April
11, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 9
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today Zoey Davis and her mom Scottina Davis,
and Michelle Clemens, the Principal of O'Donel High School who are joining us
today for the reading of the Ministerial Statement.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As well, to the Speaker's
gallery today, I would like to welcome Janice and Rendell Drover of Upper Island
Cove, and James and Valerie Mercer of Bishop's Cove who are present today for
the reading of a Member's statement.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
To our public gallery today,
we have Mr. John Baker and Mr. Fred Power, the subjects of a Member's statement,
and joining them are members of their families.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
As well in the public gallery
today, we have members of the Canadian Cancer Society. Matthew Piercey, CEO,
Sharon Smith, Board Chair and Margot Reid who are present for the reading of a
Ministerial Statement.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we have the Members for the Districts of Placentia West Bellevue, Terra
Nova, Cape St. Francis, Mount Pearl North, Bonavista and Mount Pearl
Southlands.
I
understand the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave has leave as well for a
member's statement. Is that correct? And the Member for Harbour Grace Port de
Grave.
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years
ago, an act of tragedy was accompanied by an act of triumph. On a Marystown
summer's day in June of 1967, then 9-year-old Fred Power lost control of his
bicycle while going down a steep hill and went head first into a large boom
truck.
Then
fifteen-year-old John Baker witnessed the incident, and jumped in to carry Fred
to his home, a distance of nearly 3,000 feet. Fred would end up being airlifted
to St. John's undergoing major reconstructive surgery, having his jaw wired shut
and spending over a year in hospital learning how to walk and talk all over
again.
Now,
some 50 years later, Fred has overcome his many struggles through determination,
hard work and the support of his wife and two children. Next month he will
graduate from the Heavy Equipment Operators Program. Ironically, the man who
administered Fred's driver examination in Marystown was none other than John
Baker, the same man who Fred credits with saving his life and having a lifelong
impact on him.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing John's instant and
life-saving action, which resulted in a second chance for his fellow man.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize a true Newfoundland and Labrador champion. At
the age of 66 years, Bramwell Churchill has risen to the top of his game of golf
and he has represented this province with pride and spirit.
Originally from Portugal Cove, Mr. Churchill now calls Port Blandford home,
where he practises faithfully at the Terra Nova Golf Resort. Since 2002,
Bramwell has focused his interests and his success on the Long Drive Division.
For 14
years, he has been a member of Team Canada and Bram has travelled extensively
throughout Canada, United States, Jamaica, Mexico, Dominican Republic and the
Caribbean. Among his long list of accomplishments, Bram is a three-time Quebec
and Maritimes Senior Long Drive Champion; three-time Remax Senior Long Drive
Canadian Champion; six-time Senior Long Drive Canadian Champion; and a
three-time International World Senior Long Drive Champion.
He holds
the Canadian Senior Long Drive distance record of 377 yards and his personal
best is 400 yards, 6 inches. In August the
Downhome magazine named Bram Churchill as Canada's Best Long Driver and a
Golf Superstar.
Bravo to
Bramwell Churchill for his sportsmanship and his mastery on the world stage of
golf.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
today to honour the late Mr. Paddy Hickey of Outer Cove. Paddy, who passed away
in January, had a long and interesting life. At the early age of eight, he
worked with his father's fishing enterprise. As a teenager, he worked in a cod
liver oil plant. At the age of 17, he became a truck driver at Fort Pepperell.
Aside
from his five years working in the United States, Paddy spent his a lifetime in
Outer Cove. With his wife Agnes, he operated a small grocery store which served
as the favourite Sunday handout. Paddy spent 20 years of his career with
Government House where he personally assisted visiting dignitaries and royalty.
Paddy
believed that time was a precious asset, a person's word represented an
unbreakable bond and helping your neighbour was to be done without question.
Visiting the sick and attending funerals was one's moral responsibility.
Paddy
would have been 95 this past Saturday. He will be remembered by his family and
friends with love and respect and will be missed. Paddy's gentle nature and soft
smile will be forever present.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in honouring the late Mr. Paddy Hickey.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize the Rotary Club of Waterford Valley and
its work on the Waterford River. The Waterford River flows through Mount Pearl,
St. John's and Paradise. The river has been a priority for the Rotary Club of
Waterford Valley since it was founded in 1977.
Recently, the Rotary Club unveiled the club's completed mobile interpretive
exhibit booth, featuring a specially prepared video designed to heighten the
public's awareness of the river and the challenges it faces. The club is
planning to have the booth on display in community buildings, schools and other
public venues.
Spokesperson and long-time Rotarian Sandy Roche stated: We want to make sure
that the vitality of the river is maintained for future generations to enjoy.
Key to achieving that goal is the commitment of, and cooperation amongst, the
three municipal councils involved.
The
three municipalities are coming together to implement a comprehensive baseline
study of the river to determine what is affecting the river's long-term
viability. The study is now underway and should be completed this summer.
Honourable Members of this House, please join me in thanking the Rotary Club of
Waterford Valley for the tremendous work it's doing to protect the Waterford
River.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, when life hands
you lemons, some people choose to make lemonade. This statement couldn't be
truer for the residents of Champney's West who just celebrated their 25th
anniversary performances of their annual variety concert.
Started
in 1992, as a way to lift community spirits in the wake of the cod moratorium,
the Champney's West Recreation Committee and Friends have been performing for 25
years. Not just for their own community but for far and wide. This event which
features a number of skits and musical performances, welcomes all to
participate. Showing true community spirit in all they do, everyone from the
community pitches in whether they're nine or 90.
In 1992,
it cost a dollar for admission because nobody had any money. Today, it costs
$15, with the money invested back into the community.
On March
24 and 25, standing-room-only crowds packed the recreation hall. I was fortunate
enough to attend on the 24th and certainly wasn't disappointed. In fact, I was
recruited to hand out diplomas during the prom skit and cut loose to Footloose
as we exited the stage.
To all
those who have contributed to making this event successful year after year, I
say bravo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
District of Mount Pearl Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous success which
was the 35th Annual Frosty Festival in the City of Mount Pearl.
Once
Again, this year's festival included various activities for citizens of all ages
and interests, including: an opening extravaganza The Circle of Life by TaDa!
Events; an outdoor parade of lights; a sold-out concert at the Glacier,
featuring Newfoundland's own Shanneyganock, along with The Fables and Celtic
Connection; two community breakfasts; an Irish pub night; a lip sync contest; a
seniors' bingo; a jiggs' dinner and variety show; a dinner theatre with Spirit
of NL; and a Battle of the Brains trivia night, just to name a few.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm sure you can appreciate any festival of this magnitude would not be
possible were it not for the hard work and co-operation of a number of community
partners. I would therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating the City of Mount Pearl, the Frosty Festival Board of Directors,
the various community groups and organization, the corporate sponsors and all of
the community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great success story which
was Frosty Festival 2017.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you to my colleagues for this leave. Today I would like to recognize two
first-time authors from the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave: Mrs.
Janice Drove of Upper Island Cove and Mr. James Mercer of Bishops Cove.
Janice
wrote a book Miracles Happen,
a story of a tragic event that happened in Harbour Grace in 2010. On August
13, her husband Rendell Drover, a well-known fisherman in the community, was
injured in an industrial accident that nearly claimed his life.
Janice
recalls in detail the weeks and months that followed. Throughout his recovery,
Rendell underwent a series of dangerous medical procedures and lived. There was
a recent community book launch in Upper Island Cove, and the Drover family
dedicated book proceeds to the Children's Wish.
James
Mercer's book also features a true life event, about his great-grandfather and
namesake, James Eliol Mercer, who was brutally murdered in 1883. He died under
mysterious circumstances. which occurred just before his 30th birthday while en
route to Harbour Grace.
The
story of his great-grandfather has withstood the test of time, and James is
pleased to share with the readers the factual and heart-breaking details of the
event, which has been told and retold for over a century in the community of
Upper Island Cove.
Colleagues, please join me in congratulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, next week, Canadians will celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. Constitutionally enshrined in 1982 under the government
of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Charter guarantees rights to all Canadians, such
as democratic rights like the right to vote, legal rights like the right to
life, liberty and security of the person, equality rights to ensure equal
protection and benefit of the law without discrimination, among others.
As
Minister of Justice and Public Safety, and the Attorney General, I consider
myself an ambassador of the Charter. Part of my duty is to ensure that the
rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are protected, and that the
government of this province respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in all
that it does.
Mr.
Speaker, I am committed to ensuring that the system of justice here is fair and
accessible and that it respects and promotes the Charter. Where would this
country be on matters such as same-sex marriage, access to abortion services, or
more recently, medical assistance in dying without the Charter?
In our
first year of government, we have already endorsed Charter values. For example,
with the passing of the Access to Abortion Services Act, we ensured individuals
can attain respectful and private access to legal health services while
respecting the rights of others to protest or express dissent.
The
Charter continues to actively shape the design and interpretation of our laws
and policies and it protects our fundamental freedoms. In this 35th anniversary
year, I believe it is especially important to engage people in this province on
the role the Charter plays in their lives. To that end, we'll be engaging with
people across the province, on social media to start a dialogue about the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We encourage you to participate.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. We join with government
in celebrating the 35th anniversary of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document and a new way forward for Canada,
composed of fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal
rights, equality rights as well as language rights.
While
the Charter was enshrined 35 years
ago, it remains a living document that continues to grow and adjust to the needs
and expectations of Canadians. A recent example of this, Mr. Speaker, is the R.
v. Jordan case one that we've discussed here in the House many times. A
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the traditional framework
used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under
the Charter and have been replaced now
with fixed timelines. We know it's a decision that has impacted the justice
system here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Charter is an important part of our
national pride and our cultural fabric, and it is with good reason that we
celebrate it today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. Thirty-five years ago, women across Canada had to fight to have
gender enshrined in our Charter of Rights
and Freedoms after it had been left out. At home, we lobbied Primer Brian
Peckford. Then I was sent across the country on behalf of the women of
Newfoundland and Labrador to lobby Premier Blakeney in Saskatchewan, and then on
to Ottawa to lobby Prime Minister Trudeau to put women's rights back in the
Charter through clause 29.
A
reminder once again that our rights are never given to us but are hard won. Yes,
let's celebrate, but we must always remain vigilant.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in
this hon. House to congratulate Zoey Davis of Mount Pearl who is this year's
recipient of the Lester B. Pearson Scholarship for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Zoey is currently a level II
student at O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl. She was selected based on her
outstanding academic achievement, her involvement in extra-curricular activities
and her dedicated volunteerism within the community. Zoey has also won awards in
public speaking and drama.
Mr.
Speaker, the Lester B. Pearson Scholarship offers a life-changing opportunity
for exceptional young people and will provide incredible support in helping Zoey
fulfill her long-term goals. The scholarship is valued at $80,000 over two years
for pre-university study in the International Baccalaureate Program at Pearson
College, a United World College in Victoria, British Columbia. The provincial
government contributes $34,000 to the scholarship.
I
congratulate Zoey and hope her time at Pearson College enriches her life,
solidifies the foundations for her academic future and opens doors to new and
exciting opportunities.
Mr.
Speaker, I also congratulate three other students who, on the strength of their
applications and their performance in the selection process, have been offered
and have accepted United World College placements. I am pleased to announce that
Jack Kenny, a level II student at Exploits Valley High in Grand Falls-Windsor,
has been accepted at the United World College of the Atlantic in Wales, United
Kingdom. Manish Benuen, a level II student at Mealey Mountain Collegiate in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, has been accepted at Pearson College, in Victoria,
British Columbia. As well, Andree Gaudet, a level II student at Gonzaga High
School in St. John's, has accepted an offer to attend the United World College
in Changshu, China.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Zoey, Jack and
Manish, as well as Andree, and wish them every success in their respective
studies.
Thank
you, 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.
I thank
the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. On behalf of myself and the
Official Opposition, I am proud to stand and congratulate Zoey Davis of Mount
Pearl for being this year's recipient of the Lester B. Pearson Scholarship for
Newfoundland and Labrador. Zoey's excellence in academic achievements and
dedication to her community are just some of the many qualities that make her a
deserving recipient of this scholarship.
We would
also like to congratulate Jack Kenny, Manish Benuen and Andree Gaudet. I offer
my sincere congratulations to each of them, as well as to their teachers and
families. These dedicated and accomplished young people have a bright future
ahead of them and they are certainly a great source of pride for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement. It is wonderful that
so many of our students such as Zoey, Jack and Manish achieve at such a high
level each year and are worthy of scholarships and placements such as these.
I urge
the Minister of Education to ensure that we continue to have adequate funding
for our educational system to enable it to continue to maximize the potential of
all of our students such as these wonderful people.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
April marks the 60th anniversary of the Canadian Cancer Society's Daffodil
Month.
On
Wednesday, April 5, I had the pleasure of attending this year's launch of
Daffodil Month at Daffodil Place in St. John's. Since it opened in 2009,
Daffodil Place has been a home away from home for more than 4,500 people from
communities throughout our province.
For
decades, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have supported the Daffodil campaign
by making a donation, buying a daffodil pin or flowers and contributing to
research and support. Mr. Speaker, this anniversary not only illustrates a long
history of supporting those in our communities with cancer, but it also
illustrates the giving nature of the many dedicated volunteers in our
communities.
Last
week, I had the honour of meeting Margot Reid, the longest-serving volunteer
with the Canadian Cancer Society in the country, and was pleased to join in the
celebration of her volunteer efforts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Ms. Reid has volunteered for
66 years, having brought the Daffodil campaign to Newfoundland and Labrador over
six decades ago. She has been selling flowers every spring since.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the House to join me today in remembering those in our community
who benefit from the Daffodil campaign, and to offer our sincere gratitude to
volunteers, like Ms. Reid, who give so generously of their time for others.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. I certainly want to
join with the minister in honouring and celebrating the contributions of Margot
Reid, and it's certainly a contribution that is well worth noting in this House.
We join
with government in recognizing this April as the 60th anniversary of the
Canadian Cancer Society's Daffodil Month. The daffodil has long been the symbol
of hope and strength to so many cancer patients and their families. Much like
Daffodil Place has become a landmark in our province, symbolizing care and
support for people dealing with a cancer diagnosis, it is a place of refuge when
someone is in need.
Our
administration was proud to support the Daffodil campaign, Daffodil Place and
the Canadian Cancer Society, and I'm very happy to see that support continue
with this current government. Thanks to all volunteers who make a positive and
lasting difference in the lives of so many. You are really to be commended.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm absolutely delighted to
stand and acknowledge the wonderful work by Margot Reid and the thousands of
others who have promoted the Daffodil campaign.
At the
same time, I remind the government that they have a duty to back up that
wonderful work by making sure that those who are living with cancer do not carry
a heavy financial burden because of the diagnosis and treatment caused by travel
costs and the cost of drugs.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2017 identified $283
million in savings. I ask the minister will you provide today, the House of
Assembly, on where these savings will come from.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the Member opposite for the opportunity to stand up and answer this
question. Last week, Members opposite would have been provided a technical
briefing. In the technical briefing, there was information provided to them.
The
expenses related to this fiscal year, savings of $283 million, come from the
zero-based budgeting work, which yielded $65.9 million. The changes in
management structure inside core government and the regional health authorities
yielded $30.8 million. We also reported savings from extended government boards
and agencies in the tune of $41.9 million. We also had annualized savings from
last year, as well as some accounting benefit that built up that $283 million.
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.
Well,
the budget is a plan and there hasn't been a lot of transparency and details on
the $283 million savings in their plan. So I ask the minister: While you're not
providing details, will you provide more details and specific details to the
House or Members of the House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, for the Member
opposite, I'm surprised actually around the context of his question, considering
that the Opposition chose to remove the officials that were in their briefing
room that could have provided them some details on this question when they were
in technical briefings last week. I don't know why they made that decision but
certainly that was their choice to make.
Having
said that, the Estimates process, which this House will go through in the next
number of weeks, will provide opportunity in this House for a detailed
discussion on the line items that build up the budget. The information that the
Members opposite are looking for, I'm sure they'll get their answers in the
Estimates debate.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much.
Minister, I didn't participate in the technical briefing. Some of your staff sat
in the office with us and they offered to leave so we could have a discussion.
That was my recollection of what happened last week, Minister.
People
of the province care about the details of what was contained in your budget and
there's not a lot: $283 million in savings and there's not a lot of detail;
2016-17 fiscal year, there are public sector jobs that were cut in a number of
rounds and we have asked for updated details on job cuts. The minister has
promised to provide them. We have not received them yet. You provided one about
five or six weeks ago, but we haven't got an updated one.
So I ask
the minister: Will you provide a comprehensive list of up-to-date impacted
positions and their departments that you have cut in 2016-2017?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, if the Members
opposite have questions about the five areas and categories that I have referred
to and our officials referred to in technical briefings, and I have been
referring to publically, I will continue to answer those questions. I will
continue to say that in addition to the zero-based budgeting dollars that we
were able to save, we realized savings through the changes in management
structure. We have savings through extended government agencies of the tune of
$41.9 million.
