April
10, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 8
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I'm
delighted to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today Mr. Max Porter, who's the
subject of a Member's statement. He's joined by his daughter Patricia Rideout.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
M. SPEAKER:
As well today in the public
gallery we have members of the Dover Town Council: Mayor Tony Keats, Town Clerk
Yvonne Collins and Councillors Rob Wiseman and Alvin Johnston.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we have the Members for the Districts of Lewisporte Twillingate,
Topsail Paradise, Exploits, Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, Torngat Mountains
and Stephenville Port au Port.
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize Chloe Gale of Lewisporte. Chloe is a graduating
student of Lewisporte Collegiate and a very accomplished pianist and singer. At
the age of four, Chloe began playing the piano under the direction of Mr. Lindy
Whitt. She has won numerous awards over the years at the Kiwanis Musical
Festival in Grand Falls-Windsor, including a six-time Rose Bowl winner.
This
year Chloe won the Bernice Edwards Memorial Award for Best Piano Performance.
She also took home the Cole Award, for the second time, for the most outstanding
performance of the festival.
At the
end of the evening the Kiwanis Club presented Chloe with a $3,000 scholarship
for continued studies in a music faculty of an accredited university, for which
she will be attending Memorial University in September.
As a
result of her outstanding performances, Chloe was also recommended to
participate at the provincial Music Festival on May 12-13 at the Gordon Pinsent
Centre for the Arts.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Chloe Gale on her numerous awards
and wish her much success at the provincial competition and also in her future
endeavours.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Topsail Paradise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this year's winter carnival Snow and Ice in Paradise was bigger and
better than ever before. From February 10 to 19, the Town of Paradise celebrated
its winter carnival and featured events for citizens of all ages to enjoy. The
Town of Paradise came together and celebrated the splendor of winter, which
featured fun activities for adults and children alike. To name a few, some of
the events were a pre-teen dance, a family sliding day, skating, family roasting
fires, retirement centre visits and fireworks to end off the celebrations.
These
events bring communities and families together for a fun-filled 10 days of
healthy outdoor activities. I'd like to thank the numerous volunteers, the town
staff, mayor and councillors, corporate sponsors, all who had a contribution to
make this very successful event possible. Without their support and dedication,
and without everyone working together, it certainly would not have happened as
successfully as it did.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask everyone to join me in congratulating the Town of Paradise on
another successful winter carnival, and adding the quality of life to the
community.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Mr. Speaker.
The
Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor is celebrating 50 years as a chartered club
of Kiwanis International. It boasts 40 members, some with 25 to 45 years of
service.
Mr. Max
Porter, who resides in St. John's, is still a member in Grand Falls-Windsor. He
was the first president of the club and the first festival chairman.
Central
NL Kiwanis began in 1959 and had many local musicians desiring to perform and be
adjudicated in a music festival without having to travel to St. John's. Working
diligently, they held the first festival on April 10, 1961 with over 300
entries.
The
Central NL Festival is still the largest outside of St. John's. Former
participants are found globally, working within the music industry. Some have
returned home to adjudicate. The 52nd Central NL Music Festival ran from March
26 to the 31st of this year.
The
Kiwanis Club supports other organizations: the Beaumont Hamel Army Cadets, Kids
Breakfast Program, Community Food Bank, South and Central Health Foundation, as
well as other local causes.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Central
Kiwanis Club on 50 years of community service.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to honour Andy Turnbull, a young indigenous businessman whose leadership
and vision are making a difference in the Labrador business community and,
indeed, the province.
Since
2012, Andy has been the CEO of Nunacor, a business development arm of the
NunatuKavut Community Council. Andy and his team have helped grow Nunacor into a
diversified operation, with four subsidiaries all now positioned to capitalize
on emerging opportunities.
In 2016,
Andy was honoured as one the Top 50 CEOs in Atlantic Canada by Atlantic Business
Magazine. This award recognizes the most accomplished, forward-thinking and
community-minded executives in Atlantic Canada, and it was very well deserved.
I'm
especially proud, Mr. Speaker, of Andy as he hails from my home community of
Charlottetown. I worked with him in my previous role as an employment counsellor
in various capacities, and I knew from the beginning that Andy would achieve
great success and make us all very proud.
The face
of business is changing in our province, Mr. Speaker, and indigenous leaders
like Andy are leading the way.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing Andy Turnbull and congratulating him
on all his extraordinary accomplishments to date.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize the Ethel Pijogge Memorial Spring Festival recently held in
Hopedale. I had the pleasure of participating in the opening and it was a
fantastic event.
While
there are always lots of great activities like snow sculpting, an ice fishing
derby and lots of food, the main event is the Ethel Pijogge memorial dog team
race.
I want
to congratulate Perry Voisey who took first place, as well as Edward (Buddy
Morgan) Winters who came in second, and third place went to Rex Voisey.
There
was one female musher this year; Amy Tuglavina took up the challenge and did a
great job. I'm sure she'll be back to compete again.
Mr.
Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing of Elder Doris
Flowers. She was a tremendous volunteer in Hopedale and a number of festival
events were postponed to pay tribute to this great lady.
The
Ethel Pijogge Memorial Spring Festival brings our entire community together to
celebrate the coming of spring, our community and our unique way of life.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the organizing committee and
volunteers who make this happen year after year. They build community spirit and
Hopedale Pride.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in 1885, Michael Francis Abbott started a tinsmith shop in Port au
Port. This shop progressed into a lobster canning plant as Michael partnered
with Harry Haliburton in the early 1900s. Their success saw expansion throughout
the peninsula. They owned several wharfs and transported goods to markets in
Boston and overseas.
By the
early '70s, Abbott & Haliburton was more than a household name. They now owned
seven different general stores throughout Port au Port. The business eventually
moved into building supplies where it's operated today by the fifth generation
of the Abbott family.
Last
Monday, April 3, tragedy struck as the business's main building was destroyed by
fire. The 132 year history of this family business tells a story of a dedicated
and compassionate family that met challenges head on and evolved with a changing
economy. The resiliency of the Abbott family is very much alive, as owner Bill
Abbott is already beginning the rebuilding process.
I ask
all Members to join me in acknowledging the remarkable contribution Abbott &
Haliburton has made to the economy of Port au Port and wish them well in their
rebuilding efforts.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
in this hon. House today to mark the 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Vimy
Ridge which took place on April 9, 1917, and the Battle of Monchy-le-Preux which
took place on April 14, 1917.
The
Battle of Vimy Ridge saw four Canadian divisions fighting together as a unit for
the first time and resulted in a victory over German forces. By April 12, the
Canadians captured Vimy and, many historians will say, this forged a new sense
of national identity.
Mr.
Speaker, despite the gallantry and the determination, over 3,500 soldiers paid
the ultimate sacrifice, and for this, we owe our gratitude.
To
honour the fallen, the Canadian National Vimy Memorial stands in France as a
tribute to all Canadians who served during the First World War. The French
government granted use of the land for the Memorial and battlefield site to the
people of Canada freely and for all time.
The
Canadian National Vimy Memorial is of only two National Historic Sites located
outside of Canada; the other, of course, being the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland
and Labrador Memorial, a tribute to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
served during the First World War.
Mr.
Speaker, this week will also mark the 100th Anniversary of Monchy-le-Preux which
occurred on April 14, 1917.
Arguably
this is Newfoundland Regiment's greatest victory, where we saw 10 men who saved
Monchy. They stood off they stand out as many heroes of the great World War.
These 10 men held off the enemy for over 11 hours before relief arrived, keeping
the Germans from advancing into the vital battlefield position.
Mr.
Speaker, afterwards, the British commanding officer declared 40,000 men would
have been required to recover Monchy had the German's captured it.
In
honour of this valiant act by the Newfoundland Regiment, a bronze caribou now
stands steadfast guarding the French village.
As part
of the events related to this year's anniversary, the Minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation is in France to commemorate and remember the
Newfoundland Regiment's involvement in the Great War. He also joins his federal
colleagues, including Prime Minister Trudeau, to honour the role that Canada
played in these significant events.
Mr.
Speaker, today I invite all hon. Members to join me in honouring our soldiers on
the centennial anniversaries of Vimy Ridge and Monchy-le-Preux.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Premier for an advance copy of his statement today. The victory at Vimy was
a defining moment for Canada. It's considered by many historians to be a
significant event in our country's progress towards full independence from
Britain.
While it
was a monumental day for Canada, it was also a defining time for the
Newfoundland Regiment whose great victory at Monchy saved so many from certain
death.
As the
Premier stated, it's undoubtedly one of the greatest victories by the
Newfoundland Regiment arguably one of the greatest victories of the entire
war. Our nation and our provincial identity was built upon the shoulders of
those brave soldiers, 3,500 of them, who paid the ultimate sacrifice; a number
that would total over 60,000 over the course of the First World War.
We join
with all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, along with the entire country, in
thanking those who bravely fought in the Battles of Vimy Ridge and
Monchy-le-Preux. We promised them we would remember, and that's exactly what we
have done, and I trust we'll continue to do that for generations to come. They
deserve nothing less.
We will
remember them.
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 Premier for the advance copy of his statement. Whether Vimy Ridge or
Monchy-le-Preux, we must all honour the promise, lest we forget. The sacrifices
made by these young men must be remembered. To forget may doom us to repeat the
past.
As
French President Hollande said yesterday in marking the event, nationalism leads
to destruction. We owe it to the young men who died to remember the past, learn
to put aside our differences, and work together to ensure a better future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday
evening Sports Newfoundland and Labrador held its 10th annual Stars and Legends
Gala. I rise today to recognize the award winners and hall of fame inductees.
The 2017
award recipients are: Senior Female Athlete of the Year, Heather Healey,
baseball; Senior Male Athlete of the Year, Sean Cleary, softball; Junior Female
Athlete of the Year, Camryn Bonia, athletics; Junior Male Athlete of the Year,
Liam Hickey, wheelchair basketball and sledge hockey; Executive of the Year,
John Cowan, rugby; Volunteer of the Year, Shane Dunphy, soccer; Coach of the
Year, Noel Strapp, wrestling; Team of the Year, Team Gushue, curling
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Official of the Year: Ryan
Garland, baseball.
This
year's Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame inductees were: Gerald
Lomond in the Builder category, gymnastics; Rod Snow in the Athlete category,
rugby); and Glenn Stanford in the Athlete/Builder category,
soccer/basketball/hockey.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the provincial sport organizations, along with
the many athletes, coaches, managers, parents and volunteers who support
athletic excellence at every level. Our government is committed to continued
support for sport, recreation and healthy living at all levels.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating this year's honourees for their hard
work, dedication and contribution to sport in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
colleagues in the Official Opposition, I would like to congratulate all of the
2017 Stars and Legends award winners, and the Hall of Fame inductees.
I wish
to congratulate Heather Healey, Sean Cleary, Camryn Bonia, Liam Hickey, John
Cowan, Shane Dunphy, Noel Strapp, Team Gushue and Ryan Garland on their awards.
I would also like to congratulate the individuals introduced into the Sports
Hall of Fame: Gerald Lomond, Rod Snow and Glenn Stanford.
Our
province is indeed very lucky to have a high calibre of competitive athletes who
continually make us proud. They truly inspire those who around them to become
more involved in sport, both recreationally and competitively.
Mr.
Speaker, the Stars and Legends awards are not only great accomplishments for the
athletes, but are great accomplishments for their parents, families, coaches,
volunteers, managers and the entire sporting and recreation community in our
province as well.
I also
like to take a moment to congratulate Team Gushue on their most recent
accomplishment of being awarded the gold medal at the Men's World Curling
Tournament last evening. We continue to be proud of this rink and wish them all
the best in their future endeavours.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Congratulations to all
of the 2017 award winners, Stars and Legends indeed, and thanks to all the
volunteers who make this possible. It is so important that we support our
province's young athletes in following their dreams and provide help to those
who wouldn't have the means otherwise just look at these results and to
honour our seasoned athletes who have illustrious careers here and abroad, and
have brought recognition to our province.
Bravo to
all for their tremendous achievements!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Before
we proceed to Question Period, I'd like to recognize a former Member of the
House in our public gallery: Mr. Percy Barrett.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, last year's Budget 2016
created 300 new taxes and fees and in
Budget 2017 with all those fees remaining in place, except for one being
modified, excess taxes are smothering the economy and people.
I ask
the Premier: How is this your Way Forward
when the financial burden remains squarely on the shoulders of hard-working
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the question this afternoon. As the people of the
province have come to understand, last year's significant situation that we
found ourselves in as a government required very significant action. As part of
that action, there were a series of decisions that were made to enable us to
then go to the market to borrow what was in the vicinity of just over $4.9
billion.
We had
to complete the borrowing program for the former administration, who did not
have borrowing in place. We had to complete the borrowing program for what we
needed to do for our fiscal year. Because the deficit is lower, we were also
able to borrow a little bit for the coming year.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite has heard me speak regularly on a tax review. When
we complete that tax review, we will be providing the people of the province
more clarity on where taxes can be anticipated over the next number of years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the response from the minister. The Liberals still have their hands
in the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with this budget.
I'll ask
the Premier: What relief is there in the budget for hard-working Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians who are suffering at the extreme expense of the taxes and fees?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, one of the
things that we did as part of this year's budget was make sure that we looked at
the impacts and the reality of the Newfoundland economy, and we made very
purposeful decisions around three particular items. One was to announce a $3
billion infrastructure plan that will provide the opportunity for the equivalent
of 4,900 full-time positions every year during that plan to help with looking at
the vacuum that was created in our economy by the former administration.
We also
made the decision that it was appropriate to reduce the temporary gas tax, which
will be reduce by 12.5 cents in June, another four in December, including HST;
that's 14.4 cents. And $122 million invested in a Seniors' Benefit and the
Newfoundland Income Supplement are substantial ways that we are working hard to
support Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Budget 2017
simply continues the
overwhelming burden placed on hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
right throughout our entire province. I appreciate the minister's answers but it
doesn't tell us and it doesn't tell the people of the province what new measures
are included in the budget that will provide some relief to those hard-working
people who are struggling because of these taxes and fees.
What's
there for those people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the Member opposite for providing me the opportunity to stand up again because
one of the items that we did speak to the people of the province about last week
in our budget was a rate management reserve. Our government felt it was
extremely important to provide the people of the province with the initial view,
the preliminary view, as to what we feel is reasonable when it comes to lowering
electricity rates in the future.
Nalcor
has been directed and is committed to creating these reserve funds. For those
individuals in the community who continue to feel uncertainty about energy
prices, we thought that was an extremely important thing to explain to the
people of the province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
been telling people for months and months years actually that their rates
will not double, and it was just rhetoric by Members opposite. They finally
agreed to tell the people the truth and tell them their rates won't double.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, GDP, investment,
exports, employment and household incomes are all expected to decline under this
budget while, at the same time, the cost of living and unemployment rate is
going to increase.
With all
indicators going in the wrong direction, why should the people of the province
suddenly begin to trust this government? Their Way Forward doesn't appear to be a way forward; it's simply a way
backwards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I'd remind the
Member opposite that saying you're going to do something and doing something are
two different things.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
We've actually given the
people of the province clarity.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing I'd mention to the Member opposite when he talks about
the economy, part of what we're also trying to do is to look at, through
The Way Forward, the opportunity to
create over some 9,000 positions by achieving targets that we've established. We
are looking broadly across the economy. Mr. Speaker, the people of the province
deserve the truth; they don't deserve a false hope that was propagated by the
Members opposite.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
the Minister of Finance who campaigned on dozens and dozens of promises during
the election, and has not delivered on any of them has done the complete
opposite, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, on the same day
that the government announced they would partially reduce the Liberal gas tax
that the minister just referred to, gas prices skyrocketed seven cents per
litre. And as they do each year this time a year, as we approach summer, the
cost of fuel anticipated will continue to increase. People are struggling. I've
made that quite clear, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have made that quite
clear.
I ask
the minister: Will you commit to completely remove the Liberal gas tax on June
1, this year?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite is, I believe, erroneous. We have said we were going to address the
deficit, and we have done that. We have said we were going to commit to a
seven-year plan, and we continue to remain committed to those targets.
We have
told the people of the province that we will fix the stability of the Treasury
and then turn our attentions to growing the economy and supporting
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a broader way, without focusing singularly
on megaprojects and oil, and that is exactly what we have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Their
election platform also had 33 plans to
make a plan. We haven't seen many of those yet either.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance to make a commitment in the House here
today: Commit not to replace the reduction in gas tax with a new carbon tax.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite, I am sure, would have sat through technical briefings on Thursday
where officials would have provided him and Members of his caucus with the
specifics around our plans of the gas tax.
As we
have communicated to the people of the province, our intention is to reduce the
gas tax effective June 1 by 12½ cents and another four cents on December 1. The
reason we can implement that tax reduction on June 1, is that we need to make
sure that we give the wholesalers the opportunity to reflect that price.
Including the HST, that is a total reduction of 14.4 cents.
We have
also communicated to people of the province that in the fall fiscal update we
will be giving them clarity on the remaining portion of temporary gas tax, which
is what I said last year, which is exactly what it was: a temporary tax, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At a
time when Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are struggling to get by under the
weight of the Liberal government's excessive taxes, does the minister think that
it is reasonable to reopen Marble Mountain and offer a three-day free-for-all on
the backs of the taxpayer?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the question. This is my second time in the history of
this House to be able to stand as a parliamentary secretary and respond in
Question Period.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
To just get to the Member's
question, we've been working with Marble Mountain Development Corporation for
the past year, and we're always looking to diversify we want to save money for
the taxpayers of this province. There are significant investments that have
happened in Marble Mountain Development Corporation.
