what that family is going to be dealing with.
So we have a family of four with one earner. A family of four, the
income of that one earner is $36,000. So that family, that earner will
pay $300 in the levy. That family of four also, previous to this budget,
would have been eligible for the $250 Heating Rebate. So right off the
bat there we see they're going to pay $300 for the levy and they've lost
their $250 Heating Rebate. That's a loss of $550 right there, just in
two situations.
The potential Income Supplement that this family will receive will be
about $900, give or take a few dollars because we don't yet have those
really accurate tools available to us. From the information that has
been given to us, the potential Income Supplement for that family is
$900.
We are going to take off the $300 levy and we're going to take off the
loss of the Heating Rebate. That means that leaves them to the better of
$450. That's without taking into account any increased fees, any
increased gas tax, any increased income tax, any loss of the provincial
portion of their HST rebate. So what we have is about $38 a month.
That's what government is going to help these folks get through this
storm; $38 a month for a family of four with two adults and two
children.
Aside from that, there are additional financial stressors on the family
as a result of the budget. That's not taken into account. Just let me
highlight some of those additional financial stressors: Gas tax
increase; with the HST added onto that it will be at least 18 cents a
litre, at least; the HST increase of 2 per cent. So everything this
family buys will be increased by 2 per cent.
They will no longer get the provincial portion of their HST. That will
be a loss to this family of $440; therefore, everything this Income
Supplement has given is gone, wiped out. They're now in the negative.
Tax on insurance; if they have a car their car insurance is about $750,
10 per cent of that is $75. So that's an additional $75 financial
stressor on them. If they have home insurance one would hope they
would that would be about $500. The extra tax on home insurance is
about $50 a year. Plus, their income tax has gone up 1 per cent for 2016
and it will go up an additional 1 per cent for 2017.
They've lost their right to the dental plan. They no longer have that
additional source.
The other thing let me see; $350,000 cut from the Jumpstart program
which helps families like this get their kids into sporting activities
and other kinds of leisure activities. That's gone as well.
The over-the-counter drugs, they would have been eligible for the access
program in the Newfoundland and Labrador drug program. No longer will
they be eligible now for those over-the-counter drugs. So it's a bit of
a problem.
What we can see is that, in fact, this particular family is negatively
impacted by this budget. In spite of the minister's Income Supplement,
this family is in a negative.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the tools the minister will put
online. I'm sure a lot of families are. I'm concerned for families who
may have been frightened and think they are going to lose even more than
they actually are, but as we can see even though the minister says the
Income Supplement is taking care of families the effect of the budget
on low-income families like this, they are in a negative place not
positive, even with the Income Supplement.
Madam Chair, I'm happy to have had the chance to kind of clear that up.
I look forward to speaking to this bill again.
Thank you kindly.
CHAIR (Dempster):
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Madam
Chair.
I'm not
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. JOYCE:
They're started
already. I gave them the courtesy of not saying a word they're
started.
I got to say, the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, I was out to a
meeting and I heard what she had to say and I couldn't believe it. She
was telling us that a seniors' advocate is a luxury, that we can't take
someone else and make a service of the House.
Madam Chair, just to show you the hypocrisy, I ask the Members opposite:
How many EAs, after the last election, were put in the civil service for
a 13-week position? Yet, we can't have a seniors' advocate here. How
many EAs were put in a 13-week position after you were defeated? Here's
the chance. Stand up, because I know how many there were. Now here we
are bringing in a seniors' advocate
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
and the
government is saying it's a luxury.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Not the
government.
MR. JOYCE:
The Opposition is
saying the former government is saying that it's a luxury.
Madam Chair, the largest growing population is seniors in our province.
To say that putting in a seniors' advocate to take the concerns of the
senior is only a luxury, we don't need him or her, whoever it may be,
that's just shameful. That's just honestly shameful. The Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune should be ashamed of what she said, Madam
Chair.
I know the seniors I deal with have complex issues. They have a lot of
issues, and for the Member to stand up and say: What do the MHAs do?
That is just shameful. The biggest hypocrisy is saying we can't afford
it. A few of them are over there how many of your EAs were put in
positons in government after you lost or before you lost? You appointed
them into positions in this government. How many? Stand up. Don't be
shameful. Stand up. They won't stand up, Madam Chair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) two staffers.
MR. JOYCE:
What's this here
the former minister of health had two political staffers approved by
the Premier of the day. He called the position minister liaison. Yet, we
can't have a seniors' advocate in this province of Newfoundland and
Labrador because two liaisons approved by the Premier.
This is what I'd like to ask. We know, by the way, when the election was
over on November 30, how many EAs were appointed to a 13-week position
to get them in government? Let's talk about hypocrisy.
Let the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune stand up and say they were
useless. We didn't need them. Let's see how much guts you have to stand
up against your own former Cabinet ministers. Let's do it. Here's your
opportunity. I'll sit down, Madam Chair. If she wants to stand up if
this Member wants to stand up and say that we didn't need these
political appointments, EAs, after the election to get them in the
system, they're more important than the seniors' advocate in this
province, here's your opportunity, stand up.