We have
annualized savings from the program decisions that were made as part of budget
'16-'17 of an additional $68.1 million. We have net savings, including actuarial
calculations and accrual adjustments, of $77 million, Mr. Speaker. The Estimates
will provide the opportunity for further questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well
actually, Minister, Question Period provides the opportunity for further
questions. The question I asked is: Will you provide an updated list of all
impacted positions from 2016-2017? It's a simple question, Minister. Will you
provide the details of that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I fully expect
that when we participate in the Estimates debate and the Estimates discussion
that the Members opposite will ask that exact question and information that we
have available, we will share with the Members opposite. But the suggestion,
albeit subtle or direct, that somehow there is something hidden in a budget that
is presented to this House for budget debate and for Estimates review, quite
frankly, is wrong, and I think is problematic for the Members opposite who
continue to have a habit of creating anxiety, where in fact there is none.
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.
That
from the minister who promised transparency and openness I asked a very simple
question for an updated list, and it's very clear that she is refusing to
provide that to the people of the province and the Members of the House.
So,
Minister, I'll try this. Agencies, boards and commissions were identified and
according to the budget documents there are over $70 million in savings. Will
you be open and transparent in this case and provide some information on the
number of jobs that will be lost as a result of these reductions? Or do you know
what the impact is?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I want to
correct the Member opposite. I did not refuse to answer the question. He
continues to make allegations like that and that has not been my practice in
this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
When we have information that
we can share, we will share it. The Estimates debates, the Estimates discussion
provides all Opposition, just like it provided us in Opposition, the ability to
ask questions that will be answered in detail. They can ask those questions and
answers will be provided.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to correct the Member opposite who said that savings from
agencies, boards and commissions were somewhere in the tune I think the number
he used was 70. I want to more precisely say that it's $41.9 million. As I've
said publicly, when we make operational decisions and our employees are
impacted, we will communicate with them first, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister likes to take her time to point out and make corrections. Well, I'll
make a correction: I didn't say you wouldn't answer the question. I said you
won't provide the information. Your openness and transparency is a failure
because you're refusing to provide the details. That's the problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, Minister, when can
agencies, boards and commissions, and those who work for agencies, boards and
commissions get some details and understanding of what's coming for them in
their significant reductions that they're going to face? When will you be
upfront and open with them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that
the Members in this House can check
Hansard, as I will do, and I'm sure the Member opposite will do. He clearly
indicated that I refused to answer the question, as has been his practice in
this House for the last number of months, and I will not accept that accusation,
Mr. Speaker. He has the right and we will provide the details to the questions
in the Estimates.
The
question he asked just then about agencies, boards and commissions, the CEOs and
the boards that are in place will be reviewing efficiency, they'll be reviewing
the structures, they will be reviewing services they provide, how they deliver
things, and the operational decisions they make will be communicated to their
employees when there are small impacts at that time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Grant
funding that supports sector diversification and innovation in Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation has been cut from $1.3 million last year to just
$155,000 this year a cut of 88 per cent of the budget.
I ask
the minister: What are the impacts of this cut?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd be
delighted to answer the question in more detail to the Member in Estimates and
provide a detailed listing of what the grants and subsidies are appropriated
for.
We had a
carryover last year in the fiscal budget for broadband initiatives of $1.27
million, I believe that was, for the broadband initiatives that were clueing up
over last year. So that can account for a difference.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, it's clear what
the Liberal Party line is today: Wait for the Estimates Committees and then
we'll answer your questions about this mysterious budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I say to this hon. House, people don't want to wait until some
committee meeting three weeks down the road. They want answers today in the
House of Assembly from the minister who's responsible. That's what we're
demanding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
He wouldn't answer that
question, so let me ask another.
Seven
hundred thousand dollars has been cut from regional economic development and
business development, which provides support for regional and community economic
development opportunities.
How will
support for rural parts of this province be impacted by this $700,000 funding
cut?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find
it very ironic to get questioned from the Member opposite about rural
Newfoundland and Labrador and what their plan is for their economic development
initiatives. They were the ones who did not support the RED Boards and cut them
by a significant amount.
When it
actually comes to the cutback for the regional diversification fund that is in
the budget, it was a directive by their administration to cut the budget by
$100,000 every single year for a period of four years, and that is the directive
that they had put forward.
As well
as the initiatives that we put forward, we're being very strategic when it comes
to investments in the rural economy. Whether it be $13 million in tourism
advertising, that's 18,000 jobs in the economy; aquaculture investment, Mr.
Speaker. There are significant investments that are benefiting rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
It's unfortunate that the
minister won't explain any of the cuts to Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation millions of dollars of cuts, when we will be asking more questions.
I now
ask the Minister of Natural Resources: When can the people expect an oversight
report on Muskrat Falls from your government? The last one was released in
December 2015, almost a year and a half ago.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for his question. We've been very methodical and very diligent
on making sure the Muskrat Falls Project is on track. We have a new board of
directors, an expanded and a very stellar board of directors. We have a
world-class CEO. We've made changes to the federal loan guarantee and expanded
it. We've finalized a re-negotiation with Astaldi. All these things add to
methodical and diligent improvements in this project, and really was emphasized
in the last annual general meeting only held a couple of weeks ago.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we also announced that we were adding independence to
the Oversight Committee. We have four incredibly talented volunteers from our
community who have come forward and will add their expertise to the Oversight
Committee and they will continue to advise government and the people this
project (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the
government for strengthening the board of Nalcor and for adding
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
additional expertise to the
Oversight Committee. These are good moves. These are responsible moves, and I
commend government for making them. But the minister today has not answered my
question.
Why has
it not been a priority to provide public updates on the oversight of Muskrat
Falls, as you had committed to do? It's been almost 18 months. I ask the
minister: Why haven't you ensured the open and transparent release of
information related to Muskrat Falls Project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, we have been
truly open and transparent about the Muskrat Falls Project really transparent
about the Muskrat Falls project. We were left with an incredible mess in this
province and we have taken the time over the last 18 months or 16 months that
we've been in office to ensure that we have the incredibly important governance
and the incredibly as the Member opposite said, he applauds us on our efforts
of ensuring this.
The
Oversight Committee has been expanded. They are doing their work. They have been
doing their work methodically and diligently, Mr. Speaker. I'll continue to use
those words because that's what we've been doing. Oversight will continue for
this project. We will continue to make sure the information is public. Mr.
Speaker, I think the people of this province understand the amount of work we've
done to fix their problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear
the minister say that oversight is important, but why not release those
oversight reports? Public reporting is also important when it comes to oversight
of the project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
In 2016-2017, the Royalties
and Benefits division spent $4.5 million on professional services, despite only
having $670,000 budgeted.
I ask
the minister: Can she account for this significant difference?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You're
shifting from the incredibly important Oversight Committee to a very detailed
question on royalties and benefits. Mr. Speaker, the Royalties and Benefits
division of the Natural Resources Department is very active, very engaged with
ensuring the people of this province have the royalties and benefits given to
them by the people who exercise the rights in the offshore oil and gas.
We make
sure the contracts are reviewed. We make sure we do audits on the oil and gas
companies and we've invested some money in ensuring that we have the resources
that we need to ensure that these contracts are upheld. More details obviously
will be coming as we get into Estimates, but we will continue to make the
investments to ensure the offshore oil and gas industries provide the
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, that's the third
minister to stand in Question Period today and say stay tuned for an Estimates
Committee meeting down the road. That's not acceptable to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
Almost
$4 million additional, over budget, was spent by the Royalties and Benefits
division in 2016-2017 on professional services. I'm going to give the minister
another opportunity to answer the question: Why the almost $4 million overrun on
professional services in the Royalties and Benefits division in 2016-2017?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Allow me to correct the
Member opposite. Clearly, he did not hear my answer, Mr. Speaker. I was clear in
saying we were ensuring in the Royalties and Benefits division of Natural
Resources that we held to account the oil and gas companies, making sure that
the contracts that they have signed on to, the royalties and benefits that are
being paid to this province we have to pay lawyers because we go to
arbitration. We have to review the contracts that are being done.
So we
made investments in the department to ensure that people of this province
realize the royalties and benefits that are required under the contracts with
the oil and gas industry. We'll continue to do that because we are diligent.
We're not like the other former PC administration that allowed ballooning
escalation, for example, in the Muskrat Falls Project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
Budget Speech your government committed to a tuition freeze at Memorial
University and the College of the North Atlantic. Does the minister still stand
by that commitment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you for the excellent
question. What an excellent opportunity to highlight what we're doing as
investments not only in post-secondary education, but in maintaining a tuition
at the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University of Newfoundland. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Speech we outlined that $56 million will be
invested specifically to maintain a tuition freeze for Newfoundland and Labrador
students both at MUN, and an additional almost $11 million for the College of
the North Atlantic.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, just put this in perspective for a little bit: $56 million for the
tuition freeze is more financial assistance, government assistance, taxpayer
assistance, than what the Government of Nova Scotia provides to Acadia
University or to StFX.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MUN
President Gary Kachanoski said that an $11.9 million cut to its operating grant
is more than double what was expected. Was there any analysis done of the impact
that the $11.9 million cut would have to MUN?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Excellent question, Mr.
Speaker, and an excellent opportunity to highlight the fact that analysis
provides us with a lot of information, a lot of data. We think of tuition as
being a cost of an education, a university education. In fact, it's really not
the cost; it's an input of revenue. But there are also other revenue items, for
example subsidies from taxpayers.
In
Canada in costs, on average, about $19,000 for an undergraduate education per
student, per year; in Newfoundland and Labrador, it costs about $31,000. So
there's a real, real difference here. We feel that through efficiencies at
Memorial University of Newfoundland, that the tuition freeze can be maintained
while a top, top-quality education is maintained in the process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So I
take from that there was no analysis done.
Did you
consult with the university prior to making your announcement regarding the
tuition freeze and were they confident that they could stay within the budget
you were providing them to ensure the tuition freeze existed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, what an
excellent question and what an excellent opportunity for me to highlight the
fact that yes, we did consult with the university in advance. We consulted with
the president and senior stakeholders, but as the president did indicate which
is always the case it is the Board of Regents which will decide the course of
business, the final decision making of the university. They'll be bringing that
information back to the board.
At $56
million to maintain a tuition freeze at Memorial University of Newfoundland, I
am very, very confident that the university's Board of Regents will have the
resources to maintain a tuition freeze for Newfoundland and Labrador students.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
When looking at the Estimates
documents they reveal that the division which is responsible for the delivery of
essential services to children, youth and their families has been cut by over $3
million from $132 million down to $129 million.
I ask
the minister: How will this cut impact services for our most vulnerable?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, this government
takes the protection of children and youth very seriously. We have seen too many
times in the past where children have been in harm's way because of inaction on
someone or another's part. We are doing the best job we can to make sure those
incidents never happen again in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So it's
vital that we protect children and youth interests. As the Minister of Finance
has said numerous times now, when we have Estimates Committees and there will
be hours and hours and hours of time provided to ask detailed questions such as
the Member's the Member will get an answer to this question and any other that
she has through the Estimates process.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
A whole lot of openness and
transparency going on here.
We are
also shocked, Mr. Speaker, to see in
Budget 2017 to discover that the Disability Policy Office was cut by $50,000
in this budget.
What
programs and services will be reduced or cut as a result?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the rights of
people with disabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador is extremely important to
all Members of the House of Assembly, regardless of what side of the House
Members sit on. We have made commitments to people with disabilities over the
course of the election campaign in 2015, and we intend to keep those
commitments.
I
encourage the Member to stay tuned to the legislative process for that. There
are many good things that are going to be announced for people with disabilities
as we continue to move along to a more inclusive Newfoundland and Labrador,
which is really fundamental to moving forward
The Way Forward, the vision for the
province.
As I
previously said in my last answer, the Member will have an opportunity to ask
detailed questions about where money is moved in the Estimates document when we
have those Committee meetings.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated the Liberals will watch every dollar
and eliminate waste.
Does the
minister think spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on free
skiing when people are struggling to get by under the weight of your
government's excessive taxes
?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find
it very ironic that the Member opposite is asking this particular question.
Because when I talked to the former board chair, and other members of the board,
they stated they were held back, they were directed not to run Marble Mountain
like a business, to generate and maximize revenue as a Crown corporation. For
such a pristine provincial asset, 12 years of neglect and failed outcomes when
it comes and I said last week that Marble Mountain was not living up to its
full potential as a provincial asset, and it certainly can.
The
Auditor General's report of 2012 highlighted numerous problems, but they failed
to act and get the results they needed to. As well, they invested $4.6 million
of taxpayers' money because the insurance program wasn't up to date enough to
cover the cost. So they wasted taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South for a quick question, no preamble.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I say to the Minister of AES, the champion of free ski giveaways at
Marble, why not
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to get to
his question.
MR. PETTEN:
introduce this type of
promotion at the beginning of ski season and not at the end?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education Skills and Labor.
MR. BYRNE:
I think the question was why
didn't we introduce the promotion at the beginning of the season as opposed to
it at the end. Well, Mr. Speaker, we did respond to the fact that the hill
customers were very dissatisfied, very frustrated, that there was a decision to
close the hill while ski conditions appeared to be probably in the best
condition that they have ever, ever been in a very long time. Notwithstanding
all of that, we are promoting the hill. They never.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we
tried to get the Minister of Finance to tell the people of the province
important details about her budget that she did not include in the Budget
Speech. Today we will continue to try to get answers on the record in this House
for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so they can get the whole story.
Schedule
III attached to last week's Budget Speech showed a drop of more than $400
million in salaries and employee benefits. I ask the Minister of Finance after
adjusting for one-time items and previously announced management layoffs, what
is the net reduction in funding for salaries and employee benefits?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the number that
the Member opposite is referring to is a reflection of the consolidation of
salaries and benefits across government, as she referenced, and it is obvious
that she left officials in her technical briefing.
As she
rightly referenced, there are some one-time numbers that impact that 416, which
she referenced. In addition to that, there would be the numbers that were
reflective of the decisions that were made in last year's budget. There are no
reflections in that line item related to decisions that have yet to be made
around small operational changes that may result in the work were doing in
The Way Forward, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, what I'm asking the minister is to tell this House how much money
is going to have to be spent and how many public employees will have to be laid
off in order to achieve the amount of savings that she's not even telling us.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I met with, last
week, union leadership for our public sector unions, and I shared with them, in
advance of the budget, our position as a government that this budget would not
reflect massive layoffs, and that's exactly what the budget reflects.
The
number that the Member opposite is referring to is from and including a large
number that relates to actuarial calculations, as she is aware. There is nothing
in the budget that is about hiding massive layoffs. I would suggest that the
Member opposite may want to consider the fear mongering that she is perpetuating
and anxiety levels inside public sector employees.
We are
having a discussion with our unions and we will continue to have this discussion
at the table.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the people of
the province want fair and open and transparent answers. The minister was unable
or reluctant to answer questions in the House yesterday on the forecasted
unemployment rate for this province.
I ask
the minister: Would she stand and tell the people of the province the projected
unemployment rate for 2021, and explain why that rate will grow so much over the
next five years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question from the Member opposite. As many people in this
province understand, we have seen a significant shift in our economy. Our
economy is in transition, coming off of and moving through the conclusion of
several major megaprojects in a population that is the size of just over half a
million. That's a significant transition.
Our
government is focused on improving employment numbers. We have done that though
the $3 billion infrastructure plan, which will create the equivalent of 43,000
positions on an annual basis. We have done that through
The Way Forward targets which will contribute in excess of 9,000
positions or equivalents over the next number of years once we achieve those
targets. We are very much focused on employment in our province.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker,
Budget 2016 took a heavy toll on many Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. Budget documents point to a 3.2 per cent reduction in average
household income for this coming year.
I ask
the minister: How does she expect the economy to recover when people are
suffering, their incomes are declining, and all but one of the taxation measures
from Budget 2016 remain in effect?
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 asking the question today, again, that she referenced
yesterday. I want to correct her, though, because the assumption that she's
presenting to this House is actually inaccurate. If she looks at the household
disposable income that was forecasted last year, for fiscal '17, and the number
that's forecasted this year, it actually went from $16.5 million in income for
households up to $17.1 million, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
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.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
response to a request by the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi in this
House on April 5, I rise today to table information on the benefits and
cost-sharing arrangement associated with BizPal. Based on a calculation by the
staff in Service NL, it estimates a savings for Newfoundland and Labrador
businesses of some $4,400,000 per year, Sir. So I table that document today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further 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 the 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 rise, yet again, to present a petition that has been signed by people
all over the province about this very regressive tax on books that makes no
sense. I'd like to just come back again to some of the clauses in this
particular petition, because they really tell the story.
The tax
on books will go from 5 per cent, which is federal tax, to 15 per cent again,
the only province in the country, even though we have the highest illiteracy
rate, the growing highest unemployment rate in the country. So that's going from
5 per cent to 15 per cent.
It's
saying also that a tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
bookstores. We've had book sellers who've told us that. In fact, people are
ordering online because for some of the booksellers online, they aren't charging
the provincial sales tax. Although they are required to do so, they aren't doing
it.