Opening
up Marble Mountain for three days through Easter is really an investment. We
want to attract new people to come in and experience the hill so that, as next
year goes forward, we'll have more people that will likely take advantage of the
hill and have the ski experience.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With all
the Liberal tax and fee increases, people are struggling, and you think it's a
priority to give away free tickets and ski rentals?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
As I said, Mr. Speaker, this
is about an investment into an experience for people on the West Coast. Marble
Mountain has been a tourist destination for 29 years in this province, and
certainly we have over 100 small- and medium-sized businesses that also reap
benefits from Marble Mountain. We would see that by opening up and providing
more opportunity for people to come into Marble Mountain that there would also
be spinoffs and economic development opportunities for more companies on the
West Coast.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, just two weeks ago, the minister stated it was costing $5,000 a day
just to keep Marble Mountain open.
I ask
the parliamentary secretary: What will be the cost to open Marble Mountain on
Easter weekend?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, yes, certainly
it costs about $11,000 a day to operate Marble Mountain, but we got to look at
that there are other things that happen at Marble Mountain. Lift passes are one
thing, but people come and they stay at accommodations, they buy gas, and they
purchase food and other things when they're in the West Coast area. So there are
all kinds of spinoffs that will come in addition to providing these free lift
passes on Easter weekend.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
So just to be clear, Mr.
Speaker, it was $5,000 a day last week or two weeks ago, now we're up to $11,000
a day. Maybe the government opposite can subsidize White Hills and our other ski
resorts in the province just like they're treating Marble Mountain, if you want
to be fair. This is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.
At one
point, the minister claimed it would be cost neutral but then the local MHA
during an address to the Greater Corner Brook Board of Trade announced that all
tickets and rentals will be free for all three days. Don't you think this is an
irresponsible waste of taxpayers' money?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, what would be
absolutely irresponsible would be to take an asset like Marble Mountain
Development Corporation, Marble Mountain itself and not maximize it to its full
potential. We had two options: status quo where we would actually see visitation
and user ship of Marble Mountain decline in future years because people were
becoming very, very disgruntled, very frustrated by the fact that we needed a
stronger customer service base here.
We would
have lost revenue by people not buying tickets in future years, but the other
thing we realized is that in order to grow Marble Mountain you have to get new
skiers, you have to get more people interested in the sport and the way you do
that you give them an opportunity.
On one
weekend one weekend a year you come out and say: Why don't you take up the
sport for a weekend, we'll offer you free lift tickets and free rental
equipment? And that is how you grow an opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was a
great speech, but I'm not sure if it made any sense.
The cost
of living in Newfoundland and Labrador is rising faster than any other province
in Canada. The people are hurting and (inaudible) of this budget leaves them
little reprieve.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: What actions in the budget will address the growing
rate of inflation and a rate that's twice the national average?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Member opposite earlier, in answering a question from the Leader of the
Official Opposition, I wanted to make sure I provided clarity around the
reduction in the temporary gas tax. I want to make sure that the Member opposite
understands it's 12½ cent reduction in the entire year; 8½ in June and four in
the fall, in December. When you add HST to that, that's 14.4.
I would
say to the Member who just asked the question, that's a very meaningful action
by this government to help deal with the issue that he just raised.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
still not sure what the answer to the question is. It's twice the national
average. What's government going to do about it?
The
Minister of Finance says she plans to freeze the cost to government over the
next five years. With an inflation rate of approximately 3 per cent, how much
will she have to cut to maintain this freeze on a go-forward basis?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, what we've said
is that we must spend within the context of what is reasonable based on general
revenues. The former administration chose to spend oil royalties as if they were
a guaranteed income. While we're certainly grateful that last year we benefited
from increased production and a slightly increased price per barrel, our
government recognizes that continuing to spend in a way that doesn't reflect
what is reasonable from general revenues is something the people of the province
won't be able to afford, nor will they stand for.
When it
comes to inflationary risks, what we're doing is working on changing the culture
of spending, and we're going to keep working on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I remind the minister the
spending increase from the 2015-2016 budget, in her own budget in order to
prevent an increase to the cost of government over the next five years, the
minister will have to cut over $1 billion from programs and services.
I ask
the minister which services are you going to cut and when will you provide the
details.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, it's
interesting, the former administration, in their budget in 2015 shared a plan
with the people of the province that had spending in fiscal '17-'18 almost at
$8.4 billion. At the end of that year, in December of 2015 and when our
government provided a fiscal update for that year, we were forecasting spending
for this year to be $8.6 billion because the former administration had failed to
forecast increased expenses, and also some of their election promises, Mr.
Speaker.
We have
taken spending down from that December 2015 number of $8.6 billion to $8.1
billion in this budget, Mr. Speaker, and we're going to be methodical and
responsible in the choices that we make going forward to continue to reduce
spending.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the people of the province will have three more years of the Liberal
levy. The Minister of Finance stated recently that the levy is law. Can the
minister confirm that the Liberal government has the ability to change the law
and remove the levy today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, just for
clarity, the Member opposite is referring to the temporary deficit levy. As he
is well aware, this House voted on the terms and conditions of that temporary
tax. It expires in December of 2019 exactly as we had shared with the people of
the province. We actually made some modifications last year to the deficit levy,
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we could get out of that tax as quickly as we can.
We're
undertaking a comprehensive tax review, and we look forward to providing the
people of the province with further clarity on where our tax regime will go
within our mandate.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I'd advise the
Minister, we didn't vote from this side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, Moody's, one of
the world's most reputable credit-rating agencies, says the budget delivered by
the Liberal government last week is a momentum killer. It says the spending
problem remains.
Can the
minister explain why they're not addressing this issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm perplexed by
the Member opposite. What Moody's said, quite frankly, was that they wanted to
continue to look towards the decisions that we're going to make in the next year
to reflect that we can actually hit our target again.
I'm very
pleased that we were able to present our target for fiscal '16-'17 and meet that
deficit target, and actually beat it significantly. I'm very pleased that we
have a budget coming before this House that lowers that number from $800 million
to $778 million. I'll look forward to the ratings agencies seeing the proof of
our actions coming next year.
I can
tell the Member opposite that we are not going to disrupt the economy by massive
layoffs and program cuts; we're going to be methodical and responsible in the
decisions we make based on the best interests of the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I can tell the minister what
did disrupt the economy is 300 fees and the levy that they implemented last
year, and the economic indicators are going the wrong way in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, this year's
budget doesn't include a buffer to protect against a drop in oil price. Last
year, you built in $125 million buffer that would be reinstated in 2018.
I ask
the minister, why leave out this year and reintroduce it in 2018.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to correct the Member opposite. If he took the time and I'm sure he will later
today to look at The Economy
document from last year's budget and The
Economy document from this year's budget, he will see that there are modest
improvements in key indicators not all of them, but there are some key
indicators that have improved over last year, Mr. Speaker. So I want to correct
that.
Secondly, when it comes to the oil price, we, in discussions with an economist
roundtable first one ever held in this province by a Finance Minister
discussions with our own staff, we recognize that the real risk in the oil price
is in the out-years, and that's what we reflected in our plan, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, in your speech on Budget Day you said: The job of government is to
govern, and the fiscal crisis is not, nor should it be, our sole focus. Could
you please clarify that statement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, last year after
some 3½ months, four months, in government we were faced with a very significant
challenge to the Treasury. We made choices and decisions at that time that would
enable us to do the borrowing program that we needed to do for their year, for
our year and some of this year that we are debating in the House, Mr. Speaker.
Our job
now, after stabilizing the Treasury, is to focus on the fiscal, the social and
the economic impacts and the choices we can make to make sure we are bringing
our province, as the Premier has said, on the path to sustainability and growth,
Mr. Speaker. That's exactly what we're doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, you said government's job extends beyond the balance sheet. Can you
please tell us what is your plan to grow the economy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
budget outlined, and we outlined before the budget, the $3 billion investment
that's being made over five years for multi-year infrastructure that will result
in the equivalent of 4,900 positions every year for those five years, on
average. The Premier, several weeks ago, in
The Way Forward in setting specific
targets for us as a province and as a Cabinet and as a government to achieve,
those targets, when achieved, will create some 9,300 equivalent, full-time
positions, Mr. Speaker.
Our
government is very focused on the diverse pieces of our economy to ensure that
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in every corner of our province have an
opportunity to experience growth.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Economists disagree that your plan will grow the economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
I ask the minister: The
Budget Speech also mentions a wage freeze; when will the Liberals wage freeze
for public service employees come into effect?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure
what economist he's talking to, but there have certainly been economists that
I've talked to and spoke to and had dialogue with who have indicated that the
choices that we are making as part of this budget are going to help and support
our economy.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to correct, again, an error from the Member opposite. What we
announced in last week's budget was a wage freeze for management and
non-unionized employees as a result of this budget and that we intend to bring
in legislation. The Member opposite is referencing a broader group of employees.
If he has information that he wants to share and let me know exactly where he
got it, I will be sure to answer that question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is
a lot of chatter going on amongst Members. In particular, I point to the Member
for Conception Bay South. I'm asking the co-operation of all Members in the
House. The only person I wish to hear from is the person identified to speak.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for clarifying that. I take, from that statement, that there will
be no wage freeze for the public service in the negotiations here, which is good
for them to hear, no doubt.
Budget 2017
identified $283 million in savings. I ask the minister to provide some detail on
where these savings will come from.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President or Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I want to again
take a moment to correct what the Member opposite said in his preamble. We are
in active bargaining with our public sector employees. Some of them are in the
process of active bargaining, some are getting ready to go into active
bargaining, and some have actually moved into the conciliation phase.
The
Member opposite has not had, to my knowledge, the privilege of sitting at those
tables, nor has he had an opportunity to look at the issues that we have put on
the table as the employer, or what the employees have put on the table through
their representatives. I ask the Member opposite to stop making assumptions on
facts that he doesn't have, 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.
It takes
close reading of the Budget 2017
documents to learn that it basically is a continuation of the choices government
made in last year's disastrous budget. I'd like to get confirmation of details
about some of the hardship that people in the province will continue to face.
So I ask
the Minister of Finance: Will she tell the people of the province her forecast
for year-over-year change in the average household income in the coming year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the information
that the Member opposite is asking, I don't have at the top of my memory in this
particular afternoon session. I will be pleased to provide her with that
information once I speak to officials.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm shocked with that answer
from the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. All she has to do is open up the
economic indicators booklet and she has her answers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
I ask the minister: Will she
tell the people of the province her forecast for year-over-year change in retail
sales in coming year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure
what the Member opposite is trying to achieve with her questions. Just like she
referenced that I could look at the numbers in the book, which I don't have
memorized at this particular point
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. C. BENNETT:
the Member opposite has the
ability to look at that as well, Mr. Speaker, and it's in the document.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all hon. Members that props are not permitted in the House.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We know
that they are in the document, and that's exactly why we would like the minister
to tell the people of the province exactly what the future of the province is
looking like right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
I do believe that the people
of the province want to know.
So I ask
the minister: Will she tell the people of the province her forecast for changes
in the cost of living in the coming year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, as
you'd know, there's an exhaustive amount of work that goes into preparing a
budget. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has
outlined answers to the people of this province in some very detailed economic
indicators that are in the book. The Members opposite are quite aware of that
book. It's online right now. It's available right now; they have it right now.
They're complaining that this information is not available.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister put that out there to the people of this province quite
clearly on Thursday. So stop the fear mongering; the information is out there.
There is nothing that this minister is withholding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Absolutely, that information is in that book, and let's ask the minister now to
tell the people of the province her forecast for changes to the unemployment
rate in the coming year.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister has already told Members in this House; she's told the people of this
province, Mr. Speaker. What I would like to know, in an interview by the
economist from the NDP, the economist who gives advice to the NDP, who stood in
front of the media with the Member opposite right next to her, she said clearly
to the people of this province that they want to see thousands of reductions
within the public sector. Is that your wishes, I say to the Members opposite? Is
that what you said? Because I had that discussion with you outside on Thursday.
So why
doesn't the Member opposite tell the people of this province where you stand; do
you support your economic advisor?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
It's a mystery to me, Mr.
Speaker. We don't have an economist in our caucus.
I ask
the minister: Apart from the changes to the gas tax
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Apart from the changes to the gas tax, do the increases in
hundreds of fees she announced in last year's budget remain in effect?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, our province and
our economy is going through a transition, and the reality is that that
transition is a result of multiple megaprojects that are coming to an end, poor
planning on behalf of the former administration in diversifying the economy and
our government is focused on making sure that we can do everything we can to
support the economy.
Moving
on the gas tax, when we still have a $778 million deficit, is an important
decision to support the economy. Investing $122 million in a program that helps
low-income individuals and seniors, a program that the Members opposite refused
to talk about, is an investment in our economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will move as the Member for Topsail Paradise, seconded by the
Member for Cape St. Francis, the following private Member's resolution for
Wednesday, April 12:
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House condemns the government for maintaining all but one of
the 300 tax and fee increases they imposed on people in last year's budget,
while failing to be forthright and accountable in disclosing information and
while failing to nurture the conditions for economic growth across Newfoundland
and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the private Member's motion put forward by the Member for Topsail
Paradise will be the motion we will bring forward on Wednesday, Private Members'
Day.
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 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
government has removed the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books, which
will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and
WHEREAS
an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must
be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada and the
other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to encourage
reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS
this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we
will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government
a tax to read the books of our own writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've stood in this House numerous occasions, almost every day that the
House has been open in this session, with this particular petition that is
signed by people from all over the province. They are academics. They are
writers. They are people who don't have a whole lot of money but acknowledge how
important it is, how important literacy and reading is to the people of the
province.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the most regressive, short-sighted, ridiculous taxes that have
ever been imposed in the history of this province and this government just had
the opportunity to rescind this tax, and what did they do? They're continuing it
on a tax that makes no sense whatsoever (a) to the well-being of the economy,
to the well-being of booksellers, to the well-being of writers and to the
well-being of the general population.
We all
know how important literacy is. We all know how important education is. Some of
the people who are bearing the brunt of this unseemly tax are students. Some of
whom are paying an extra few hundred dollars a semester for their textbooks,
already students who are burdened with all kinds of expenses and to impose taxes
on textbooks where it's not done anywhere else in the country and we know how
incredibly important it is, education particularly, in a time like this in our
economy. It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
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 Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Prescription Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in
Budget 2016; and
WHEREAS
many low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care;
and
WHEREAS
those same individuals can now no longer access dentures;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the government to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to
cover low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality
of life and dignity.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, moments ago, we heard another Member raise concerns about one of the
cuts that we experienced in the previous budget that still remains in this
current budget that was recently announced. That related to the book tax that's
now in place. Well, the cuts to the Adult Dental Program and to the Newfoundland
and Labrador Prescription Drug Program should not be forgotten either.
This
budget, this year, is just as hard on low-income families and just as hard on
seniors living on fixed incomes in our province than the last one. Of the 300
new taxes and fees, only one was partially adjusted; the other 299 remain in
place. So that's what we're dealing with in this year's budget.
People
are finding it harder to live here. People are finding it harder to work here.
This year's budget does nothing to address those concerns. So today, I'm rising
to present this petition on behalf of low-income families, on behalf of
low-income individuals, particularly seniors who are struggling with the cost of
living and struggling to meet some of their basic needs.
During
the previous administration, the Adult Dental Program was created. There was
major expansion and improvement to the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription
Drug Program. So it's really hard to watch that being undone in the last budget
and again in this year's Liberal budget.
Seniors
are dealing with increased costs for home care. Home care hours were cut over
the past year as a result of Liberal government decisions. There were cuts to
the Prescription Drug Program that affects seniors, low-income individuals and
others as well. There was a reduction in diabetic test strips that are available
to individuals living with diabetes in our province.
As I
said, people are dealing with an increased cost of living as a result of changes
that this government made. This budget is no better than last year's budget.
People are still struggling and some of their basic needs will no longer be met
as a result of decisions by the Liberal government.
There is
a better way, Mr. Speaker, and the decisions that have been made by this
government are just simply irresponsible and people deserve better.
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.
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 US Center for Disease Control now estimates that Autism Spectrum Disorder,
ASD, affects one in 68 children, which represents a 30 per cent increase from
the estimate of two years ago; and
WHEREAS
early diagnosis of ASD is essential because there is a critical developmental
period when early intervention is vital for future success of children with ASD;
and
WHEREAS
in other provinces, an ASD diagnosis can be made by specialists certified and
trained in ADOS;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to allow other specialists trained and certified
with ADOS to make the Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've been years with people who have children who are on the autism
disorder spectrum. I have people who teach them. I have members of the Autism
Society. In so many ways, for years, I've been hearing from them about the need
for getting early intervention. So this petition will be timely unfortunately,
it's been timely for years and that's not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.
We have
got to start making sure that we do a much better job in early intervention for
the good of the children, their families and also of society in general. We have
the long wait times for children needing assessment and more of them would get
assessed if we had more people doing the training. Here in this province yes,
one new other pediatrician was added to the list for doing assessments, but we
have a much greater need than that. Without increasing the people who are doing
it and you do that by making sure that specialists are certified and trained.
They do not have to be pediatricians to do this. If we start that, then children
will get their diagnosis earlier, they will get intervention, and they will be
able to take a much better part in society in general, especially in the school
system.