Madam Chair, here's what I'll do. If she's willing to stand up and say I
agree there should be no seniors' advocate and I disagree with what our
government did by appointing EAs after the election, I'll sit down.
For anybody, Madam Chair, that would stand in this House and say that a
seniors' advocate is a waste of money, we don't need them, is absolutely
disgraceful. Madam Chair, do you know their problem with that? That's
the problem with this budget they take
MS. PERRY:
Point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so
much, Madam Chair.
The Member is over asking me to stand, so I just want to point out and
clarify I was speaking to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
additional
expenditures that they are making.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MS. PERRY:
In a time of
fiscal constraint, they're adding to the bottom line.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
She's over there
laughing at the seniors' advocate. That's shameful.
Madam Chair, let me ask her a question: Was there a fiscal reality when
those EAs were hired in December? How foolish is that, saying that we
don't need a seniors' advocate now because we're in a fiscal restraint,
but December when they lost the election and their EAs needed a job,
they started getting appointed. That was all right, though. We weren't
in a fiscal problem then. We didn't have this $2.7 billion deficit then.
That only came about after December 15. That's the hypocrisy.
This is this budget when we bring things out, this is a good thing, a
seniors' advocate is a good thing. And here we are getting criticized
for doing a good thing in the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. JOYCE:
This is a prime
example, Madam Chair. No matter what you want to do for this province,
the Members opposite are going to say it's bad. The only thing that's
good here I even mentioned earlier about the 1,300 people they laid
off. They said no, that was through attrition. Are you serious? It's sad
to lay anybody off, but if you make the decision that you're going to
lay them off and you do because you had to, at least have the courtesy
to say we did do it and here's the reason why we had.
I admit this is a tough budget. I make no bones about it. It's a tough
budget. Every person I spoke to I said every politician in this House,
both sides, Third Party also, want to do the best they can for the
people and the information that's in front of you, you make the
decisions that are best for you.
Madam Chair, I can tell you, when we sat down before the election and we
were talking about a consumer advocate for the seniors, a seniors'
advocate, everywhere I went in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
they said what a great idea. We have the Members of the Opposition
standing up saying it's only a luxury. But it's not a luxury to hire
their political staff and put them into 13-week positions so they can
start applying internally. That's not a luxury. That's more important
than a seniors' advocate.
Madam Chair, she's over there smirking. I'll let her come out and talk
to some seniors' groups and tell them we don't need anyone to look after
your concerns. We don't need anyone. If you follow that foolish logic,
why do we need the Child and Youth Advocate? That's our job. Why do we
need an Auditor General? That's our job to look at the books, isn't it?
How foolish is that? That's the mentality of the Opposition.
There are issues in this budget they can say we would have done
differently. I understand, I appreciate, I accept that; but when you put
something positive in there and you want to make improvements to
people's lives, seniors in this province, Madam Chair, when you have
people in Newfoundland and Labrador, seniors who say we want someone we
can go to, we want someone who can understand our concerns, we want
someone who can relate to us.
It's true. It's honestly true. I don't know all the concerns of the
seniors. I deal with seniors groups in the Bay of Islands all the time,
but they have issues that they can relate. You put a seniors' advocate
in place they can go to as a group, they can go to each association
that's around. That's what the seniors' advocate is for.
So if the Member wants to stand up I will give her the opportunity to
stand now and say why she doesn't want a seniors' advocate. Let her
stand up and say why she doesn't want a seniors' advocate. Let her stand
up. I'll sit down and let her stand up. I bet you she can't do it, Madam
Chair. That's the opportunity. She can't do it.
Madam Chair, I just want it on the record. I know I'm repeating myself,
but I was out there in a meeting and when I saw that Member stand up
speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, standing here saying it's
all right for us to give political appointments afterwards, it's not all
right for a seniors' advocate in this Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador because it's a luxury, it's nothing but a luxury for seniors
MR. K. PARSONS:
Sad.
MR. JOYCE:
The Member for
Cape St. Francis I agree, it's sad what she said. I agree with you. I
agree with you 100 per cent.
I don't feel the Member for Cape St. Francis you didn't know she was
going to say that today and you will have the opportunity you can't
stand in this House and say that a seniors' advocate in this Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador is nothing but a luxury. You can't do it.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I can't do
it.
MR. JOYCE:
No, I know you
can't do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. JOYCE:
The Member for
Cape St. Francis said he can't do it. I know.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
The Member for
Cape St. Francis is an honourable guy. He always speaks his mind. Good
or bad, he speaks his mind. I will give him credit. That's why you can't
have this kind of stuff come from the Opposition.
There are lots in the budget you can criticize. Lots in the budget you
can say you would do a different way. The seniors' advocate is not one
and I ask the Members opposite
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
let's work
together to help seniors in the province.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind the Member his time has expired.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Madam
Chair, again it's a privilege to get up here today for the third time.