So it's
an unfair advantage, and an unfair, extra burden on our local booksellers. We
all know everywhere in the province how hard it is for local booksellers, and
how important it is for local booksellers how important it is to have local
bookstores where people can browse, where people can take their kids to look
through books, where adults can look through books. We know how important that
is, but they're having a hard time.
Publishers are telling us that. Publishers are telling us they're not going to
be able to take the risk on new authors that they have been able to because of
the imposition of this tax creating a heavier burden for them. It flies in the
face of reason, Mr. Speaker. It absolutely flies in the face of reason.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
there has been an identified lack of mental health services in our province's
K-12 school system; and
WHEREAS
this lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and
WHEREAS
left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious
issues;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs
in our province's K-12 school system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we've often talked in this House of Assembly, particularly in recent
years with the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, of the
seriousness of mental health issues. We often talk in this House of the
importance of our children and how they are the future.
In terms
of mental health, if left unchecked, children will carry mental health issues
throughout their entire lives. We feel it is of critical importance to ensure
that early intervention can and does take place. The school system, Mr. Speaker,
is the ideal place for this to happen.
In many
of the presentations that we were fortunate to receive during the all-party
consultations on mental health and addictions, this issue was raised over and
over and over again. While we recognize that there are challenges with respect
to fiscal restraints in this province, we also know that money is forthcoming
from the federal government for mental health and we have to make priorities. We
think increasing the budget for mental health services in K-12 will have
benefits for centuries to come, and we call upon government to seriously
consider it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
honoured to rise in the House today and present the following petition.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
infertility is not an inconvenience; it is a disease of the reproductive system
that impairs the body's ability to perform the basic function of reproduction;
and
WHEREAS
infertility affects men and women equally; and
WHEREAS
treating infertility is excessively expensive and cost prohibitive; and
WHEREAS
infertility impairs the ability of individuals and couples to conceive children
and begin to build a family;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to implement a program that assists individuals
and couples, allowing them access to affordable in vitro fertilization services.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, there are some programs to support couples and individuals dealing with
fertility issues in our province. There are programs that exist through Eastern
Health, but for quite some time there have been families calling on government
to do more and to provide some services that are not offered here but are
offered elsewhere, often at great expense to families in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I was
contacted recently by a constituent who wanted these concerns brought to the
House of Assembly and asked me to present a petition in that regard. So rather
than provide my own commentary today on that petition, I'd like to share some of
her words with this hon. House.
She's
writing about concerns we all have about getting IVF coverage in the province: I
feel like fertility is something that is taken for granted by most people and
taboo for those who actually go through it and, because of this, it is not
talked about. Everyone will go to the fertility clinic, get their test
procedures and try to forget about it. I think it's about time that people start
looking at the clinic as a relief and exciting experience, knowing that finally
there will be a solution.
The last
thing that should influence a person's emotions and decision making at the
clinic is finances. No one should have to remortgage, take out a loan or sell
the things we have worked so hard to get. Most people are worried about saving
money for maternity leave, when people with fertility issues have to owe so much
money from the beginning.
I feel
like I shouldn't complain about something unless I'm going to do something to
help solve the problem, so that's why I'm contacting you. I think it's about
time the government actually start something that the rest of the country can
look up to, instead of merely following along. Why wait until every other
province offers fertility treatment? I think that we should join Ontario and
Quebec and cover fertility treatments. I am willing to give out a petition if
you're willing to present my concerns.
Today,
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, I know I'm running
out of time. This is an important issue. It affects many families in my district
and districts across the province. I look forward to discussing it further in
the House of Assembly in the weeks ahead.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
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 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;
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, there are so many issues that people on the autism spectrum have to
face. A key one is that youth and adults with autism who have an IQ of 70 or
more are not eligible for services offered to people with intellectual
disabilities. So the only thing this recognizes is saying that if you have an IQ
of above 70, basically you're not on the spectrum. We know that's not true; many
people with autism who are IQ 70 or above need services such as job coaches,
life coaches, caregiver respite, just as much of those who have an IQ under 70.
What's needed, Mr. Speaker, is a functionality test, not an IQ test, that
measures social interaction and self-care abilities.
There's
been work done at the School of Social Work here at Memorial University and
their research has shown what the impact of this rule is. They found that this
barrier, only giving services to people with IQs under 70, has had serious
heart-breaking impacts. People with autism have suffered isolation and inability
to realize their potential. Families have shouldered enormous burdens of care.
Successive governments in this House have promised to eliminated the IQ 70
eligibility criterion for people with autism. It is in the current Health
Minister's mandate letter, but nothing has changed. It's time for action and an
update from government. To continue with this rule, or this criterion, is to
continue ignoring the needs of so many people in this province.
When one
is on the autism spectrum, Mr. Speaker, there are so many elements to what that
means. Very often you will have somebody who is extremely intelligent but who
has a real disability when it comes to social interaction; when it comes to
mixing with other people; when it comes to growth as an individual in every way,
not just intellectually, Mr. Speaker.
I really
urge this government to listen to the people who have signed this petition, to
listen to the people who are ADS and to listen to the people who care for them
and to change this criterion.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
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
government recently cut vital funding to many of the province's youth
organizations; and
WHEREAS
the cuts to grants to youth organizations will have a devastating impact on the
communities, as well the youth and families; and
WHEREAS
many of these organizations deeply rely on what was rightfully considered core
funding for their day-to-day operations;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate funding to the province's youth
organizations immediately.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had an opportunity to speak to this a number of times but, more
importantly, I had an opportunity to speak to a number of youth organizations
who have been affected by the dramatic cuts that were implemented last year but
announced six months later, at a time when most of these organizations had
already committed that part of the funding that they had taken forever and a day
as being core funding. So not only did they now have less money, they'd already
spent money, had to readjust their budgets to make up for lost revenue, and then
also absorb the full cost of the impact on the cuts. Some was up to 60 per cent
of the core funding.
Move
forward, five months later, we're into it again, where that same 60 per cent cut
is no longer part of their budget lines. So they're now really struggling in a
lot of cases to find ways to adjust and provide the services that are very
valuable to the people of this province, particularly the young people.
Inherent
in our society is that government has a responsibility to support, particularly
agencies that go out of their way to enhance education, social inclusion,
healthy well-being, physical health. All these are important components of what
we do in our society and what we're responsible for.
From a
business point of view, when we have an organization that can leverage four to
five times as much money for programs and services than we invest, then that's a
good business plan. If you add into that that government would be responsible
for providing those same services at a much higher cost, you now look at it and
you've got a dual benefit for having a partnership developed with organizations
such as Boys and Girls Clubs or Big Brothers Big Sisters, or Scouts and Guides
or all the youth organizations who do valued work out there for providing these
type of services.
We've
talked about things around mental health. What better organization to deal with
some of the mental health issues in our society than youth organizations who
have professionals who are trained around the focus of inclusion and ensuring
that young people get the best provided service possible? So this in itself is
an inherent ability for government to partner with organizations who, in a lot
of cases, have provincial bodies that oversee what they do and support it, have
national bodies and, in a number of cases, international organizations that
support that.
You have
a wealth of knowledge. You have people from various backgrounds, from education
backgrounds, from social work backgrounds to health backgrounds helping design
programs and services that we can avail of and use for the people of this
province.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this again and show that the
investment that should be made is a benefit to all taxpayers in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
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, from the Order
Paper, I would call Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity to rise again today, this time to speak to the
budget. The motion that we're actually debating today, that the House Leader
just referred to, it reads: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy
of the government.
It won't
come as a big surprise to Members opposite that I do not support the general
budgetary policy of this current government. I know that upsets some. Although I
will point out before I get into my more serious remarks today that the
Government House Leader and I do agree on a couple of things. For instance,
we're both thrilled that the Montreal Canadiens have made the NHL playoffs again
this year. Believe it or not, I'm also pleased that the Toronto Maple Leafs has
made the playoffs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
I am pleased because my
father is a Leafs fan. We've watched a few games together this season. I think
it's good for hockey, good for Canada, and good for the sport to have the Leafs
back in the playoffs. So good luck to both teams and we'll see the Leafs on the
golf course after they face the Capitals probably, but we'll see.
I have
an opportunity today to speak to a number of issues and before I dive into the
budget, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Throne Speech. I haven't had an
opportunity yet to speak to the Throne Speech. I didn't feel there was an
urgency to speak to the Throne Speech because we'll have a chance to reply to it
throughout this calendar year. I didn't feel there was a lot new in the Throne
Speech. I didn't feel that there was actually a lot to talk about, and let me
explain a little more about why that is.
We
actually saw lots of rhetoric and buzz words in the Throne Speech; words like
complete, develop, outline, advance, focus, collaborate, leverage, but it was
extremely, extremely vague on details. There was a great deal about the past,
which this government loves to focus on. There was a great deal about the
actions that the previous administration had taken in energy development; that
the previous administration had taken in health care, in multi-year
infrastructure funding, in long-term care and in violence prevention.
Mr.
Speaker, what we didn't hear about in the Throne Speech a few weeks ago was
what's to come, what's the vision, what's the plan, what are the ideas and the
solutions that are going to move Newfoundland and Labrador forward. And that's
what the people in Newfoundland and Labrador are crying out for.
They've
had enough of the rhetoric and politics as usual, and certainly they've had
enough of this Liberal government's obsession with the past. We've now got a
government that's been in office for a year and a half. They're in the second
year of their mandate. They'll soon be halfway through their mandate and it's
time to lead; it's time to govern.
So let's
talk about the future, let's talk about the present and let's talk about what's
to come to move Newfoundland and Labrador forward. What we saw in the Throne
Speech was a speech that was very vague, full of intentions, short on details.
Some of the buzz words leave people to wonder if they are, in fact, covering
cuts that are to come. That was reflected in the Budget Speech as well, which
I'll get a chance to speak to this afternoon.
In fact,
the tone was quite clear from Question Period today. We saw at least four
Cabinet ministers stand and say wait until the Estimates debate. We don't need
to answer your questions now. We don't want to reveal details about what's
actually contained in the budget and what the impact will be. Wait until an
Estimates Committee meeting three or four weeks down the road.
Now, the
people of the province, for the most part, won't have an opportunity to see the
Estimates proceedings. They may choose to read
Hansard or listen online. Those opportunities are available.
However, they won't get the same kind of attention that happens when you ask
questions of ministers in Question Period. So that general theme today among
Cabinet ministers of wait until Estimates and you can ask your questions there
when the people of the province are not watching, for the most part, that's
really unfortunate and it causes people to wonder what's being hidden.
I think
the general reaction to the budget has very much been: Well, thank God it wasn't
worse than last year. Well, it may not have been much worse than last year, but
it certainly wasn't any better. I think as we go through the Estimates process
that will become more obvious. I hear the catcalling from Members opposite. The
fact remains that of the 300 new taxes and levies and fees that were introduced
in last year's budget, only one of the 300 was partially adjusted in this year's
budget.
It's
pretty well the same budget. They've improved their communications. They've
fired some people in the Premier's office and replaced them a couple of times, I
believe. Yet their general communication strategy seems to have improved. The
budget was certainly packaged better than last year's, but it wasn't actually a
budget that was very different from the year previous.
So back
to the Throne Speech, let's talk about what was not said and what was not
covered. There were a number of omissions that really jumped out at me. One was:
Where was the attention to Labrador, which appeared to be thrown in as an
afterthought? Where is the generic royalty regime, which
The Way Forward promised to deliver, which was actually
completed in 2015 by the previous administration? Where was the reference to
Mistaken Point, which just achieved UNESCO status? Something that we're very
proud of I know the Member for Ferryland, my colleague, the Opposition House
Leader, is quite passionate about and Members of my caucus and I think even
Members opposite would attest to that.
Where were the specifics in the Throne Speech related to
inclusion, which is a huge issue for teachers and for parents and for students
in our province? Where are the references to growing rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, which seems to be ignored in the Throne Speech and again in the
budget?
There are many references to aquaculture, but what about
the fish processing sector? There were references, which I was quite pleased to
see, related to the All-Party Committee report on mental health and addictions.
As I've said many times, and I'll say it here again this afternoon, I believe
that the current government and future governments will move forward on those
recommendations all 54 of them in the All-Party Committee report on mental
health and addictions. So a $5 million commitment in this year's budget is a
start, but there's a lot more work to do. In a $3 billion health care system, $5
million I know, for a fact, doesn't go very far.
Where
was the commitment to social policy? There were very vague references in the
Throne Speech. Overall, Madam Speaker, where is the foundation for hope and
confidence? People want a vision. They want a plan.
The Way Forward doesn't provide it. The document that has been
released this year by the Liberal administration doesn't provide the hope and
confidence that our people are looking for. There is a trust issue, given the
broken promises from the 2015 Liberal election platform. People want leadership.
They want a vision, they want a plan, they want hope and they want confidence.
We didn't see it in the Throne Speech a few weeks ago. We didn't see it in the
budget last week.
There
were phrases and oversights in the Throne Speech that really make us wonder if
there are more cuts coming: cuts to the College of the North Atlantic; cuts to
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing because we believe there is a major
restructuring coming, based on numerous reports that we have received. There may
be an end to the tuition freeze at Memorial University and College of the North
Atlantic. We raised the issue in Question Period today. The Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island asked questions today specifically about that
issue and recent comments made by the president of Memorial University.
We had a
speech that was full of buzz phrases that do leave people concerned. We will do
better with less, was one of the lines used. We heard it again in the budget
last week. That reminds us of a statement way back by the current Premier when
he indicated that nurses should be working harder. The simple concept of we will
do better with less is not a fiscal policy, and it's not a vision that is going
to propel Newfoundland and Labrador forward.
We also
saw statements like: We are not seeing sufficient return on investment. That
does cause concern. I don't necessarily disagree with the statement. We should
be maximizing the benefit of our resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are
asset-rich. If you look at the assets in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are a
very wealthy and prosperous place, and we need to realize the potential of those
assets. So to see sufficient return on investment makes sense, but when
government says it without backing it up, it causes people to wonder what's
coming.
Flatter,
Leaner Management Structure: On the surface, I'd say that's not a bad thing
either. A more efficient approach to the delivery and management of government
services is a good thing. But the devil is in the details in this instance,
Madam Speaker, because we're talking about people's lives. We're talking about
the lives of people who depend on government programs and services and utilize
government programs and services.
We're
also talking about the thousands of dedicated women and men in our province who
deliver those public services and what impact some of these changes has on them.
We need to do government differently. We need to be smarter about how we deliver
government programs and services, so a Flatter, Leaner Management Structure on
the surface sounds like a good thing. Making sure we get good return on our
investments is a good thing. But what does government really mean and where is
the plan to support those statements?
There
were some very political statements near the beginning of the Throne Speech,
which seemed a little inappropriate, actually. We all in this hon. House have
great respect for His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and to hear political words
being put in the mouth of His Honour, I found a little troublesome and not
necessarily the kind of tone and approach that you like to see in a Throne
Speech. Words about the current government inheriting problems and placing
political blame; words about facts being hidden from people. That's not
leadership.
People
are growing incredibly tired of the blame game. There's been no government in
the history of this province that has made every decision correctly. I would
argue that during I was around for two-thirds of our previous administration
and I saw lots of good things happen. I saw lots of decisions made and
investments made that improved our province's position overall and made it a
better place today than it was 15 years ago.
But
that's not to say that every decision was perfect. There are things that I would
absolutely do differently if I had supreme power and was in a position to do so,
and we need to learn from the past and make sure we have a solid plan for the
future. That's what's required. That's leadership. We've seen a real lack of
that from this government.
The
government may be trying to politicize every other office of government, and
we've seen tons of political appointments, even in the most senior office of the
civil service, as with the Clerk of the Executive Council. When I saw the
Liberal government politicizing the Throne Speech and politicizing the words
coming out of the mouth of the Lieutenant Governor, I felt it was a little bit
too far, Madam Speaker, and I feel the need to highlight that during my time
this afternoon.
There
were many references to collaborating with the federal government and
leveraging, but no references to the broken promises on the $400 million
fisheries investment fund, or Ottawa's failure to deliver fairness on
equalization, and the province's refusal to fight for it when other provinces
are getting amounts of funding that would completely change the challenges we
face.
Let me
elaborate on that, because I've talked a lot about equalization and I've had one
of our province's MPs publicly attack me and some of my statements on the issue.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that Newfoundland and Labrador should build a
plan for the future that's based on being dependent on Ottawa. Nothing could be
further from the truth. In fact, with all the resources we have, it is entirely
possible that we can get back on the path towards prosperity and self-reliance
and we can be sustainable. We have lots of assets that can make this province
sustainable for generations to come, and that's what our focus should be on.
But we
need some help along the way. We have a very resource-dependent economy, and
there has been lots of great work done over the years to diversify the economy
and to pursue other industries, ranging from the tech sector to ocean
technology, the knowledge-based economy. We've seen huge growth in tourism. Our
fishery remains a very viable sector in Newfoundland and Labrador and continues
to do a lot of great things, particularly in rural communities. There are lots
of good things happening that we should be excited about.
What we
have right now is a cash problem. We don't have an asset problem; we have lots
of wonderful assets that can lead to a very prosperous future for Newfoundland
and Labrador. We definitely have a cash problem; we have a spending problem.
