April 16, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 7
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
Admit
strangers.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
In the
Speaker's gallery today I would like to welcome seven guests from the Miles for
Smiles Foundation that will be referenced in a Ministerial Statement today, and
joining us they are: Tom Davis, Jessica Moriarity, Jillian Hammond, Connie Pike,
Kerry Lynn Callahan, Randal Wheeler and Bev Moore-Davis.
Thanks
very much for joining us today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the Speaker's
gallery, I would like to acknowledge friends and family members of Mr. Al
Chislett who'll be recognized in a Ministerial Statement today. I'd also like to
say, I worked with Mr. Chislett and it's indeed an honour to be here today in
this recognition.
Joining
us in the Speaker's gallery are Mr. Chislett's wife, Sherry Doyle; his son,
Bradley Chislett; daughters, Emily and Rebecca Chislett; sister, Daphne
Chislett; brother, Dave Chislett; nephew, Jason Chislett; grandchildren, Julia
and Jacob Chislett.
As well,
we also have former colleagues and friends of Mr. Chislett: Beaton Tulk, former
premier of this province; Norm Mercer, President of Newfoundland and Labrador
Prospectors Association.
Thanks
for joining us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the Public gallery today I
would like to recognize Pegah Memarpour with End Homelessness St. John's, who'll
be mentioned in a Member's statement today.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I would also like to thank my
fellow Members of the House of Assembly today who are wearing green and yellow
ribbons symbolizing our collective support for the families and communities
affected by the terrible tragedy with the Humboldt Broncos. This Legislature
joins other Canadians who have come together to similarly pay their respects.
There
will also be a Member's statement and a Ministerial Statement dealing with this
today.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear from the Members for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune; Conception Bay South; Placentia West - Bellevue; St. John's
Centre.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
with a heavy heart that I stand to recognize the Humboldt Broncos hockey
organization, the team which faced the recent unimaginable fatal tragedy in
Saskatchewan. There were 16 deaths as a result of the collision between the
team's bus and a large semi-truck.
Although
so far away, the Humboldt tragedy has a connection to our province. Parker Tobin
was one of the junior hockey players who died. His father, Eddie Tobin, is from
Bay Roberts, and Parker's mom, Rhonda Clarke grew up in Heart's Content. Many
members of the Tobin family still reside in Bay Roberts. Parker was the team's
goalie, he was 18.
The
municipality, along with surrounding Conception Bay North residents, came
together right away and gathered for a vigil at the Bay Arena on Thursday night,
and on Saturday night there was a charity hockey game. The Town of Bay Roberts,
along with the volunteer firefighters – myself included – took on the local
RCMP. It was a full house for both the vigil and the hockey game, raising more
than $8,000 to support Parker's family.
Mr.
Speaker, this tragedy has indeed hit close to home. The former member for my
district is a childhood friend of Parker's dad.
On
behalf of all Members here in our House of Assembly, we extend sincere
condolences to all of the loved ones affected by this tragedy.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Boyce Stewart, Harbour Breton's
Citizen of the Year for 2017.
Mr.
Stewart has been an active member on a number of the Town's sub-committees,
including the Beautification Committee, the Sunny Cottage Corporation, Elliot
Premises, the local Rod & Gun Club and the Harbour Breton Harbour Authority.
Along with his charitable work throughout the community as President of the
Harbour Authority, he is held in very high regard by the community and we thank
him for his commitment, which has played an instrumental role in completing
crucial projects for the town, including: construction of the new wharf on the
north side and extension of the fisherman's wharf on the south side; the
construction of 12 floating docks; the completion of a breakwater, and many more
initiatives that serve to improve our fishery infrastructure.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Boyce
Stewart for his dedication to his community and the very well deserved honour of
Citizen of the Year. We look forward to his continued commitment and initiative
for years to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak about a tireless advocate in my district, Mr.
Clayton Delaney, who suffers from ARVC – a rare heart disease.
Clayton
has been a strong advocate for many years for AEDs to be available in all
schools and anywhere there's a need. Unfortunately, many members of Clayton's
family have been inherited the same medical issue. He has taken this initiative
to work with the Heart and Stroke Foundation, community groups, as well as
myself, to bring awareness and to ensure no life is needlessly lost.
Since
AEDs are now in my most schools, recreation centres and public places, his new
initiative is creating a registry. Mr. Speaker, this man is dedicated to the
cause. I'm happy to report Clayton has received his heart transplant in Ottawa
on March 18 and is doing well. While waiting in Ottawa for his new heart, he
asked me to keep advocating for this registry, and I say that's passion, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
all hon. Members to keep Clayton in your prayers and to thank him for his
commitment to making our world a better place.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR.
BROWNE:
Mr.
Speaker, the best way is the Osmond way, and what a weekend it has been!
A raucous airport arrival, a celebratory Olympic event
here at Confederation Building, culminating in hometown celebrations where
literally thousands of people came out to meet Kaetlyn, celebrate her
accomplishments and watch her skate on her home ice. Her dog Rasquette, and her
parents Jeff and Jackie, travelled home too. In fact, in her mother's speech
Saturday night she said I was Kaetlyn's number one fan, and I'm inclined to
agree.
The entire weekend was fabulous. I thank many of my
colleagues for joining me on the Burin Peninsula. And as we mark Volunteer Week,
let me say a special thank you to the tireless organizers who made these events
possible. Our hometown pride was at its peak, and it showed.
When asked by a reporter why she lists Marystown as her
hometown, she gave the perfect response: “It never really occurred to me to put
anything else … I always say Marystown, it's where I am from.”
Mr. Speaker, it's this humble spirit that earned
Kaetlyn not only her Olympic and world achievements, but the hero's welcome she
was given. And if I know Kaetlyn, it won't be long before I rise in my place
once again to say: “She's done it again!”
Welcome home, Kaetlyn!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last Wednesday night over 100 volunteers met at the
Boys & Girls Club in St. John's Centre to do the second Point-in-Time Count
organized by End Homelessness St. John's. From 9 p.m. to 2 a.m., volunteers
spread out across the city counting our city's homeless population.
The goal was to meet and survey people living on the
streets, in parks, in cars, abandoned buildings; in emergency shelters and
short-term housing; the hidden homeless couch surfing by staying with friends or
relatives; and people accommodated in public systems such as hospitals or
correctional institutions who had no fixed address when released. I also went on
the Count and was humbled by the resilience of the people that I met.
End Homelessness St. John's is chaired by the former,
amazing MHA Shawn Skinner, coordinated by the amazing Bruce Pearce, and the
Count was organized by the amazing Pegah Memarpour, all champions to end
homelessness.
Bravo to them and to the incredible, dedicated volunteers.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to offer condolences to the family and friends of those affected by
the horrific bus accident earlier his month in Saskatchewan that claimed the
lives of 16 members of the Humboldt Broncos hockey team. One of the young men
that we lost that day was Parker Tobin, who had ties to this province.
Travelling by bus to sporting events is a rite of passage
for young athletes and team officials across the country, including right here
in Newfoundland and Labrador. The trips themselves are often memorable, a big
part of the fun, sometimes more fun than the games they are headed to. I know
these bus rides strengthen bonds and lead to team building. So when tragedy
strikes something so innocent, it is difficult to comprehend.
When the news reached Newfoundland and Labrador, I reached
out to Premier Moe to express our province's deepest condolences for the immense
loss. I shared with him that this province and its people mourn with fellow
Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, what has been remarkable over the past few
weeks is the outpouring of support from around the world; the vast majority of
which have no direct ties to those involved in the accident. Whether it was
through financial donations or by deciding to become an organ or blood donor,
people have stepped up in an effort to honour and remember those that were lost.
Mr. Speaker, the victims of this tragedy and those who
loved them will forever remain in our thoughts. We also stand with the community
of Humboldt and the Province of Saskatchewan as they begin what will be a long
healing process.
I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in a
moment of silence.
(Moment of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the Premier for the advance copy of his statement today. I also thank him for
addressing what certainly has been a heartbreaking experience for all Canadians.
Such a loss of 16 lives in our own country hits home for so many.
Mr.
Speaker, over the last couple of weeks, during the Easter break in particular,
thousands of children travel on buses – not only for sporting events, but
throughout the year they sometimes travel for attending field trips and other
activities within their community or within their school. It's not uncommon to
have families, parents and supervisors following not too far behind by buses.
It's all the more reason why this terrible tragedy strikes home to so many, to
all Canadians, to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr.
Speaker, in small towns it's not unusual for hockey to bind communities. Quite
often, hockey is the centrepiece that brings residents together. That's
certainly the case for this community.
Just to
wrap up, Mr. Speaker, it's worthy of noting, I believe, that sometimes from the
darkness of such terrible tragedies that happen, sometimes comes a glimmer of
light. Canada has wrapped their arms around Humboldt, around Saskatchewan,
around the team, the families and also around the survivors. We'll keep them in
our prayers.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Premier for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, send our condolences
to the families and loved ones of the victims of this incomprehensible tragedy.
The outpouring of support shows how close we all are and how we, as Canadians,
feel such a strong sense of community, even if that community is thousands of
kilometres away.
The
healing process for all those involved will indeed be long. It is our hope that
the support of all Canadians will provide some solace along the way.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today,
we recognize a life well lived. Al Chislett was a self-reliant man and a
visionary whose entrepreneurial spirit improved and enhanced the mining industry
in our province.
In 1993,
Al Chislett and his partner, Chris Verbiski, were looking for diamonds in
Labrador. In mid-September of that year, just as the weather was starting to
turn, they made a most incredible discovery.
As they
headed back to camp, they spotted something from the air – a thick stripe of
rust-coloured rock on a hill above Voisey's Bay. That strip of rock led to the
discovery of the world-class Voisey's Bay mine.
Since
construction began at Voisey's Bay, the project has generated some 35,000 person
years of employment. Mining operations began in 2005 and approximately $15
billion of nickel, copper and cobalt have been recovered.
Born in
Islington, Trinity Bay, Al earned a diploma in business administration Ryerson
University and worked in accounting and construction before changing course and
pursuing a career in prospecting. Mr. Chislett became the first person in the
history of the province to receive a prospector's grant from government, a
program that continues to this day. His company, Eagleridge International
Limited, continues to prospect and develop projects in this province.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing Al Chislett – a true pioneer of the
mining industry, a great entrepreneur and a humble man. And to his family, we
offer sincere condolences.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the
Official Opposition caucus, I join with the minister in recognizing the
contribution which Al Chislett made on the mining industry and, in fact, our
entire province.