Youth
and adults with autism this is the big issue who have an IQ of 70 or more
are not eligible for services offered to people with intellectual disabilities,
such as job coaches, life coaches, supported living and caregiver respite. What
we need is not an IQ test because it's well known that many people with ADS have
very high IQs. What we need is a functionality test that measures social
interaction and self-care abilities because that's the major issue that these
people are dealing with.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
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
there's been an identified lack of mental health services in our provincial K-12
school system; and
WHEREAS
the lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and
WHEREAS
left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases, will develop to more serious
issues;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs
in our province's K-12 school system.
And as
is duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had an opportunity to present this numerous times. When I look at
it, right now it's come from at least 15 different communities, from the North
Coast into the Northeast Avalon. These here are coming from places like Port de
Grave, Bay Roberts and Bareneed. So it shows that parents, educators, the
general public, have a real concern around this. We've come a long way,
particularly with the All-Party Committee on Mental Health where they identified
a number of interventions and a number of solutions, once enacted, that will
start addressing some of the issues around mental health.
Some of
the issues were around early detection, early intervention and early supports. I
know a number of people who presented to the committee have noted that. Some
were educators and some were parents who had ran into some stumbling blocks over
the years in not being able to have their kids identified with potential
services that were needed. Educators were frustrated that those services weren't
available when they identified the needs for the students.
So
what's being asked here is that if we're going to solve and we're going to
address the issue of mental health and make better awareness so that we can
partner with other agencies that can provide particular services, we need to
start at the younger ages. We need to identify particular issues or particular
signs that may need to be addressed early so that they don't flourish into
something more serious and have a more dramatic effect on those individuals and
our society as a whole and it then, in turn, has an effect on their ability to
be productive citizens. If they're having problems within our school system,
that obviously is going to have an impact on whether or not they're successful
in that, what role they play in post-secondary, what role they play in the job
market.
The
intent here is to identify a lot of good things that are happening in mental
health. The awareness is out there. Everybody agrees we need to address it.
What's being said here is don't just deal with the immediate, serious issues
that we're having around mental health issues that have been identified by
particular older groups. What we're saying is if we start addressing them at the
early ages, we're going to do a better service for those who are engaged. We're
going to ensure that they have a better opportunity to be productive citizens.
We're going to, in the long run, in the economy of scale, save money for people
in our province.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this again, but I think it's a
very important thing and it goes well with the mental health awareness program
that we're moving forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Environment, for leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, Bill 7,
and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill
7 and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, carried. (Bill 7)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 7 has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act No. 2, Bill 8, and I further move that the said bill be now
read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill
8 and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2,
carried. (Bill 8)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2. (Bill
8)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 8 has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 9, and I further move that
the said bill be now read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded by
the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill
9, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, carried. (Bill 9)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 9)
MR. SPEAKER:
Bill 9 has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 9 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's certainly a privilege to rise today to respond to the Budget
Speech 2017 and go through the outline of that speech. I want to go back and
look at the Speech from the Throne and how that ties into the budget.
Before I
do that, I just wanted to, on a separate note, on behalf of myself and our
caucus, pass along best wishes to Minister Judy Foote, who is one of seven MPs
that represent us in Ottawa. We understand in the last week or so she's stepped
away for personal reasons. We certainly respect that, but as parliamentarians,
whether we're provincial, whether we're federal or what political stripe we are,
we recognize the hard work that's done by everybody. From our perspective and
mine and our caucus, I just want to pass along the best to the minister and her
family and wish them well and that she will be back to work soon and things
would work out for her. I just wanted to say that, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of us
and our caucus.
So here
we are with Budget 2017. We've gone
through, obviously, last year with the Liberal administration coming into office
and setting up or telling us they're setting up a roadmap to lead us to where we
need to go. In doing that, they laid out a budget last year which was heavy on
the revenue generation side in regard to taxation and fees. We were told from
there that there would be an interim budget later in the fall that would deal
with the expenditure side of the ledger, but details were short on that and I
don't think we ever got there in regard to having that balanced approach.
I think
what we've heard over the past year is that while there is recognition of a need
to increase revenues, there was also a need to look at our expenditures and do
it on a more balanced approach. As we know, every tax or every fee that's
implemented, that takes dollars out of the Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians'
pocket. That dollar that's not there is not there to be spent and is not able to
drive the economy and drive the activities in our economy, certainly every kind
of business that we have and service.
So
that's really a critical point. I think as I go through and have discussions
this afternoon, I'll certainly talk about the economic indicators, where they
were in 2016, where the projections are, where they're going in 2017, and
obviously that's tied right to the economy and how we continue to grow our
economy. Obviously, in this province over the past decade, our administration
through significant megaprojects, significant growth, significant training in
regard to people to meet that labour market demand we saw a rise in household
income, the whole range of things that certainly made the return to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians greater.
Now
we're seeing a period where the economy is starting to slow in regard to some of
those projects, but as well we've seen an international, global slowdown in many
respects and here in Canada as well. Where we're tied to commodities, natural
resources, obviously something like oil when that happens, it takes its toll,
and it has. I guess the issue is then how do you deal with that and how do you
lay out a plan and how do you give confidence to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, to businesses, as well to investors, not just here but in Canada
and around the world that they want to continue to invest in Newfoundland and
Labrador and drive our economy. That's all part of the whole picture that a
government needs to lay out and give confidence as to what they can do and
they're willing to do.
So I
want to go back for a few minutes and just talk about the Speech from the Throne
which opened the 48th General Assembly. In the parliamentary process, the Speech
from the Throne lays out the vision of the administration at the time and where
do you want to go, what are the pinnacles that they think are fundamental to
moving the province forward. That could be on the economic side; it could be on
the social development side. All of those collectively are what it is they need
to do to continue to grow the province.
As we go
through the documents, the Speech from the Throne, which was laid out a while
back, there are general themes that went through this. When you look at the
themes that are in the document then, as the budget came down last week, you
look to see how they match up and how they're going to meet those themes and are
they taking it on in regard to having success and how we perceive it will be
success through the direction they're taking.
We heard
commentary: We will do better with less. Everybody in terms of being financially
prudent in regard to the delivery of service always wants to look at, especially
in the public domain, how can we most efficiently deliver services; how can we
be innovative; how can we make sure we get the best bang for every dollar we
spend because it's taxpayers' money and we live, as we know, in a very
geographically diverse province.
We look
on the Island and the various communities, harbours and coves, towns and cities,
very dispersed. So then you look at somewhere like Labrador, which is just under
probably 30,000 people and how the disbursement of the population is there. So
there are a lot of challenges in terms of delivering services and how we deliver
those services. Things like health care, things like road infrastructure and
ferry services, all of those things make the challenges in regard to supplying
those services, sustaining those services over a long period of time. Doing
better with less, yes, it's a great statement, but we need to know and need to
see how that's going to be delivered and what the plan is to do that.
As well,
there's reference in the Speech from the Throne about collaboration, which is
great again. You're going to collaborate, you call in those that are involved in
communities and organizations and you get the perspective on what they think
needs to be done and where they think things need to go. But again, it's about
getting that collaboration, getting an input, and then having the leadership to
make those calls and to lay it out what you're going to do.
In many
cases, or, in some cases, that plan may not be popular with everybody, but
that's part of the governance and moving forward in laying that plan out.
People, at times, may not appreciate it, may not understand it. I should say you
need to make them understand them. They may not agree with it, but they will
respect the fact that you have laid it out, it's clear, there are pillars, there
are areas and milestones you are going to reach over the next current year or
years in your mandate. Then you show them how this is going to better for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in terms of growing our province.
So it's
key that it's laid out. Collaboration is always good, but at some point you have
to say, okay, we have collaborated, we have spoken to the parties concerned and
everyone else, so let's move forward now with direction. Let's explain to the
people what the direction is and move forward.
The
roadmap that was announced by the current administration,
The Way Forward, this was released and after some time actually 17
months in office now talked about three phases of action, and talked about
tangible issues and tangible items to be reached. The first six months was
referencing and focusing on securing our footing and rapidly implementing
initiatives to reduce spending and support economic growth.
We had
questions today in the House of Assembly talking about that economic growth
component, which we haven't seen a lot of over the 17 months this current
administration has been in office. Yet, the Speech from the Throne talks about
we are well on our way to addressing the challenges facing our province. As I
said initially, the budget that was brought down dealt with one side of the
ledger, dealt with revenues and raising revenues, and we certainly questioned
the depth and scope of doing that when you're comparing it to activity in the
economy and how we continue to drive the economy and do what we need to do.
It goes
on to say that we are entering the second phase of
The Way Forward Realizing Our Potential, which spans the next 18
months and focuses on actions to reverse negative socioeconomic indicators that
prevent economic growth. That's what I have referenced, and I'll speak to that
later when we look at the economic indicators. I will compare 2016, what we saw,
and look at the projections for 2017.
In most
cases, they are not where we want them to go, and in cases where there is some
indication or some positive indication that they are moving in the right
direction, I think we are lacking the documentation and information on how we
are going to get there, and what those indictors are reflective of.
As we go
through the Estimates in the House of Assembly over the next several weeks and
those out there that may not be familiar with that, when a budget is brought
down, the Estimates are where the departments come in here to the Legislature,
the Opposition and government Members sit on Standing Committees, and those
Standing Committees review the actuals which come in, which were directed and
confirmed after last fiscal year, what the Estimates were, what the actual
expenditures were. They're confirmed; they're discussed. As well, the new
Estimates for this particular year are discussed and it's an opportunity to tie
the government, the various departments, the ministers, to the actual direction
given in the Speech from the Throne and as well through that budget how they're
going to achieve that.
So it's
a fairly lengthy, extensive process. If the ministers and the government are
willing to release that information on what their intention is, it certainly
provides for transparency which is intended to provide for the public to get an
understanding of how their money is being spent and what the directions are as
we're moving forward.
According to this, the 18 months was to look at reversing negative socioeconomic
indicators. If we're entering the second phase now, that's going to be up to the
three years of their mandate to look at those socioeconomic indicators which
seem to be lacking in terms of getting to the initiatives that we were supposed
to get to very quickly, according to this document.
The
third phase talked about is to look beyond those 18 months, I spoke of, in
creating long-term conditions for growth in the province by investing in the
future; talks about redesigning government services to fit demographics of the
future; and investing in children and youth.
Redesigning government services, I not sure really what's meant by that, but the
demographics piece is something we're all quite familiar with here in
Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to we have one of the fastest aging
populations in Canada and the parameters that go with that in providing services
and I talked about that before in regard to the challenges in our province is
something we certainly need to work towards to make sure we have efficiencies
but we can still provide those needed services to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians wherever they are to in Newfoundland and Labrador and that level of
service can be provided.
Investing in children and youth, again, as our demographics move forward and a
larger portion of our population is 65, 70, those older people in terms of our
population, we need that growth from middle-class families, from young families,
young children that is much needed in terms of growing our economy and you want
people to stay here, to even come back, ex-pats, or even people to move here for
what we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador and to grow their families here.
That's
all about sustainability. The one point on that we have talked about all the
taxes last year, and that's all about creating the environment and that's why we
said it was too much, too soon in regard to doing that and not having an
economic plan to drive the opportunities here, not being positive about what the
options are and that our future is bright we have some challenges, but we need
to see our way through.
Young
families need to see that. They need to hear it. People that are just getting
into a post-secondary institution, doing training, they need to see that there
is a positive future, understand there is and there will be options. We need
them to stay here, we need them to live here, buy houses, raise their family
here because that's how you create a province and that's how you create
sustainability.
The
Speech from the Throne then went on and talked about a stronger economic
foundation. It talks about improving the conditions necessary for private sector
job growth and economic growth overall. A whole-of-government approach to
creating the conditions necessary for new private sector job creation and
economic growth, this is about a sustainable economy that is a priority.
I don't
think anybody can really disagree with that. Certainly, from our side over here,
we believe the economy is the ultimate priority. You have a solid economy and,
from that, you generate wealth through taxes and other means, whether it's
royalties through developing your natural resources and, through all of that,
you're able to provide services and programs to the province and to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who continue to stay here and contribute to our
economic and social fabric of the province. So it's important that it is a
priority and we work towards ensuring that goal is reached.
Another
reference is that jobs be a top priority; strong economic conditions and
opportunities. Again, getting back to people in our province that either is
going through high school now and seeking to do a program through
post-secondary, they need to see that there is opportunity and we need to
support them in doing that.
I know
through our time in our administration in terms of looking at young people
coming out of post-secondary with high debt loads, some of the wealth that we've
created we directed towards Memorial, other post-secondary institutions, to look
at offsetting the costs of student loans. As well, we went so far as looking to
offsetting student grants so they didn't have to pay it back. The higher portion
of the funds going into student grants, when students finished their program,
that wasn't something they had to pay back, and they had a step up in hopefully
staying in the province, finding employment and not having a heavy debt load.
And that
was the provincial component, not the federal. Anybody familiar with it, the
student loan program, there are two components; there's a provincial and
federal. That was directed certainly at the provincial component and we believe
it is money well spent. At times, we get ridiculed for spending and programs we
spent on, but for us that was one to drive the issue that it talks about here,
talks about sustainability, talks about youth, talks about post-secondary and
talks of building that strong foundation so people want to stay and live here
and raise their family.
The
document also talks about setting targets for sector growth, which is very
important. It talks about industries like agriculture, forestry, aquaculture,
tourism, immigration. All of those are important aspects of our economy. We
often refer to the fishery where, 500 years ago, people settled here for the
sole reason of an inshore fishery and, from there, we grew all the harbours and
coves across Newfoundland and Labrador.
Certainly our forestry is significant in regard to the creation of our province
and what we've done over the past hundreds of years. Then we've evolved into an
oil and gas industry here in the province. Back when there was a Progressive
Conservative government in Ottawa, Prime Minister Mulroney at that time, there
was an opportunity offshore for development. It was one of those times when the
federal government stepped in, partnered with one of the provinces at a time
when it looked like the first development offshore in the agreement wasn't going
to survive that he stepped in, put in significant dollars to make sure that the
partnership and the developments of oil and gas industry in Eastern Canada could
flourish.
We know
what that has done for Newfoundland and Labrador. It has transitioned us into a
whole new industry, created great wealth. Even in this budget, even though we
were criticized for being addicted to oil and I think the Premier said one
time oil wasn't a policy some of the things we've seen today in regard to
hitting the targets of the government of the day is that it was hit basically
through over $400 million in oil revenue that came about.
I think
the prediction for last year in the budget for this year's royalties from oil
was about half a billion dollars, but due to production going up I think four
times in 2016 from what it was in 2015, four times the production, with the
barrel of oil going up no one has control over that but, because of all that,
the current government of the day got over $400 million in unexpected revenue
and really, because of that, were able to hit their targets. So that's important
and it'll continue to be important. I'm glad to see it in the Speech from the
Throne, the oil and gas industry.
Certainly from our time and our administration, we invested heavily. We created
the entity of Nalcor, the corporation, to bring all those natural resource
assets under one, to drive wealth for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. One
component with that was oil and gas development. That went every way from taking
equity shares in production platforms to investing in exploration, investing in
seismic work and we're certainly seeing the return on that today in over $30
million in excess that went into that that allowed that data to be available and
for the province for the first time to really have control over the technical
date of our offshore and what exactly is out there.
In the
past, we'd never know, so we'd sell land claims and they'd be purchased by oil
companies. We didn't know what was really in the land claim. They could sit on
them for an extended period of time, but by this investment we were able to hold
that knowledge and change the environment that these lands sales developed in,
where we could basically have that information and knew upfront what those lands
sales were and what the content was in the seabed and what the opportunities
were.
That's
led to hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments with purchasing those land
sales that they would provide exploration; invest over a period of time to grow
that industry. It's oftentimes a long process from the time of the seismic work
to the bids, to looking at more drilling, exploration, what's the overall
content of a basin and then getting to the point of the investment to do the
production. So all of that is part of it and sometimes it is long, but you need
a continuation, you need a linear path of continuing to do that so we can meet
those activities and continue to go.
The
current Minister of Natural Resources recently I think they called from another
rounds of bids, so that's all positive and that's good and that needs to drive
our industry. When you look at some of that seismic work I talked about, you go
back and look at Norway 40 years ago, and even some of that seismic work we have
today is equal to or even greater than what they saw on the North Sea with
Norway. So when you look at the amount of wealth and the opportunity that was
driven by that and it's not only the hands-on component of the drilling
exercise, it's all those companies, it's all those supply companies, the
technologies, the innovation
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
I ask
Members for their co-operation to keep the noise level down in the Chamber.
Thank
you.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
So it's
all about that innovation and that ability to drive activities for business.
It's about almost the intellectual business knowledge or the intellectual
industry knowledge where innovation is grown out of a need to drive activities
in the industry. That's very important.
Then
that knowledge and expertise can be exported around the world. That's why, from
Norway, you see a lot of companies that are supply companies, they have great
knowledge and expertise, and they're using that all over the world. We see
Newfoundland companies starting to do that now an ability to take that
knowledge and expertise and send it around the world or to do it here locally to
supply the industry.
We have
our fourth production coming soon, we hope Hebron that will come. That will
be our fourth, but it's unlimited in terms of how many and what will happen over
the next number of decades, in terms of the opportunity. Based on the seismic
work and what we're seeing, we have someone like Statoil who's further out in
another basin, it's deepwater and there are some challenges with that, but
that's where the innovation comes. Anything will be overcome and it bodes well
for our province and for the industry as a whole.
The
other one is certainly the tourism sector that is talked about here in regard to
what's taken place. In our last days in government, we'd gotten it up to $12
million to $13 million in regard to investment with tourism. We're somewhere in
the range of a billion dollars that was returned to the economy based on that,
based on our culture, our landscape and what we have to offer here, whether
ecotourism and all those other things that we have that people come to see.