Now, in
the final years of our administration, government spending was curbed and we
actually reduced the size of the public service, which obviously is unfortunate
for those that are impacted by that, but we have to be responsible and live
within our means, no doubt. So we had an attrition plan that we were
implementing, and it was working, that would have resulted in many young people
keeping their jobs within the public service, holding on to lots of that next
generation of talent which we so desperately need to continue revitalizing and
renewing the public service. I feel that would have been fairly effective in
helping manage some of the fiscal challenges that we face. Nonetheless, there's
more work needed to reduce government spending.
Now we
see a budget this year where the spending in this year's budget that we're
currently debating on the floor of this House, the spending level is actually
higher than the budget of 2015, two years ago. The spending limit is higher, so
we felt all this pain of 300 new taxes and fees and levies and threats to close
libraries and new taxes on books and gas and insurance, things that have
affected virtually every family in Newfoundland and Labrador I think most
people would understand the need for us to take our share of the burden in order
to move Newfoundland and Labrador forward and to position us for success, but
that's not what's been done here. Everybody is feeling the pain, while this
government increased spending.
Last
year, we saw an increase in taxation and an increase in spending, and this
year's spending levels are higher than they were in 2015. So the current
government, the government that's been responsible for the last year and a half,
has not tackled the tough issues. If it wasn't for $500 million of additional
oil revenue this year, we would have a real challenge. We see no vision, no plan
and, therefore, people have no confidence that things are going to get better.
That's
really disheartening. It's really disheartening when I talk to young people who
are now planning to move away because they don't feel there will be
opportunities for them here in the next number of years. We have entire families
that are uprooting and moving elsewhere. It may be many, many years before they
return, if they ever return at all. There was so much work done to bring people
back here, to give people a reason to be hopeful, to give people opportunities
to raise a family here, like I'm choosing to do, and build their futures here.
That's
what everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador wants. We are a people that place an
incredible value and importance on family; that's who we are. This budget and
the lack of appropriate fiscal and economic policy by this government threaten
that. It threatens our way of living; it threatens the quality of life for
families. I'm not just talking about low-income families. I'm talking about
middle-class families; I'm talking about all families in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
So when
I talk about issues like equalization and the fisheries investment fund and the
fact that we're not getting our fair share, we are asset-rich but we have an
immediate problem now due to some exceptional circumstances, Madam Speaker, was
the point that I wanted to make exceptional circumstances, relatively
short-term, that create a major challenge for the prosperity and the viability
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It
doesn't have to be this way. This year, the Province of Nova Scotia will receive
$1.7 billion in transfer payments from Ottawa. This year, in 2017, the Province
of New Brunswick will receive transfer payments of $1.7 billion from Ottawa.
This year, in 2017, the Province of Quebec, while cutting taxes, reducing fees
and actually still running a deficit I believe I'm not certain on that fact,
Madam Speaker; I'm certain on the previous two facts. They will receive a
transfer payment of $11 billion from the federal government.
So I'm
not saying let's be dependent on that source of revenue forever, but I'm saying
let's recognize the exceptional circumstances that we find ourselves in. There's
not an economist in this province, in the country, that predicted that oil was
going to bottom out at $27 a barrel. It would be great to get to a point where
we're not so dependent on oil revenue, but the reality is that today we have a
great dependence on oil revenue. There have been great efforts made to diversify
the economy and that needs to continue. And we will get there. I believe we will
get there, and there's a way to get there.
But to
simply ignore reality and say, well, we just got to take what we're given, cap
in hand, and be happy to receive whatever we receive, while other provinces get
their fair share if we were getting comparable treatment to Nova Scotia or New
Brunswick let's leave Quebec aside for a moment. If we were getting comparable
treatment to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick when it comes to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
transfer payments from
Ottawa, we essentially wouldn't have a deficit. We would not have a deficit. Our
short-term cash problem, our short-term spending problem, there is a solution,
and the burden doesn't have to simply rest with families in this province.
I'd like
to move the following non-confidence motion related to this government and it's
moved by the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island that all words after
that be deleted in the motion before the House, and the following words be
substituted: THEREFORE 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.
Madam
Speaker, we don't have confidence in this government; we don't have confidence
in this government's leadership or their fiscal policy. I must move this
non-confidence motion. It's seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East
Bell Island, and I ask for the House's consideration.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for Mount Pearl North has moved a non-confidence motion and this House
will take a brief recess to consider the motion.
Recess
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Are the
Whips ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker has reviewed the
motion and found it to be in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I
appreciate the wise and considerate ruling and I'm glad to have an opportunity
now to continue my remarks.
For the
purposes of those who may be watching the proceedings, we just moved
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
I can't hear, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
We just moved a
non-confidence motion to suggest that we do not have confidence in the fiscal
policy of the current government and their budget. So this is a matter of
confidence, and that's why we're taking the debate rather seriously, of course.
Just to
conclude where I left off, we have a government now that likes to defend and
apologize for the federal government instead of being an advocate for
Newfoundland and Labrador. The shots being called from somewhere other than the
Premier's office in this province is an approach that we find very, very
concerning.
In my
previous remarks this afternoon, I had an opportunity to talk about the Throne
Speech and the lack of clarity in the Throne Speech and the lack of a clearer
vision and plan to move Newfoundland and Labrador forward. I'd now like to shift
to focusing on this year's budget. A number of words jump to mind when I thought
about this year's budget and what impact it will have on people; what impact it
will have on seniors; what impact it will have on families; what impact it will
have on children and youth; what impact it will have on businesses; what impact
it will have on communities and on our overall economy.
The
Liberal approach that we see outlined in this year's budget, which is really an
extension of last year's budget, very much so, words that come to mind about the
approach include: weaken; the Liberal approach is to tax; the Liberal approach
is to discourage; the Liberal approach is to blame; the Liberal approach is to
panic; the Liberal approach is to cave; and the Liberal approach is to hide.
First of
all, the Liberal approach is to weaken. It will leave people worse off at the
end of this year than they are now. In fact, some of those 300 new taxes and
fees that came in last year's budget only came into effect in 2017. So it's only
in 2017, in this current year, that people and families will feel the full
impact of last year's decisions and this year's affirmation of those previous
bad decisions.
The
Liberal approach is to tax. It fails to connect high taxes with low growth. The
Liberal approach is to discourage. It fails to connect high uncertainty with
poor performance. The Liberal approach is to blame. It blames the PCs, while at
the same time relying on and pointing to PC achievements.
The
Liberal approach is to panic. The Budget Speech included an astonishing
admission about panic. The Liberal approach is to cave. It downloads our woes on
the people instead of fighting for people, instead of standing up for people,
instead of providing leadership and providing a plan and a vision to move
Newfoundland and Labrador forward.
The
Liberal approach is to hide. It hides the details instead of being transparent.
We saw that in Question Period today. From four different Cabinet ministers in
four different government departments, we heard the same response. We're not
going to answer your question but when we have an Estimates Committee, which is
part of the budget process, a few weeks down the road, ask your questions there
and then maybe you'll get a response.
This is
the people's House, Madam Speaker. On days the House is open, we get 25 minutes
to ask questions of government ministers.
AN HON. MEMBER:
On behalf of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. KENT:
On behalf of the people of
the province, absolutely.
For
government ministers, one after another, in the same 25-minute Question Period
today say oh well, you just got to wait until and Estimates Committee, we're not
going to answer detailed questions about our budget now, that's crazy.
We
identified an 88 per cent reduction in grants that relate to sector
diversification and economic development. Other budget lines where other grants
and funding related to business development and economic development,
particularly in rural parts of our province, have been cut substantially and the
response of government is, well, ask the minister about it in Estimates and we
might give you some more detail.
That's
an offensive approach. The amount of arrogance that we saw displayed in that
kind of approach today is really disappointing. The condescending answers from
the Minister of Finance when challenged about the content of the budget, it's
not okay, and people in Newfoundland and Labrador expect better. As an
Opposition, whose job it is to hold government's feet to the fire, we expect
better as well.
So back
to my seven points, the words that jumped to mind the Liberal approach is to
weaken. So if you look at The Economy
document that came out with this year's budget it's on page 7 you can see
what kind of year the Liberals expect we will have, in their second year in
office. Real GDP is forecast to decrease by 3.8 per cent. While other provinces
have turned the corner and are growing, we will decline. That means fewer
opportunities. That means less investment. That means fewer jobs. That means
smaller incomes, and we've seen no plan to address any of that.
Capital
investment is expected to decline by 7.8 per cent. That's the investment that
drives growth. That's investment that drives spinoff opportunities. That's the
investment that drives jobs.
Employment is expected to be down 1.9 per cent from 2016. Employment rates on
this government's watch are plummeting. The unemployment rate is expected to
increase by 0.5 percentage points to average 13.9 per cent. That's on top of the
worst thing that happened in the past year.
Household income is expected to decline by 0.3 per cent due to lower employment
in the province. Retail sales are expected to decline by 0.2 per cent. That's
the sales that enable employers to hire. Because this government has almost
worked hard to eliminate hope and confidence, they have ground the economy to a
halt. Consumers have stopped spending because of the uncertainty that this
government has created around the economy, around their own job prospects and
around their families own futures.
Consumer
prices are expected to increase by 2.9 per cent. That's inflation. It makes it
costlier to live here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The province's population is
projected to decline by 0.5 percent. That's hardly surprising when opportunities
are falling. It's not population growth. We had a Population Growth Strategy. We
still have a lot of work to do; there is no doubt about it.
I, for
one, have been happy to hear the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour talk about immigration as a priority. I believe it has to be a priority,
and it's consistent with the Population Growth Strategy we had in place, but
jobs are important too. Growing the economy is important too.
It is
fine to talk about we need people to come here, and we do the only way to make
Newfoundland and Labrador sustainable and for us to become self-reliant in the
future is to bring more people here and to have more people choose to live here
and stay here. But there has to be jobs. There's no reason for people to come if
they cannot make a living and sustain themselves here and contribute to the
economy. So that has to be the focus. This government is certainly not focused
on job creation when you look at these projections.
Housing
starts are forecasted to decrease by 3.4 per cent. That's an activity that
drives many spin-off industries and supports many jobs, and it's in decline as
well.
These
indicators show an economy that's worsening, not growing, and it's not a good
sign. It doesn't show a government making conditions better. It shows the
government presiding over a shrinking, a worsening, a declining of opportunities
and people's quality of life. At the same time, they're further diminishing hope
and confidence and not providing any kind of vision and plan to move
Newfoundland and Labrador forward. That's not what they promised. It's not what
they were expected to deliver, and I think that's why people are so disappointed
and so angry.
This is
their second budget, approaching two years in office. This is their watch. They
are not turning things around. They are making things worse.
The
second word that comes to mind is tax; the liberal approach is to tax. The lazy
way to make a revenue shortfall is to take money from consumers and employers,
and that's what the Liberals chose to do last year and that's exactly what the
Liberals are choosing to do again this year. This budget is not a better budget;
it's the same budget, the same 300 taxes and fees that were introduced last
year, with an adjustment to one of them.
The
Budget Speech this year states: Our government made hard choices and asked
taxpayers to dig deep into their pockets so we could close the gap between our
revenue and our costs. That wasn't a hard choice for the government; it was a
lazy choice and a misguided choice. Unfortunately, it's left consumers with
fewer choices because they have less income to spend.
Families, consumers, face difficult choices like which bills to pay first and
which important things to do without. Last year, the government raised more than
300 taxes and fees. This year, they are leaving all but one of them in place on
people's backs. The one they're reducing is being only gradually and partially
reduced before they re-impose it in some form in 2018 as a carbon tax.
We had a
robust Climate Change Action Plan and it makes sense to continue to pursue it.
We have to wrestle with the best way to approach tackling climate change and
dealing with the issue of carbon tax. When we look at the impact on people and
families, and this year's budget celebrates slightly reducing the gas tax when
next year we're going to face a carbon tax, it's a little disingenuous, Madam
Speaker.
So when
we hear government celebrate no new or increased taxes that kind of rings a bit
hollow when there's little left that isn't already being taxed at a higher rate
than when the Liberals came to office in 2015.
So let's
revisit the tax announcement that was in the 2016 Budget Speech, so just a year
ago and bear with me while I share some of what we heard last year, keeping in
mind the reason this is relevant is that all of this, with the exception of a
slight reduction to the gas tax, is still in this budget that we're now debating
and that was presented last week by the Finance Minister.
It reads
as follows: A series of new or increased tax measures and fee changes are being
implemented today. During our consultation process, input from Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians clearly pointed to increasing taxes and fees as a way to
address the unprecedented fiscal situation. Total revenue in 201617 will be
$647 million annualizing to $882 million.
Effective April 15, tobacco taxes will increase by one cent per cigarette and
by two cents per gram on fine-cut tobacco products, raising additional revenue
of $5.5 million.
Several
tax changes will take effect July 1, 2016.
To
increase revenues by $204 million annually, it is necessary to increase Personal
Income Tax rates for all income ranges. However, Newfoundland and Labrador rates
remain competitive in Atlantic Canada.
The HST
rate will increase 2 percentage points, generating, on an annual basis
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It's
rather hard to hear today. I know they may not like what I have to say, but it
needs to be said.
So again
quoting from last year's Budget Speech: The HST rate will increase 2 percentage
points, generating, on an annual basis, $224 million.
The
Retail Sales Tax on Insurance Premiums is being re-introduced at a rate of 15
per cent and will generate annualized revenue of $111 million.
The
Insurance Companies tax will increase by 1 percentage point, increasing revenues
annually of $16.9 million.
Effective January 1, 2016, the Financial Corporations Capital Tax Rate and the
general corporate income tax rate, will increase 1 per cent and the
Manufacturing and Processing Profits Tax Credit will be eliminated, generating
additional annual revenues of $31.8 million.
Another
measure our government is implementing is fee changes on an annualized basis,
total fee changes are projected to raise an additional $19.3 million, this
includes the introduction of 50 new fees and the modification of a further 300.
Now, I
won't read the fee changes document from last year's budget because it's 13
pages long, but keep in mind the reason this is so important is that when people
talk about, well, this budget wasn't as bad as we thought, 100 per cent of this
is still in place. Some of it is only coming into effect fully this fiscal year,
with a slight reduction to gas tax later this year.
So it
continues: Temporary tax measures. Our plan will ensure Newfoundland and
Labrador will not face these fiscal challenges forever. That is why, through
Budget 2016, we are implementing some temporary tax measures.
A
Deficit Reduction Levy of up to $900 annually, depending on taxable income will
be implemented. Individuals with a taxable income of $20,000 or less will be
exempt. That levy will come into effect July 1, 2016. Revenue from the temporary
tax will be $74.8 million in 2016-17, annualizing to $126 million.
In 2018
we will begin the phase out of this temporary tax.
Effective June 2, 2016, gasoline tax will temporarily increase by 16.5 cents
per litre. That's more than the reduction that was just announced that's coming
later this year. This tax increase will be reviewed ahead of the Fall 2016
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope
the mic is picking up some of the noise in the Chamber this afternoon. It's hard
to hear myself over here.
This
tax increase will be reviewed ahead of the Fall 2016 supplemental budget. I
note that never even came. This budget was so devastating that government even
shied away from presenting a supplemental budget, as previously committed last
fall.
The tax
rate on diesel products will also increase, by 5 cents per litre and the tax
rate on aviation fuel will go up 1.8 cents per litre. Taxes on Home Heating
fuels will not change. Total projected annual revenue from these measures is
$142.8 million.
I
provide all of that context because it matters. It matters to the people who are
affected by that level of taxation, and it's all still in place. With a minor
adjustment to the levy and a minor adjustment to gas tax that's coming in the
future, it's all still in place. So we have a budget that leaves people in
Newfoundland and Labrador under the crushing burden of taxes. That burden has
actually become worse this year, with some taxes just kicking in. Other tax
hikes could come at the municipal level, as towns struggle to meet the new
formula rules. And we are hearing from municipal leaders from around the
province who have some concerns about some of the changes that have been made.
Money
out of the pockets of consumers is money that they cannot spend to drive local
growth. Money out of the pockets of employers is money they cannot spend to hire
and to invest and to boost competitiveness. So why are retail sales down? Why
are housing starts down? Who has the money? Gas tax, sales tax, book tax, income
tax, the levy, insurance tax and I can go on and on, these things have really
driven up the cost of living for all families, regardless of your income level.
Gas and
insurance tax hikes have driven up the cost of freight and essentials like food.
It impacts people severely. Stores are closing up, from small towns to Water
Street, St. John's. High taxation is a policy that stymies growth at a time when
stimulus is needed. When a government cuts, you want the private sector picking
up the slack. The irony is that when you raise taxes too high, people have so
little left to spend, that tax revenues fail to meet expectations. Revenues fall
short. You can't bleed a turnip.
It's a
general difference of philosophy between Liberals and Tories. Liberals like to
tax and spend, as we saw last year and as we see this again year. Tories see tax
cuts as stimulus. As our revenues grow, we cut taxes, which we did. Liberals
faulted us for abandoning revenue and giving tax breaks we could not afford. We
believe overtaxing is fundamental wrong, and it's bad for the economy and it's
bad for families.