Mr.
Speaker, Al Chislett was a true entrepreneur. He helped, as we know, discover
the Voisey's Bay mine. The discovery of this has seen thousands of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive jobs and put us on the world stage.
This discovery also sparked remarkable progress in our mining industry and
inspired many other prospectors to continue their exploration and to build the
industry in our province.
I had
the privilege of meeting Mr. Chislett several years ago. I enjoyed hearing his
well-thought-out viewpoints and his vision for the mining industry and for our
province. He was a true advocate for the development of the industry and a true
advocate for our province.
I hope
that others in this province are inspired by this accomplished individual and
follow in his footsteps. I wish his family our condolences on his passing and
his legacy as an entrepreneur, business leader and trailblazer will live on.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. Al Chislett was indeed a true pioneer, and his work brought
prosperity to many in this province and to many beyond our borders. Chislett may
not have found diamonds, but he himself was a diamond in the rough, showing us
all what hard work, dedication and a little luck can do. Look what a
prospector's grant can reap. There are great mining discoveries yet to be made
in this province, and perhaps some in Mr. Chislett's name.
Our
condolences to Al's family and friends and colleagues, and bravo to Al Chislett
for showing us how it's done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
recognize April as Child Abuse Prevention Month and advise that starting tonight
we will light the Confederation Building blue in recognition. This month, we are
raising awareness about the issues facing child and youth victims of violence
and drawing attention to the role everyone in the community has in helping keep
children and youth safe.
As the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety, violence prevention is extremely
important and, as a father, I believe keeping children safe is paramount.
Mr.
Speaker, in this province between 2006 and 2012 more than 10,000 violent crimes
were reported against children under the age of 18. This causes psychological,
emotional and physical harm.
It is a
top priority for our department and this government to ensure the justice system
works for everyone, particularly victims. I'm pleased to say that our Victim
Services program offers extensive support to children and youth victims of
violence including referrals for counselling, safety planning, court preparation
and assistance with completing Victim Impact Statements.
Mr.
Speaker, this month and every month, we are committed to doing whatever we can
to prevent child abuse.
Finally,
I'd like to thank Ms. Bev Moore-Davis who continues to do outstanding work to
help victims and survivors of child abuse with her organization Miles for
Smiles. Ms. Moore-Davis knows first-hand what it is like to be a survivor. It
takes a lot of courage for her to put herself out there for this extremely
important cause and we will do whatever we can to help her address these
important issues.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. As the Official
Opposition, we join with the minister in recognizing April as Child Abuse
Prevention Month. It's a month to celebrate it, especially in the most recent
years, led by Ms. Bev Moore-Davis – a lady who I can tell you I've grown great
respect for in recent years of seeing the resilience that she has, the efforts
and the work that she leads within Newfoundland and Labrador and also beyond our
own boundaries.
I
congratulate her. I thank the team that's around her for continuing to work and
focus on child abuse and the needs of raising this publicly, and also recognize
the benefits to survivors who are looking for support, help and assistance when
they're looking to speak out and to deal with their own experiences.
Congratulations to Ms. Bev Moore-Davis and also to her team. I hope she has a
good month. I see she has many activities. I encourage people to join them in
those activities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. When travelling around the province, the All-Party Committee on
Mental Health and Addictions heard of extraordinarily long wait times for
psychological and psychiatric services for children. We also heard from
educators about the need for more counsellors in the school system to support
our children.
I want
to thank Bev Moore-Davis and all the community organizations, Victim Services
workers and front-line social workers in child protection who do such incredible
work. It is the services to our people, as well as prevention. Bravo!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in Estimates a couple of weeks ago when the Minister of Justice was
asked what funding is being provided to the province by the federal government
to support the legalization of marijuana, the minister referred us to the
Minister of Finance.
I ask
the Minister of Finance today: What's the total funding expected from the
federal government? Can he table a breakdown and details of that funding?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say to the Member opposite that I'm not aware of any funding directly from the
federal government for cannabis. I can check with the department, but I'm not
aware of any funding.
We are
anticipated, Mr. Speaker, to generate a revenue this year of $5.8 million as a
result of cannabis. The costs associated with implementation of cannabis are
going to be about $4 million, so it will be net revenue to the province of about
$1.8 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the minister: During the Estimates, the department rolled out their expectation.
They weren't sure on the current amount, but their expectation built right into
their Estimates of $500,000 from the federal government for offsetting funds.
Minister, are you telling me now that there are no funds that you're aware of
that's coming to the province from the federal government to offset the cost of
implementation of marijuana?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I know that the
federal government are giving $1.9 million in training and I think $500,000 for
ticketing, but nothing directly towards the retail and distribution of cannabis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, it's
actually the Department of Justice who is offsetting funds, and the breakdown
provided to us was: $100,000 for fines administration; $100,000 for public
prosecutions; and $300,000 for the operations of provincial court. But, again,
the department couldn't provide details on the revenue and it was only what they
were expecting at that point. They didn't know firmly what was going to be
received from the federal government.
I ask
the minister: Do you have any better idea – I ask the Minister of Finance: When
do you expect to know the details of what offsetting funds will actually be
received by government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I just outlined that to the
Member. It's $1.9 million, Mr. Speaker, as well as $500,000 for ticketing and
justice related issues.
The
first question that the Member asked, I had thought he was talking about the
retail distribution of cannabis. There's nothing to go towards the retail
distribution but there is funding, Mr. Speaker, for ticketing and other such.
It's $1.9 million and $500,000; $2.4 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The $1.9
million, Minister, can you table a breakdown by department of how those funds
will be utilized?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll be
happy to provide that information to the Member. We'll get that information to
him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nova
Scotia Liberal budget outlined and forecast $20 million in revenue related to
the sale of marijuana. So that's $20 million in revenue to their budget.
Why does
the revenue in our province only budget $2.2 million for marijuana tax revenue
versus $20 million for Nova Scotia? Can the minister tell us why there's such a
significant difference?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our sale
and distribution of cannabis in this province goes through the Newfoundland
Liquor Corporation and they've provided us with the budget and their estimates,
Mr. Speaker, on gross revenue to the province as a result of the sale of
cannabis and that's where the numbers are derived.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know
the legalization of marijuana is going to cost the province more than is
collected through taxation.
I ask
the minister: How much has been budgeted to address the total cost associated
with the legalization of marijuana in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did
outline in an earlier question from the Member that the revenue is anticipated
to be $5.8 million. The costs associated with the retail and distribution of
cannabis through the NLC is roughly $4 million. So it's a net revenue to the
province of $1.8 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
Budget 2018, government approved a $20
million transfer to Nalcor to help fund $28 million in exploration budget.
I ask
the minister: Can you advice if funding for exploration has been decreased for
this fiscal year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
There's been a five-year program for exploration in
offshore. This program has yielded great benefits, I say, Mr. Speaker, to the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and really did unveil our prospectivity.
This program, of course, is year over year over year and we continue to do that.
Some years are higher amounts funded because you need to do 3-D. Some years are
lower amounts funded because you have to do 2-D.
Mr. Speaker, as we move forward this will fluctuate, as it
has under the former administration and as it will continue. It depends on what
program you're doing in the year ahead and what needs there are based on the
prospectivity, the requirements of the program itself, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder
if the minister can tell us: What's the actual reduction in the program from
2017 to 2018? What's the dollar figure?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY: Mr.
Speaker, if you take it just in that particular year. Last year we had the
highest program ever for exploration in Newfoundland and Labrador because we've
put an awful lot in the 3-D program, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, I believe, if memory serves me, it was about $38
million, but that was because it was a 3-D program. It was the highest, the
largest 3-D exploration program in the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY: This
year we're going to continue the analysis of that 3-D seismic program. In
addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we're adding new – adding new seismic data to
that program for a new seismic program worth about $20 million.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible) is the investment
in the seismic data and that information. It drives investment and opportunity
in our province, and that's what we're talking about.
Is the
minister concerned that a cut in exploration funding will lead to a decrease in
available seismic information which entitles oil industry investments in our
province and as resulted, as she said, in record land sales in prior years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
provide to this House how much the seismic program has been increasing under
this government.
Mr.
Speaker, we have been very focused on the development, the continuing
development of the oil and gas opportunity off our coast of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We will continue to do that.
We've
just released Advance 2030, which was
celebrated really by the entire province, the industry, people involved in
labour, people involved in training. Everybody was very receptive of this
program because what it shows is we're going to be developing a program that is
going to double – more than double – our opportunities in offshore Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, we're going to take last year's seismic data, the 3-D seismic data,
continue to add to that data and continue to do the results so that we can drive
exploration.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, indeed, oil and gas Advance 2030
that the minister speaks of envisions 100 new exploration wells drilled,
shortened time from prospectivity to production and direct employment of 7,500
people, but Nalcor is cutting exploration budgets.
How can
you meet your vision of Advance 2030
if you're cutting exploration budgets?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
help to try and educate the Member opposite of how this program actually works.
What happens, Mr. Speaker, is every year we go out, we do some seismic; last
year, as I said, the largest 3-D seismic program in the world.
You have
to take all that data, Mr. Speaker, take it into a data room, have experts that
we have at Nalcor Oil and Gas company and they have to review all that data.
While they're reviewing all that data – which is going to take some time because
it is 3-D data – we're also continuing the program by investing in 2-D and more
3-D seismic so that we can look at various other areas around offshore
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are
really supporting a robust opportunity in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, maybe the minister can educate us on the details of Nalcor's plan for
2-D and 3-D seismic research for this particular year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to
have that information available to this House. I will confer with the lead at
Nalcor Oil and Gas and make sure that we have the full program details. They're
still being worked out, as we move forward to look at the various areas that
need additional research and development, looking at the information that we
currently have and adding to that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister wants to educate us but doesn't have the details. Mr. Speaker, the
consulting contract exists to support –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The consulting contract
exists to support the C-NLOPB related to seismic-related work.
I ask
the minister: Will this cut in budget affect that contract and land sales that
are driven by the C-NLOPB?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, if we have a
contract in place, then the contract is already in place. This is for future
work in making sure that we continue the program that has been under
development.