As well
and I'll speak to it later in my own backyard in my district, Mistaken Point
received UNESCO designation last July. We have some challenges with that, and
I'll speak to it a bit later in regard to this budget and if it's going to deal
with those challenges. But that's another jewel in the crown of what we have to
offer here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it may be the fifth UNESCO site
here in the province. I think there are 18 maybe in total in Canada.
So it is
unique and it has huge opportunity, but the key is you have to have a plan to
maximize those opportunities. It's all part of the economic plan, it's all part
of sustainability, and we need to make sure we're focused on that to get it
done.
Other
industries that are mentioned here, the aquaculture industry an industry that
is continuing to grow, with significant opportunities here in this province.
Over the last decade, we've done tremendous investment. It comes to mind
somewhere between $28 million and $30 million that were invested by the province
into the aquaculture industry, which leveraged over $400 million in driving the
industry and driving the activities. So that's important. That's how you partner
with the private sector to grow industry off a new industry and provide
opportunities, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know
my colleague from down on the South Coast, all of those down there seen
tremendous change in the activities down there in the communities. When you go
back and look at the cod moratorium in '92 and what happened back then in regard
to the fishery, the wild fishery in many respects, cod, groundfish, and what
devastation that had and here you have an opportunity to invest with
aquaculture, invest with the private sector and that has led to a dramatic
change and a dramatic shift in providing that partnership and getting a return
on it.
I think
last year, if I remember correctly, there were about 24,000 or 25,000 tons of
salmon. Then there's also the whole mussel component of wild farming that's a
huge part of what's happening. It's all good too: blue mussels, world renowned
from what is being produced here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There's
huge growth, huge potential in the aquaculture industry. I know in the summer of
2015, our administration had to work with Grieg Seafood out of Norway and there
was a MOU signed. Nothing has been confirmed to date; it has been 18 months.
That's a tremendous opportunity, somewhere around a $250 million project. It
would be another significant player in regard to the aquaculture industry here
in the province. Marine Harvest, a significant Norwegian player in the
aquaculture industry, has also become a player in the province in regard to
industry. They bought into Gray aquaculture that went into receivership my
understanding is they bought their assets. They are a significant player and
they'll bring great opportunity to the province as well.
We
haven't heard from this government on the Grieg project. I do note, though, in
one of the documents for the budget in the capital investment component, they do
reference the sites being built in Placentia Bay and they do reference the fact
of the facility being built in Marystown. So I'm a bit curious on that one.
There's been no official announcement on either one of those, yet in the capital
projects, in one of the documents, they are listed. So we'll see where that
goes.
There's
been concern in terms of environmental assessment, but I think any industry
needs to have strict and stringent environmental regulatory framework, and it's
through working with all concerned that we have the best regulatory framework we
can have, especially when this is going on in other jurisdictions. I think it's
important we maximize the opportunity to have that regulatory framework, but I
think it's also important for economic development. I think we can do it well
with the aquaculture industry, provide that strong regulatory framework and move
the industry ahead.
With
those two I mentioned, with Cooke, Marine Harvest and Northern Harvest, if I
remember correctly, all of those collectively will give a volume, if you will,
to the industry to allow the supporting companies to grow and flourish. Again,
they're building an industry and I certainly encourage the current government of
the day to continue to pursue it because we have seen huge advantages to it, and
I think there's certainly more to come.
The
other one in the fishery is the one we talked about as the wild fishery, the
ground fishery, which, as we know, has been a centerpiece of our economy for
many years. Since '92, the ground fishery has certainly lost its footing here,
if you will. Some of the changes we're seeing now in the shellfish industry,
some of the cuts in shrimp and some of the cuts in crab have seen that industry
decline. Obviously as the biomass for groundfish and cod start to come back,
there's a look towards how we transition. That's not an easy process when you
look at the current return and the value of the shellfish industry and how you
transition that into a ground fishery.
That's
going to take a lot of work and it's going to take a focus. I know the current
administration I know in our time we had worked through CETA. We knew at the
time what was coming. We knew we had to transition. We knew there had to be
significant dollars spent. That's why, for relinquishing MPRs, we agreed that
there would be a partnership with the federal government and the provincial
government to get those monies to work on, really, five pillars that are
fundamental to transitioning industry, and to use that money to do it.
Now,
unfortunately, we didn't receive that. The current administration recently
announced $100 million of an Atlantic Fisheries Fund. I think this year there's
maybe $5 million in the budget to leverage we're not really sure what we're
leveraging because, as they say, details are scanty. There is $100 million for
the Atlantic fund, and that's a bigger fund.
Anyway,
the point is what we had focused on was that distinctly we had MPRs. No one else
in Atlantic Canada had used them, but it was distinct to CETA. That is why we
negotiated the 70/30, $400 million fund that we could use to transition. So we
will see what happens, but it is certainly disappointing when you look at what
is in the current budget in regard to the amount of money, provincial dollars,
and to try and leverage federal dollars and what that amount will be. It is time
to get on with it.
I notice
in the Speech from the Throne it talked I think it was in the minister's
original letter about a Fisheries Advisory Council. I understand that's in the
process. After 17 or 18 months, I'm not sure where that is to or whether it's
appointed, but it's certainly needed. Some of the things it was going to look at
were cod revitalization, how you deal with that and how you support all the
value chain in that industry, whether it's harvesting, processing or marketing.
The
reality is the whitefish market has been what would you say? Over the past 20
years, 30 years has other whitefish now that's used. Some are farmed and some
are out of the wild, but there's a replacement that has gone on. We need to
re-establish ourselves in the market. We need to have a steady supply. It's not
an industry anymore that will have cod block. It has to be top quality, it has
to be fresh, it has to be frozen and put into the market. So there is a whole
process to that, to change the way of doing things.
In
Arnold's Cove, there is a state-of-the-art cod plant there. I've seen some of
the things that they have done, and how they have been doing top-quality product
to get it into market. That's what we need to do. It needs to be a 10- or
12-month industry, the fishery. It needs to be fresh or fresh-frozen to bring it
into market. I have seen the Icelandic operation and what they have done. They
send fresh cod into the Eastern Seaboard; fly it in, Icelandair; within 48
hours, it's out of the water, it's fresh, flown into the Eastern Seaboard and
it's gone into the market. So if they can do that, we are a lot closer. We can
certainly do that as well.
Those
are all the things we need to take on and I certainly encourage the government
of the day to get on with it and do what needs to be done to maximize the
opportunities. Even with the backdrop of what we are seeing today with the
shellfish industry, we need to start that process.
We also
need to be cognizant of the ecosystem and some of the things in regard to the
research that has been done. I think when we had our fishery, it was 800,000
metric tons. The recent study done by DFO was up around 300,000. We are not at a
level yet where it's a full-scale commercial fishery that could drive the type
of level and scope we would need. We need to be careful in regard to when do we
start that commercial fishery, what it's going to look like and the breadth and
scope of that. That's something we need to be very careful of.
With
that, goes the issue of science. From our time and our administration, some of
that royalty money we had based on the federal government and their lack of
science and activity over the past 30 years in getting out of groundfish and
science, we had chartered Celtic Explorer
out of Ireland; had done significant work in regard to the groundfish. I think
it's the Bonavista basin or somewhere in that area in regard to the traditional
spawning ground of the cod.
They
used to come for several weeks a whole group of scientists. A lot of those
scientists now are with the Marine Institute. We've developed probably one of
the top groups of scientists in Canada at the Marine Institute here. There were
people that did their masters and Ph.Ds here on groundfish. In Canada overall,
we probably got the best group of scientists for groundfish in the country and
they are right here at the Marine Institute. That's investment. That was done
through the Marine Institute and giving young people the opportunity, and they
would be involved as well with the Celtic
Explorer in that experience.
Unfortunately, I think that was cancelled under the current administration. I'm
not sure where we are in regard to the ground fishery. I know the federal
government in last year's budget did talk about the fact that they were
investing back into science, so that's good DFO. To date, I heard a local MP
saying he wasn't sure. He expected there to be 18 or 19 scientists. We've asked
and my colleague for Cape St. Francis has asked the minister how many of those
are here; are they at the White Hills; where are they; and are they on the
ground here doing the work that we need to have done.
It's not
only for the ground fishery; it's for the whole ecosystem. It's for shrimp,
crab. We know now and we always knew, but we never really focused on it;
that's all interconnected. So if one species goes up, the other goes down, much
like the shrimp and the cod. As well, the whole issue in regard to seals and the
abundance of seals and the effect it's having on the ecosystem.
I
certainly implore the current government of the day here to get started on the
science and the requirements that's needed which is important, as I say, for the
fishing industry and what it's meant to this province and what it's going to
mean and will still mean for hundreds of years to come.
I
mentioned earlier about aquaculture, and the document speaks as well about
seizing the opportunities in aquaculture in getting up to 50,000 metric tons
annually. In my days in the fisheries, we did work to upgrade the aquaculture
management plan, I think it was called. We agreed that that's where we needed to
go. As I said this year, the amount of production of salmon is maybe 23,000 or
24,000 metric tons, and we need to continue to grow that. There are huge
opportunities.
As well
I said about the expertise we developed at the Marine Institute in regard to
scientists, but in Bay d'Espoir too we also developed a state-of-the-art
facility down there to monitor the industry, have technical people, scientists
as well who oversee the aquaculture industry and do the research, the testing
and all those things they need to drive the economy and have the expertise is
the big thing that we need.
We spoke
about oil and gas as the preferred destination; the document talks about that
and I can agree with that and the work that's been done. One of the things I
will say in 2015 or just in late summer, we had brought in a royal regime at
that particular time. You need to be competitive because the oil companies want
to know what the lay of the land are, what the rules are, what's the royalty
regime, so they can factor all that into their cost; and when we negotiate in
terms of benefits agreements, it's very clear to them what it is and,
internationally, they're aware so you know when you're coming to the
jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador what some of the rules of the games
are.
Back
then, the then minister of Natural Resources and our administration had
announced that. At that time, the current premier who was the Leader of the
Opposition, if I remember correctly, did indicate that he was going to adopt it
or he thought we could move forward with it because it's very much required. If
I remember correctly, the current Minister of Natural Resources we had asked
about it a few months back and I think the response was March 30, but to date I
don't think we have a royalty regime. So I would certainly urge the minister and
the folks on the other side to get to it, get it done. It's very important.
As I
said, we had it arranged. In mid-2015, there was a framework announced. While we
partner with the oil and gas companies and folks around the world who want to
invest, we need to make sure that with any royalty regime is the best possible
return we can get for the people of the province. They are our resources and we
need to partner, but we need to make sure that we're stringent and we certainly
don't give up any more than we should to continue to grow developments of our
oil and gas sector.
So
that's important. You talk about economic development and an economic
development plan, that would be key to that to continue to drive the activity,
not only here off the Island but certainly off Labrador. We know that through
the seismic work and work we've done in regard to natural gas and oil, there are
significant findings as well, so it bodes well for the industry in general.
I
mentioned before, and the document talks about, the modern seismic acquisition
activity. That needs to continue and we certainly support that in regard to
driving economic opportunity in the province. There were successful bids, as I
said, with the Offshore Petroleum Board, a call for bids in our offshore bids,
with total commitments of almost well over $700 million. I think at that time
that's probably one of the biggest or one of the largest that we had at that
particular time.
Again,
we've seen new entrants come into the province's offshore oil and gas industry.
Other sectors that this speaks to are our mining sector, promoting opportunities
in the mining sector. We've seen shipments being significant, almost $3 billion
in 2017. We continue to see the commodity market bounce back with iron ore now
up over $90, and that bodes well for that industry as we move it forward.
There's
further interest in terms of mines in Labrador. As I mentioned before about
investors and creating that environment where they're welcome, we create that
competitive environment where they want to invest here, we certainly need to
continue to do that to make sure they will invest and want to invest their money
here in our province.
There's
also been some focus on agriculture to promote food security. I certainly agree
with that. As well, it's not only food security, but it's economic activity that
may be untapped. I think there's a huge role play there when you look at what
we're self-sufficient in. It's not a lot when you look at the bigger picture,
but it's certainly something we need to work on.
I know
when I did the Lands Act review or
our government did it back in 2014-15, in Crown lands there was reference then
to agriculture, access to lands, and municipalities having access to lands. Some
of that was adopted by the current administration I know they've worked on it
with agriculture as well. But it's about making that availability, and if there
are opportunities there, you can certainly drive it.
The
tourism sector as well, in regard to an economic plan, has given huge returns
back to the province in regard to the activities and what's been happening over
the past number of years to the point in time where we're almost up to around,
up or down, over a billion dollars, and I think it employs almost close to
20,000 people, which is significant in our tourism industry. It is very
important, and we need to continue to push that and to grow and see what the
government's plan is in regard to sustainability.
Interestingly enough, those ones I've mentioned are ones that we've driven
through our administration over our 12 years in government here in the province.
Tourism, we heavily drove; the aquaculture industry, we got it to the point, we
transitioned it into a legitimate industry to drive growth, unprecedented levels
of growth; the oil and gas sector, driving that in regard to getting equity with
firms to grow the industry. As well, I've talked about seismic. All of those
things are important.
I don't
know if we've seen it over the past 18 months with the current administration.
They seem to be following on what we had started, but in terms of being
innovative and looking in other areas, we haven't seen a lot of that. And that's
important for driving industries, whether it's current or new ones that we can
drive. So hopefully, we'll see something new, but we're 18 months in now and we
haven't seen a lot to date.
As well,
they spoke to innovation and supporting social enterprise. Local groups on the
ground, whether it's cooperatives who drive activities, which can play a
significant role; non-profit groups can really do great work. I know in my area
you look at groups like the Petty Harbour Fisheries Co-op, we got Colony of
Avalon a lot of social enterprise groups that are doing great things the
Edge of Avalon in Portugal Cove South. A whole lot of groups that do a lot of
great work as part of that social enterprise and drive economic activities in
communities a lot of it, some is related to tourism, some is not, but it
really drives economic activity, which is extremely important. It's just one
other avenue of a collection of a whole lot of avenues that you need to have a
buoyant economy.
The
speech then talked about a strong labour market that underpins a stronger
economy. We know when the major megaprojects over the past decade, we saw times,
and because it was so competitive with other jurisdictions in Canada skilled
trades. We certainly invested heavily in skilled trades to make sure we can get
apprentices through the various levels, no matter what the skilled trade was,
and put significant dollars into that to make sure they can get to the red seal
and get through those apprenticeship levels. So that's where we used money
smartly to drive economic activity, but make sure the labour supply is there and
can be taken care of. That's all apart of driving the economy as well. We have
to do and that have to continue to do it.
The
document talks about the fact that as part of
The Way Forward, which is the government's economic plan, delivering
better services to residents. Service improvement must underpin decisions.
That's all great, but to date we haven't seen a lot of return on that or what
the actual plan is. We did see in terms of better services, the Minister of TW
went through a process of a multi-year planning and an earlier tendering of
roadwork in 2017. I had discussions with him with regard to issues that were
relevant to my area. That's all good.
But some
of the years, interestingly enough, as he got towards the next provincial
election, it seems like there's less and less on the list. One of the things
that we had asked for and we never did get, and my colleague had asked for it,
is the whole assessment. What we got, we got a list of roads that were assessed
and that's why they got funded, but we didn't see an assessment of all the
roads. So if he didn't get an assessment of all the roads, how do you know who
got the priority and who should have got priority?
I know
he talked about taking the politics out of it and all that, and that's good; but
if you don't give a good, comprehensive list of all roads, where they were
ranked and match that to what the priority of the list are, it's kind of tough
to be open and transparent and say, okay, okay, I understand it, I get it. To
date, we haven't received that list. I said my colleague, the critic, certainly
asked for it several times. Again, in terms of long-term planning over five
years, if we can get the list, it's probably something that will work well.
Supporting a Healthier Province: That's a kind of approach that is needed when
you look at some of the indicators in our province, in some of our health a
lot of the health indicators, we don't do that well. It's certainly lifestyle,
working with our youth. I know a lot of programs that we had started in regard
to assisting youth to be active because that's when it really needs to start and
becomes a way of life and promote it through our poverty reduction program and
the significant dollars that was spent on that, that transcended just about
every department in government to try and support youth and families in healthy
living.
Like I
said, the Speech from the Throne is high level; it supposedly gives some
indicators of what the priority of the government of the day is. It goes on to
talk about supporting the environment; supporting community organizations;,
supporting indigenous people all relevant, obviously supporting women;
supporting seniors, children; and inclusion as well. So all of these are
laudable in terms of the direction and what it is you want to do. But then it
comes down to, through a budget or through a
Way Forward plan or whatever plan you want to talk about, it's a
roadmap to how we take all of that and how we're going to operationalize it, if
you will.
You need
to do that through clear direction, you need to do it through communicating and
you need to do it through balancing a budget that doesn't stifle the economy,
yet allows innovation and allows activities to grow that will drive your economy
and allows people to want to stay here in the province, raise their family here
in the province and do the things they need to do to be successful.
In the
budget last week, the minister laid out what she thought was this government's
direction, Realizing Our Potential,
and the plan to do that. As I've said, I've talked about the Speech from the
Throne and what was contained in that, that is the high-level points and you try
an operationalize that to get to where you need to go, through a budget and
through an overall process in governance.
It's
important to look back at 2016 and where we were, and look at economic
indicators and look at what they're telling us. In the context of that, too, you
have to look at some of the measures that were taken in last year's budget.