So my
advice to government is, take your hands out of the pockets of people and people
will spend the money they keep. They will drive local growth and generate the
kind of activity we need. That growth will help turn the economy and ultimately
revenues around.
The
Liberal approach is to discourage. Soon after the change in government in 2015,
the Premier and some of his ministers announced a series of initiatives to rein
in spending. People talk about our spending record. Government did grow on our
watch I've said so publicly and there were steps made in the latter years of
our mandate to get that back in line and to reduce the size of the public
service. But if you look at the spending increase that happened during the 12
years of PC government, and the previous 15 years of Liberal administration, the
actual increase in spending was far higher on Liberal watch than it was on PC
watch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
And unlike the Liberal
government, we had a plan. We were reducing the size of the public service. We
did reduce government spending and we did have a plan to reduce the size of the
public service further through attrition. Not through haphazard layoffs, not
through random cuts so you can create space for your Liberal friends, that
wasn't our approach. That didn't happen on our watch, but that's what we've seen
over the last year and a half.
So back
in the fall of 2015, we were warned that it was going to be all doom and gloom,
despite all the election promises of sunshine and rainbows, and a stronger
tomorrow. Since that time, an axe has been hovering over the heads of the entire
public service, and over people who rely on programs and services.
Threats
of tax hikes and other restraint measures have been looming alongside the axe.
In the end, the government did slash many jobs and perhaps more are waiting to
be slashed. In Question Period today, we asked about $70 million of cuts to
agencies, boards and commissions, and the Finance Minister refused to tell us
what those cuts relate to. That's more jobs, that's more families affected, and
that is more impact on government programs and services.
Threats
of tax hikes and other restraint measures have been looming alongside the axe,
and in the end government did slash many jobs, as I said. If you cut 100 jobs,
that's 100 people who no longer have the income to spend. But if you hold the
threat over the heads of tens of thousands of employees, all of whom are
uncertain about what lies ahead for them, then it isn't just 100 people who stop
spending, it's tens of thousands; and therein lies the issue with the lack of a
plan and the secretive nature that we're seeing, wait for Estimates to ask your
questions about the budget, a budget that's going to be devastating for people
and for families in this province.
So
imagine the impact of tens of thousands of the province's employees restraining
spending because of uncertainty about their future. Then imagine what businesses
do when they feel that same chill descending on the economy. Do they hire? Do
they invest? Do they expend or do they put their plans on ice, hold back and
wait?
In a
climate that's been created by the Liberal government of perpetual uncertainty,
the economy ratchets back from growth to suspension and plans are in limbo. In
an economy if you aren't moving forward, you're moving backward and that's the
irony of the Liberal's latest series of documents,
The Way Forward. We're actually slipping backward. We're actually
slipping downward, losing ground that we spent a decade gaining.
We used
to lead the country in economic growth; now we lead the country in economic
decline. A climate of fear and uncertainty is a large part of the reason.
Confidence has been undermined. Fear and apprehension is contagious and it's
toxic for growth. Investors flee from a discouraged economy. They put their
money elsewhere.
Prophecies of doom, Mr. Speaker, become self-fulfilling. People who expect the
worst end up doing worse. There's been no hope or no optimism in our economy
since the fall of 2015. It's been entirely doom and gloom, with threats of more
bad things to come. The climate for growth needs optimism and confidence, which
is entirely lacking. It's been wiped out under the Liberal administration.
So the
next word that comes to mind about the Liberal approach is blame. Their approach
is to blame. It's a mark of immaturity when you spend all your time finding
others to blame for your own challenges and inadequacies and failures. The
Liberals have been in blame mode for so long that they don't know another way to
behave, as you're hearing from the noise opposite this afternoon. Every speech,
every document and even the Throne Speech of all places that the Lieutenant
Governor had to sit in your chair is full of blame.
The
Budget Speech continues and the line is as follows, on page 1: The magnitude of
the fiscal challenge that we inherited cannot be understated. The blame
attitude has become so pervasive that the Liberals have come to believe their
own rhetoric and they've gone nose blind to it, while others are just shaking
their heads. Blame your parents is what teenagers do, not responsible adults
and not all teenagers, I should say.
Even one
journalist who ought to know better got into the blame game on budget day. He
tweeted: NL PCs are like the foxes who ate the chickens and now complain there
are no eggs. It's funny, it's amusing, it got lots of likes and retweets
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
and you can see from the
childish behaviour opposite, but it's not accurate, Mr. Speaker. They don't want
to hear the truth. There were plenty of eggs in this year's budget that came
from the chickens that the Tories
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
cultivated. In fact, if it
weren't
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of volume has escalated to an unacceptable level in the House of Assembly
and I'd ask all hon. Members to take notice and they'll get an opportunity to
speak. Right now, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North has the floor.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That
might be funny, but it's not accurate. There were plenty of eggs in this year's
budget that came from the chickens that the Tories cultivated. In fact, if it
weren't for the goose of Nalcor laying the golden eggs of oil revenue, the
Liberals wouldn't have had anything positive last week to write about.
Tory
investments in the Energy Plan produced the gains the budget was celebrating.
The Premier says Tories were addicted to oil and oil is not a policy, as if oil
is something bad about our economy. But where would we have been in this year's
budget without an oil production and revenue windfall to save the Liberals from
the catastrophe their first budget nearly created? Oil may have just saved the
province from a credit rating downgrade, and I know there are certain political
hopefuls projecting a credit rating downgrade. We will see. Time will tell.
The
budget also finally admits that Muskrat Falls will not double electricity rates;
something that we have said from the very beginning, and now they are finally
admitting it. The CEO of Nalcor is now admitting it. At some point in the
future, people will realize that all the blame and boondoggle talk of the
Liberals about Muskrat Falls was misplaced, and it was actually a sound
investment in our long-term future. Sound environmentally, economically,
fiscally and socially.
In the
meantime, we will acknowledge that the Liberals have started making the slow
turn toward calling the project positive, with all the good things that have
been appearing of late about the project in the Nalcor and the budget documents;
$12 million dollars a week in activity that's boosting our economy, not
depressing it. At some point, we expect hear the Liberals taking credit for the
project, as they do with lots of initiatives that they weren't necessarily
involved in. We don't expect the Liberals to stop blaming us from running the
economy into the ground when, in fact, we did the opposite; when, in fact, all
the economic indicators that I listed previously prove that we did the opposite.
What
about spending the oil revenue windfall, wasting money, driving expenditure
growth beyond the level we could afford? What about health spending exceeding
the national average while delivering some of the worst outcomes in the country?
The facts tell the opposite story.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Before the Atlantic Accord,
we were lagging the country in all measures of social and economic performance.
We were the poor cousins of Confederation. But when we turned the corner, we
decided that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should reap the benefits.
Why should we endure the worst child poverty rate in the country, the longest
health care wait times for health care, large class sizes for our students,
inadequate child protection and so forth? We made poverty reduction a priority
and achieved the country's lowest rate of child poverty within a decade. That
wasn't a waste of money, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We achieved some of the best
health care outcomes in the country, meeting or exceeding national benchmarks in
a number of areas. Now, that's not to say we are doing a great job when it comes
to health outcomes. We have ton of work to do, and one of the things that the
Minister of Health and I wholeheartedly agree on is that we need to get better
outcomes, we need to provide better care for people and we need to get better
value for money in the health care system, no doubt.
As of
September of 2015, when our government was last in office, just to give you a
couple of examples: 87 per cent of knee replacements happened within the
national benchmark time; 92 per cent of hip fracture repairs; 94 per cent of hip
replacements; 96 per cent of cataract surgeries; 98 per cent of coronary bypass
surgeries; and 99 per cent of curative radiotherapy figures from the
minister's own departmental website.
If we
have relatively high health spending costs per capita, it may just be because we
have a relatively old population and the cost of providing health care to those
aged 15-64 in Canada is less than $3,000 per person, but the cost for those over
65 is more than $11,000 per person.
We're
not afraid to talk about our record. We created new spaces for long-term care.
We were also making great gains in student performance. We lead the country in
post-secondary accessibility I suspect we still do.
We made
phenomenal gains in child protection and public protection. These thing cost
money. They drove the hiring of social workers and police officers and teachers
and nurses and doctors, and I don't think any of those things are a waste of
money. Those things cost money, and the Liberals didn't oppose those investments
at the time. In fact, they called for us to do even more.
So we
resisted the call to grow beyond our means and we imposed attrition measures and
other choices to rein in spending growth. At the same time, we continued to
invest in infrastructure, growth industries, rural diversification, research and
development and business attraction. Those things cost money as well.
Some
investments are generators of growth that may produce huge dividends in the end.
Some simply improve people's lives. So which of them do they oppose now? I would
ask Members opposite, which services did your constituents get that they didn't
deserve? Which child should have been in a larger or mouldier classroom or gone
to class hungry? Which senior should have waited longer in an acute care bed
before getting long-term care?
Which
person should have waited longer for surgery? Which person should have gone
without medication? Which child should have been denied social services? Which
families should have had to live in fear for lack of police officers or adequate
firefighting equipment? Which volunteer firefighter should have been denied a
tax credit? Which poor person should have been denied dental care or a health
card when getting their first job? Which woman should have been denied a room at
a shelter? Which district should have tolerated rutted roads?
Which
town should still be breathing smoke from waste incinerators? Which business
should have been denied the investment they needed to expand and create jobs?
Which South Coast aquaculture worker should have been denied a job and a future
at home? Which cranberry farmer should have been denied funding to grow? Which
displaced forestry worker should have been denied assistance to cope with the
loss of a job? Which post-secondary student would you have forced into deeper
debt?
Because,
Mr. Speaker, that's actually what it comes down to. That's not waste. That's not
mismanaged money. It's about services to people; it's about investments in
growing our potential. Our province and people were struggling when we took
office because of years of straggling the country and neglect.
Instead
of kicking the can down the road, we took ownership of the challenge and we
developed a long-term strategy. We had a rolling plan, constantly being updated
with new targets, adjusted to reflect the ever-changing reality of commodity
prices, the ever-changing reality of exchange rates and transfer amounts,
revenue amounts, growth figures and so forth.
Let's
talk about equalization. First, we had to replace the equalization that we
suddenly stopped receiving. That was $10 billion. If the Liberals want an
accounting of how that $10 billion was spent over the last eight or nine years,
then let them tell us first how they spent the $10 billion they got from
equalization every eight to nine years, because it's the same money. Now it's
coming from oil instead of from Ottawa.
Let's
talk about the infrastructure deficit. We took on the infrastructure deficit.
When people talk about wasted money, you need to consider the infrastructure
investments over the last 14 or 15 years. What if we hadn't taken on that
infrastructure deficit? Is there a Member of this House who would volunteer to
say that her or his district's infrastructure investments were money squandered
anybody? I'd highly doubt it, Mr. Speaker. The sum total of those
infrastructure investments on our watch: $6 billion.
Let's
talk about Labrador because we hear the Member for Labrador West who hasn't
been named this afternoon but is continuously squawking, like the Member for
Virginia Waters Pleasantville. Let's talk about Labrador. Let's talk about the
Northern Strategic Plan; some of it is included in the infrastructure envelope.
Because of that $5.5 billion that went to services for Northerners, particularly
Labradorians would anybody say that that money was misspent or wasted? Of
course not; if anything, more was required, which is why we were committed to
doing more in the northern parts of our province and doing more in Labrador.
Let's
talk about pension plan liabilities. The Liberals speak of debt. Well, here's
the debt inherited from the past. Did we take care of our debts? Absolutely,
$3.6 billion to address pension plan liabilities. So that was a large part of
our Atlantic Accord legacy: funded pension plan liabilities.
Let's
talk again about poverty reduction; we invested $1.2 billion. Now, some could
say that's money squandered, I suppose, if you're a heartless right winger who
believes people's poverty is their own fault, but I don't believe that. I don't
believe that for a moment. People in Newfoundland and Labrador, by their
consistent generosity, prove that addressing poverty is absolutely a provincial
priority.
Were we
right to do this? Liberals mocked us, as they are doing today, when we set out
to achieve the lowest rate of child poverty in the country in a decade, but we
achieved our goal and those investments made that possible. How many of those
investments are now on the chopping block?
Post-secondary access, tuition freeze and student aid we have some former
student leaders in our midst. Would they like to speak up and tell us how this
money was squandered, an investment of $350 million? So some people think it was
money poorly spent. We don't, Mr. Speaker. We don't think it was money poorly
spent at all.
We think
our province is stronger because of those investments and our young people's
opportunities are brighter because of those investments. Well, let's talk about
tax relief; $4 billion was invested why? Because people with extra dollars in
their pockets tend to spend a lot of it locally, driving growth in their local
communities. So some people don't believe in tax relief, but our people bore
high taxes for generations and the relief was a welcome relief.
Let's
talk about public service investments: $1.5 billion; some of this was salaries
and some of it was new positions, but it was also about smaller classrooms and
more social workers and more police officers and shorter wait times for medical
treatment.
We were
a province in deep disparity, so obviously when you make up ground, the rate of
spending growth is going to be high. So you have to decide: Are we content to
live in disparity forever or, when we reach special gains, should we invest some
of those gains in reducing the disparities of services that our people endure?
We
believed in spreading the benefits of our oil wealth to people, to people who
serve, by providing fair wages and benefits, and by the people who are served by
providing a higher standard of services. It isn't money wasted, Mr. Speaker,
when it enhances the quality of life in our communities and makes them better
places to live and better places to raise families.
Tax
relief stimulated growth. Tuition relief stimulated growth. Business and
innovation investments stimulated growth. Poverty reduction helped people
achieve personal self-reliance. Pension plan investments addressed our
indebtedness. Infrastructure investments addressed the infrastructure deficit we
inherited and prepared us for growth, provincially and municipally.
So let
me summarize: equalization replacement, $10 billion; infrastructure strategy, $6
billion; tax relief, $4 billion; public sector wage and benefit growth, $1.5
billion; pension plan liabilities, $3.6 billion; poverty reduction, $1.2
billion; Northern Strategic Plan, which overlaps with infrastructure, $5.5
billion; tuition freeze and student aid reform, $350 million. So where did the
money go? That's where it went, Mr. Speaker. So which of these would the
Liberals not have funded?
What
some call costs, we like, at many times, to call investments. Investments in
infrastructure improve our competitiveness and climate for growth, while
improving the lives of people and driving employment along the way. We invested
billions in infrastructure and it wasn't money wasted. So are we to blame for
improving public services, public infrastructure and economic growth? Yes, I
will stand here and take the blame for that, if blame is the word.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
It's easier to call it taking
credit, but it's what people wanted, it's what people needed and it's what
people deserved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
The Constitution of Canada
guarantees all Canadians in all provinces have the right to enjoy reasonably
comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
We think the disparity that we endured for decades was unreasonable. Once we
were lucrative, we were happy to correct that. We didn't invest in a legacy fund
not yet.
We took
Norway's approach when they started reaping energy sector gains after having
been a poor coastal state for so long. They invested in people first and then,
25 years later, they started their Legacy Fund. So we are on track for that. We
were committed to doing so and we were, in many ways, following their lead. This
year's budget proves our careful long-term planning approach actually has
worked, in some ways. We are reaping the gains of what we started. Our plan was
so sound that it is unfolding, even despite the Liberal bungling in other
sectors.
So
instead of the nonsense that we are hearing from Members opposite today, instead
of blaming us for messing up, the Liberals ought to be crediting us for doing
the right thing and building on the choices we made, which we are prepared to
stand and talk about, and prepared to defend. They ought to recognize that our
approach was working and emulating it because faulting us and having no real
strategy or no real plan or no real vision and really poor leadership is
certainly not working.
I would
encourage Members to show a little bit of maturity and respect for this House. I
would encourage them to stop blaming. I would encourage them to get back on
course, and I would encourage them to start building again. That is something
that I think all Members in this House could support.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Another Liberal approach,
another word that jumps to mind is panic. There was an astonishing line in the
Budget Speech and it was right on page 1. In last year's budget, with only four
months in office, we knew that unless we increased revenue, we could not pay for
basic programs or services. Without the measures taken our province would have
faced serious challenges with rating agencies and banks. Some believed that it
could have even led to bankruptcy. Our government made hard choices and asked
taxpayers to dig deep into their pockets so we could close the gap between our
revenue and our costs.
Notice
the part of with only four months in office. Notice the word bankruptcy. The
tone conveyed by these sentences is one of panic. We should be, we can be, we
will be the wealthiest, the richest, the most prosperous place in Canada. We
have lots of assets. We do have a cash challenge. We are dealing with
extraordinary circumstances one-time circumstances based on the decline in
natural resource revenue. But when you talk about bankruptcy, the tone conveyed
by these sentences is one of panic.
The
Premier's constant blame narrative usually goes something like this: The
previous government knew the true state of the province's finances before the
election, but chose to hide it. If only we'd have known, we would have never put
so many goodies in our red book. Once we got elected and saw the books, the true
horror set in and we realized that drastic action would be needed.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, the Premier sat in this hon. House, he went through multiple budget
processes, nothing was hidden. The trajectory of oil prices was reported daily
around the world and the situation was clearly documented it was all laid out
in the 2015 budget, along with a frugal course of action to deal with the
revenue shortfall decisively according to an actual plan.