We want
to make sure that we have a strong exploration program in offshore Newfoundland
and Labrador. Part of that is doing 2-D seismic in the area where land sales are
coming up; part of that is doing 3-D seismic to give an even more in-depth
detail, Mr. Speaker.
We've
consulted with the Nalcor Oil and Gas experts in this; $20 million is being
invested to ensure that we have the details that we need to continue to entice
the world to come here to do their exploration, Mr. Speaker.
Everyone
is quite excited about our offshore oil and gas opportunity. I'm sure the Member
is as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier stated that a review of the Atlantic Accord has now started
and that opportunities would be there to make changes that it reflect the
current financial environment of our province.
Premier,
what exactly will you be looking for and could you provide an update?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, as
I think most people in the province would know by now, that we met with the
Prime Minister on Tuesday of last week. We had a very good meeting, and, of
course, the reason for reaching out to the Prime Minister was the very issue
that the Member opposite just raised.
So the
Accord, as you know, back in 2005 when the last agreement was struck, made
provision for a review of the Atlantic Accord which would have to be completed
by March of 2019. Under that review process there are a number of decision
areas, or areas that would be open for review, things like – as the Member
mentioned – equalization, but also as you compare Newfoundland and Labrador when
it compares us to other provinces in terms of financial asperities.
So, Mr.
Speaker, it will be a broad discussion. Finance will be involved. Our office
will be involved; officials from the Justice department and so on, Natural
Resources and others.
Mr.
Speaker, right now, all I will tell you is this, is that the Prime Minister was
engaged and very anxious to get the review started.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in the review that the Premier has referenced, will you be asking for
changes to how both renewable and non-renewable resources are recognized in the
calculation of revenues as defined in the province's fiscal capacity?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
As of today, Mr. Speaker, we are talking to the Prime Minister, something that
Members opposite refused to do for many years on this very issue. But I will
say, Mr. Speaker –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible.)
PREMIER BALL:
Well, I would like to remind
the Member opposite, they had the occasion in 2009 and 2014, both of which they
decided not to attend.
But, Mr.
Speaker, we talk a lot about equalization. We talk a lot about federal
transfers, either be it health or social transfers. There's about $75 billion
that goes from the federal government into the provincial governments now on an
annual basis.
Our
province, Mr. Speaker, I've said this quite openly on many times, received $750
million this year. Compared to other provinces, we do believe that that's a
disparity. That is one of the reasons why we've reached out and asked for this
review, Mr. Speaker, and the review will be started.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I remind the Premier, we met with the former prime minister. We weren't
afraid to tell him we didn't agree with him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the protection.
Quebec's
billions in revenue from the sale of hydro from the Upper Churchill does not
reduce the amount of equalization Quebec is entitled to.
I ask
the Premier: Is this an area where you'll make representation for changes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all, like the Member opposite, I remember the TV clipping from this meeting with
the prime minister on a cold Friday night that lasted a few minutes when he
stepped outside the meeting and said we don't trust that crowd.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Please proceed.
PREMIER BALL:
He said we don't trust that
crowd.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we had a very good meeting. It's like everyone, when you sit with
whoever they are, Mr. Speaker, you must make your points. I will guarantee you,
on the meeting that we had with the prime minister, all of these issues,
including the Atlantic Accord and many other issues impacting Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, were discussed at that meeting. One of which, as he just
mentioned, is indeed the Atlantic Accord.
But keep
in mind, Mr. Speaker, the Accord was put in place for one reason: to make sure
that Newfoundland and Labrador is a primary beneficiary of our offshore
resources. That's the objectives, and that's the one that we'll be reviewing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
prime minister yesterday in talking about the pipeline referenced Sydney to
Campbell River, so you might want to mention to him that Eastern Canada exists
beyond Sydney and it exists in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier
have his Minister of Finance release the presentations made over the past three
years by the federal government related to equalization and changes we
requested?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I take exception
to what the Member opposite just mentioned. When he talked about Sydney and
Campbell River, he forgot the early part. If he was paying attention to what the
prime minister said yesterday, actually St. John's was mentioned in this comment
as well.
So why
is it that you would single this out today in this House, knowing full well that
you're not really expressing exactly what happened yesterday, or did you
deliberately leave that out for political reasons? Mr. Speaker, we are meeting
with the prime minister. We are meeting with the minister of Finance, and I
watched that very closely what happened yesterday. Obviously, Members opposite
did not take the opportunity to be as close to what was happening there
yesterday.
What
happened yesterday, I believe was good for Canada, Mr. Speaker. There are things
that are happening on our offshore which is also good for Canada, but let me
tell you this my goal is – who I represent are people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and we will not be playing politics with people in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I watched the
discussion with the prime minister. What he said, he had been in Fort Mac, met
with workers there last week and was amazed by all the workers that were
involved in the industry from Canada. He said from Campbell River to Sydney.
That's what he said. Now, I don't know, Newfoundland is not included in that
distance, I don't think, but maybe the Premier can explain that.
He
didn't answer the question, so I'll ask the Premier: Can the Minister of Finance
release the documents he has sent to the federal government related to
equalization and requested changes over the past three years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said a few weeks ago – first of all, I'd like to remind the Member opposite,
maybe what he should do, rather than get in this to and fro he should just go
back and review the tapes. Our province, St. John's, was mentioned by the prime
minister yesterday. Let's be very clear about that.
Mr.
Speaker, what we're into now is a negotiation about the principles of the
Atlantic Accord which were put in place in 2005. Equalization, where we fit and
how we compare to other provinces, it's part of all of that. What is also part
of this is legislative and regulatory changes that would impact future
discoveries off of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, all of this will be part of the review of where we fit, what is the
impact on our offshore, what is the impact of offshore royalties and its impact
on equalization. All of that now is open for discussion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
they're not going to release the presentations because there are none.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday
the minister indicated he would review the final recommendation of the
Independent Expert Advisory Committee regarding targeted soil removal and the
capping of wetlands.
I ask
the minister: Can he provide an update on his review of this report? Has he
actually read it yet?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
such a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, playing such political points on this – and I
remember the Member, how many times did you ask in this hon. House on behalf of
the people that you represented, asked the government that went ahead and
finally sanctioned Muskrat Falls: Will you start methylmercury limits so we
could see the baseline? He asked. It wasn't done once.
I can
tell you where it's at. The information has been put in. It is being reviewed,
Mr. Speaker.
I have
to say – and I always said this when we were in the Opposition – that if the
proper work was done before this was ever sanctioned, we would not be in this
position. We did not need Muskrat Falls, the biggest tax on Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians that any of us are going to see in our life.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, it's Question
Period. We get up and ask questions and government answers, so I don't know why
the minister is getting offended.
As for
another point, he's the most political Member on the other side when it comes to
questions. We're asking questions. His answers are always political.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
We're asking questions.
People deserve those questions and they deserve answers, Mr. Speaker. I'm going
to try again.
Minister, this project is underway. A decision is urgently needed. When will you
make a decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, am I political
when it comes to the safety that the Member brought up many times? You better
believe I am, when he asks those questions over and over and over.
Mr.
Speaker, there's one thing that we will do – and I said it when I was in the
media – we would review and analyze the report. We would meet with Mr. Reimer –
there has been a message gone to Dr. Reimer to have a meeting. Then we would
meet with all other groups.
We would
not be like the group that sanctioned Muskrat Falls without doing their due
diligence, barring the PUB from it, Mr. Speaker, ignoring the joint review
panel. That's not what we're all about.
What
we're going to do is analyze the report, then we're going to meet with Dr.
Reimer and meet with all the groups involved. We're going to do our due
diligence, unlike the Members opposite who just rammed it through because it was
the right thing to do, they thought.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep doing this. I want to remind the minister, the group
he refers to is sitting over with him: Minister of Finance, former minister of
Finance, Minister of AES. Why don't he go and talk to them? Sure, he got them
next to him; he doesn't have to ask us any questions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, the CEO of
Nalcor has said: There is not one documented case that I'm aware of that
flooding a reservoir has caused harm due to methylmercury. It's in the
environment. It's everywhere.
Has the
CEO of Nalcor advocated to you to decide against soil removal and capping?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I may be
political, but the facts are we're spending over $20 million doing an inquiry
because of the boondoggle that this government approved – the previous
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
That's what this causes, this
Muskrat Falls Project, without doing the due diligence.
Mr.
Speaker, if you ever went through and you look at the report, if the Member ever
took time to read the report, you could see all the experts, they all had a
different opinion. There were two who said move it. There were some more who
said just parts; some say capping. Mr. Speaker, that is what we're going to be
looking at. We're going to be reviewing it all.
And the
Innu Nation has a very strong view. So do you just steamroller over the Innu
Nation? Do you steamroller over them, or do you just try to get a view and get a
consensus, Mr. Speaker?
We're
going to consult with everybody involved. We are not going to do what the
previous government did and make the boondoggle of Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.
We're going to consult and try to come to a consensus for all the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, all we're asking
is: When are you going to make a decision? The people deserve that – it's a
simple question. Answer the question. That's all we've done. He's not answering
any questions. I'm going to ask one more now.
The CEO
of Nalcor has also said – and this is a quote – this has never been done
anywhere, so my expectation is this will not be required.
So will
your decision be based on the CEO of Nalcor's comments that this isn't
necessary?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, again, I'll
answer the question. We'll make a decision when we do due diligence and consult
with all the groups involved.
Mr.
Speaker, once again, the Member opposite obviously didn't read the report
because if he read the report and is trying to single out Stan Marshall or this
government, you can see, even in the report, Peter Penashue himself said, the
experts even said themselves – now, you can say that Peter Penashue is wrong.
You can laugh as much as you like over there, but you stand up and say Peter
Penashue is wrong when he said himself that the report shows that this hasn't
been done anywhere in the world – anywhere in the world. They're unsure of the
consequences. That's what was said in the report.
So this
is not Stan Marshall; this is the report. If you feel – if you want to keep
laughing, say Peter Penashue don't know what he's talking about and the people
who read the report are wrong (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Members
of the local arts community are concerned over a partnership between MusicNL and
the federally funded CBC's Studio F, a partnership which the minister has given
his blessing on Twitter.