We've talked about them today in Question Period; the 300 fees and taxes, was it
too much? Is it hindering growth?
When you
think about that, how you answer that question is you look at your economic
indicators. You say: Where are they going? What direction are they going in? So
that's reflective of many of the choices you make in your budget.
In doing
that, you have to be careful we recognize you had to raise the revenue but you
also got to curtail expenditures. In terms of raising revenue, you can't do it
to the point where it negatively affects the estimates you have in terms of how
much revenue you are going to raise. Because, at some point, people will stop
spending; uncertainty, don't know if they're going to have a job, don't know if
their son or daughter coming out of university is going to have a job, or coming
out of Marine Institute or coming out of CNA. They need to have some belief that
there's an opportunity for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
That's part of going back,
and I think it's important to go back and look at 2016, what some of the
indicators have been and what's been projected through this budget for 2017.
That's part of government's roadmap that people get to dissect and to determine
if they're in favour or if they're not in favour.
In 2016
so this is looking back at 2016 GDP declined by a little under a percent,
and that was due to lower capital investments and some of that is related to
some of the wind down of some of the significant projects we had through our
term in government.
Then we
looked at capital investments. It is estimated to have declined by 6.4 per cent
to $12.1 billion. That was again somewhat attributed to lower spending on Hebron
and the Vale nickel process facility, and it was offset by investment in Muskrat
Falls. So capital investment is down significantly in 2016.
That
drives the economy. We all know people that worked in various projects, drives
activity, and there is a book that was put out in the budget as well that
highlights capital expenditures and some of the ones that are coming up. I
mentioned Grieg aquaculture that is in there. The project hasn't been approved,
yet it's in the documents. I'll touch on that in a little while.
It also
touches on private investment by private companies, whether that could be
building a subdivision, whether it could be building a building for office
space. In the document, in the budget, there's both private and public and it
would include some of the provincial-federal initiatives, whether it's roads,
water and sewer, those types of things.
They
would be included in it as well.
So that
was capital investment. The real value of provincial exports has increased about
4.5 per cent and that was majorly due to the higher oil productions. As I said,
in 2016, production was four times what it was in 2015, and that was something
that was related to really nothing that government did; it was related to the
availability of that and the producers to be able to execute.
I know
in 2015, at particular times, there were two of the producing platforms, or the
FPSO I think both of those were down for extended period of time. So in 2015,
due to those occurrences, they would have been done and then, in the subsequent
year, when they had the work done, they needed to get work to be operational,
obviously production went up.
With
that, too, in terms of the current administration getting a windfall of over
$400 million, it would have been related to the estimate of a barrel of oil and
what it actually came in on. Both of those gave significant dollars to the
current administration.
The
other one that we've seen rise significantly over the past decade is average
weekly earnings at $1,014. We're the second highest among the provinces after
Alberta, but that's starting to decline and that can be worrisome as well. This
is 2016, so when you look at 2017, this indicator as well is going in the wrong
direction.
Household income rose marginally by 0.7 per cent, but it was down by 2 per cent
in real terms. Individual average weekly earnings, household earnings,
unfortunately, they seem to be going in the wrong direction based on these
indicators and what's happening in the economy.
The
other important one is our population. We know what happened in '92, if you look
at 1992, when you look at the cod moratorium. You see it on a graph; you see
where it goes and the number of people who left our province. Then when our oil
industry and other activities picked up in the 2000s, we started to see some
growth. All the programs we have and all the initiatives of the current
government have to be focused on population; give people a reason to want to
stay here, to want to raise their families here, to have an opportunity to have
employment. All of that's required because once someone moves away and sets up
roots somewhere else we love to say we'd like to have them come back, the
ex-pats. They get kids, they get enrolled in school, get enrolled in the
community and it's not that easy. So we really need to make sure that we have
the environment and create the environment where people want to stay.
So the
population as of July 1, 2016 was 530,128, an increase of 0.3 per cent from one
year earlier. I'll get to the projections for 2017 and, unfortunately, they're
not going in the right direction.
Consumer
spending was limited with the value of retail sales down by 1.6 per cent in real
terms. So that's an indicator I've talked about before in regard to funds in
people's pocket retail sales. Are people going to spend if they're uncertain
about employment? Are people going to spend if they're uncertain about a layoff?
Are people going to spend if they don't have a feeling that they understand what
government is doing, that they understand the plan? People understand economic
times and there are challenges, they have to give a bit and everybody has to
give a bit in that regard, people get all that, but they need to see it. They
need to see the full plan.
There
are times we haven't seen that over the past 17 months, and that leads people to
not spend, the uncertainty. Another indicator it is not discretionary income
is new vehicles; that's a significant investment for an individual, for a
family, for a business. If they're going to invest in vehicles, they want to
look at the future and see can I even maintain where I'm to today; is there an
area for growth; and how are things going.
In 2016,
year over year, there was a decline of 3.8 per cent, so that gives you an idea
of almost 4 per cent that sales were down. That gets to the whole disposable
income piece, the indicators of what is happening in the economy.
Consumer
prices rose, reflecting increases in consumer taxes as well as general
underlying inflation. That's significant when you think about the cost of goods
and services. It's more expensive to live. That's critical when you think about
people who are employed, people who are on fixed income, middle-class people
families who are raising kids, got them involved in athletics, got them involved
in sports, got them involved in music, doing a whole range of things, but it's
just gotten more costly to live here.
When you
look at, again, the 300 taxes and fees from last year, whether it's insurance on
a car, the gas tax, the levy to live here, personal income tax, all of those,
that's net dollars that is coming out of a middle-class family in terms of
running their household. That's significant and that's why I talked about
earlier a balanced approach. Because if you take too much, you're tipping the
scales and it's a disincentive for people to continue to live here or want to
move here. So these indicators are extremely important.
In 2016,
employment fell by 1.5 per cent significant again. The unemployment rate
averaged 13.4 per cent that was up an increase of 0.6 percentage points
compared to the previous year.
We
talked about as well in terms of the oil production increased, as result of the
increased Hibernia output, which was significant. I think it was up about 7 per
cent and change, and the value was about $4.4 billion. So it's enormous wealth,
an enormous amount of money, and you can see how volatile it is in regard to a
barrel of oil going up and down, production going up and down, the Canadian
dollar a cent even is huge.
A
milestone in our oil and gas industry in December 2016 in regard to pumping its
billionth barrel of oil out of the Hibernia platform, and that's really the
hallmark of the start of our industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
price of Brent crude averaged US $43.67 in 2016, down from an average of $52.32
in 2015. Again, based on the production and that kind of thing, we did very well
and the current government with over $400 million in regard to additional
revenues from that sector.
The
other positive from the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum
Board, there as over $700 million in exploration bids in the offshore area. That
bodes well for the future and the seismic work we did and how that moves
forward.
The
development of Hebron oil project proceeded with employment of 3,756 people in
the province as of December 31, 2016. I think the time for that to head out is
maybe April or May. It has certainly been a tremendous asset to our economy; a
lot of skills developed, a lot of people developed great experience in regard to
a megaproject like that, but unfortunately that is coming to an end in this
particular year.
The
value of provincial manufacturing shipments decreased by 15.3 per cent, and that
was mainly due to a drop in the refined petroleum products. The value of fish
we had historic landing standards, landing value. While the volume decreased,
the cost was certainly up when you look at the price for shrimp and crab. We all
know what's coming on that one. We've seen huge projected cuts in shrimp. I
think it's 64 per cent
AN HON. MEMBER:
Sixty-two.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It is 62 per cent and then on
crab, we're seeing significant changes as well.
In terms
of some of the investments, when I said there was $5 million in the budget for
wild fishery and aquaculture, there are huge issues here in regard to
transitioning into the industry and what the industry's going to look like. We
should have been at it yesterday, and we need to get at it today. We look at the
industry, well over a billion dollars, both wild and farmed, but that kind of
money and supply companies and everything else around that that supports that is
huge. That's in the very smallest of our communities and it's in a major city of
St. John's that supplies goods and services to this industry. So it's extremely
important that government gets on with it and deals with that.
Aquaculture, we talked about increased production has gone up. I think that's a
bright spot in terms of continuing to move the economy and what it can do. The
value of newsprint shipments increased slightly. Lumber production saw a small
increase. So those traditional economies, traditional industries we have that
are important to us, we need to continue to grow and to make sure we can reap
the benefits from them.
There
was some site preparation occurred at Voisey's Bay underground. That was
something that with wanting to ship the ore out, we had negotiated with them
that they would have to go underground and do an underground mine. Construction
continued at Long Harbour with about 60 per cent now in regard to production out
there, or somewhere in that range.
Overall
construction industry employment averaged 22,000, and was down 700 relative to
2015. So that's no doubt related to some of the activities going on in our
economy. The construction of all components of the Muskrat Falls Project
advanced significantly. Work continued in Churchill Falls in Labrador to the
Avalon Peninsula on the Island portion of the province, with approximately
two-thirds of the project construction completed at the end of the year. As
well, the Strait of Belle Isle Marine Cable Crossing was substantially
completed, making the first ever connection to an inter-island link.
The
other one that we often talk about and see, and is really indicative of the
economy and how it's doing, is housing sales. Housing sales totalled about 1,400
units. There was a decrease of almost 17 per cent compared to 2015. So we talked
about the vehicles being down in sales, but you look at homes as well and what
that means a very good indicator of what is happening in the economy.
Again, I
go back to the taxes and fees, all of those that were implemented, and what
effect that has on the consumer in making the young family that is sitting down,
Mom and Dad are sitting down with their kids, they want to buy a new vehicle; if
they want to do renovations to their house; they're thinking about moving up
maybe and buying a bigger home. All of that there really is a result of
uncertainty, not stability, and not a good feeling in regard to what's happening
and the amount of dollars that are being taken out of their pocket. Those are
net dollars that they just don't have to make those purchases or make those
decisions.
As I
said, those are some of the indicators we looked at for 2016. That would have
been in the environment of last year's budget in regard to the decisions that
were made by the government in terms of how they were going to deal with
shortfalls in revenue, how they were going to deal with a deficit, how were they
going to lay it out, how were they going to balance and what approach they were
going to take.
So that
was 2016; now, in 2017, the budget comes out, the minister brought it down last
week, I think they said $83 million, somewhere in that range, in a reduction in
expenditures and projecting somewhere in the range, I think, of $283 million for
2017.
So
within the context of all of that and their projections, these are the
expectations for what they're saying will happen in the economy this year, and
how those changes they made last year, many of them are still here in regard to
taxing and fees. They modified one in regard to the gas tax, but the rest are in
place. So really, it's a status quo; carry it through. If they were affecting
the economy and driving the indicators down in 2016, well guess what? They're
going to drive the indicators down in 2017, and that's going to duplicate the
issues we had last year. So that's problematic, we believe.
When you
look at 2017, real GDP is forecasted to decrease by 3.8 per cent, reflecting
declines in most major sectors. Now, the Conference Board of Canada, just a
little while ago, talked about GDP and talked about growth across Canada in the
various provinces and identified that Newfoundland and Labrador was the only
province that was going to have negative growth. They even used the term
recession. When they talked about that, they talked about it in the context of
what I've repeated several times here, are the taxes and fees and the method
that was brought in last year by the current administration to deal with some of
the challenges. What we've seen is they haven't changed and they've been
transcended into their second year of their mandate and to this fiscal year into
the budget that was brought down.
Capital
investment is expected to decline by almost 8 per cent. Some of the significant
projects that we have in the province are winding down. Yet, we need to create
that environment where investors want to come and want to invest. I've said
before, the aquaculture project in the summer of 2015, we would sign an MOU
with, it was about a $250 million project. We've heard various commentaries on
it but, to date, we've heard nothing from the government with regard to moving
forward with that. Placentia Bay in terms of the Bruin Peninsula and activities
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, I hear the Member: Hear,
hear! Hopefully, we will hear it announced to move forward real soon because
it's needed. I had an opportunity as minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to be
a part of that, but there's a partnership there that needs to be secured and
hopefully it will be. That's an opportunity for capital investment. As I said,
it's 18 months or 17 months now we have been waiting, so hopefully we will soon
hear something on it.
There's
only $5 million in the wild fishery and aquaculture. I think it's the capital
equity fund. I think the original MOU was about $45 million from government and
$205 million from investors. I'm not sure where that is to, but I think it would
be nice to move it along to get more investment in the province.
Exports
for 2017 are expected to decline by 2½ per cent, and that's mainly due to oil
output, but that could change. This year we saw what happened, but that could
change. As well with signing of CETA in regard to the opportunity, especially
related to our fishing industry now, obviously, resources are down, but other
species, whether it is mackerel, herring, other species like that, that we can
help with exports and get into other markets because there are other species
too that could be used. So hopefully through CETA there is some opportunity
there to get those exports up. As of now, that current government of the day is
predicting exports will be down by 2½ per cent.
Employment in 2017 is expected to average at 228,300. That's down almost 2 per
cent from 2016, and that's problematic. It is down again this particular year.
The unemployment rate is expected to increase by half a percent to 13.9 per
cent, so we are going to go to 14 percent in regard to unemployment in this
province 14 per cent; that's significant.
The
other one in regard to where we have come over the past decade is household
income is expected to decline by 0.2 per cent, which any decline in that or
I'm sorry, that's retail sales are expected to decline. So we saw some decline
last year, we're seeing a moderate amount this year and, with that, household
income is expected to decline as well. So they're tied. If people don't have the
dollars to spend and if the same taxes and fees we had last year are transferred
over to this year, those indicators are not going to do well and people have
uncertainty in their lives in regard to purchasing and those types of things.
I
mentioned the population is projected to decline by half a percentage. Oil
production is expected to decrease, with lower production at Hibernia, Terra
Nova and White Rose. We do have Hebron coming on and that will be, hopefully,
towed to the field I think in mid-2017. I think there's oil hopefully flowing
late-2017.
There's
also the West White Rose Extension Project, which we've heard about over the
past number of months in terms of where they would go, whether Argentia or Bull
Arm. We haven't heard from the Minister of Natural Resources in regard to the
benefits agreement, what will be available to that. We're hearing some stories
in regard to where the engineering will take place, where the modules will be
built.
All of
those are extremely important, especially now in terms of capital investment
being way down and employment heading in the wrong direction. It's very
important that the current government take a strong stand with those partners
for that project to make sure we can maximize each and every activity we can
here, whether it's the concrete module, whether it's the engineering of the oil
components, whether it's the various other components that can be built here in
the province, whether it's Marystown Shipyard, whether it's other shipyards in
the province, that we maximize and make sure that's done here and as much as
possibly can be done here. Because with all of those projects scaling back, we
have all those skilled labourers, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that have
built these great projects in the past 10 years; they're available.
We've
got some facilities; we've got Bull Arm that is going to be freed up with Hebron
moving out. We've got the Marystown Shipyard. So we have the facilities, we got
the people, and we should certainly encourage to get that work done here because
we have the expertise to do it. At a time when, as I said, capital investment is
down, other investment is down, we need to get it done here and done here in the
province.
I
mentioned earlier about Statoil. They're looking at doing two more exploration
wells
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Statoil,
as I said, is looking to do two more exploration wells this year in the Flemish
Pass Basin which, in and of itself, certainly is positive and we encourage
government and the minister to work with Statoil to try and bring that forward
and maybe get close to a producing well or get more exploration done so we can
get closer to that and get an agreement with Statoil.
I think
nailing down the royalty regime will help with that. That's been 18 months now,
I guess, sitting somewhere, but it's still not done. I think it was indicated it
would be done by the end of March. It is still not done. For Statoil if they
want to move forward, I think it's important that we get that done so when we
have the negotiation discussions with them it's clear on what our intent is and
what we're expecting from Statoil as players here in our oil and gas sector.
Brent
crude prices are expected to average about their prediction is $55.51 per
barrel on a calendar year basis, and $56 per barrel for the fiscal year. This is
interesting in the budget because, last year, there was $125 million risk
adjustment put in for a barrel of oil. This year, it is not in. It is going to
be put in again next year and the years after.
But
interestingly enough if the $125 million was in this year, they wouldn't meet
their $800 million projection for deficit reduction. Now, maybe that's just
coincidence. It could be, I don't know. It's kind of interesting, though,
because the adjustment for a barrel of oil and the volatility of that barrel or
oil, I can't see it evaporating in one year
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes. So it was there last
year, it's not there this year, but it's coming back in the years after. So I'm
not sure on that one. I don't know who gave the advice, what industry player
gave the advice on that one I'm not sure. Anyway, it's interesting. But it is
what it is. It's in the budget.
The
value of mineral shipments is expected to rise. Iron ore, I mentioned earlier
and that's great news
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Labrador, over $90, that's
good.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Oh, it will go up again.
That's important but even at that, it's in the range where it needs to be, and
that's good.
Obviously, with Muskrat Falls, we have a lot of electricity in Labrador, excess
that we can use to drive the industry, all those players up there that need it.
I think that's positive and I'm sure the Member would certainly admit that. He'd
be glad to see that, a new industry, new mines, lots of energy to drive them.
That's all part of economic activity and sustainability.
Vale's
nickel processing plant at Long Harbour will continue as the company moves
toward their capacity. Construction, as I mentioned before, in the underground
mine of Voisey's Bay will continue. We got some development of Iron Ore Company
of Canada and we also have the Fluorspar Mine in St. Lawrence that is expected
to go. I know in my time in IBRD, we had partnered with them back then but due
to commodity prices and due to partnerships to get that off the ground, it only
transpired recently, but certainly glad to see it. It's an opportunity for
capital investment and get things moving. It's important for the province
certainly as a whole.