The
Liberals decided to throw caution to the wind and promised more than they could
afford to deliver. Panic was their way to curb expectations once they realized
they would have deliver on their promises. Panic has also been their approach in
dealing with public sector unions. They hired a panic response team before
negotiations started in earnest. They hired McInnes Cooper and a communication
specialists, a good friend of the Finance Minister.
The
problem with panic as a policy is that it doesn't give people confidence in your
ability to govern. The credit rating agencies saw the panic and issued warnings
and downgrades, all citing the lack of a long-term planning approach to the
challenges. Panic and planning are mutual enemies. When you put on your panic
face, it's hard to convince people that you actually have a plan.
In this
budget, this budget which we are now debating, which is actually much like last
year's, it is not a correction of that attitude. It's still about panic instead
of about planning. It's still wait and see if another shoes has to drop.
The
Finance Minister even lamented that she wishes she had been minister sooner
and thank goodness for all of us that she wasn't.
The
credit rating agencies responded positively to our approach, even though it did
include some immediate borrowing to bridge us across the worst period. It was
the Liberal panic that brought the credit rating downgrades, which raised the
cost of borrowing and cost taxpayers more money. Imagine the interest payments
of borrowing in a market in which you are considered a risky investment because
you have a tendency to panic rather than plan.
The
credit rating agencies see this administration as one prone to panic. It gives
them the jitters, hence the downgrades. At least the Budget speech is somewhat
honest in portraying the panic for what it is. The first step in moving from
nervousness and anxiety to prudent planning is to recognize the problem.
So we
hope that the minister will reflect on the failure of her approach and start
thinking about a more even-handed, progressive planning kind of approach. As a
former Progressive Conservative, maybe she can dig down deep and acknowledge
that there's a new kind of even-handed, progressive planning approach needed. So
stop scaring people with words like bankruptcy and get on with developing the
long-awaited plan.
The next
word that comes to mind about the Liberal approach is to cave. Quebec is
complaining that they're getting only $11 billion this year from the
equalization program. You have to acknowledge the gall it takes to make this
case with no sense of shame. If only we had a premier with a fraction of the
gall.
While
Quebec is fighting for more, our Premier is to be satisfied with less. So who's
getting equalization in 2017 and 2018? Mr. Speaker, $319 million for Prince
Edward Island; $1.7 billion for Nova Scotia; over $1.7 billion for New
Brunswick; over $11 billion for Quebec; $1.5 billion for Ontario; $1.8 billion
for Manitoba; Newfoundland and Labrador: zero. So who's fighting for
Newfoundland and Labrador? Who's making that case if not our own Premier? And
the case has to made in these extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in,
and no one in authority is making it.
Equalization was long a dirty word for our province because it represented the
training wheels we were perpetually wearing in Confederation. We were never
self-reliant when we relied so heavily on that program, no doubt. But it's there
for a reason. It's there for extraordinary circumstances like the ones we find
ourselves in. As long as it's there, it needs to be applied fairly and justly in
accordance with the terms of the Constitution that defines it.
The
Constitution is very straightforward: a guarantee of reasonably comparative
levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. The
three-year moving average is a fiction invented and imposed by a federal
government. The Constitution of this country has no such caveats. Fall short,
and equalization is supposed to kick in to safeguard the services and protect
the people from excessive taxation.
Who
would argue that our tax rates today are fair in the Canadian context? I don't
think anybody would. Quebec is using equalization to improve services and lower
taxes, and so are some other jurisdictions as well. So we're slashing services
and maintaining extreme taxes. How is that fair and what is Canadian about that
approach?
Who is
going to speak up for Newfoundland and Labrador if it's not the Premier of
Newfoundland and Labrador? His approach is not to do his job but to find someone
to blame for his refusal to do his job. We're not to blame for his capitulation;
that's on him.
The
federal government imposed a rule in the last round. That was their choice. In
any event, it was not at a time when we would have qualified for equalization
because our revenues had not declined at that particular point. It's now, on
their watch, that revenues are down. It's now that the services have been cut
and the taxes have been raised. It's now that the fight needs to be waged, not
in 2019 as they're proposing. The taxes are being borne by families right now,
not down the road.
Economists and Liberal friend James Feehan, who I think got an appointment
recently, has stated: Despite institutionalized consultations with the
provinces prior to renewals, equalization is a federal government program and
the federal government alone determines the formula and can change the formula
as it sees fit, whether at renewal time or not.
So who
the premier in December 2015? Who refused to fight in 2016, saying it is what it
is? And who is the premier in 2017? Who expects to be premier throughout 2018?
Yet, no promise from this Premier even to talk until 2019 when Ottawa has the
power to alter equalization unilaterally any time it wants.
Forcing
our people and economy to bear the consequences of your failure to fight for
them is wrong. Stand up and fight for fairness; that's what we're calling for.
And do you know what? It might actually work.
Our case
is strong and surely all parties in this province would support it, but failing
to even try is a guarantee that nothing will change. Our people deserve tax
relief. They deserve sustained services. We're not second-class citizens in the
country and if other provinces can use equalization to moderate taxes and
improve services, then so should we.
When it
comes to standing up to Ottawa, the approach of the Liberals is to capitulate,
to surrender, to concede, to acquiesce, to yield, to give up, to cave in, to
knuckle under, to succumb and to obey. The comfortable chesterfield diplomacy of
the Liberals
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
is not delivering for
Newfoundland and Labrador
AN HON. MEMBER:
It is not funny.
MR. KENT:
I don't find it funny. It's
fine for Members to think that this is all a big joke and to clown around, but
the comfortable chesterfield diplomacy of the Liberals is not delivering for
Newfoundland and Labrador, not on the fisheries investment fund, not on ocean
technology, not on equalization, not on health transfers, not on the carbon tax,
not on anything and our people are paying for the provincial Liberal's failure
and refusal to secure fairness from their federal cousins.
In the
Liberal approach, Mr. Speaker, another word that comes to mind is to hide.
This government was elected on a platform of transparency. ATTIPP was the
Premier's top priority when elected party leader. Transparency and
accountability was the very first commitment of their election red book.
In last
year's budget, the stark implications of the cuts were laid out in great detail,
in factsheets and lists. This year, in this year's budget, part of our challenge
and part of the reason for the questions today in Question Period is that the
facts are sadly missing. What's still to come? The buzz phrase on Budget Day
was: The devil is in the details. When that's the buzz phrase, you know that
there is a transparency problem. People have a right to know. People also have a
vested interest in uncertainty giving way to a clear path. Hiding things is a
recipe for making things worse.
Suspended animation is not an economic growth plan. What health cuts are left to
come, who knows what education cuts. It is disappointing that the 2017 budget
drives continuing uncertainty by leaving so many critical questions unanswered.
The
Liberals identified $283 million in so-called savings for the 2017-2018 fiscal
years, without giving people any answers on where those saving will come from.
They're saying that over $70 million of cuts will be taken from agencies, boards
and commissions but where; what will be cut and what will be impacted? When
people don't know, they can't plan and they can't properly adjust. So they
hunker down and wait and their lack of confidence makes the challenges worse.
Mr.
Speaker, uncertainty undermines confidence. Uncertainty undermines growth.
Unfortunately, the cloud of uncertainty that has been hanging over the province
like a dark cloud for the past 17 months is continuing to hang over everyone.
When people have to ask what they are hiding, they also start asking why they
are hiding it.
When
people aren't given the full story, they worry, particularly in light of the
kinds of choices that the Liberals have been making for the past two years.
Those choices like the front-line service cuts, management cuts that have later
been backfilled by friends, and crushing tax and fee increases, have left people
wondering where the Liberals' heads are.
The
Liberals keep saying, trust us. Well, do you know what? Trust has to be earned,
and the Liberals haven't earned that trust. They betrayed people's trust.
They've abandoned their promises and delivered the opposite of what people
expect and what people need.
The full
story of Budget 2017 is yet to be
told. There are more shoes to drop. This is not a fiscally responsible or open
and transparent way to govern. We expected them to learn their lesson over the
past 18 months, but they haven't. They seem to be playing games by spinning a
story instead of being honest and upfront with the people whose lives their
budget decisions will impact.
There is
another way that the Liberals are hiding. Recall the table in last year's
Economy document that showed their
projection of more than 30,000 job losses in five years. The table also appeared
in the fall fiscal update with similar projections. But in the 2017 budget, the
numbers in the table have been significantly altered to boost all of the
indicators in the next several years. Mr. Speaker, there's no justification for
the improvements. In fact, the projections for 2017 remain dismal. It appears
the Liberals have cooked the numbers in the table to hide the impact of their
failed economic policies.
I only
have a few minutes left. So the obvious question becomes: What would we have
done? When Liberals ask what you would have done, they are being disingenuous.
It's clear what we would have done by what we actually did. We governed for 12
years and we laid out our approach to the oil market collapse in
Budget 2015. The reason we say the Liberals are being disingenuous
is that they are trying to re-write the history of what we did and the impact on
people, instead of assessing it honestly.
We
invested in people; better health care services and outcomes; better education;
better child protection; better public protection; poverty reduction' and issues
from housing to helping people get off Income Support. We invested in
communities and regions through municipal sustainability partnership and
regional growth and strategic diversification across all sectors: tourism,
agrifoods, aquaculture, oceans, energy. We invested in enterprise growth,
business attractions initiatives and trade, all to open up new opportunities and
prepare our own people to seize them.
We
invested in tax reduction so employers and investors and consumers would have
money to spend because those are the choices that drive local growth. Not
government spending people's money, but people spending people's money.
We
invested in delivering government services more efficiently in ways that were
streamlined. Reviewing and sunsetting programs and replacing them with ones that
works better; taking new approaches such as partnerships; repurposing and
consolidating arms of governance, boards, commissions and divisions. We set
fiscal targets with long-range plans to create more certainty to help with
planning, to let our lenders know we were concerned about fiscal responsibility
and determined to get back to balance.
The bond
rating agencies acknowledged our reports, not with downgrades. The approach was
comprehensive, complemented by strategic plans in all sectors, covering all the
bases and setting objectives that allow performance to be measured and
approaches to be adjusted in light of real results and feedback.
The Way Forward
approach, the Liberal way forward approach mocks strategies, calling them a
waste, saying they do nothing but build silos; but the results prove otherwise.
Their alternative is to plan nothing and achieve nothing, and their economic
projections prove their unplanned approach is leading the province to decline.
Opportunities for growth are being squandered.
We
invested in energy. The Liberals said we were addicted to oil and oil is not a
policy. They said Muskrat Falls was a boondoggle and not their choice, even
though several Members, including the Premier, voted for it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. KENT:
Yes. In fact, the current
Minister of Finance was, at one point, the chair of the Nalcor board who led a
campaign
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Government House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I just have to refer to
the Member's comments about how the Premier voted for Muskrat Falls. That is, as
far as I realize, factually incorrect and I think that has to be pointed out,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I didn't hear the comment but
if hon. Member for Mount Pearl North would like to address that comment.
MR. KENT:
I'd like to get back to my
remarks, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully I won't be interrupted further.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair will take it under
advisement.
MR. KENT:
I appreciate that, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Energy Plan, our Energy Plan, is the only good news in their 2017 budget. They
mock it, they criticize it and then they take credit for it, as they take in the
returns from the approach we took. So what would we do, should be turned around
to ask: Why won't you acknowledge the wisdom of our approach, the one that you
are benefiting from right now?
Let's
get back on track to growth, which is exactly what our approach was achieving,
and away from the path to ruin, which is the one that the Liberals have now set
us one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
The Liberals will never get
us back on track until they first acknowledge that the right track, the one that
leads to the outcomes we need, is the track we were on.
Mr.
Speaker, there are difficult choices always when you're governing, but a failure
to make the right choices and a failure to present any kind of plan and any kind
of vision, and the failure to have any kind of responsible approach to managing
the economy and instilling some hope and confidence so that people will spend
their money and build their futures here, it's really problematic. I'm glad to
have an opportunity this afternoon to speak to some of these issues.
Our
alternative approach would have been to make no unaffordable election promises,
and that approach cost us dearly because we were fighting a fantasy wish book of
promises. Our approach would have been to maintain the five-year plan, which
included a HST credit to protect the vulnerable and an attrition plan to
minimize hardship and uncertainty while managing government restructuring, which
we had already started to roll out.
We also
were intending to revisit our plan as oil prices fell, and our approach
contemplated going back to the plan regularly to adjust spending to match the
changing fiscal realities, up or down. Our approach was to continue to be honest
with our plans and refuse to hide them.
Our
approach would have been to govern openly and accountably, instead of blaming
people for the measures they cherry-pick. Our approach would have been to be
vigorous in holding Ottawa to account for its promises and its obligations to
help Newfoundland and Labrador deal with the special circumstances, the
extraordinary circumstances that we find ourselves in.
Ranging
from CETA, the Fisheries Fund, which Prime Minister Trudeau committed to, health
transfers, equalization reform, hand in hand with the other oil provinces, we
wouldn't have caved in and we wouldn't have refused to fight, which is what
we're seeing from this current government.
Our
approach would have been to drive growth in the sectors that are able to pick up
the slack so that we do continue to grow when oil revenues are in decline, and
that would have led to a prosperous future, offering opportunities to youth, and
we could sustain the gains we've achieved and continue to secure our foundation
for hope.
Our
approach certainly involved investing to protect people from harm: seniors,
youth, families, the vulnerable, rural communities, front-line workers and so
on. So that path was not an easy one; it was a challenging one and a long one.
It was already challenging in Budget 2015
but it was a balanced approach, it was growth-oriented, it was focused on
people and it was hopeful, not devastating.
Last
year's budget in 2016 was devastating to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this 2017 budget is equally as devastating. It's bad for
people, it's bad for families and we'll fulfill our responsibility to continue
to hold this government accountable for its lack of leadership and bad choices.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour for me to stand up and participate in the budget process, the 2017
budget, which I know the Member just spent his speech talking about last year's
budget. I'm going to confine the majority of my time to speaking about this
year's budget. For people who are watching the taping of the House of Assembly
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know
the Opposition Members don't want to hear I know the Member for Mount Pearl
North doesn't want to hear the government's side of the story. That's fine; I'll
continue to talk though the yelling over there.
Mr.
Speaker, for people who are watching this at home, we're going through a
traditional budget process that the province has gone through every year. I'm
now addressing the amended motion, as amended by the Member for Mount Pearl
North, which is practically the same as the motion that was made around this
time last year on last year's budget. We will spend a lot of hours debating this
budget, going through it in detail. We will have a committee process and so on
so that the Opposition gets all the answers to the questions that they have.
Now, I
just want to first take a couple of minutes to really address the shocking
display that we just saw here on the floor of the House of Assembly, which is
not really a big surprise if people watching at home are familiar with the
Member for Mount Pearl North and the way that he tends to operate. When he got
up, he talked about facts being hidden and people not having trust and maturity
issues, immaturity.
He ended
his commentary there by saying that the Premier had voted for Muskrat Falls,
which is absolutely false. But that should not be really a surprise, considering
the Member's record of incredibly bad judgement. Making things up and pretending
that they're facts is not something that comes as a surprise, coming from the
Member for Mount Pearl North.
He's
always making things up and presenting them as facts. He's always personally
attacking people. He got up there in his speech, not only did he mislead people
by saying that the Premier voted for Muskrat Falls, he just attacked journalist
David Cochrane in his speech. I understand Mr. Cochrane is aware of that. He
just attacked a MUN economist, Dr. James Feehan, in his speech. He suggested he
was recently appointed to the Oversight Committee for Muskrat Falls because of
some partisan reason. I'm not aware of any partisan affiliation Mr. Feehan has.
He's been equally critical of PC governments as he has of other governments.
Again, it's not something that I'm surprised at, considering the way the Member
for Mount Pearl North tends to invent history and basically spin these sorts of
contrived conspiracy theories.
Let's
just look back at the recent few days. The Member for Mount Pearl North on
budget day was out there pretending on Twitter because that's his chosen way
to communicate with the rest of the world communicating that the provincial
government was somehow responsible for the Public Utilities Board decision under
the gas regulatory regime, that's been in place for over a decade, suggesting
somehow that the gas tax is going down and, look, it's going back up and somehow
implicating the government in that decision-making process.
That
decision-making process is entirely independent of government. It has nothing to
do with the gas tax. It has everything to do with the fact that the Public
Utilities Board is responsible for that.
He's
also out there talking about $100 million
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
in health cuts. He's out
there frightening seniors, frightening people who are sick and in hospital by
suggesting that there are all of these health care cuts coming. Then that wasn't
the case and when that didn't materialize in the budget, he tried to explain
that away in the most bizarre way again, I'm still trying to figure out the
logic. He was frightening the people of the Burin Peninsula out there again on
Twitter, on Facebook, on social media, suggesting somehow that the Grand Bank
health care facility and the St. Lawrence health care facility his language
was that they were going to be cut, and that's nowhere in any process here.
He asked
those questions of the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services here in
the House of Assembly and the minister basically said that it wasn't the case at
all. On the day of the budget, he tweeted that there was 150 teaching positions
being cut in the budget. Frightening teachers, frightening parents with
information that is absolutely false, completely made up, misleading
information.