I ask
the minister: How can you endorse something which may put local recording
studios out of business?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I
thank the Member opposite for the question. We certainly have a very robust
music industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The industry association is
MusicNL. They are an independent entity; they are not part of government.
The
local broadcaster that she highlighted is the public broadcaster. It is a
federal entity. So any partnership between an industry association and a public
broadcaster, which is a federal entity, has nothing to do with the provincial
government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for a very quick question, please.
MS. PERRY:
CBC receives hundreds of
millions of dollars annually from the federal government, Minister, and your
department provides funding to MusicNL.
MR. SPEAKER:
A quick question, please.
MS. PERRY:
Do you feel is it appropriate
that public money may be used to fund a federally funded music studio and put
local studios out of business?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for a quick response, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And we
certainly support both MusicNL in how they advance the music industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador to supply programs, to do export development, but also
support private business and the opportunities that they have to grow when it
comes to the recording that they do and also the connectivity with public
institutions or private institutions to do training and other opportunities.
Consultation will take place. That's what MusicNL had said. It is their program.
It has nothing to do with the provincial government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the real
unemployment rate in our province is heading for 20 per cent, the highest in the
country, and actual employment rates are also going down. There is a looming job
crisis and without a proactive strategy there is no immediate relief in sight.
The Premier has been in his position now for 2½ years and the job situation has
gotten worse under his government.
I ask
the Premier: Does he not realize what our people are facing? What is he going to
do about it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all, let me begin by welcoming the Leader of the Third Party to her new role. We
look forward to working with her.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you.
To the
question that she asked, Mr. Speaker, certainly that is something that's very
important to me and our government. It is one of the reasons why we put in place
The Way Forward in 2016, which is
really about growth and sustainability in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think
the Member opposite, too, would know that we're just coming off and finalizing
really three megaprojects in our province which is leading to the increase in
the unemployment numbers. As a matter of fact, if you look at the rates, they're
really back to where they were in 2009 and 2010 levels right now.
As a
matter of fact, when you look at The Way
Forward, as we've been working very closely with industry making strategic
investments, it is all about job creation in our province, Mr. Speaker. We are
making a difference.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, we all knew that
those megaprojects were coming to a close, so that's no surprise. There's been
no planning; he's been at this for 2½ years now, his government.
Mr.
Speaker, we are all hearing more and more young people say they are leaving the
province because they can't find work.
I ask
the Premier: What concrete assurances can he give to our young people, and
working families who desperately need work and want to stay, that there will be
jobs for them?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are many things that we've been doing as part of
The Way Forward.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind the Member opposite, too, when she talks about
investments in Newfoundland and Labrador, will she please explain to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador why it is that you refused to come to budget
consultations when you were given the opportunity in December to do it? You
refused to come. You deliberately stayed out of budget consultations. Why is it
you stand in this House today without a plan, without any suggestions for the
future of Newfoundland and Labrador?
We have
put in place The Way Forward, Mr.
Speaker. We've met with the tech sector; we've met with aquaculture which she
does not support. Agriculture is attracting jobs to Newfoundland and Labrador
and we're hoping for some big news in the mining industry as well.
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.
Half a
century of royal commissions, task forces and government white papers have
recognized that closing the gender wage gap requires universal affordable child
care. A gender-based analysis of the provincial budget would have shown that a
child care program is an economic necessity for women.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Why did his supposedly gender-based budget not result
in a plan for a universal affordable public child care program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the record
shows, the only time that the NDP supports child care is times when –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
– we're not required to vote
on it in the House of Assembly. For example, when the NDP decided to turn their
back on their election promise to support full-day kindergarten, they teamed up
with the Progressive Conservative Party to vote against full-day kindergarten.
To deny thousands of mothers out there the opportunity to have their children in
a better education program so that they wouldn't have to provide child care for
half of that day.
So
that's what we see from the NDP. When it's election time they support child
care; when it's time to vote in favour of child care, they vote against it.
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 ask
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: When will he act on
the evidence that affordable, quality child care is good for the economy and
working women and start working towards a public universal child care plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, we started to
act on that commitment the day that we came into office in 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
We implemented full-day
kindergarten against the wishes of the NDP. We introduced an increase in the
salaries through the early learning and care supplement for early childhood
educators who are dominated by a women-dominated workforce.
We have
announced recently the largest investment in early learning and care in the
history of Newfoundland and Labrador in this most recent budget, some $62
million in funding for early learning and care. So we take no lectures from the
Member opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice of the following private Member's resolution on the legalization of
marijuana to be debated on Wednesday, April 18, 2018.
It's
moved by myself as the Member for Topsail - Paradise to move the following
private Member's resolution:
WHEREAS
the Trudeau government intends to legalize marijuana in 2018, even though many
important questions about the impact of legalization have still not been
answered; and
WHEREAS
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve answers to such questions prior to
legalization;
BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House calls on the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to promptly release its analysis on the impacts of legalization on
Newfoundland and Labrador including the social, medical, fiscal, economic,
legal, penal, educational, residential and cross jurisdiction impacts; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the hon. House calls on the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to urge the Government of Canada to delay marijuana legalization unless
both levels of government can assure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that
effective measures are in place to inform people of the impacts of legalization,
monitor, evaluate and respond to the impacts in real time, address any social
and medical consequences as they arise, protect people from marijuana impaired
drivers, protect people from second-hand exposure to marijuana products and
compensate our province promptly and fully for any negative fiscal impacts on
legalization.
Mr.
Speaker, that motion is seconded by the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the private Member's resolution just introduced by the Member for
Topsail - Paradise will be the resolution that we'll debate on private Members'
Day, Wednesday.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
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 residents of Hermitage and surrounding area depend
on timely access to medical services. The amount of days that medical services
are being provided at the Hermitage Medical Clinic has been reduced from two
days per week to just two days per month.
Residents of the Hermitage area, including many
seniors, must now travel approximately 50 kilometres to Harbour Breton to
receive medical services and no public transportation is available in this area.
The residents of the Hermitage area have expressed concerns about their ability
to receive medical services in a timely manner as well as safety concerns
related to travelling for medical purposes.
Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as
follows:
The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call
upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to extend operations at the Hermitage Medical Clinic to include an extra two
days of services per month for a total of four days per month.
Mr. Speaker, the community is really not asking for a
lot. They're asking to have access to medical services of a doctor or a nurse
one day per week. Mr. Speaker, it breaks my heart that they're even in this
position because I strongly believe they should still be availing of a clinic
that is open from Monday to Friday and fully staffed as it was until only
recently.
In rural Newfoundland it is very disheartening and
depressing to see the Liberal government whittle away, whittle away, whittle
away our services, our essential services
in health care. There's one
thing more important than anything else that we have in this province, and
that's our people. Our people will not excel, thrive and flourish; we will not
attract investors to our communities without a decent health care system in
place.
So
moving forward, I certainly will continue to rise in this hon. House. We have a
number of these petitions to present until we hope to hear the news one day –
and we'll continue at this until we do get the news that the clinic services
will be restored to the people of the Hermitage area.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Could I ask for order please?
The Speaker is having difficulty hearing those who have been addressed to speak.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
been given the honour and privilege to present this petition on behalf of the
undersigned residents of Port Blandford. These are the reasons for this
petition.
Port
Blandford and surrounding region's economy is reliant on tourism and related
outdoor activities. The forest in and around Port Blandford contributes heavily
to a thriving tourism industry, employing many residents. The forests in and
around Port Blandford sustains a large wildlife population including the once
endangered and now threatened species, the Newfoundland Marten. The council and
the residents of the community were not properly consulted before important
decisions were made.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly to call upon government to
immediately cancel any plans for clear-cutting in the Port Blandford area as
identified in the five-year plan; and, furthermore, before any current or future
decisions are made concerning wood harvesting in our region to direct the
department to ensure the appropriate consultations are conducted with active
involvement from the municipal council and an opportunity for its residents to
be engaged.
Mr.
Speaker, these residents are really frustrated with the situation. They've met
with ministers and MHAs and they're still at a point of confusion. Many of
these, as stated, rely on the tourism industry for their incomes. Tourism is a
great contribution to our economy as it attracts outside monies into our
province.
Many of
these tourism operations are now at a point of maturation where they're looking
to pass them on to future generations, make significant investments, and all
this is on hold until we get some clarity regarding the clear-cutting operations
proposed for the area.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
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
Newfoundland has the highest incident of cardiac disease in Canada and we need
to do what we can to improve our ability to save lives; and
WHEREAS
the implementation of a new registry can be completed for less than the cost of
a new vehicle; and
WHEREAS
after implementation, the annual cost will be five cents per resident;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation requiring all AEDs in the
province be registered with an online registry. This registry must also be
linked to the 911 system to enable faster response times in the case of cardiac
emergencies.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've presented this petition several times. As a matter of fact, the
Member's statement I did today on a gentleman in my district is directly tied to
this petition. It's something that I've spoken about many times and I'll
continue to advocate because I think it's necessary.
AEDs, we
have them all installed around the province, and it's a great job by the former
administration and the current one to finish this off, but it's very important
that we have a registry in place. And this registry, you'll know where they are.
You tie it to your 911 system. If there's an emergency, a first responder can
pick up the phone and call directly and find out where the nearest AED is.
They
save lives, Mr. Speaker. And as evidenced by, like I say, this family in my
district who suffer from this rare disease, they were very passionate about it
because it is life-saving equipment. Without the AEDs on site – and not a matter
of them being on site, is the batteries be working, for them to be operational.
That's what this registry is about: to be operational and to be ready, when
needed, to be there for anyone – me or you, or a first responder.
On this
note, Mr. Speaker, it's not been spoken publicly, or at least not to my
knowledge, but just this past evening someone I know quite well, actually, and a
very close friend of my constituency assistant, their lives were saved at the
CBS arena as a result of these AEDs being available. Someone collapsed on the
ice. It was a coach in his 40s, collapsed, and six attempts to bring him back
with this defibrillator.
Finally,
they got him back. It was a very serious issue. I suspect probably the media may
bring it up, because it's usually a big deal. His life was saved and it's a
great, fast response. I mean, on the way to the hospital, they had to stop twice
and restart his heart. Very lucky man to be alive today, and I'm glad to report
he's recovering, but without that AED there, operational – it's not a matter of
it being there sitting in a box; it has to be operational.