Fish
landings, unfortunately, are expected to decline this year, and I said before
government needs to focus on the groundfish industry and getting us to where we
need to get.
The
aquaculture industry, huge opportunities there. The Canadian Real Estate
Association forecast sales to basically be somewhat stagnant. As I said before,
those indicators that we've compared from 2016 to this year, 2017, most are not
going in the right direction. Those that do have some changes, I think we're
lacking information in terms of are they overrated or where is the information
to support that. Those are some of the things we'll be looking at in terms of
Estimates, in terms of Question Period here in the House in regard to getting
that information.
The
lower Canadian dollar will continue to support tourism growth, and I think
that's extremely important. The current administration has certainly kept the
dollar value and kept the investments that we had made in regard to driving
tourism with our nationally and internationally recognized advertising that has
been done, recognized all over the world and has paid huge dividends in regard
to growing our industry.
In my
district, Mistaken Point was designated in July. It is very disappointing some
of the efforts by the current administration and we've tried to get answers from
the Tourism Minister, from the Minister of Fisheries and I forget the name of
the department, the new name, fisheries lands
AN HON. MEMBER:
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Land Resources, thank you.
We tried
to do it, to get some answers but we haven't got a lot well, basically none,
yes.
So there
were fundamental issues last year in regard to the management plan that there
would be staff. It was in last year's budget, it was never used so now there's a
big rush on with the world coming and I think May usually tours start to get
people hired because they're not done yet. There are issues with infrastructure,
being prepared and ready but today we still have no clarity on that.
We met
with the former minister some time back, a group from the region, and one of the
issues that arose and you have to put it in context. These are all volunteers
that have done tremendous work over the past decade. They've given tremendous
hours, days, weeks, months the amount of time is just enormous to get us to
the point of getting everything ready to submit to UNESCO, to get the response
back, to get the designation, and the work they've done.
One of
the challenges the Edge of Avalon and the interpretation centre is run by a
volunteer group called the Edge of Avalon. They have a budget. They get a grant
from government and, through various other methods, they raise some money. Last
year there was a fee brought in for those that would go to the interpretation
centre to get a tour of Mistaken Point. So they would have now, I think, a $20
or $25 fee.
Now, in
and of itself, it's a tremendous experience to do that, to visit the site. One
of the questions they asked was: What happens with that fee? If someone comes in
and pays the fee, does that go back to the interpretation centre to allow them
to operate? The answer given was no, we'll have to see what happens in the
budget.
Well,
the issue is that in prior years there was no fee charged, but what was left,
people were asked to make a voluntary contribution. Someone walked in, they go
do the tour and they probably dropped $20 or whatever in the volunteer
container, so it raised probably $25,000 or $30,000 for that group to use to
administer and run the interpretation centre. We're not sure where that's too;
we're waiting to hear. That would mean a reduction in their operating costs of
$25,000 or $30,000, which is significant.
Again,
it's a World Heritage Site, UNESCO site, new on the scene, had tremendous
exposure last year. July, it got its designation, but both nationally and
internationally got huge exposure all around the world. Obviously people coming
from various parts of the world need the lead time in terms of booking travel
arrangements and (inaudible). So to have questions in regard to how the site's
going to operate, is there administration money available, it is a bit much at
this stage of the game, I would say to government and the various ministers
responsible to have that now, because it's all tied in to the great work we've
done with tourism. The number of visitors is up; the return in terms of the
economy is up. And this is just another of the many great jewels we've got on
the Island and in Labrador to drive further activity, yet we're here today
asking these questions.
Huge
opportunity I know the one in Nova Scotia, Joggins, when they got the
designation I think it was because they came and did a presentation to us.
They said it increased by about 100 people in regard to the amount of activity
it got, just like that. Through all of this, on the Southern Avalon, I mentioned
before about the cod moratorium in 1992, down there in that region, Trepassey,
Portugal Cove South, Biscay Bay and St. Mary's Bay on the other side, it was
devastation in the cod fishery.
I know a
number of years ago when we got involved with this and the community got
together, it was about the protection of the reserve and the fossils, and all of
that was extremely important from the culture and from the academic point of
view and from the scientific point of view, and we got all of that. But there
was a huge opportunity here to bring economic possibilities to the region, and
that's what it's all about. Even now we've seen in Trepassey and some of the
communities we've seen investment by entrepreneurs to make accommodations, to
provide the services that people are going to need when they come and it's very
positive for the region.
Some of
these questions that I've just talked about and I hope they get resolved
quickly in the budget is that it's putting some doubt in those in the
community in regard to the investment they've made personally, volunteers and
all those. It would be a shame if there's not a good experience this year when
people come to Mistaken Point, number one, that they can have access and they
can have a guided tour because it is a reserve, so you're going to need a guided
tour. It's challenging for them, so we need to get that worked out.
People
call and say can I get a tour wherever they're coming from, they want to make
sure they have a good experience. So that's something I implore the ministers
that are involved with this to get this straightened away, do it quickly and put
the emphasis on this designation.
This is
the first in the province that is run by the province; the rest would be run by
Parks Canada. So it's the first site in the province that has been designated as
the province's and are responsible for it. So that means good, bad or
indifferent what happens this summer, government is going to be responsible for
it. I'd rather see people come, have a great experience. It's done well, but the
clock is ticking and has been for some time. It is time to get the work done and
make sure we're ready for it.
A great
opportunity for the region, we're talking about economic development and
economic plans, sustainability, all those things are important. The other issue
we had and it's part of UNESCO designation is that any benefits that accrue from
it would accrue first from the community and the people that live there. Hiring
of locals was one part of that whole setup. So we have asked the minister and
I've certainly brought it to his attention and he said he'd take a look. We've
got trained people, good education that's applicable to some new positions
there. We have some people that even worked in summertime on the site before,
that they be given due consideration.
Because
those are people that are going to build a home, they are going to live in the
community, they're from the region, they have a passion for it, they've gone out
and academically gotten the education to support, whether they're a geologist,
or some other discipline that meets the requirement. So they are the ones that
are going to drive the communities. They live in that community, they're from
there, they're going to volunteer, they're going to raise their kids there and
they're going to have kids in the school, so it's all interconnected.
I ask
the minister to take a look and I hope he will to make sure if there's
anything we can do it's not about having people employed that don't meet the
qualifications; that's not what it's about. There are people who are and if they
are locally, we'll just ask to give them a first priority and allow them the
opportunity to avail of the huge opportunity that UNESCO is going to bring, and
I think it's important to do so.
So
that's part of the opportunities that lie ahead and, indeed, there is some. I've
gone through the 2016 economic indicators and 2017, and there are challenges.
But again, I revert to some of the things we've seen in the recent budget in
regard to the atmosphere, or the economic climate you can create to encourage
people to spend and do what they need to do.
What
happened last year, I think, really affected the economy. I think what we have
seen this year in the budget is not going to bode well. Again, on the whole
economic growth side of things, employment, jobs, what's new, what's innovative,
we haven't seen anything. We're still waiting to hear it, so hopefully through
the Estimates, through questions here in the House, we'll get some greater
insight after 18 months of what the road ahead, or the way forward is going to
look like.
The
other thing is the inflation piece and the Consumer Price Index and the almost 3
per cent growth in 2016. I asked the minister today in questions, she made a
statement maybe not in the Budget Speech, but maybe sometime after in regard
to the expenditures, and she's going to hold the line on expenditures for the
next four to five years. But when you have inflation that's running 2.5 to 3 per
cent, if you're going to hold the line on expenditures, the fact that you have
2.5 or 3 per cent inflation it's going to drive cost up. So it's going to be
more costly to deliver those services. If you're not going to increase that
envelope of money, how are you going to meet how are you going to keep it
flat? You have to take a huge amount of dollars out, and over five years I think
we calculated something like maybe $1 billion, and that's just conservative, as
you would expect.
That's
something that we asked today and we never got an answer to the question. Some
of the issues we're dealing with and with the budget and even with some of the
projections, the economic indicators, it's not clear what the information is,
where's that information to, what's backing it up, where did it come from.
I
mentioned in 2017 they were looking at reductions of, I think, $283 million.
There's reference in some of the documentation in regard to its zero-based
budgeting. There are a couple of other references there, but there's no detail
in regard to what that is. They talk about a reduction in boards, agencies and
commissions and there's a figure. Okay, well, what does that relate to? Are you
taking out services? Are you closing them down? Are you laying people off? How
do you get to that figure and what's underneath it? That's the question we asked
and, to date, there's been limited which is kind of surprising because you
would think that in a budget, it would be in the documents that it would be
quite clearly laid out, what it is, where it's to and what the amount is. But we
haven't seen it, and it's not in the documents.
I
mentioned earlier in Budget 2017,
The Economy the inventory of major
capital projects. It references activity coming up. It says: The list includes
both public and private projects that are either continuing or beginning in the
current year. So it says continuing or beginning in the current year, so that
would lead you to believe they are already approved and government has made a
commitment. You would assume that, that's what it says: continuing or would
start in the current year.
In many
cases, the capital spending figure quoted includes spending from previous years.
The inventory was prepared between January and March 2017. It goes on to talk
about the significant dollars $35 billion in major capital spending. A lot of
that is tied to the oil and gas category. Hebron oil project is the largest of
it and utilities are the second, related to Muskrat Falls.
So if
you were to look at the list of the projects and the value associated with them,
there was reference to cranberry industry development. These now are both public
and private, which is a good thing because private investors are investing to
build inventory that they deem necessary for their operations here in the
province. One that I mentioned earlier was marine aquaculture sites; capital
about $100 million. It says 2017 to 2020. Grieg Newfoundland Seafarms Ltd. 11
marine aquaculture sites to be located throughout the northern region of
Placentia Bay, spanning from Rushoon to Long Harbour; part of the Placentia Bay
Aquaculture Project. This report says that they're in progress or they're going
to start this year. So that leads us to believe we haven't heard anything on
this and is this approved.
There's
also one here, Salmon Hatchery, as well related to Grieg Newfoundland Nurseries
Ltd. construction of a Recirculation Aquaculture System hatchery for Atlantic
salmon in the Marystown Marine Industrial Park. That was an industrial park I
think that we partnered with the town in regard to building and fit nicely in
terms of this project and putting this facility there. It will include the
construction of a hatchery, a smolt nursery and a smolt land base; part of the
Placentia Bay Aquaculture Project.
Again,
it's here on the list for inventory of major capital projects that will be of
the public domain, but we haven't heard in regard to have we approved it, or
what the partnership or what the investment is. I know in the aquaculture
capital equity program, that's included in the $5 million. So there's not a lot
of money there.
Now, I
do notice they have the $30 million contingency fund. I think I saw that in some
of the documents no, I think there might be one this year, $30 million. I
think I may have seen it. So maybe that's somewhere, but anyway there's not a
lot of money to support that, but we'll see where it goes. I guess, based on
this, we'll see an announcement shortly. It was a really good MOU, I must say,
that the previous administration put forward. So we'd certainly like to see it
included indeed. It goes on to talk about several other capital expenditures
that are going to support activity, which is all good.
I want
to just talk, Mr. Speaker, a few minutes about the overall budget and the
discussion of the past year. We hear, as elected officials, and I'm sure on the
other side hear it as well when we're in our communities and we're talking to
families and seniors and people looking to find a job and all those kinds of
things, students coming out of high school trying to think of what they're going
to do, where they're going to go, people coming out of CNA or just finishing
their program, Marine Institute, Memorial or any other private college asking
you is there job possibilities, what do you think I should do, where I should
go.
The one
thing we hear is the uncertainty. Based on last year's budget and again this
year, people are concerned is there hope here, do they have an opportunity to
find employment, to live, to grow their family here. I do I say absolutely, I
tell them I'm very positive about it. I said we have a year or two of a rough
spot, but I know with all of our resources and everything we have, I think it's
very bright here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER:
You did not think we were
listening.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Oh no, I know you're always
listening.
Unfortunately, over the past number of months, we haven't always heard that from
the other side. There's been a bit of doom and gloom. I think that doesn't
provide the positivity and what we need. That's unfortunate, but it seems like
they're coming around and I'm glad to hear it. Today, some Members over there,
they're applauding the fact of being positive. We have opportunities in the
province with our natural resources and with everything else, with our
post-secondary institutions and some of the things that we're doing on the
innovation side of things, and it's good. We've got a way forward.
But
after 18 months, I certainly think it's time to get on with it and start giving
people that sense of faith that there are opportunities here. We have some
challenges, but we can see our way through it. We have the leadership to see our
way through it. Once people know that and understand it as I said when I
started, you could lay out a plan for people and some of it they may not like,
but at the end of the day if they know it, they understand it, you articulate to
them what it's about, what the end game is, they'll respect you for it.
We've
been through tough times before and we'll be through them again. But people just
want to make sure that there's someone leading the ship and will see us through,
and I think that's important that we do that.
So some
of the things we've seen over the last little while, we've certainly seen an
improvement in the deficit position and a lot of that is a direct result of oil,
about $400 million, some of the efforts in regard to that. It's funny enough but
at times we've heard, over the past 18 months, that we were addicted to oil and
relied too much on oil, but really the situation today in regard to the budget
is that without that, the current administration wouldn't hit their targets. So
it's interesting when you listen to what the minister released in her budget.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing in terms of the economy and driving some of the
activity in the economy is related to various taxes and other things that come
up. One of those taxes that have been talked about recently is carbon tax. And
when you look at Canada as a whole and our amount of greenhouse gas emissions on
a global base and what percentage it is, it is very small. Then if you factor in
Newfoundland and Labrador and where we are to with it, that's another tax on
activity. We have talked about the economic indicators that I mentioned earlier.
That flows into all of that because that's dollars out of people's pockets in
regard to how they pay for that, because that's a trickledown effect whether it
goes on fuel and I know today and in the budget the minister talked about the
fact that she is reducing the gas tax over the next period of time.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Part of it.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Part of it, but at the end of
the day there is still going to be a portion left. So the question of the day to
her was is that going to be part of a new carbon tax, which will be embedded in
and it's often done through the collection on gas. I know the former minister
brought in last year a particular bill which was specific to Newfoundland and
Labrador in regard to industries, I think it was five, in this province and
there was a made-in-Newfoundland model. But it wasn't broad-based for everybody,
it was just dealing with those five major industries of the province and how we
would deal with that.
I know
at that time in discussion and in the debate in the House, we went back and
forth, we talked about what if the federal government comes in with a bit of a
heavy hand and says, no, we are going with a national carbon tax, how would that
affect what we are doing. Because what we were doing was we were going to look
at five particular industries. We were going monitor for two years, if I
remember correctly, and then we were going to look at targets. Then Cabinet was
going to decide how that is all going to look at the end of the day, what's the
number going to be, what are we going to charge.
Then
after that, there was a decision made by the federal government to give a
deadline for 2018 to say at that point in time, we are going to bring a carbon
tax. All jurisdictions need to deal with that and need to bring it in. That's
where we are to today. I'm not sure which supersedes the other at any particular
time, and I guess that will be explained as we go forward here in the House,
maybe in this session, in regard to the direction from the federal government in
the carbon tax and what we have done here in the legislation in regard to that.
I guess
I say that in regard to the economy. Obviously you look at one of those
players was Come By Chance Oil Refinery. They are having challenges now, or
supposedly, in to some of their operations and some of the activities about a
rumor it may be sold. I know there's been some concern with that entity in
regard to what a carbon tax would mean in terms of operations. So I think it's
always important, and I certainly urge government of the day to take a close
look at that in regard to our industries, and what it means in terms of
operations and doing a carbon tax or whatever that would be. Other jurisdictions
have cap-and-trade and various other avenues to look at that. I think it's very
important in terms of economic development and the further growth of the
province to look at what impacts it has and at a point in time in our history,
and certainly our challenges in global markets, is this the route to go and what
does that look like.
Now, I
think there was some discussion from the minister when he was in Ottawa with his
counterparts in regard to what the general formula would be. Hopefully that will
get worked out, and we'll get to a point where there's recognition of the fact
our industries here in the province, what they are, the role we play, the amount
of greenhouse gas we emit.
Obviously, we've invested in hydro. We've often said there should be recognition
of that in any carbon tax. We've reduced greenhouse gas emissions. You take
Holyrood out we've paid for that, to take Holyrood out, greenhouse gas
emissions. So there should be recognition of that as well. We should look at our
particular circumstances in regard to what it means for us and our opportunities
here in the province.
The
other one would be an offshore. I know that's something that needs to be looked
at in the future in regard to offshore development and how all that works
whether it's natural gas, oil production, how that all will factor in. So that's
very important we look at that, because the potential for that as well would be
quite significant.
I just
wanted to, as we talk about the budget and talk about taxes the
minister referenced today in regard to partially reducing the tax on gas and
what's left over, where that's going to go. She wasn't definitive on what that
would mean at the end of day in regard to us. But either way, I think it's
important that we hold that in mind in regard to moving forward and what we're
doing in regard to taxes and fees and driving the economy, and what the best
part is to do in driving the economy and how we do it.
Again on the carbon tax, there are various methods to do
it. As I said, there's a carbon tax, or there's a cap-and-trade program. The
point of the carbon tax obviously is to change people's and company's behaviour
so there are less fossil fuels, less usage. Whether that works
or not and how it works, that's something we'll go through, but I think it's
important, as I said before, that we hold that near and dear and the government
does as well as they move forward and look at what option we're going to pursue.
In was
in October, as I said, that Prime Minister Trudeau announced the national floor
price on carbon tax and requires all provinces and territories to have some form
of carbon price by January 2018. If there's not one implemented they'll impose a
$10 ton, which will increase to 50 ton in 2022.