What was sad the point I was making with sad was that there are 30
Members over across the way and it is sad that one Member had to get up
and speak twice on this budget today. That's the sad thing.
Now, the hon. Member knows what I'm like and he knows who I am and I
will tell him honestly anytime it comes to a senior, anytime it ever
comes to a senior, the person that elected me or a person that's in this
province that's a senior that paid the price for what we have today,
I'll stand up for them every single day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Every
single day I will stand here and I will speak for seniors in this
province because let me tell you something right now, I think that we
are privileged to live in such great communities. When we go around
through Newfoundland and Labrador, you look at our communities. I come
from a small community and I can tell you who the oldest persons are in
my community. I can tell you the seniors; I enjoy going to every
function that's there for seniors. A seniors' advocate is a great thing.
It is a great thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
But do you
know what? I'd rather have money in a senior's pocket and make sure that
they weren't hungry or they could pay their bills rather than do the
levies and all this tax increases that you're doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
The point
the Member made was there's a choice to make. Now the choice to tax
seniors on their income tax, choice to tax seniors on what they're
paying for their insurance on their house is yours, so the choice was
have a seniors' advocate or let's put 15 per cent on the car that
seniors drive. Let's ask the senior what they'd prefer.
The minister, I agree 100 per cent with you. We should do everything we
can for seniors but why are we taxing them 15 per cent on their home
insurance when they are having struggles to survive? A choice that you
made. A choice that your government has made to tax seniors.
I agree that I would love to see an advocate, I agree with an advocate,
but I'd rather see us
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'd rather
see us not take the money out of their pockets.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Now, how
about that one, like you're doing? This is what you're doing. You're
taxing them to death.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
Listen, I
challenge you to get up on your feet, Minister. Come on, get up and
challenge her. You want to talk about things? No, you're over there so
you're yeah about the 15
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
What? The
Minister of Advanced Education is hurrahing about the 15 per cent that
he's charging seniors for their homes that they're trying to stay in,
that they're trying to put grub on the table and that they're trying to
heat. So you're putting another 15 per cent. Yes b'y, hurrah for that.
Yes, hurrah all you want.
Think about the seniors when you do this vote on the budget because
you're not thinking about them. The Member on the side of me said it was
a choice you made. Here's the choice that you made. You can have a
seniors' advocate Madam Chair, I can't hear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Here's the
choice: A seniors' advocate go to the seniors in the province and ask
them what choice they want to make. I guarantee you the seniors in this
province don't want to pay 15 per cent on the taxes on their home, on
the taxes on their car.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
They don't
want to pay $300 or $400 on a levy. They don't want to pay you $300 in
extra prices. It's crazy what you're doing to seniors in this province.
You get up and talk about an advocate. Do you know who the seniors'
advocate in Cape St. Francis is? It's Kevin Parsons.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I will be
a seniors' advocate for them.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear,
hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Seeing no further speakers I'll now ask: Shall the resolution carry?
Carried.
On motion, resolution carried.
A bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The
Province. (Bill 10)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 6
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 6
inclusive carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
On motion, clauses 2 through 6 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?
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Authorize
The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title
carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill
10 carried without amendment?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without
amendment, carried.
MR. SPEAKER
(Osborne):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain
resolution and recommended that a bill be introduced to give effect to
the same.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the
Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred, have adopted a certain resolution and have
recommended that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.
When shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the
resolution be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and
seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK: That
it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time
to time by way of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not
exceeding $1,600,000,000.
On motion, resolution read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the
resolution be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and
seconded that the resolution be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Carried.
CLERK:
That it is expedient
to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way
of loan on the credit of the province a sum of money not exceeding
$1,600,000,000.
On motion, resolution read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Prior to announcing the adjournment for the day I move, seconded by
the Minister of Natural Resources, that the resolution be now read
sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'm learning my job on the job.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources for
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan Act, Bill
10, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and
seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to
introduce Bill 10 and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board
to introduce a bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of
Loan By The Province, carried. (Bill 10)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To
Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 10)
On motion, Bill 10 read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that
Bill 10 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and
seconded that Bill 10 be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To
Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 10)
On motion, Bill 10 read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill
10 be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and
seconded that Bill 10 be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To
Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now
been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that
its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of
Loan By The Province, read a third time, ordered passed and its title
be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Prior to adjourning, I want to announce the Estimates schedule for next
week which has seen some changes. I'm hoping everybody will pay
attention and that it works to everybody's schedule.
Monday in this House, May 2, at 9 a.m. will be the Estimates for Child,
Youth and Family Services. On Tuesday, May 3, at 9 a.m. will be the
Estimates for Labour Relations. On Wednesday, May 4, it will be the
Estimates for Transportation and Works which will be held at 5:30 p.m.
On Thursday, May 5, at 9 a.m. in this House will be the Estimates for
Health and Community Services.
I move, seconded by the Member for Virginia Waters Pleasantville, that
the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved
and seconded that the House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adjourn?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 in the
afternoon.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at
1:30 p.m.