This
registry will make it operational because it will be constantly check the
batteries, make sure it's up and running. The first responder, when that
happened, had there not been one right there, they could pick up the phone, call
and there's one 100 feet away or in the next building. This is a necessity. It's
a very cheap, $25,000-$30,000 cost. I'll continue to advocate because I think
it's not a matter of want, it's a matter of need – a must. We have to have it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
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:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader, to continue his remarks.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I'm certainly pleased today
to rise to respond to the budget. We have some time left from the previous
sitting when I had the opportunity as Opposition Finance critic to respond to
Budget 2018. At that time, I went through a lot of parts of the
budget as laid out by the Minister of Finance.
I think
today I just wanted to – one particular issue that's budgetary in nature and
it's related to my district, I want to speak to that first, then I just want to
touch on some of the commentary and some of the response since the budget was
brought down.
Obviously, we had a recess for Easter and for constituency week and, since then,
there has been a lot of dialogue and a lot of discussion in province in regard
to Budget 2018 and where people
believe it's going, what the content is and I'll touch on a little bit of that
in a few minutes.
One of
the areas I wanted to just mention from my own particular district is some of
the challenges – and I've heard from people in my district certainly over the
past couple of years and just recently – in regard to the UNESCO World Heritage
Site in Portugal Cove South and some of the challenges in the funding of that
project and some of the challenges that the fabulous volunteers in the region
are having in regard to that.
We had
worked – certainly through my time as being an elected official – very hard with
the community and with many of the fantastic volunteers there who, on their own
over the past 30 or 40 years, have worked very hard to preserve these fossils
which are well over 500 million years old and the preservation of those fossils.
I think
of people like Kit Ward from Portugal Cove and all the work she has done. Back
then, there wasn't a lot of structure in regard to how they'd be cared for and
making sure they were preserved. There were even incidents where people went out
and tried to chisel out a fossil and take it away, out of the fossil beds, but I
mentioned Kit Ward and people like that who, for decades, have been doing the
volunteer work to make sure that they're preserved.
Then we
went through the point of trying to have it recognized as a World Heritage Site.
That process started, the site was shortlisted, UNESCO went through the process
and finally, in 2016, received a designation and all that work culminated in
that and certainly the recognition of it.
That
property and the land surrounding it, that was part of reserved land. It was a
reserve and extended in regard to conservation by the province and managed by
the province. People may not know that's the first and only provincial
designated UNESCO site that's operated by the province. That was a continuation
of that land that was under control of the province at the time.
With
that, obviously, comes – and I know leading up to the actual designation, our
administration had invested significantly in the work to be done, to get the
proper work done. There's a dossier; a large document needs to be done with a
lot of scientific information and so forth that needs to be presented for
UNESCO. There's a management plan needs to be done, all of that as well.
That was
all funds made available to do that, to allow the bid to go forward and to be
successful, and indeed it was. There were those who worked in the department as
well, within government that played a role in that. As well, there was some
assistance from Parks Canada in regard to overseeing and I guess taking a look
at the documentation before it went in. Because they would have the expertise,
because they would operate most – I think it may be 18 UNESCO World Heritage
Sites in Canada. So they would be quite familiar with it.
We did
receive that designation, and, as I said, a lot of the funds that are generated
are generated by volunteers through fundraising, those types of things.
Obviously, this is now a World Heritage Site, which last year we saw an increase
in numbers. The site also is a gateway – the interpretation centre is at
Portugal Cove South, the building is there. They have, obviously, an
interpretation centre. You can go in and receive information and look at the
fossils. There is a replica of the fossils there that you can see. So you don't
have to go to the actual site if you didn't want to, but that's all part of the
interpretation experience.
That
building is operated by a local group there, a volunteer group. They also serve
– as I said, it's a gateway to Mistaken Point. It's also a gateway to Cape Race
and the wireless communication centre that's at Cape Race as well; which, as we
know, was the first wireless message that was sent from the sinking
Titanic that was received out there.
So there's been investment in that as well. That's been upgraded and had
visitors last year collectively. Numbers were up to almost 10,000 people that
went through and they continue to grow.
The
challenge we have, and I relate it back to the budget, is that for the past –
since the designation we've been looking for government and for various
departments to look at investing and allowing that entity to have the investment
it needs, whether it's staffing, whether it's infrastructure, whether it's the
shoulder parts of the tourism season, which we know is extending in the
province. We have a lot of out-of-province visitors from May really up to
October.
Last
year I remember meeting with the department, with the minister at the time, and
as well looking at particular requirements, in regard to budget requirements.
There's a request made in writing to the minister, probably – I think they were
looking for anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000 to allow, you know, to put it at a
level of a world stage and requirements for funding that would allow them to do
what they needed to do. To date, I don't think they've received a response to
that, which is quite amazing. Again, I think they've written recently, emailed
the minister again and asked for a response.
The
other issue that causes some concern when you're looking at opening for the
season, and they've opened the facility and get up and running, is regards to
charging fees for provincial sites. That was brought in, I do believe, in last
year's budget, or maybe the one before. It was suspended for one year and this
year I think it's coming in.
Again,
the volunteers are waiting to hear on how that's going to work, how much money
is going to revert to the operations of that facility, because I've seen their
budgets. In the last couple of years they've run a deficit; yet, this is a World
Heritage Site. UNESCO designation where it's advertised around the world, even
used in some of the government's own tourism ads; yet, we don't have the support
today or a look into the future that need to actually take full advantage of
this opportunity.
Anybody
who's familiar with the Southern Avalon was certainly hard hit by the closure of
the ground fishery. I've seen out-migration, but this is one of the, I guess,
areas that we had thought – and I think rightfully so – could look to rejuvenate
that area, small business and employment.
We've
seen some of that already when you look at some of the activities that have
taken place in Trepassey. I did a private Member's statement here on Inn of
Avalon, Carol and John Devereaux and the work they've done with the Trepassey
Inn and the investments that have happened there. Employment; I was talking to
the owners just a little while back. They talked about this summer coming and
some of the bookings and what they have. They're tremendous entrepreneurs,
business people, did great investments and taken advantage of an activity like
Mistaken Point but you need to have provincial support to continue to grow that
and to maximize the opportunities.
In
Portugal Cove itself, I know there's a venue that has been bought, a coffee
store being put in. A place for someone to drop in and get a bite to eat, as
well as looking at further development. So that's all the things that happen
when you seize that opportunity, like UNESCO World Heritage Site designation,
but you need the ability, and government needs to recognize that and support it.
To date,
with the volunteers, I know they're extremely frustrated. They're looking at the
coming season and whether they'll have the opportunity to continue to operate
and do what they need to do.
I did
mention in regard to paying a fee that was introduced last year for provincial
sites, and that was suspended. What happens now is that people that go into the
venue right now often make a donation. I think last year the donations somewhere
reached about $28,000 in the amount of money that's collected. So that goes in
to those volunteers and their ability to operate that site, and they depend on
that.
If
you're going to implement a fee and you're not telling those volunteers is that
fee, whatever it is, whether it's $20 or $25, is going to revert right back to
the coffers of their operating budget, they're not going to give it back to
them, they have another deficit in regard to how they want to operate and if
they can operate.
Those
were things that were outlined in a letter last fall to the department. I said,
again, no information in regard to a response to that and their concerns, and no
idea if there's increase or assistance that they have asked for. When you're
looking at economic development and seizing opportunities, tourism, small
business, entrepreneurship, I mean all of that is tied into a project like that
and the region which needs it and certainly needs that support.
I know
the Estimates are coming up tonight with the particular minister in regard to
the department. My colleague is part of that and, hopefully, we can ask those
questions and get some answers and get some support in regard to moving forward.
But I can't say enough as well about the volunteers. As I said, they are
volunteers, putting in tireless hours over the past number of years and continue
to do today.
Even for
the UNESCO World Heritage Site, these folks are out selling tickets and
fundraising in that way to get what they need to operate the interpretation
site, which supports UNESCO World Heritage Site. It's kind of hard to believe
that that would be allowed to happen, but that is the case today. That they're
fundraising in what would be the second year, second full summer of a World
Heritage Site.
We
certainly look for some support and direction from this budget for those folks
there and for everything that they're doing because it is a tremendous
opportunity for growth and for economic development and certainly for the
preservation of the fossils and what we see there. We look forward to that over
the next while in regard to what government is going to do for that and look for
answers to it.
Mr.
Speaker, I spoke earlier – and I wanted to bring that up because that's specific
to the district and it certainly is specific to the budget. The other one too
I'll just mention is related to fisheries. My district, certainly from Petty
Harbour right to St. Shott's, traditionally have strong connections to the sea,
strong connection to the fishing industry. Crab is huge. Groundfish was king for
so many years or so many centuries, I would think, and then with the turn in the
ground fishery, it was the shift to shellfish. Crab in that area is huge. As
well, we have processing facilities in Aquaforte, in Cape Broyle, in Witless Bay
and provides significant generation of revenue to the economies. It's important,
plus the whole fish harvesting side.
So we've
seen some changes in some of the information that's come down in regard to crab
and the reduction in quotas and what that means. I've received calls from a
number of people, whether they're plant workers wondering in terms of the
employment this summer and what it's going to be like in regard to a reduction
in quota, how long are they going to operate and, as well, for those fishing
enterprises too, which are small businesses, and how that affects their
enterprise in regard to price and volume. So there are certainly concerns with
that.
One of
the things in budget – my colleague, I know, from Cape St. Francis has been
following up on this – is in regard to the Atlantic Fisheries Fund and the
ability to leverage dollars from that. I think the amount of money, federal
dollars that was leveraged last year, was very small.
I know I
had people particularly interested in the ground fishery and wanted to get the
automated handlines for cod, looking at accessing those kinds of projects and
money for those. Again, this year in the Estimates – and he can speak to it much
better than I can, but I think there is limited amount looking at leveraging
those dollars from the Atlantic Fisheries Fund, which is a concern.
As we
look to some of the challenges that we face, we always talk about diversity and
looking at other species or developing other industries. That's a huge piece
that we want to get more details on as we go through the budget and what can be
obtained and how we can drive that economic opportunity, especially in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We know
even urban centres get a great return from fishing and fishing enterprises, but
it's also the base of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, processing facilities,
harvesters who are all there and part of the industry to drive it. So that's
another issue in regard to the budget and how we move forward with that.