Now,
when we look at various jurisdictions and what's happening across the country
there are various models of carbon tax or cap-and-trade programs in place:
carbon tax for British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island; cap-and-trade in
Quebec and Ontario. So it's varied and it's varied in terms I know BC has an
issue in regard to getting to the top level of the national tax because they
have it already and they're working towards it. So that's what they have to do.
I say to government be mindful of that in terms of the economy and how that
drives taxes and drives the overall industries in this province and how
important it is for us.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to touch on an issue that I've talked about since last year in
regard to we had all the fees and taxes come in, and what it did we talked
about that in terms of the economic indicators for 2016 and 2017, the effect
it's having. They started to fall in 2016, most of them in 2017. Now the
predictions aren't good in terms of some of those and where they're going.
One of
the things I brought up and asked the Premier about last year was equalization
and what could we do in regard to at least just having a discussion with the
federal government. At the time, it was some time ago and the Premier indicated
kind of it is what it is, we're not going to go there, the federal government
shouldn't be able to help us even though we have a number of jurisdictions in
Canada: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick getting 1.7; Ontario, Quebec gets about $10
billion; and that program would have been renewed in 2014. I think it's about
five years every five years.
The
Premier came back at one point and said well, you didn't do anything when you
were there. Well, that's not totally true, or it's not true at all, actually,
because back in former Premier Williams day, when they looked at the revenue
stream from oil the argument was made that Newfoundland is just getting started,
our royalties are starting to flow, can we bridge into the program so we can get
that wealth, we can build our infrastructure, do the things we need to do and at
some point down the road we will come off. So it wasn't done within the
equalization formula; it was done outside of the equalization formula. What he
said was that let us keep our revenues, continue to get equalization for a
period of time and the determination with Prime Minister Martin was that it
would be a three-year period.
The
equalization component continued to function but through the federal Department
of Natural Resources, there was an offset payment, where what was taken out of
equalization was given back to us for, I think, those three years. What they
asked for then was that okay, give it to us upfront, give us an upfront cheque,
and that's the $2 billion cheque that we remember was received, those offset
payments for equalization, and that's where it came from.
So there
are two arguments we've heard of why you can't do it. Well, it's entrenched in
the Constitution first, fundamentally, that any partner of Canada should have
reasonable services at a reasonable level of taxation. That's fundamental;
that's in the Constitution. There's legislation and a regulatory framework that
oversees that.
One
argument was well, you can't change it. It's law; you can't change it. Well, the
reality is we have 339 MPs and that's what they do. They change laws, the modify
them and they correct them. So I mean, you can certainly do it through that
model.
The
other model is that you could do it outside of the equalization component, which
I just referenced was done back in 2004, whenever it was, when there was an
agreement done with Prime Minister Martin to do offset payments and cut the
cheque and receive it.
So
either way it can be done. I guess the disappointing piece was that we were told
that you can't do it; we shouldn't ask Ottawa. We just said have a discussion;
go and ask and say here's the situation, unprecedented reduction in the global
market with regard to oil. I know the Alberta premier and the Saskatchewan
premier were out saying, look, can we revisit this; can we have a look based on
what's happened. As I said, you can either do it within the context of the
equalization formula or do it outside. So either could be done.
It's
been disappointing that the current Premier and government hasn't asked, haven't
even asked to have a sit down and have the discussion, because it gets back to
reasonable service for reasonable taxation. What happened last year in the
budget with regard to those 300 taxes and fees and what's pretty well happening
again this year, if we had just some intervening help in a year or two and as
I said earlier, the folks on the other side seem to agree, we've got lots
happening in this province. We got an abundance of natural resources. We're
going through a bit of a rough period here, some challenges, but we can see our
way through. With that help, as part of this great federation we call Canada,
all we wanted was that bit of help and have that discussion. I guess, for
whatever reason, it wasn't to be and, still today, I don't know why we wouldn't
have that discussion.
What's
going to happen is there's a five-year period, so as our economy picks up and
revenue picks up in 2019 when the review starts, guess what? Our revenue per
capita is going to be up and they're going to look at it and say no, you're not
going to qualify for equalization. So that's the unfortunate part. I think
collectively if we've gotten together with maybe Saskatchewan and Alberta and
advocated and said let's take a look and see what we can do, I think it would
have been worthwhile for us. We can still do it I guess. But, to date,
unfortunately, we haven't been able to get the Premier or government to take a
look at it.
As I
said in 2017-2018, it's going to be at the point in time when, where we're to in
our history, we're probably not going to be able to go on equalization again and
we'll lose that opportunity to do it, which is really unfortunate that we didn't
have the ability for people to stand up for us to say, at the very least, we are
going to have a chat. We want talk about it. There's an opportunity here to see
where we go, and that's not where it's to.
I guess
the model itself in terms of equalization, I think everybody agrees that the
whole fiscal capacity piece, how to determine revenue, what's in and what's out.
I think most agree that that needs to be looked at. I agree with that. The whole
thing needs to be reviewed because I don't think it meets the needs of Canadians
today.
There
was an article written by a professor out of one of the universities in Atlantic
Canada. He looked at the Atlantic Canada piece and he said when you think about
equalization and the per capita piece and how services are delivered maybe in
Atlantic Canada, how the demographics in Atlantic Canada are going the wrong way
well, not the wrong way, but we got the fastest aging population and you look
at the geography of how we deliver services. When you factor all that in, the
current model of fiscal capacity under equalization, when it was originally
designed, may have fit, but today it doesn't fit.
He said
why not have a look at those components, like demographics, geography,
distribution of people all of those things would allow a different lens on it.
I'm not saying that equalization is the be all, end all, but I'm saying there's
a program that exists today which is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, whether
it is right, wrong or indifferent, we should be able to have a discussion about
accessing it. Then if we need to have another discussion at some other point
about what's included in equalization, the model that it was originally intended
to serve, is it still serving, do we need to change it, what is it supposed to
look like, yes, that's fine, let's do that.
The
immediacy right now is the fact that we have some challenges, we're Canadians,
proud to be Canadians, that's there, let's have a look, let's see if we can work
through it and (inaudible). So what we've done and said we're going to tax and
fee Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; we've already gone through the economic
indicators and the effect it's had in 2016 and the effect it's going to have in
2017. We have to recognize that and here's an opportunity to deal with that and
to help us through a year or two of difficulty. Because, as we said, there's
bright times ahead and we just need to get through the issues like that.
All we
can do is just urge the Premier, Finance Minister to lobby to the question,
they didn't do anything. I know I spoke to former Premier Marshall who was
Finance Minister in 2011-2012. They had discussions about that, about what
they'd bring forward. I think they asked for data and asked for input from the
Finance Ministers when they met in 2012 and they brought data forward; they
reviewed it. The late Minister Flaherty in 2014 came forward and said no, we're
not making any changes to equalization. It's a federal program, we control it,
we own it, here is what it is and they renewed for another five years.
Much
like what was done in the recent Health Accord that our Premier attended. They
went up and they were all joined and yes, we're going to hold out; we're not
taking 3 per cent. No sir, we're not taking 3 per cent. No, not going to take 3
per cent.
AN HON. MEMBER:
They wanted 6 per cent.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The former Harper
administration had it at 6 per cent. I think they intended to roll it back to 3
per cent and the new Trudeau administration, I think, had agreed they would roll
it back to 3 per cent. So all the premiers went up and said no, we're not taking
3 per cent. No, not doing it. Anyway before they all got out the door, they were
running to sign up and said they were taking the 3 per cent.
Anyway
my point is, it's very much like the equalization formula when it's renewed.
It's the federal government's decision to make, they make it, and you need to
try to make representation to them to get it changed. So it's no different. When
the Premier or someone else says well, it's equalization, you did nothing about
it. We did; we made representation, just like he did on the Health Accord, and
he was told by the federal government sorry, we're going ahead with the Health
Accord and we're giving you 3 per cent. Now you can take it or you cannot same
thing; there's no difference.
The
point is, if you check the name plate on your door and you're in government,
you're responsible. That's it at the end of the day. It's your decision to make
the choices, your decision to advocate. It's your decision to do what you need
to do. I guess that's all we're saying here. Unfortunately, the relationship and
that sort of thing, that's up to them how they want to do it. I know our time in
government we had some difficult choices, but I know I went with the former
premier and went to Ottawa and met with the prime minister of the day.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, it was nice in his
office, just before Christmas nice, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, no.
We went
in and had a good meeting. It was in December. I'll tell the hon. Member, Prime
Minister Harper, we went in, the former premier, on the fisheries fund, and he
had his minister, Rob Moore, with him, and that was about it. We said this is
the agreement. I sat in the room with Ed Fast who was minister of Trade at the
time, sat across the table with him. We came to an agreement on what it would
take; went through a bunch of scenarios. It was all in the documentation that
was released to the public, and we settled on a $400 million fund, 70-30.
At that
time, the prime minister disagreed. He said: No, that's not the case; that
wasn't agreed to. We said: Bring Minister Fast in and let him articulate what
the agreement was. He said: No, we don't need Minister Fast. So that would kind
of tell you. So any time after there was any discussion about it, Minister Fast
was never anywhere to now, nice man, I respected him, I got to say. We had a
good relationship, but he was never allowed to discuss it after the fact, which
I think is telling. He was the guy at the table. Anyway, it is what it is.
Then
from there, leading up the completion of CETA, it was Prime Minister Trudeau and
our current Premier that was there when the agreement was finalized. So what was
a bit amazing was that our current Premier said there was no agreement, yet the
prime minister had said at the time, before he became prime minister, that we
need to honour what Newfoundland and Labrador was offered. Yet we had the
Premier was saying there were no agreement. So how could the prime minister give
us a $400 million fund when our own Premier was saying there was no agreement?
Anyway,
from there, we went to the point that the agreement wasn't signed until the
folks on the other side were in office. So at any time, the current government
or the Premier could have put their hand up and said, hold on now, we're not
singing on to CETA. Because we don't think we're getting what we should be
getting for MPRs.
There
was silence. We asked about it here in the House. They said we're having
discussions. We would just say: What are you having discussions about? There are
no discussions. There was an agreement made and either you get it or you don't.
They
kept saying they were having discussions and then we find out that the agreement
gets signed and there's no fisheries fund, but after the fact there's an
Atlantic Fisheries Fund, which had nothing to do with CETA. Our public servants
that were there did a great job. Trade negotiators did a tremendous job, public
servants, looking out for Newfoundland and Labrador interests and we were able
to get this fund.
There
was a province in Belgium basically, before it was signed, they put their hand
up and said to the EU, no, we're not signing this. We got issues of provincial
jurisdiction or sub-regional issues that we want resolved and guess what?
Everything stopped. Belgium went back with the EU, worked through it, and the
needs of that province were dealt with and they moved on.
If our
Premier had an issue and said there was never an agreement and we're just going
to give up MPRs for nothing, why didn't he go back to the federal government and
say hold on now, we're signing on to this, we're not supporting it because MPRs
is a provincial jurisdiction, a sub-regional jurisdiction and that's want the
EU wanted to do. Prior to all this starting, they said we want all this stuff
related to provincial jurisdiction, sub-regional we want it all taken care of.
We don't want to have to go to a trade court after all this is signed and start
appealing stuff. Yet they didn't do it. They didn't put their hand up. They
didn't say it was important. That's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to move on to another commentary on a piece of the budget and
it's related to education and infrastructure and the commitments that are made
over the past number of years in education. I talked about that in the Speech
from the Throne in regard to youth and families and being able to grow your
economy and you need young people, you need population growth, you need all of
that to be able to maximize opportunities. It's important that we are able to do
that.
I know
in the past Budget 2016 there are
investments in education I certainly acknowledge that from our folks on the
other side. In 2016, in K-12, they said they recognized the need to address
essential capacity planning and replacement of school infrastructure and they
talked about Budget 2016 being a
commitment included.
There
was $88 million to continue projects and over $60 million for repairs and
maintenance. Some of those projects would have been started on our watch. They
talked about over $73 million for school projects in Conception Bay South,
Gander, Paradise, Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, Torbay, Virginia Park and the
extension and renovation of St. Peter's Junior High.
They
talked about $4.8 million for an extension and renovation of St. Peter's Primary
in Mount Pearl, extension of Mobile Central High School, modular classrooms and
continued planning for K to 3. We certainly recognize that in terms of the
commitment and what was made, but I'll go back to 2015 or even back further to
that in terms of my particular region. It has tremendous growth and is probably
one of the last places on the Northeast Avalon that was pushed out and started
to grow and we started to see a lot of development. That's in the Bay Bulls,
Witless Bay, Mobile, Tors Cove, Bauline, St. Michael's and Burnt Cove, that
region there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We've got two municipalities
and the rest are local service districts. I guess about 10 years ago we've seen
the first hint of significant development with a subdivision going in and lots
being approved, that started. From there, the administration I was a part of,
recognizing there were significant needs in infrastructure around the province
and needs required I think during our time there was almost $600 million
invested for K to 12 infrastructure from 2004 onward, so that's significant.
That was some of the royalties and monies we got and we directed it in
infrastructure.
I think
there were 1,900 repairs and maintenance projects. That was $220 million, and 59
major capital projects. I think there were 14 new schools; eight more new
schools in various stages of planning and construction; 27 major extensions and
renovation; and 10 more major extension and renovation projects underway. That's
just an indication of the investment that was going on, and it was needed and it
was recognized and ongoing.
As I
said, in my particular region, we had seen continued growth probably since 2007,
2008, 2009. In St. Bernard's in Witless Bay, there's a K-6 school. We had seen
significant growth there so we had built on two permanent classrooms, or maybe
three three permanent classrooms I do believe to try and see our way through
this. Recognizing there were a lot of needs around the province in terms of
infrastructure, we had to work towards an end to a resolution, but we were able
to do that.
We put
on three classrooms and then further to that, recognizing there was continued
growth, it was double streaming in some of the classrooms coming through, we
went through and we put on two portable classrooms that were temporary. The Town
of Witless Bay gave two temporary permits, so they didn't give a permit to build
on, so there were two.
At the
same time, there was full-day Kindergarten so it was trying to certainly meet
the needs of the student community by putting those on. So it moved along and
the intent, at the end of the day, was that we would get to a point where you
would be next in line and there would be a middle school or new school built.
Moving
along that continuum, in 2014 there was a BAE-Newplan consultant hired to look
at the region and to see what the best
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
route would be in regard to
meeting the needs of the region, which makes sense. So in 2014 a BAE-Newplan
report was done and they would have looked at the Witless Bay building, K-6, and
said is there an ability to extend, an extension; is there an ability to build
up on the building. The conclusion at that time was it was not an option.
Then
they looked at Mobile Central High which is grades seven to twelve. That school
was built approximately 11 years ago, a new facility, but fully maxed in terms
of space, and pretty well maxed out in terms of space. They looked at that
facility and said what are the options here in regard to changing the footprints
of that facility, and whether you'd build on to it, or it could go up, or what
it was. So they looked at the footprint of that facility, came back and said no,
it's not a good idea.
Then the
third option was: Would you build a new school? What they came back with was
yes, to meet the needs of the region, recognizing the growth, that you have
pressure on the Witless Bay facility, St. Bernard's, and you're going to have
pressure on Mobile High School, let's build a five-to-eight school. It would
take pressure off St. Bernard's, K-6, and take pressure off the high school
seven to twelve. That's what they recommended.
Based on
that, the Eastern School District, the trustees, recommended when they sent
their infrastructure list to the province for the 2015 budget, they recommended
it, had it on the list. It came up for approval, like it does with any
government to the Cabinet and they have their discussions on it and what's going
to happen, but it was recommended. They had gotten the numbers from the
Department of Finance, from government, and they had done their assessments,
made their recommendations and sent it to the Eastern School District. They
looked at it, signed off, said the recommendations are good to go and sent it
off to the government of the day. They did a review of it all, of all requests,
and in the budget of 2015 they announced they would commit the funding to build
a new five-to-eight middle school for the region to meet the needs as was
suggested in the BAE-Newplan report straightforward.
At that
time, there was another consultant hired to go out and look at land acquisition,
look at design, all those kind of things, and a process was underway to identify
whether it was Crown land, whether it was private land, what could you find to
build this facility in the growing region.
So that
was moving on. In 2016, the budget came out, the administration today, and said
they were cancelling the building of the middle school, five to eight. No
rationale, no understanding why they were doing it. Then in addition to that,
they announced they were building nine classrooms on the facility in Mobile, a
high school, with the intent of bringing the grade sixes to high school. So you
would have grade sixes with grade 11 and 12s in that facility in Mobile.
Now, it
was never determined whether that Mobile facility, the footprint, could even
accommodate that. No one ever did any review of that. Further to that, the best
of our knowledge, the English School District, the trustees who were elected
and we have lots of discussion here about the autonomy of the school trustees
and the board and how they should make recommendations and they should be
separate from government and their recommendations should be based on their
information and the best technical information and be non-political and they'll
move it up to the department to government.
Lo and
behold, the English School District never did rescind, to the best of my
knowledge, or what they could tell me, never did rescind the building and the
recommendation for a five-to-eight school for the region never did.
Furthermore, I can't find any minutes of a meeting or been asked that they
ever approved the nine-classroom extension. Newfoundland and Labrador English
School District trustees, those who were elected, they never approved the
nine-classroom extension. So where did it come from? We're still asking the
question.