The
reason why the amount of money is different is perfectly explainable. Had the PC
Party not kicked the officials from Finance out of their briefing that was set
up for them, they kicked the officials out and just basically started making up
fake information on the fly and sending it out into social media where people
are reading it and taking it as true.
The
reason why there's less money for teacher payroll in there is primarily because
of our collective agreement with teachers, which requires government to pay
teachers in 26 equal installments. So, more or less, it treats the year as
though there are only 364 days in it, when we all know that there's another day
in the year. As we go along every year, we gather up an extra few days so
there's an adjustment in payroll at the end of August every four or five years.
That's what happens. Teachers are well aware of that.
The NLTA
had it in their current bulletin, but that didn't matter to the Member for Mount
Pearl North that didn't matter. The facts didn't matter at all. Just throw
this information out and then not provide any clarification; misleading people
about the price of gas; misleading people about health spending; misleading
people about health care facilities closing or being cut; misleading people
about the education system and he wants to be premier. He wants to lead the
province. I'm telling you, it's absolutely ridiculous, and that was only in a
couple of days. That's only in a couple of days unbelievable.
I tell
you, I don't think we'd see that from Ches Crosbie, no. He thinks it's funny
over there. He can laugh all he wants. I don't think it's funny at all and it's
interesting that he I was really pleased to see that
The Telegram picked this up this week.
The Telegram
wrote in their Cheers and Jeers section this week, they said: Jeers: To the MHA
who cries wolf. They named the Member for Mount Pearl North was busy in the
lead-up to budget day tweeting dire warnings about government spending items he
said were on the chopping block. The Health Minister 'and Liberals will cut
over $100 million from system next week without any real plan,' he tweeted on
March 30. The problem is, that wasn't in the April 6th budget. That's
not to say health cuts won't come, but perhaps he would cause less anxiety and
stress among health-care employees if he saved his pronouncements for when he
actually had solid information. He isn't helping a tense situation by playing
politics on social media when people have legitimate fears for their jobs.
That's
what The Telegram had to say about
this, and The Telegram is quite right.
We all have a responsibility in here to at least state the facts, not to make up
things just for political convenience. Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk
about the budget.
He more
or less suggests there is no information available about this budget, talking
about facts being hidden. The facts are in the budget documents. The PC Party
decided to throw the officials from the Department of Finance out of their
briefing. That was their decision. They could have had it all explained to them
in minute detail, but they threw the officials out, and then the PC Party
started making up information about what was in the budget. They were making up
information about the gas tax, making up things about health care spending,
making up things health care cuts and facilities being cut and making up
information about teacher cuts. I really think the people of the province
deserve better than that.
Regarding the business of the Member for Mount Pearl North and his consistent,
personal attacks on people we sort of have a tradition here in the House of
Assembly about what is said and what is unsaid. So the Member goes on social
media intentionally, sometimes while the House is sitting, and makes these sort
of absurd statements and calls people names, calls other Members of the House of
Assembly names which you would never get away with in here because we are
supposed to have some civil discourse in here. We have a stack of books there
that governs our behaviour.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North can't get away with that behaviour in here, so he
goes to social media and he does it. Again, that's not a big surprise. It's
actually somewhat ironic that he attacked David Cochrane, who is probably one of
the better journalists that we have produced here in the province. He is now
working in Ontario for CBC nationally. But it's interesting because it was only
a few years ago when the Member for Mount Pearl North it's funny, he is
talking about basically misleading the people by saying the Premier voted for
Muskrat Falls when everybody and the record shows that he didn't do that.
It was
only a few years ago that David Cochrane took the Member for Mount Pearl North
to task for his personal attacks. At that time, we were having a discussion
about Muskrat Falls and the folly associated with Muskrat Falls. Because that
will be their legacy you don't have to worry about their legacy. Their legacy
is sealed with Muskrat Falls. Our kids are going to have to pay for it and
senior citizens are going to have to pay for it. It is a fiasco that we have
never seen before. It makes the Upper Churchill look like a good deal. But that
will be their legacy.
On this
occasion, there was a group of prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
had formed a group called the 2041 Group to oppose Muskrat Falls and to shed
some light on it. He talks about hiding the facts. We sat over there on the
House of Assembly for years and had misinformation on Muskrat Falls thrown at us
on a daily basis from the Member for Mount Pearl North. He can remember it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Deputy Premier, too.
MR. KIRBY:
He was Deputy Premier; yes,
that's absolutely true. When he was personally attacking the 2041 Group and
casting all sorts of aspersions on their character, their motives, why they were
criticizing the government; he talked about how one of them was only saying it
because he had some sort of interest in natural gas and so on and so forth.
David Cochrane said at the time: The level and tone of the personal attacks on
these critics is undermining the argument for Muskrat Falls. PCs polluting the
debate with smear. He was referring to the Member for Mount Pearl North at the
time. Honestly, can't people discuss the pros and cons of a multi-billion-dollar
hydro project without sinking to a junior high level?
I just
like to say for the record, Madam Speaker, that I think that really is an insult
to junior high school students myself. I've been in a lot of junior high school
classes across this province since I became Minister of Education and Early
Childhood Development and I have never seen anything from kids in our classes
like that which comes to another important point, because when you're here in
these only 40 seats in the House of Assembly, it's such a privilege for us to be
here.
Most
people are out there working hard, sweating, working hard at their jobs,
difficult jobs, uncertain jobs, uncertain time. Folks who aren't working are
looking for work, people living in poverty, people taking care of family members
have one issue of another and we're here in these seats having an opportunity to
discuss the future of the province and debate the provincial budget and we have
a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a way that is commensurate with the job
that we're doing. There is a basic expectation out there in the public.
One of
the problems that we have today in schools and in society, really, in general,
is the whole issue of cyber bullying. We really saw that on full display last
year when sock puppets for the PC Party on Twitter were doing all this stuff to
the Minister of Finance. Some of it was verging on misogynistic, sexist,
unbelievable, fat shaming, I don't know it's disgusting behaviour that if it
was going on in our school system, we would suspend those students from school.
We would not tolerate that kind of behaviour from students.
Yet, we
have the Member for Mount Pearl North who consistently goes on social media,
makes things up, attacks people personally, calls them all sorts of names and he
thinks it's funny. He thinks it's funny. I can hear the laughter over there. He
thinks it's funny and I don't think it's funny at all. I think it's absolutely
shameful behaviour to have somebody who was a Cabinet minister I read one
tweet one time that basically said who is the bigger sociopath, and had the
Premier and me. This is a person who supposedly advocates for people's mental
health, and that's the kind of stuff he is saying on Twitter really.
AN HON. MEMBER:
On the mental health
committee?
MR. KIRBY:
He's on the All-Party
Committee on Mental Health and this is the sort of calling into question the
mental competency of the Premier and ministers of the Crown unbelievable.
I have
to say I talk to people and it was interesting. After all of that stuff that
went on last week in the lead up to the budget, this business about the gas tax,
the health spending, the health care facilities, the teachers, all that
misinformation that the Member for Mount Pearl North was out there spreading I
was at the grocery store, out and about doing this, out in my district, and
people saying to me what is it he is getting on with what is it that's going
on here?
It's
interesting because people inevitably come back to a comparison. It's funny
because if you pick up the current edition of
Rolling Stone magazine, which I like
to read, there's an article about Donald Trump in there. It says he invents
history, spins conspiracy theories, and so on and so forth. And that's what
people are saying to me. They're saying that's just like Donald Trump: spreading
misinformation, false information, alternative facts, no accountability, name
calling, personal attacks, getting down to that level. That's what people are
saying to me, it's just the same as that, more or less.
I'm glad
you brought that up there because I was going to say. As I said, the Member has
displayed an amazing propensity for bad judgement and we've seen that on full
display over and over again.
Somebody
mentioned Kellie Leitch and I thought that was important because for the best
part of last year, as far as I understand it I could be corrected if I was
wrong the Member for Mount Pearl North spent his time supporting or endorsing
Kellie Leitch who is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party
federally. He withdrew that in the fall at one point.
He talks
about how the Liberals are hiding and they're dodging or whatever. He was the
one as soon as he was asked to be accountable for his endorsement of Kellie
Leitch, then he acquiesced: Oh no, no. And here's Kellie Leitch running on what
I would call an unabashedly anti-immigrant platform, same as the stuff we've
seen from the far right in Germany, in the Netherlands, in the United Kingdom,
now in France and in the United States. That same anti-immigrant sentiment is
what Kellie Leitch brings and it is the sole thing that she brings to the
political discourse in Canada today.
What an
unsavoury character to be
AN HON. MEMBER:
Associated with.
MR. KIRBY:
associated with.
And,
again, like I said, these comments about Trump, not a real big surprise.
Because, of course, on election night in the United States just last fall and
I'll be happy to say I supported Hilary Clinton.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
The Member for Mount Pearl
North popped up on Twitter, sort of boastfully on the US election night, wearing
basically a hat that's supportive of Donald Trump saying: Make America great
again. And when he was challenged on that: Oh, no, no, I was only fooling. But
it makes people wonder.
Like I
said, people are wondering. Because when you read this business that was in
The Telegram this week about
the Member saying that he has a source that the Liberals are going to cut $100
million from health care and he used to be the minister of Health, people have
cause considering his position as a Member of the House, a former deputy
premier, a former minister of Health, he has cause to have some credibility, one
would think.
But as The Telegram
points out this week, he has
a tenuous attachment to credibility and frightening the good people of Grand
Bank and St. Lawrence, and other people on the Burin Peninsula, frightening
seniors by waving this stuff around in this Trumpian way, no concern for the
facts whatsoever.
Making
things up, alternative facts, just like when he stood up over there minutes ago
and said that the Premier of the province voted for Muskrat Falls which everyone
knows is not the case. Then, when asked by the Government House Leader to
retract the statement, no, continue on as if to what he had to say was actually
the case.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Didn't have the time.
MR. KIRBY:
No at all.
All
these other things about the gas tax and the health spending and this absolutely
false statement that he made about 150 teachers being cut: not at all the case.
I explained why there is a reduction in that line item in the budget. They would
have gotten that answer had they not have kicked the Department of Finance
officials out of their boardroom, out of their conference room during the budget
because they didn't want the facts.
And then
they come into the House of Assembly here demanding that ministers over here
answer the questions that they should have gotten last week when they were given
a golden opportunity, and then the personal attacks. And I couldn't believe I
really couldn't believe; the Minister of Health is a former surgeon. And as the
Member for Bay of Islands pointed out the day that all of this happened
recently, to be basically on Facebook saying that the Minister of Health and
naming him by name hasn't got a conscience.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Heartless.
MR. KIRBY:
Heartless. I mean who says
that?
The
Minister of Health is a respected former physician in this province. He has
worked up one side of her and all the way down the other side. People know his
reputation as one of honour. Not what the Member for Mount Pearl North is
throwing around when he's throwing mud at Ministers of the Crown and other
Members of the House of Assembly.
His
colleagues, I would add, when he's smearing them on social media, he should have
better sense. Like I said, in his own speech he got up and he attacked Dave
Cochrane in one minute and the next minute he discredited Dr. James Feehan, a
respected economist at the province's only university.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who was right about Muskrat
Falls.
MR. KIRBY:
Who was right about Muskrat
Falls, by the way.
It's
just a consistent approach that he takes that I think has to be called out. And
I'm so happy that the good folks at The
Telegram this week decided to pick this up because it had to be said.
It was about time that somebody raised this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Because these sorts of personal attacks, that he has continued since we had the
Muskrat Falls debate to present these sorts of personal attacks cannot stand.
We have to have a more civilized conversation about the issues that impact
people in this province than that. We have to have a much more civilized
conversation.
And not only that, we cannot have Members of the House of
Assembly using social media, using the floor of the House of Assembly for that
matter, to mislead the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not
permitted. We can't have that. People deserve more than that.
Like I said, there are only 40 of us. And I know the
Members think this is funny over there. They're having a good old laugh over
there. They think it's funny but I don't think that sort of abuse is funny. That
is abuse of the position, and I think that's abuse of your colleagues and it's
not funny at all. So I just wanted to say that for the record because it had to
be said.
Now there's a lot of irony in some of the other things he
had said. I know recently I had a good meeting with the folks from Witless Bay
and Mobile about their schooling issue down there. It was so ironic because the
Member for Ferryland asked me for the meeting and I have said time and again I'm
willing to meet with any group, any school group. I lost count of the number of
school councils, parents and others, teachers that I've met with. I've been to,
I don't know, something like 50 schools probably over the course of my term so
far.
Sometimes people are not happy but that's fine. That's the
responsibility that we have to not make things up, to tell people the way that
it is and to try to have a civilized way of coming to a reasonable conclusion
for kids, for teachers, for schools, for parents.
There were two things that went on in that meeting. So
basically the Opposition, when they were government, made about a
quarter-billion dollars' worth of school infrastructure announcements in the
last budget that they had. It was a significant sum of money. New schools and
all kinds of things that they never got around to doing when we were flush with
cash they used to say, they never got around to doing these things.
So now
it's my fault, now it's our fault that that didn't get done. So one of the
things that were decided in the 2015 budget, which we have committed to, was
that instead of building a new school in the Witless Bay-Mobile area for that
family of schools, there would be an extension built on to Mobile Central High.
I have a
press release here from January 2008, because I think history is highly
instructive. The minister at the time, the hon. Joan Burke, minister of
Education: There's certainly a buzz of excitement in and around Mobile Central
High School, as students and teachers settle into their new surroundings. This
is a great investment and we'll make sure the needs of Mobile and surrounding
areas are served well into the future.
That's
not 10 years ago. But this was their modus operandi in office. They built
schools that were too small. The problem in the Witless Bay-Mobile area is that
St. Bernard's Elementary and Mobile Central High are too small, and they built
Mobile Central High too small.
MR. JOYCE:
Who was the minister?
MR. KIRBY:
The minister at the time was
Joan Burke.
They
also built schools that were too small in other areas. Holy Trinity Elementary
was replaced around the same time. That school has eight modular, temporary,
portable classrooms behind it. That's how small that was built. They built
schools that were too small and now it's our fault that they built them too
small. I don't think so I don't think so.
So we
had this meeting I was happy to accommodate the Member for Ferryland and the
school community and they said two things that were amazing. First, when we
finished pleasantries, they said we're tired of not being listened to by
government. For years, we haven't been listened to. And here's the Member for
Ferryland, their MHA I think he sat around the Cabinet table for almost
exclusively the whole time he was in here, in government. They were basically
saying he never listened to us. We're tired of it. So I thought that was
interesting.
The
other thing was there was a number that they put on the new school, and probably
officials in the department don't want me to say it, but I have to say it for
the interest of transparency. The number was about $27 million. That was the
cost of the new school. To build the extension that they failed to do, to make
Mobile Central High big enough, requires significantly less money. Let's just
say it's tens of millions of dollars less to do this work. So we're doing this
because it's cheaper for the taxpayer and he's demanding a $27 million school.
So he looks at me and he said: Where did you get that number at? I want you to
explain that number. It's the number they came up with.
Now I'm
responsible for explaining the figure they put in their budget in 2015. I don't
think so. If you can't take responsibility for what you did during your time of
office, don't, but don't point a finger at me saying explain what I did. Tell me
where I got that number at. I don't know in fact, I say to everybody watching
at home, we're not allowed to have information on Cabinet decisions made by
previous governments. But they're like tell us what we did. We don't know what
we did, please.
Mr.
Speaker, I have to read this to you because and I only have a few minutes
left, I'll try to keep it short here. If you listen to the doom and the gloom
coming from the other side all the time in Question Period, it is hard to listen
to. I already went through the stuff that the Member for Mount Pearl North puts
on Twitter, all the personal attacks, all the misinformation, all that toxic
stuff that people out there got no time for. He's only playing to a small, small
audience and half of them are sock puppet accounts run by themselves.
We
implemented full-day Kindergarten in order to catch up with the rest of the
country. Prior to my joining the Liberal Party, I had a great meeting with the
person that is now the Minister of Finance. I was a bit of a charmer when I was
in Opposition; there's no question about that. I'll level with you, I was. The
Member was with the board of trade at the time and she went down to the board of
trade and I was so proud that day of this person I had never met. She got up
in front of the board of trade and she talked about the need for better child
care and the need for full-day Kindergarten, and how to give our children the
best start they can get in life.
It is an
honour for me to sit here next to her in the House of Assembly because, of
course, immediately I tweeted great to have I can't say her name; I said her
name along with us on this journey towards full-day Kindergarten. So she gets
in touch with me and she said I don't know what it is you're talking about, but
how about you and I have a meeting. We had a meeting and it never ended up being
anything about full-day Kindergarten; it was mostly about what it's like to have
a seat in the House of Assembly.
I
started to put two and two together and now she has a seat in the House of
Assembly. Actually, she had it very shortly after that. I was so proud of what
she did. As a business person, she went out there and pointed out that we need
to have this thing that we don't right now. And it was a risky thing to do, but
I think it was a real courageous thing to do. We finished that journey this past
year. For all the reasons, full-day Kindergarten helps with so many things:
language development, basic language skills, cognitive development in children.