I did
speak earlier about when the budget was brought down and some of the commentary
since then in regard to the plan laid out by the government of the day.
Originally – I guess they're still going with the seven-year period they talked
about in getting back to surplus and some of the initiatives they had, some of
the criteria they're talking about in revenue generation, through taxation,
through economic development, economic indicators, what return is going to be
back to the economy and all those types of things.
There
has been a lot of discussion in the past couple of weeks in regard to that.
Usually a fiscal plan, you have the bond-rating agencies will look and see,
well, is this in keeping, over the next long-term period, of what we need. That
goes directly to your ability to borrow. Does your rate stay where it is? Does
it go lower? Does it go higher? That relates specifically to your ability to
service the debt. Some of those commentaries I just wanted to speak to in regard
to – some local in regard to commentary and what we've seen to date.
The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business looked at some of the plans that
were laid out by the Finance Minister. They believe there's certainly risk here
in regard to the plan that's been laid out in terms of meeting those targets.
They say the government's current plan is not based in reality and does not
address the spending problem with increasing the cost of doing business in the
province.
That's
the concern I guess in any budget and in any long-term fiscal plan you lay out.
It's all intertwined. So as you tax or try to be competitive in other
jurisdictions – it's a disincentive to operate a business or to grow your
business or to move to a particular area. All that's factored in, in regard to
what people pay and what they got left in their pocket at the end of the day.
No
doubt, at some point you need to raise revenue, but you need to strike that
balance in regard to being able to raise revenue through taxation and being
competitive enough where people will spend, people will move here, people will
live here, grow their families here and you have people working, which is the
trickle-down effect which drives your economy. Those were concerns that were
mentioned by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and some of the
thoughts they had in regard to what needed to be done.
One of
the bond rating agencies, Moody's, made commentary in regard to some of the
budget and what was outlined in it; talked about the plan to return to a balance
in 2022-23 but forecast larger deficits than previously anticipated before
attaining the goal. They highlighted the fact that deficits in 2018-2019 and
2020-21 remain elevated, 8.9 per cent and 8.7 per cent of revenue.
The
budget plan faces increased exposure to other risks about revenues and spending
measures because the margins were so tenuous that any fluctuation on either side
would lead them to believe the goal of '22-'23 could not be met. They concluded
the province was facing increased risk, that it will be unable to attain its
goal of balanced budgets by 2022-23.
I don't
think we've heard from the two other bond rating agencies in regard to their
interpretation, but I guess that will come in the near future and probably
during this budgetary process as we go through it here in the House of Assembly.
The
other interesting point of note is when we look at the expenditures, it would be
roughly up about 2.5 per cent from the revised forecast of 2017-2018. That is a
contrast to the plan; 1.4 reduction expended annually across the rest of the
budget. So the dynamics of spending when the department –as you go from year to
year trying to keep it marginally is challenging. That, as well, they mentioned
elevates the risk and to meet those objectives that have been identified.
We look
at commentary from the National Bank of Canada in regard to some of the comments
in this and what was laid out in the 2018 Budget. They did recognize the
lowering of the Retail Sales Tax on auto insurance over four years and
increasing the threshold for the provincial payroll tax effective January 2019.
That's an attempt to look at the amount of taxation and trying to be a little
bit more competitive in regard to our jurisdiction to others.
Also,
recognize – we do as well – there was a new tax credit for search and rescue
volunteers who play such an amazing and important role in our communities and in
our region. There was also reference to the fact of the independent review of
the taxation system is ongoing with recommendations apparently to be
incorporated in maybe 2019, which would be next year's budget.
The
National Bank of Canada references about the long-term fiscal forecast and
whether government remains on track to return to surplus in '22-'23. They say
the path back to balance isn't exactly a straight line and talks about the fact
of, some of the projections for the next number of years: getting back to
balance will require meaningful spending restraint, outright reductions in the
final four years of the fiscal plan and some tough decisions are still to come.
We'd
view the budgets near economic assumptions as cautious. For instance, the
government has assumed a 0.8 per cent contraction in real GDP where a number of
private sector forecasters see positive real growth this year and, moreover, the
outlook for the GDP price deflators quite cautious in our estimation reflecting
an average oil price forecast is well shy of current levels.
That
goes as well to the issue of the price of oil and how that's determined. I know
the minister spoke the other day in regard to the agencies that – I think there
are 11 that so-called experts, I guess, that give financial data every year and
projection data, international forecast of where a barrel of oil is going to be
at any particular time. And that's well-educated information in regard to where
it might be, but it's far from definitive. I think the current administration
took the middle of the road in the projection that's coming for this particular
year, but you certainly look at geopolitical and other things that are happening
in the world. It's very tenuous in regard to changes up or down, and to be able
to forecast out three or four years, and those forecasts to be met.
That's
one of the challenges that you have. Yet, when we were in government, we were
told time and time again you can't depend on oil, you can't be addicted to oil
but nothing has really changed in that. If you look back at the last two budgets
in what was budgeted and what came back as actuals in terms of revenues, any
improvement that has occurred has occurred to the fact that, you know, we've had
increased production where you didn't expect it, or we have an increased price
of oil, or the exchange rate happened in our benefit for supporting that oil and
it came to our benefit. So these are things that really continue and they still
cause some challenges in meeting targets as we move forward.
Another
commentary we had was the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies that talked
about particular aspects of the budget. There are reasons to doubt this
forecast, let alone avoid financial problems in the future. They talk about
we'll continue to run cash deficits of an average of more than $2.1 billion.
They referenced a zero-based budgeting that we've heard so much about over the
last couple of years. And other tweaks – the government operations have only
produced modest changes to the government's financial directory.
They
talk about calls for decrease in spending in the last years of the planning
period, which is that seven-year period that we spoke about. And they referenced
a bond-rating agency that is a risk since the provincial government have to make
significant reductions in spending, in addition to controlling for inflation.
And there's no indication how the government plans to achieve those reductions.
There's
other reference made to vulnerable to factors beyond its control, since about 40
per cent of the budget relies on revenue from mineral and oil royalties. As we
know, they can dramatically change from one quarter to another and certainly
from one year to another. So that's a concern that was expressed in that regard.
As well, add to that the risk of the plan to increase oil and gas production
beyond – and that's referenced to what would occur without Hebron's growing
output. So it's all tied to a lot of elements that may or may not come to
fruition, but it is tied to economic indicators and worldwide indicators in
regard to the price of oil.
This
goes back to when we look at some of the commentary that we've seen over the
past couple of weeks. We've referenced here in the House and we've asked
questions in regard to commentary made by the Auditor General in 2017 in the
seven-year fiscal plan that was laid out and some of the concerns that were
expressed at that time. The issue was expenses and how much revenue you can
actually generate through taxation until the point in time you reach that
threshold where it's a disincentive and you're not raising that amount of
revenue that you expect to raise.
The
Auditor General at the time talked about expenses were expected to drop by only
2.3 per cent over that period from 2017-2018 to 2022-2023. But with those other
variables that were mentioned in the other reports I've alluded to, even with
inflation, it's hard to determine or make a clear determination on whether those
are obtainable, and information to date and most opinions to date indicate they
are not.
Expenses
over the six-year period are forecast by the province to reduce slightly. As I
said, the 2.3 per cent decline works out to about $187 million. Newfoundland and
Labrador generates more revenue than any other province. Per capita spending in
this province is substantially higher than per capita revenues and we spend more
than every other province by a considerable margin.
I was
happy to hear that the Premier after some time, and us asking for the past
two-plus years, that they're going to start a process with the federal
government to look into the Atlantic Accord, looking at equalization, and in
regard to, certainly from our perspective, an oil-producing province like
Saskatchewan and Alberta, and if that could be amended, and looking at things
like fiscal capacity, your ability to raise revenues, what that looks like, and
how could we do that to our benefit, and how we can – Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians – get a greater cut of that program, because that's all about
reasonable taxation for reasonable services. And most would argue that's not
occurring now in our province. There is a federal program like equalization that
we should be able to avail of.
Noteworthy, the other two major transfer programs are health and the social
transfers, and both of those I think in the budget I looked at were just
improving by the designated percentage. So there's no new money, per se, but
we're receiving what's required as was set out in the agreements.
The
Auditor General recognized Newfoundland and Labrador spends in excess of 21 per
cent more per capita than the next highest province, which is Saskatchewan. Now,
some of that certainly goes to our geography and the ability to make those
services, meet those needs but, again, it's something to look at.
The
Auditor General back in 2017 said Risks to Achieving a Balanced Budget: “A
budget forecast involves making reasonable estimates based on realistic
assumptions regarding expectations of future outcomes. The longer the forecast
period, the greater the risk that expected outcomes may be significantly
different than expected.
“The six year revenue forecast to 2022-23 is based on
assumptions regarding such items as oil prices, oil production, exchange rates
and future economic activity in a variety of sectors of the economy.
“While it is possible that the forecast may be exceeded,
there is considerable risk that the revenue forecast may not be achieved.” That
was back in 2017 and that analysis is pretty similar to what I've just gone
through in regard to bond-rating agencies, some banks, the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business and others as well.
Some of the reasons for that, that the forecast would not
be achieved: Oil royalties may be less than expected as a result of lower than
expected oil prices, lower than expected production and items of that nature.
Other tax revenue may be negatively impacted by a slowing economy.
So we have in The
Economy, which are a part of the document of the budget, you can go through
that and people can see what the actual indicators are in the province, whether
that's housing starts, whether it's retail sales, all of those variables that
drive the economy, you can see where they're headed and a lot are not headed in
the right direction.
With that “the six year forecast” – the Auditor General
said – “of expenses assumes a slight decline over the period. Keeping expenses
at these forecast levels will be challenging.” So that's some of the concerns
that was expressed back last year in regard to the plan that was outlined and,
again, this year, it's expressed in some of the commentary in regard to the
budget.
So when you look at a return to a balanced budget, there
were a lot of ifs involved with that in regard to the current plan and the
Auditor General recognized at the time if oil prices increase, if production
increases, if economic activity occurs as predicted and spending is constrained
over the period.
“If this does not occur, the Province will have to look to
other means to move to a balance.
“Closing the budget gap would require either more revenue,
less expenses or a combination of both.”
“The Province increased a number of taxes in Budget 2016.