Then
when we look at the numbers, the numbers that were used in 2014 and the numbers
that are used today to tell us nine classrooms are going to suffice when a
consultant said you needed a new five-to-eight school to be built are the same
numbers. So we've asked: What's the rationale? What's the issue? What's going
on? But no one could tell us.
My
understanding, I was told as well, that in the infrastructure directed to
government for this budget process, that again the five-to-eight school was
directed as a priority of the English School District on their construction list
for this year.
So we
are left with a group that is going to now and there's another consultant
hired that's up looking at Mobile school and saying can it fit on the footprint.
To date, they haven't confirmed that it can. We are going to spend $7 million
that was first allocated to look at this, but in the department's own numbers
and in Eastern School District's own numbers, even if you build nine classrooms
on Mobile, in 2021 they're saying that you are going to be out of space. So
think about that, Mr. Speaker. We are going to spend, you say $7 million, so
maybe $10 million when it is over and done with to build nine classrooms, but in
2021, you are going to be out of space.
Fr
another $8 million, or whatever the figure is I know they built one in Gander
for $17.2 million. So for another $7 million or $8 million, you could build a
new school, you can solve the needs of the region for the next 15 or 20 years,
and everybody moves on. Or you can try to build nine classrooms in a facility
that at the date you don't even know if you can build them. If you can, you're
going to spend $9 million of $10 million at the end of the day and, in 2021, the
region is going to be back to you saying, we are out classrooms; we are out of
space. That's where we are.
With due
respect to the minister, the group came out. We met with the minister, we didn't
agree. He did meet with us, but we didn't agree. That's where it is. In terms of
the whole budget process and good value for money and making the right decision
and having the right plan and all the buzz words we hear in the Speech from the
Throne and from the budget and what we hear in the House that there was value
for money and it's good evidence and you have to make the right decision not
in this case.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I don't think so, no.
So the
student community, the region, the two municipalities are quite concerned about
where they go from here. The English School District even went back and said
let's go back and check with the study body. So they did the survey. I think it
was almost 99 percent were opposed to the reconfiguration of sending grade six
students to Mobile Central High School. So we were going to get grade six
students up to be a part of seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, older kids. The
community spoke and they said no 99 percent said no, we are not going to do
that. They don't think it was in the best interest of their kids. So again,
that's where we're to in regard to that particular issue and how we're trying to
deal with it.
Mr.
Speaker, we've gone through a lot of things here today in regard to the Speech
from the Throne, the budget and all those kinds of things. In this example I
just had here, the example with Mistaken Point, and some of the issues that I
have that are personal to me, that I know, that is really when you talk about
a good return for money, talk about a plan, talk about all of those things, this
is an area that continues to concern me and our perspective from doing what
needs to be done and making sure that we can do what's good for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
There's
another area I want to talk about in regard to community sustainability and
making sure that we invest appropriately in areas that allow us to continue to
grow our communities. Back in 2015, we had worked with municipalities. It was a
two-year study we did in sustainability and partnership. There was a two-year
review done with a whole range of municipalities, Municipalities Newfoundland
and Labrador, a whole number of stakeholders, in regard to the funding model for
municipalities, the challenges with providing services, all of those things that
are prevalent no matter what community you are in, whether you're in town, a
city or small rural community.
Through
that work and it was a two-year process that we went through we came up with
a new community sustainability partnership. It was fiscal in nature, but as well
it was about the parameters around that relationship, to support communities and
strengthen social and the economic fabric of regions, and that all gets back to
sustainability, having to plan, driving activities and all those kinds of
things.
At that
time, we invested about $46 million in additional funding over the following
three years, annualized at about $25 million thereafter. So that was an
investment in communities, sustainability and making sure that we could reach
and drive activities.
That's a
plan; that's taking funds and recognizing that here's a direction that can help
grow communities, support them, which is a positive way, some of the things we
talked about today in regard to the budget and Speech from the Throne, to
instill confidence in the community that government is there not to always
support them and give a handout, but give a hand up and work in partnership as
you move forward and meet challenges, and in those communities that are growing
and doing well, to help them as well and to move forward with them.
So it's
$46 million in additional funds over the next three years, and that was $25
million thereafter. They included a partial rebate of provincial portion of the
Harmonized Sales Tax, which was never allowed before. So it's the first time
that the municipality got work done, they could get a rebate in HST.
It was
historic in the provincial sharing of gas tax revenues and it was a three-year
commitment to Municipal Operating Grants at the level of $22 million annually.
That was to give sustainability again to the operations of municipalities. It
wasn't every year they were waiting to find out what they were going to get in
regard to funds, but they got a three-year commitment at the level at the time
of what it was, $22 million. So that's a good plan and it follows it through and
makes sure that they have that recognition that there is sustainability.
There
was also a funding for a pilot project for Regional Water and Wastewater
operations. So that's good because we do have challenges and did have challenges
and still do in regard to water advisories, which are the most prevalent and as
well, in some cases, boil-water advisories. This was to do a pilot to look at
helping those communities who may have infrastructure in place, water
infrastructure, whether it's a chlorination system, whether it's other systems
that may be through whatever issue, they don't have the capacity to operate,
don't have the understanding, don't have the standard of operations to do it. So
let's look at all of that and make sure that that could be done.
There
was also an advisory committee to be established to explore a regional
government structure. Now, that was set up and it was supposed to report back
last fall, but I don't know what happened to it. I think the current
administration, I don't know if they discontinued that one or they started a new
one, but obviously we wasted significant time in working towards that in regard
to sustainable communities, a government structure of how we continue to operate
and what it is we do.
That is
very important. All across Newfoundland and Labrador was changed in terms of
distribution of the population for very small communities. I go to the far end
of my district to a community like St. Shott's, 70-odd people, but very
self-sufficient, very good community in what they do. Then I come to the other
end, communities like Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, Middle Pond and the Goulds,
which are part of the City of St. John's. So we got the full variation of
different things with them. This was to deal with that and to provide guidance
and a plan to do so.
The
president of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador at the time said we
partnered with the provincial government on the fiscal framework consultation,
so happy to participate today. The announcement addresses several of the
priority recommendations from our position paper. Now, there are a whole range
of recommendations in that paper. Our intent was to deal with them over a number
of years. Because, obviously, some had fiscal components to them, others didn't,
but it was to look at those in regard to the complexities and what needed to be
done, and it's important that these continue to do that.
I'm not
sure with the current administration where they are with it and certainly with
the local governance and with the striking of a committee. I haven't heard any
details on that. I didn't see any reference to it in the budget in regard to how
we might move that forward, but I think it is important that we do that, it's
allowed to move forward, because it's important from a municipal point of view
and there are challenges no doubt. There are challenges with local service
districts, with unincorporated areas, with municipalities. In some regions, we
have fire brigades and they'll service a variety of regions. It could be a
municipality, it could be a local service district or it could be an area that
doesn't have any governance structure.
I think
it's important and people don't like to talk about it at times, but it is
important that we come up with a governance structure for all areas so that we
will ensure that people can get services and everybody pays a share. What that
share is, that is something we need to determine through a local governance
structure. I have it in my area. I have municipalities, I have local service
districts and I have unincorporated areas.
Amazingly enough, people say well, no, people won't come together; they won't do
it. The waste management that was brought in a number of years ago, we were able
to do and it was to the people in the area and the leadership in the
municipalities from Bay Bulls to Trepassey, all those communities and all local
service districts, everybody agreed it didn't happen right away but it
happened over a period of time. It's an indication that if you bring people
together and you get everybody at the table and there are challenges and people
don't always agree, but for the better good people come together and there are
resolutions brought to get everybody where they need to go.
I think
that's something we need to look at. I don't know where the current
administration is with the local governance but we had started it through this
announcement, and I think it's important that we continue it. It's a good
discussion to have and it gets to the whole economics and budgets and all of
that to make sure that we can see our communities sustainable, we can see that
they can continue to operate and we build the infrastructure and we share that
infrastructure, whether it's wastewater and I know there's new funding for
wastewater, which is positive and operations, whether it's the fire brigades,
whether it's sharing a town planner or a town manager with a bunch of
incorporated entities, where there's a lot of development going on that they can
share those resources, human resources.
All of
that is extremely important. Snow clearing, I know last year I'm not sure
where we're going to go this year with it the minister brought in, in regard
to municipalities that were getting their roads done by Transportation and
Works, they were given notification actually, very short notice, and I'm not
sure where we're going this, but what we need to find out is that if you were
getting your roads done by TW well, the budget came out April or May, whenever
and by the end of the summer you had to get a private contractor to come in
and do you your roads, because TW weren't going to do them anymore, that didn't
work out very well because obviously most municipalities had their budget done,
had it submitted. They had no revenues or no ability to basically go out and do
a tender and get someone to come in and do snow clearing.
There
was a number in my region and to the benefit, I got to say, to the Minister of
TW, he did finally revert and say, okay, if you can't get someone and most
couldn't we'll revert to the old method and we'll look at it this year. I
haven't heard yet, and certainly we'll find out from him what the plan is. With
something like that, if there's an opportunity I think you got to give lead
time, you've got to bring a bunch of communities together. Out in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador there's no company going in to do a small community of
a couple of hundred people. That's where the whole concept of regionalization
and coming together and trying to do it collectively makes it somewhat
appetizing for an entrepreneur to do that. Those are things we've got to look
at. I think we can do that.
I'm
interested to hear as we move through Estimates and move through debate here in
the House and Question Periods, how we get there and what the minister has in
store for this particular year in regard to snow clearing for those
municipalities and local service districts as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I mentioned earlier an issue in my district, and I just want to make a
few more comments on it before I finish up. It's with regard to Mistaken Point
and the management plan that was part of the I think it's called dossier that
was sent to UNESCO. That's a pretty thick document that's put together and
outlines all the requirements of how you're going to meet the UNESCO
designation, your obligations for community involvement, interaction,
volunteers; infrastructure; regulatory framework; how you're going to manage the
reserve, operations, finances. All of those things have to be prepared and not
only on the community side, but on the scientific side: who are your scientific
partners, Memorial Guy Narbonne was from one of the universities in Ontario
and very knowledgeable with regard to this.
The
academic knowledge of Mistaken Point far exceeded, I think, the provincial
understanding of it. We had a lot of people from around the world, through
universities, coming here doing their Ph.D., looking at the 560-billion-year-old
fossils and using that. They were much more familiar with it, which is, I guess,
just the way it goes, but now we're developing into a worldwide site and we got
the UNESCO designation, which is extremely important.
With
that and with the recognition of what comes with that, there is a requirement
under the management plan and that is part of the dossier. Basically the
management plan said here's the staffing you need; here's the expertise you
need, the scientific; here's the community regulatory framework you need; and
all of that you need to follow.
The
means to follow that was an advisory council. So the advisory council is made up
of the scientific community and it's made up of the local community, the
volunteers and the expertise at the local level. So you need to bring those
together. The volunteer group, to date, is called the Mistaken Point Ambassadors
and they were volunteers on the ground. They worked with a director who oversaw
the designation. Unfortunately, her position was terminated in last year's
budget, which in and of itself doesn't make a lot of sense. She was terminated
last year in the budget.
So there
was no oversight following it through, once we got the designation. That's
somewhat problematic. Anyway, the management plan was part of that dossier, and
I mentioned earlier the two ministers involved here. They need to take that and
make sure that's being adhered to. But, to date, there's no indication that it
is being adhered to, which is extremely problematic when we look at going
forward and what needs to be done.
The
advisory council I mentioned has never been set up. It was supposed to be set up
right after our designation, which was in July. What we have in place now, we
have the Mistaken Point Ambassadors which are volunteers on the ground. When we
met with the former minister back a month or two ago, they were asked to stay
on. Again, it's a preparatory thing. You knew this was coming and it appears,
for the last 17 months, there's been no attention given to it, which is a
significant piece of acknowledgement and designation for the province.
It's not
just for the region or the community, it's for the province. It's UNESCO World
Heritage Site, which is one more area in Newfoundland and Labrador when people
come that they can use in our tourism ads if you look at some of our tourism
ads there's a D and E site it's a big, flat surface that reaches up from the
water and it's on that that the actual fossils are. You can go out and walk and
put your hand down and see the fossils. So they are actually in our tourism
commercials today and they are part of it. So that's important, and we can only
hope and I'll continue to lobby the government to make sure they step up and do
what needs to be done in regard to getting the work done and making sure that we
do what needs to be done in maximizing our opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, today I've had a chance to speak to some of the Speech from the Throne
and highlight some of the things that were in that and tie that into this year's
budget and then looking at last year's and some of the recommendations that were
made there. I guess the biggest thing is that last year the approach taken by
this administration and some of the things they did I think we've shown
through the economic indicators of 2016 and what the projections of 2017 are
that it hasn't worked and it's not going to work. It's been one sided. It's
about grabbing way too much out of people's pockets; a resulting effect of the
economy slowing. Whether we look at car sales, house sales, real estate sales,
all of those indicators are going in the wrong direction and that means the plan
and what we're doing and what this administration is carrying out is certainly
not working. That's problematic.
In
regard to the reduction in expenditures, again, I don't think we've gone to the
point, after 18 months, where we need to go to get to the point where we have a
balanced approach; $81 million I think in the past fiscal year $283 million
they are talking about of an $8 billion approximate budget; $283 million in this
current year. We get no details on how we're going to get there and there's a
whole lot of uncertainty in regard to the public service, where they are going
and what the direction is.
We had
done in 2015 I think there was 400 to 500 that leave for the public service
year for various reasons, but we had said, let's look at that and as people move
out, let's look from an attrition point of view, let's look at the organization
of departments, let's reorganize and be innovative and see what we can do
differently. Within that, if 10 go, we put eight back and you can adjust it
accordingly as you go. But that's a two-part process. It is not just getting rid
of people; it's making sure that when people leave the public service, you're
not replacing them, we have a model set up or we have a delivery service model
that's effective, that's innovative and that meets the needs of the day. That's
something, unfortunately, we haven't seen in the past 17 months. What was
presented here last week I certainly don't think I'm hopeful, but I'm not that
hopeful that we're going to see it coming in the immediate future.
The
other issue is the one I brought up and spoke to earlier and it was on funding
from the federal government. One of the issues that we hear about is the money
we get from the federal government and how well we've done and we're doing well
and everything is going well and that kind of thing. When you look at the budget
document and you compare some information in regard to what the numbers are,
when you compare where the money comes from these are laid out in each budget
document each year. I have 2015, Budget
2016 and 2017 and what it summarizes are the current revenues by source and
where the money comes from; it's a pie chart that shows the breakout of where it
is to.
In 2015,
the Government of Canada: $671,821,000; it was 11.7 per cent in 2015. In 2016,
the Government of Canada: $702,920,000, so about 12.8 per cent; roughly a
percentage increase. We look at projected 2017 and it's $745,953,000, 12.6 per
cent. When we talk about all of the money that's coming from the federal
government, in 2015 it was 11.7 per cent of our total revenue and this year it's
projected to be 12.6 per cent. It's about a percentage. So we're on track for
what we always got. To suggest there's a free flow of cash coming from Ottawa
maybe it's somewhere else, I don't know, but it's not showing up here. These are
the budget documents. I'm not sure, it's not in these; maybe it's somewhere
else.
The
other one which was the interesting one is the offshore royalties. In 2015, it
was a little over a billion dollars; it was 21.1 per cent. In 2016, it was $485
million, about 8.9 per cent. This year was up again $902,765,000; 15.3 per cent.
Even though it was budgeted in last year's, it was only budgeted at close to
half a billion and then there was a windfall of $400 million which got it up to
the $900 million that government basically used to balance their books.
The
other one is personal income tax, when you think about it, and it gives an
indication of what's happening in your economy: people are working; they're
making income; they're paying taxes; those types of things. That's, again, one
of the indicators that we talked about before, but it also indicates the amount
of money you're taking out of people's pockets. Personal income tax, we look at
the amount of money we're taking out of people's pocket personal income tax in
2015 was $1.1 billion; 20.7 per cent. In 2017, it is projected to be $1.6
billion; 27.6 per cent of revenues are pulled out of people's pockets.
When you
think about it, if you factor in just under 3 per cent of inflation rate, or
Consumer Price Index for goods and services, not only are you taking way more
money out of people's pockets, the actual goods and services they need to buy is
gone up. So the dollar they're spending doesn't go near as far. Then if you add
on the gasoline tax that's coming out of a reduced dollar, if you will, if you
add on sales tax, insurance tax, fees and your annual levy, the amount of
disposable income, net income, that's coming out of people's pockets is
enormous. That's not the way forward or I don't think that's going to build a
prosperous and a better Newfoundland and Labrador.
As I
said earlier and someone on the other side agreed, I think Newfoundland and
Labrador has a few challenges right now, but I think we need optimism; we need
leadership. I think the people of the province deserve it. I think it's there,
but we need to talk about what we have: our resources, well-educated population.
We have outstanding post-secondary institutions. We've driven innovation. We've
driven opportunities. We have great leaders. We have great entrepreneurs. We
have great business leaders. But through all of that, we need political
leadership that shows the way, that shows hope, shows optimism, shows that there
is a way forward and we'll maximize every opportunity for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
We've
done it in the past. We've done it for over 500 years. We've had bumps in the
road. We'll see ourselves through them. But we need that leadership. We need the
ability for people to have confidence and hope and I can only hope and pray that
this administration, after 17 months they haven't got there, but in the very
near future, for the benefit for all Newfoundland and Labrador, they will start
to do what they need to do and drive this economy for the betterment of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of
MR. BYRNE:
Advanced Education, Skills
and Labour.
MS. COADY:
Advanced Education, Skills
and Labour that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.