All of the science around neuroplasticity and cognitive science and
psychological development, all that shows the importance of an enriched early
learning and care environment for kids at that crucial young age the
development of social competencies.
People
can laugh, make fun, all of that, that's fine with me; but just merely learning
how, when you're five, to spend a school day with other children and know what
is civilized and what's not, what behaviour is acceptable, what's not, what you
should say to the other people and what you should not, those social competency
skills that they build in full-day Kindergarten and in high-quality early
learning and care makes all the difference for children in the school.
They are
better prepared for grade one as a result. Communication skills, general
knowledge there are data and in the research on full-day Kindergarten that's
going on with McMaster University in Ontario that shows connections to writing,
to literacy, to mathematics, all kinds of exciting things. It makes me happy
that we managed to achieve this at a difficult time in the province's history.
Our Cabinet and our caucus believe that we have to invest in our children,
because they are going to be the ones that inherit the Newfoundland and Labrador
that we leave them with.
I was
disappointed that the Opposition parties took a position against full-day
Kindergarten. I was incredibly surprised, considering my own political history,
that the NDP would choose to drop its support for full-day Kindergarten,
considering all of the rhetoric that we hear from the NDP around child care, but
they just dropped it and abandoned it. They'll have to answer for that when we
go to the polls again.
We know
our kids are more successful in school as a result of full-day Kindergarten but
don't take my word for it. I got this email on the weekend and here's the
other thing too. If you listen to the Members opposite, it's all dire, it's all
negative, it's all bad, whatever. I got this email Saturday. This person must
have been up late because it was the wee hours of the morning Saturday morning
past. I have to read this because it really says so much. I just want to remind
everybody, remember the things that we know about full-day Kindergarten, about
the identification and support of children who have special education needs. I
get a lot of messages from people and it's really mixed. I think if you get into
politics to be slapped on the back, then you're probably going into the wrong
line of work.
I get
really positive message from parents about full-day kindergarten but this one is
just from last weekend and it really put the hook in me. She says: I got a
message from an acquaintance on Facebook the other day. She knew my child had
special needs and she was doing some sort of focus group and asked what
questions I wish that my son's school had asked to make his experience in
school, in full-day kindergarten, easier and more accommodating. I thought about
it. In all honesty, I couldn't think of anything.
This
parent could not think of anything to change to make her son's experience in
school easier and more accommodating couldn't think of anything. This is
today's education system.
I
thought about it and in all honesty, I couldn't think of anything. I'm sure most
of the feedback you get is about what's wrong, what needs to be changed, what
improvements could be made. But I just wanted to share my experience.
My son
is six years old, has autism and started full-day kindergarten this past
September. He did KinderStart two years in a row, so he started a year late
because of my feelings of how he was progressing with his therapy provided by
Eastern Health.
My son
has issues with social skills, toileting, wandering, running, sensory issues and
dealing with frustration. He is also very caring, smart, empathetic and
outgoing. When I approached his school the first year, I did so with him
registered in French immersion. The administration was a little hesitant but I
pushed for it and they supported my choice. He has been in school for seven
months now and is flourishing. His teachers, IRTs, guidance counsellors,
principal and bus drivers are all amazing.
He loves
to go to school. His social skills are improving. He's dealing with his
frustrations better, asking for a break rather than squealing. He is easily
speaking and reading in a second language. Everyone is very in tune with his
needs and while still ensuring he doesn't stand out as different within his
class.
His
teacher and she says his teacher's name is more than I could ever ask for.
If every teacher was like her, I don't think you'd ever have another issue.
As I'm
sure any parents is, I was so nervous in sending him to full-day kindergarten.
I've never left him with babysitters other than family. I've had nothing but
positive interactions with everyone involved from his school.
That's
absolutely amazing in my opinion. What a beautiful story about this child with
autism who's in French immersion in full-day kindergarten. And all those
positive things that are happening in that child's life because we had the same
kind of courage that the Minister of Finance had
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
when she went before the
board of trade and demanded a better start in school for our children. Like I
said, I'm proud to sit next to somebody who makes choices like that.
And, you
know, I could go on and I'm going to bring back more stories like this because I
have lots of others. It speaks to the good work our teachers are doing. Because
if you listen, there's nothing good going on in schools but we know that there's
so much good going on.
Myself,
I've gone to so many schools. I was up in Labrador West recently.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
We went to a school; Menihek.
Unbelievable things are going on there with retention of young people who would
otherwise have fallen through the cracks. The principal there is finding all
kinds of interesting ways to keep them in school.
I went
to the intermediate school; amazing display of school spirit all facilitated by
excellent teachers. We went down to the Member for Bay of Islands' District,
down to J. J. Curling. That day we went into that school the children were
basically participating in a public speaking exercise, little ones up speaking
in front of the whole school assembly; hundreds of kids. And these kids are
getting up talking about why they're dressed in this costume on spirit day.
We went
to the Member for Corner Brook's high school there. A beautiful school built by
the previous Administration. A beautiful school, one of the nicest I've ever
visited. Went in and there was a full orchestra playing, a 29-piece orchestra,
high school students beautiful, beautiful stuff.
All
these things are happening in our schools. All these beautiful, great things
being done by teachers and other school staff and we never hear those stories.
We have to hear those stories.
I went
to a school in the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor Buchans' district. The
principal and the assistant principal there told me that the first year they
went to that school there were over 100 suspensions. And so far this year, this
was just a few weeks ago, they've had three.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Because they've implemented a
reward system, not a punishment system, a reward system to help kids stay out of
trouble. So, all these things are going on.
We have
to celebrate. We have to celebrate because if we continue this negative,
negative diatribe about what's going wrong in schools, those teachers are never
going to get the credit they deserve for all their hard work. We have to do
better to shine a light on all the great things that are going on in our
schools, and there are so many of them.
We
absolutely cannot continue to have misleading, misinformation, alternative
facts, made up stuff thrown around as if it is factual. There are problems in
schools; no doubt about it and we acknowledge it, but there are lots of good
things going on.
I just
want to say a few more things about the budget. I'm just wondering, I look to
the Government House Leader about how much time if have.
MR. A. PARSONS:
You take your time.
MR. KIRBY:
There are so many good things
in this budget for education, but I am so proud of what we're doing to early
learning and care now.
A few
years ago when I sat in Opposition, there was a report that came out. It was the
most embarrassing thing I think that's ever happened to the education system
here in the province. It was called Early Years Study 3 and it talked about the
provision of childcare in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Child
care, in my view, and I'm not an expert in this area of education, but I learned
a lot about it from people, child care is sort of like a three-legged stool. One
leg on the stool is quality, another leg on the stool is spaces, availability of
space, and the other leg is affordability. You got to have quality, you got to
have space and you got to have affordability. This report while the previous
administration was in power they remember me talking about it because I think I
did three 20-minute blocks in the budget debate, a full hour of discussion about
this report. It was so embarrassing to us.
We have
done so much since. Full-day kindergarten was a big part of it. We were
absolutely slammed for being so far behind the rest of the country on full-day
kindergarten and people it's funny when you run into people from other
provinces, I run into people and people say: What do you do? I say: I'm in the
government. Oh yeah, what do you do? I'm the Minister of Education. Then they
ask questions. I say, well, one thing we've done is full day kindergarten and
they say: What, full-day kindergarten, you're only just doing that now?
People
who have children, who are almost adults, and they were in full-day
kindergarten. Some provinces have full-day kindergarten for kids who are
four-years-old. We only have it for five-year-olds. That's universal in those
provinces. They have child care in this their schools. These places are so far
ahead of us.
We were
slammed nationally and publicly embarrassed, basically. It was shameful what
happened, but we have done so much since. When the previous administration was
in power they made some small steps towards rectifying the issue. They did
promise full-day kindergarten, although then they basically denied it
afterwards.
But a
couple of things that I wanted to highlight that we did in this budget that goes
to quality and affordability. We are actually doing fairly well on the spaces, I
would say. We're doing pretty good on the spaces and I think full-day
kindergarten helped a lot to relieve a lot of the pressures in the child care
system, especially in the metro and other highly-urbanized areas in the
province.
In this
budget, we have an additional and this is when things are hard, okay? We are
staring down the barrel of an enormous we still have an enormous budgetary
deficit, although somehow, I don't know, it was an inhumane task that we went
from staring down a $2.7 billion deficit that the previous crows just left
around to be cleaned up. We are gone from that to, I think, it's $778 million.
Herculean effort it required. There was no help from the Opposition, you just
heard that. A Herculean effort to get this thing, wrestle it down and get
control of it.
So
getting these minor, minor because it is minor in comparison to having $8
million worth of spending getting these things out of the budget are
absolutely amazing, as far as I'm concerned, in a time of spending reductions.
More and more we have both Opposition parties calling for further reductions in
spending. At a time when we have so little money, we have new initiatives for
child care.
One of
the things that we had in the election campaign was a commitment to improving on
the Early Learning and Child Care Supplement. That goes a long way to improving
the working conditions of early childhood educators and operators of child care
centres.
We just
had a debate here on pay equity, not long ago, and we know early childhood
educators are predominantly female, and we know that they have a long ways to go
to catch up in terms of salary. This goes a long way to improving working
conditions for early childhood educators. It also goes a long way to improving
the quality. Because everything we know about the research on the workforce, on
the labour force, on working conditions that people have, we know that if you're
if you have better remuneration, then things are improved in terms of quality.
It shows that in the research on early learning and care. So we have checked
that box. That election commitment is complete in this budget.
On top
of that, and this is not something that we talked about during the election, we
have an additional $2 million to improve the affordability of child care. That's
a significant issue because we know in a lot of instances that women are unable
to enter the labour force and sometimes single dads as well, because they have
child-rearing responsibilities that preclude them from entering the workforce.
So now there will be more money to improve the subsidy that's provided to
parents.
On top
of all this, it's an extremely exciting time to be in my job because the federal
government later, in a few months, stay tuned for the details, it's extremely
exciting, we're going to have more federal support for early learning and care.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. KIRBY:
We're going to have more
federal support for early learning and care. The federal Liberal government
under Justin Trudeau made child care a priority in the election campaign in
2015. They have delivered on that promise and now we are going to have more
federal dollars, actually we have none right now. We're going to have federal
money to support early learning and care, child care initiatives in this
province, and stay tuned, before long we'll be signing the bilateral agreement
with the federal government. There are all kinds of exciting things in there.
On top
of the base amount that the federal government is going to be providing to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador for child care, there's a $100 million fund
for innovation in child care. There are all kinds of ideas out there.
Organizations that I won't name in our communities across the province have all
kinds of excellent ideas about new initiatives. I don't think we'll have to do a
whole lot of thinking on it because all the thinking has really been done by the
people who have been working in the sector. So we can access a base amount and
then on top of that money for innovative approaches to early learning and care.
So this
is an exciting year. I am so proud, like I said, and I know the Minister of
Finance is excited about it as well because it's an excellent opportunity to do
the sorts of things that she stood up and told the Board of Trade we should be
doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
I can go on further, I'd say
to the Government House Leader.
I want
to talk just a little about, and I'll return to this when I come back again
later in the budget debate, but we hear so much about inclusive education. We
hear so much about inclusive education, the challenges we have in schools
there's no denying it. That was foisted onto the education system without a lot
of consultation with everyone is affected by it. We had a motion here recently
on the floor to have some sort of a summit on inclusive education. But we're
summited out after the task force has done exhaustive in fact, I heard today
that there's another meeting with the task force and a stakeholder group today.
So they are still doing consultations. Exhaustive discussions have gone on and
we know we got to do a better job.
One
thing that we did in this budget, which is great because it's what teachers,
parents and schools have been asking for, we've got an extra $500,000 for
student assistant time. I hear that when I go to schools: You got to have more
assistant time. The appeals process is exhausting us. We are wore out. We have
more student assistant time. And not only that, last budget if you want to
talk about last year's budget we had $500,000 in that budget for student
assistant time.
So in
the space of 12 months, we've added $1 million for additional student assistant
time for kids with special education needs. Unbelievable that we've been able to
do this in this time of difficulty, but we have prioritized these things, we
know what we need to do. We have a plan to fix the problems that we have.
Last
year, on top of that, we added an additional 27 teachers for kids with special
education needs, and that's included in this budget: $1.7 million, almost $1.8
million in additional funding for inclusive education since a year ago
unbelievable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
And when the task force
delivers its report, we are going to have a lot more to say about this, I assure
you. We will get to the bottom of this. We're going to fix it, and that's why
there's an additional $100,000 in this budget to allow the task force to
complete their work.
I saw
the chair the other day, and Dr. Alice Collins is something else. She's
phenomenal, one of the greatest education leaders in this province today,
without a doubt.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Give her a big hand because
she's done an amazing job, her and the other members of the task force,
excellent, excellent people who really understand and care about the quality of
education in this province.
She said
to me: I saw there was $100,000 for the task force. She said: We were really
watching the pennies. We know we're supposed to do that. She said: This will
help us continue to do the work that we have to do. I thought that was a great
thing for her to point out that the task force members have been watching the
taxpayers' dollars as well, as they do their work.
We also
have $53.8 million in school infrastructure spending $54 million in repairs in
schools, leaky roofs, leaky windows, doors that need replacing, lifts and
elevators that need maintenance. That stuff is going to get done. There is money
in here for extensions to school, and for new schools.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Coley's Point Primary.
MR. KIRBY:
Coley's Point Primary is in
here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
We have heard so much about
that. The Member for
MS. P. PARSONS:
Harbour Grace Port de
Grave.
MR. KIRBY:
Harbour Grace Port de
Grave has been constant in her advocacy for this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Absolutely.
I have
to say, the Member for Terra Nova has been on me constantly about the
Clarenville school system and the need for improvements out there. We were
talking today. There is a review going on there now for configuration. If we
find out, we get to the end of the road, that we need additional resources from
the repairs and maintenance budget to address whatever change, should it happen,
we will let the board of trustees decide, but we will have funding for that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
We will have funding for the
Member for Bay of Islands where they are refurbishing, doing things in a way
that is absolutely economizing, basically using every dollar to full advantage
they are repurposing G.C. Rowe.
MR. JOYCE:
Former G.C. Rowe.
MR. KIRBY:
Former G.C. Rowe it was a
junior high school. It's being refurbished as an elementary school. I was over
there; did the tour of it when we were at our Cabinet meeting in Corner Brook.
They said: Look, we need this, Dale. We need this for the school. We need this
for September.
I said:
We will make that a priority. When we get the repairs and maintenance budget out
for this year, we will make sure and they are not even employing contractors,
by the way. District maintenance staff, for the most part, are coordinating
that, and they have some subcontractors in there. But they are mostly doing that
as efficiently as possible, and what a job they have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
It is beautiful to go into,
and it is absolutely exciting.
AN HON. MEMBER:
More for less.
MR. KIRBY:
It is more for less. It's a
case where we are using existing, vacant school facilities. Rather than leaving
them to rot, we are repurposing that facility so that those kids can get a
better education in a school that has good air quality and lots of space. We are
doing that over there, and that is all in this budget.
So there
is an awful lot in here. When we come back again, hopefully, I will have another
hour or so to speak about this at some other stage. I just want to reiterate
that there are a lot of good things in here. I'd just say, I implore the Member
for Mount Pearl South, before I sit down I just want to say, it's time
AN HON. MEMBER:
North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mount Pearl North, sorry.
The time
has come to knock it off, Mr. Speaker. The time has come to knock it off. Stop
all of the personal attacks, stop all the name calling, stop making things up,
stop pulling information out of thin air and frightening seniors and frightening
public servants and frightening health care workers and frightening teachers and
scarring parents, by making stuff up on the fly, not getting any corroboration.
When we
were in Opposition, yes, we opposed, and I think we did a darn good job of it,
but do you know what, we used the facts, and when we didn't have the facts we
asked the minister. If the minister didn't have the facts, the minister got
somebody else, some official expert in the department to give the correct
information. Let's talk about the facts. Don't be like Donald Trump.
Please
stop spinning conspiracy theories that are completely fabricated. People deserve
better than that. We all have our moments, there's no question. People are
fallible, we're all human, but, please, let's have an adult conversation about
the problems that we have in this province.
There's
no question, this budget's not perfect. No one since this province was a
Dominion has been perfect. They're all imperfect, but do you know what, we can
have a conversation about the facts that are in there, but when you're using
social media, when you're not attacking the character of good people like the
Minister of Health, when you're not doing that, smearing people like Dr. Jim
Feehan or one of the best journalists ever produced in this province, David
Cochrane, when you're making up stuff and just slinging it out there and see if
it will stick on, that absolutely has to be called out. In
The Telegram this week, they called out the Member for Mount Pearl
North.
Again, I
have a couple of minutes here. I don't have time to read it all but, basically,
he said use solid information. Stop scarring people. It's already a tense
situation. Stop playing politics on social media when people have legitimate
concerns about their jobs. So, please, just knock it off.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I love the
rousing ovations I get when I stand up.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Virginia Waters Pleasantville,
that the House do now adjourn until the call of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
do now adjourn to the call of the Chair.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House now stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.
On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.