Currently, on a per capita basis, this Province has one of the highest tax
burdens in the country.” That, in and of itself, is a huge issue when your
economy is slowed, you have one of the fastest aging populations in the country,
you want opportunities for young people who are here to live and raise their
family, to start careers here.
I think
I saw a stat some time ago that over the next number of years about 5,000 people
are coming out of our public service. It's a great time through that process to
align our service delivery, find ways we can do it different if we can. If not,
we need those young professionals here to service our public sector, and
certainly the private sector, so they can pay taxes, stay here and build our
community, and all those things that are needed to have a buoyant and a recovery
in our economy.
The
other point that was mentioned some time ago was about the new revenue
generations that are going to come from – about $1.1 billion, I think, in
'22-'23. The Auditor General referenced that as well in 2017.
“Almost
27% of this growth is expected from oil (predominately increased oil prices) and
the remaining 73% from other sources (including expected profit from Muskrat
Falls).
“Looking
at the Province's revenue per capita provides a basis for comparing revenue
generation in Newfoundland and Labrador with other provinces.”
That's
interesting, because a lot of times we've heard there and heard from the Premier
that there's no sale for that. You can't sell it on the spot market and so forth
and so on; yet, in their budget forecast it specifically stated that sales from
excess revenue will be factored in to the $1.1 billion in increased revenues to
balance the books in 2022-23.
Those
are some of the commentary to date in regard to the budget; not all, obviously,
but the general consensus is the targets extended by this particular government
for a seven-year period aren't obtainable. The fiscal plan is not sound and the
economic indicators are not strong in regard to allowing the economy to be at a
level and function at a level that is going to start that jump that's needed in
the economy.
Now we
have a lot of resources, as we know, and there is and can be a bright future for
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have great business leaders and a great business
community. We have entrepreneurs. We have great post-secondary institutions. We
have great innovators and have, over the past couple of decades, invested
heavily and have much of that infrastructure that's needed. I think our
resources are strong. We, like much of the country, rely on natural resources. I
think there are opportunities here to move forward but we need a sound financial
plan to do so.
I'm
interested to see – over the weeks ahead we'll have discussions on various parts
of the budget. We'll have Estimates. I know a couple have been completed
already. We'll get greater details in regard to the government's plan and dig
down into the details on what's going to affect the lives of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians with this budget, and we look forward to doing that. Certainly, we
look forward to debate over the next number of weeks as we go through Estimates
and ultimately vote on this particular Budget 2018.
With
that, I conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to the debate.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the Member for speaking for two-and-a-half hours. I know standing on
your feet for that long – I know it carried over the span of two weeks. Now the
Member for Labrador West is getting mad at me because I'm being nice to him, but
that's going to change shortly.
First of
all, I'd like to start off by congratulating all the volunteers in the District
of Bonavista, Mr. Speaker. This week marks the 40th anniversary of Volunteer
Week in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know in your district and in my district
there are several events going on. The largest one will take place in Port Union
at the factory of the Coaker Foundation on Friday evening. It's always well
attended. Thank you to volunteers, volunteer organizations for all you do.
I'd also
like to congratulate several people. I know last year the NDP got on their high
horse and said we weren't allowed to congratulate people, we were wasting time,
we should be focused on the budget; but I think this is an opportunity to get up
and say some good things, not like the NDP who are all doom and gloom all the
time. We have to recognize the good things that are going on in our province.
First of
all, I'd like to recognize Team Gushue. Now, that was an off topic for them last
year. You weren't allowed to congratulate Team Gushue after certain days. It's
like wearing white after Labour Day. After a certain time we weren't allowed to
congratulate Team Gushue for the NDP. So I congratulate them for winning the
Brier and coming in second in the World's recently.
Also, to
Kaetlyn Osmond – I know my friend from Placentia West - Bellevue has said it
several times, but Olympic gold medalist, silver medalist, bronze medalist and a
world champion. I didn't get in here on Friday but I got an autograph, so thank
you. It was great to see.
Also to
Liam Hickey, who is not just a winter Paralympian, he's a summer Paralympian as
well. He won silver in the sledge hockey competition. It's great to see good
things in Newfoundland and Labrador, even though the NDP don't want us to
recognize the good things that are going on. So we'll leave it at that.
Mr.
Speaker, this is our third budget delivered by our government, and to talk about
where you're going you got to talk about where you've been.
You take
the PC government from 2003 to 2015, 12 years, and their legacy is not one of
any great celebration that we can have here in this province. Their legacy, at
the end of 2015, was a $2.75 billion deficit, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nothing to have a ticker tape
parade about.
MR. KING:
No, Sir.
Mr.
Speaker, when the Premier and Cabinet were sworn in on December 14, 2015, there
was no big honeymoon there. They met with the Department of Finance.
When the
PCs in Budget 2015 said they were
going to run a $1.1 billion deficit and that a barrel of oil was going to be $71
all year long, you know what, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier met with the
Department of Finance that day, December 14, 2015, he found out that deficit
was, in fact, $2.7 billion. Just imagine that, going from $1.1 billion to $2.7
billion.
When
Ross Wiseman said he wasn't good at math, he got that right. He wasn't very good
at math; $1.6 billion in the difference from what they had projected.
What
that meant is they faced, on the first day on the job, Mr. Speaker – 11 days
before Christmas, government almost never made payroll. Imagine that. The first
day on your job you face a $2.7 billion deficit put forward by the former PC
government and you almost don't make payroll. You have to work out a deal with
the lenders to get people paid so they can afford to have Christmas.
That's
the PC legacy, Mr. Speaker. It's not a great one to have, I tell you that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Shameful.
MR. KING:
It is shameful.
We go
back. The Member for Ferryland said: We're addicted to oil. For us saying that
we're, as a Liberal government, addicted to oil. That's the crowd over there –
oh sorry, the Member for CBS, I'm not allowed to say the crowd over there. I
know I offended you because you weren't a Member. You were a patronage
appointment for that government, but you weren't a Member. I wouldn't want to be
part of that crowd either, so I apologize.
Mr.
Speaker, addicted to oil; 10 years of oil revenues equalling $25 billion and at
the end, in 2015, you have a $2.7 billion deficit. I mean come on, addicted to
oil. They put all their eggs in one basket. I'm going to get to what we're
doing.
AN HON. MEMBER:
They put all their oil in one
basket.
MR. KING:
Sorry, yes. All in one
barrel, actually, but that's not quite the legacy that they want.
They
went up to Ottawa; Danny Williams thumping his chest, tearing down the flags and
picking a racket; comes back and said we got her, b'ys, we got her, $2 billion –
but what that $2 billion actually was, was his advance on his paycheque.
Mr.
Speaker, let's say if you expect a paycheque a month down the road and you go to
your boss and say: Boss, can I have an advance on my cheque? That's what he
actually did. He didn't go get $2 billion. He just took an advance on his
paycheque. So we should be seeing that in last year and this year. So that's the
legacy: tear down flags and pick a fight with Ottawa, try to get a few votes
that way. That was their legacy: fight with Ottawa.
They're
still at it now. They want to get over there and say oh, you guys have issues
with your federal counterparts. Yes, but at least we get in the door and we can
have sensible discussions with our federal counterparts.
Mr.
Speaker, what we had to do was we had to take some serious measures to get our
fiscal vessel back on course. We had a tough budget in 2016. When you get faced
with not being able to make payroll for your employees, you have a lot tough
decisions to make – the tough decision that our Premier had to make that their
former premier wouldn't make. We're seeing that today where we have our vessel
on the right course.
What we
did was we took that $2.7 billion deficit that we faced and, in
Budget 2016, we had projected to bring
it down to $1.8 billion, but we did do better than expected. We made
cost-cutting measures. We did better than expected in revenues and, by that end
of that fiscal year, we were down to $1.1 billion. One year, we reduced the
deficit by $1.6 billion. That's getting serious about getting your fiscal ship
in order, Mr. Speaker. Last year, we saw the deficit further reduced down to
$852 million and, this year, we have a projected deficit of $683 million.
Now,
this is not some great thing where you are happy to have large deficits like
that. When you look at where you come from and where you are today, it's night
and day, because we had to make the tough decisions. We made the tough
decisions. Decisions that the former government wouldn't make, we made them and
we're seeing the benefits of that today. So we're well on our way to being back
to surplus by 2022-2023, contrary to what the Member for Ferryland would say.
They all
talk about doom and gloom, and the NDP talk about doom and gloom. Mr. Speaker,
do I think there's a bunch of doom and gloom? Not at all. We are on the right
track – we are on the right track. With
The Way Forward document released in October of 2016 we are on the right
track, and that's not all doom and gloom.
We have,
in my district alone – I'm going to talk a little about the District of
Bonavista – we've seen infrastructure renewal that they haven't seen the likes
of in years. We've seen major road and municipal infrastructure projects being
done. Last year, there was a road done that the old Member for Bonavista South
and the old Member for Trinity North used to argue over getting done. I don't
want to get it paved because it's not in my district, and the other one would
say the same thing. Me and my friend from Terra Nova, even though it's all in my
district, we said it benefits the whole peninsula going up to Clarenville and
back to get that road done, and it was done, and people are talking about how
great it is to have a good road to drive on.
I don't
know what they spent $25 billion and $4 billion in lost tax cuts that were given
to Danny Williams's rich buddies, I would say. Twenty-nine billion dollars, so
where did it go? They talked about schools, all the schools they built. Well,
they tried to shut down Catalina Elementary. They had the former Member for
Bonavista South saying to the school board rep at the time, now shut it down,
shut it down; we want everything to go to another community. Thank God that
didn't happen. So when they say they're building schools, in my district they
were trying to shut them down, Mr. Speaker.
Talk
about road improvements. If you drive around my district, you certainly didn't
see any road improvements that they put in place. You might see a kilometre here
or a kilometre there where they tried to get a few votes, Mr. Speaker. Because
of our five-year roads plan, part of The
Way Forward document, we actually have stability and this year alone the
District of Bonavista is going to receive $6.9 million for roads. That's 9 per
cent of the provincial roads budget, Mr. Speaker. Out of the $77 million, we're
getting almost $7 million of that – 9 per cent. And it's long overdue, Mr.
Speaker. That's not even putting a dent into what needs to be done because of
the neglect of the previous PC government.
One of
the biggest tourism regions in the province had roads neglected year after year
after year. Thank God we're finally starting to see work down on roads in my
district. Unfortunately, everyone can't get it done, but we're working hard to
get as many as we can done.
We've
seen significant funding from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation. Today alone, I had a list handed to me of all the organizations –
and I think there are 10 or 12 organizations that are receiving CEDP funding in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's supporting our tourism industry in
the District of Bonavista. I brag about it all the time. The District of
Bonavista is booming, Mr. Speaker. You see people coming from all over the
place. You drive around you see licence plates from the United States, different
parts of Canada and you'll see a lot of locals coming there as well.
It's
very important that we invest in these organizations, in these 10 or 12
organizations. Because if we want to grow our revenue in the tourism industry
from $1 billion to $1.6 billion in 2020, you have to have good investments in
things like roads, supporting groups that are providing good services, good
experiences to people who come and visit.
Mr.
Speaker, we've seen investments in hotels, restaurants. We've seen investments
in non-profit organizations through partnerships with our federal government. So
when they went to Ottawa and had the door slammed in their face, stood on Elgin
Street out in the rain wondering why they couldn't get a meeting with Stephen
Harper, our ability to work with the federal government is seeing partnerships
formed so that we get significant funding both through ACOA and both through
things such as the Building Canada Fund, Clean Water and Wastewater Fund.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, you see George's Brook-Milton, specifically Milton, four or five
years without a reliable source of water. We're using Lily Pond. They had the
Finance minister represent their district and they couldn't get a water project
that would connect them with George's Pond just outside George's Brook.
Within
the first year, we got the funding through the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund.
It was a $1.6 million investment, Mr. Speaker. Last summer, the people in Milton
finally had a reliable source of water. So I'd say that's a great thing, a great
reason to partner with the federal government.
When
they're tearing down flags, thumping their chests and starting rackets, we're
actually working with our federal counterparts. We may not always agree on
everything they do, but it's great to have that relationship where you can have
a conversation and get things done instead of grandstanding for votes.
Mr.
Speaker, we've invested in the Enhanced Seniors' Benefits and low-income
supplement. Every three months people in our province see that on their GST.
That's been a huge success for us.
We've
seen a Cabinet Committee on Jobs. So when the Member for Ferryland gets on and
says: oh, they're still addicted to oil. He's full of it; anyone knows he's full
of it.
Mr.
Speaker, the Cabinet Committee on Jobs has focused on aquaculture, agriculture,
the tech sector and now mining. I know the NDP doesn't support aquaculture. They
proved that in a meeting in St. John's a couple of weeks ago, but we certainly
do. It's a great industry. When you can see Grieg right now, that's going to
provide hundreds of jobs on the Burin Peninsula, jobs that we need.
In the
agriculture sector; Mr. Speaker, there are four key industries in the District
of Bonavista. You have the fishery, agriculture, forestry and tourism. The
agriculture sector right now in the District of Bonavista is growing. We see a
number of different dairy farmers in the district who are provincial award
winners. There's a young gentleman in Harcourt right now who started up a farm a
couple of years ago. He's a dairy farmer and he's very successful. That's what
we want to see, young farmers engaged.
There's
another couple in Elliston who are looking at getting greenhouses up and running
on the Bonavista road going from Elliston doing non-traditional vegetables. Mr.
Speaker, this is wonderful that we're seeing young people engaged. With the
Cabinet Committee on Jobs focused on agriculture you're seeing that. I've got
vegetable farmers coming up to me and saying because of the investments put
forward by PAAP and Growing Forward 2,
and government's focus on agriculture industry, they're able to have better
production. They're better able to buy the equipment that allows them to have
better production.
One
farm, Three Mile Ridge, was able to operate year-round. They're still selling
vegetables from last year. It's a pleasure to drive by and stop in and pick up
fresh vegetables from their farm instead of having to go to a store where
they're shipped in from elsewhere.
Mr.
Speaker, that's the kinds of things we're doing with our Cabinet Committee on
Jobs. We're putting in place the mechanisms so these industries can grow. They
didn't have the foresight to do that. The previous government didn't do that.
They were so addicted to oil that anything else, they had the blinders on. They
didn't care.
Mr.
Speaker, the tech sector; I was at the Tech Summit a month ago, a little over a
month ago; 40 businesses which we are partnering with through private industry.
We're working with them so they can be successful. Those 40 businesses, we're
going to help them grow with the help of industry stakeholders. Once those 40
tech industries are flourishing, then we'll start working with others. If you
look at the age of the people in that room, they didn't have grey hair like
yourself, Mr. Speaker. They had full heads of hair, young, ambitious, young
people. They were go-getters, right out of university ready to go. That's the
people we're helping.
So when
the Opposition and the Third Party get up and say doom and gloom, doom and
gloom, no one wants to stay here. Do you know what? Most of the 40 businesses
from that industry want to stay here. They're excited to be here. They're doing
the hard work to stay here.
I'm
getting a little short on time. I'm only on page 1 of the two pages of notes. I
know the mining sector is important in your area. You're the leader in mining in
Newfoundland and Labrador, as you tell us. Then you see a focus on the forestry;
renewable fishery through our $100 million federal Fisheries Fund. It's not a
phantom fund like they had. It's actual money that's being rolled out to
fishermen right now and industries right now.
Mr.
Speaker, with that said, I'm going to take my seat. I'm going to have two more
opportunities to speak.
So thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you for giving me time to speak on the budget this afternoon and to address and
have some commentary and discussion on what we saw in
Budget 2018 which is essentially a repeat of
Budget 2017 which is essentially a repeat of
Budget 2016.
The only difference is when we go back to 2016 we can
recall – we recall back in 2016 the previous Finance minister was planning to do
a fall cost reduction budget. She said in 2016 there was going to be three
pivotal points or three decision points, announcement points, being the spring
of 2016 when the government hammered Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as
individuals, hammered business, hammered the economy, hammered rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, hammered everything they could possibly hammer on
taxes and fees.
The saviour that was put out there by the current
government was that in the fall we're going to reduce our cost of operations. We
hear members opposite talk quite regularly about the significant cost to operate
government. There's no two ways about it, there are significant costs associated
with government.
The fall
2016 came and the Premier said: No, no, you all got it wrong. Everybody got it
wrong. That's not what we're doing. We're just going to do a fiscal update, is
all that was going to happen in the fall of 2016. Somehow the minister had it
wrong. We heard it wrong. We interpreted it wrong. Everyone had it wrong except
for the Premier. No, it wasn't going to be a cost reduction in the fall; it was
going to be a fiscal update.
Then in
the spring of 2017, the previous minister of Finance said there was going to be
further cost reduction in the spring of 2017, and it wasn't. It was essential a
repeat of 2016.
Mr.
Speaker, what was significant about 2016 was all the very difficult and
challenging taxes and fees they put on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I
recently heard the current Minister of Finance reference: Not shocking the
system. Well, that was language I used back in 2015 because we knew oil was
going to continue to go in the wrong direction. Predictors said: Oh, it's
bottomed out. The next day it's getting worse. That's it, it bottomed out. The
next day it gets worse. There were many predictions that said, okay, it can't
get any lower than this, and it did in 2015. Plus we lost production back in
2015.
In 2016,
we were talking about – well, we didn't want to do it. We were trying to smooth
it out. We didn't want to shock the economy, shock the system.
That's
what the current Finance Minister talked about. Recently, I've heard him use
those types of words about not shocking the system when it came to reducing the
cost to government. Because there's no doubt, if you cut out a large number of
public servants than that has an impact on, not only public service but on the
province.
I
remember back in 2013 when we had a cost-reduction budget. We sat on the
government side. The Members here on this side, and some of the Members over
there now that are – especially some over there who are ministers today. They
were all aboard us and were daily just beating us up.
I
remember the numbers getting larger and larger and larger – factiously, by the
way. They weren't accurate. They were getting larger and larger and larger.
Every day they'd come in: Oh, they laid off 500 people. Oh, they laid off 600
people. They laid off 700 people. They laid off 800 people, into the thousands
and so on. They just kept ballooning the number, and they criticized us for
trying to reduce the size of government.
Then we
took an approach on attrition. We said: I agree with that. That was in 2014,
2015. When oil was falling, I said: We have to very careful. We can't fall just
simply with oil and rise with oil. We have to try and level it out, and we were
worried about shocking the system.
I know
the current Finance Minister has talked about not shocking the system, but it's
in stark contract because we see program spending is still increasing. They used
to talk about zero-based budgeting. We asked the minister: Is zero-based
budgeting still something you're talking about and so on? The last day we sat –
the budget came down March 27; we only had one day in the House after that to
ask questions. The minister gave very, what I would term, curt answers, one-word
answers and they'd all laugh and chuckle over there and find it very amusing.
Then he'd get up and give another one-word answer and they thought it was all
very amusing. But the people I spoke to during the Easter break from the House
certainly didn't find it amusing when they were trying to find out what's in our
future.
I
listened very carefully to the Member for Bonavista. You know, he's a new
Member, Mr. Speaker, and I respect that. He's going by the notes he was given,
and I respect that too. He was given and told what to say and he's following the
notes that he has, but he forgets to talk about a lot of things that happened in
the past.
Long
before I was involved with provincial politics, I remember when he referenced
Danny Williams came to power in 2003 and talked about how the province was
bankrupt with infrastructure, mouldy schools, bridges that were being closed,
roads that weren't fit to drive on. In 2003 it was exactly what happened when we
found a significant deficit or some had said the province was bankrupt of
infrastructure back in those days.
So there
was a long road ahead, a very long road, a difficult and challenging road. I
remember when I got elected in 2010, I was only in here a few weeks and I was
thinking do the Members in the Opposition ever come in and not ask for more.
Because it seemed like whatever happened – I went through my first budget
process when I just got elected in a by-election and I was learning the ropes,
how things happen and I was wondering do the Opposition ever come in and not ask
for more because they always ask for more.
The
Liberals, every day in Question Period, were asking for more, asking more and
they asked for more. It was never enough, Mr. Speaker. It was never enough. They
wanted to see more. If we didn't do it, then what they'd do is go out and
coordinate with groups, organizations and stakeholder groups and say let's get
up in arms now against the government because they're not going to give you more
for that programming. They did it very well in many cases, in surrounding
themselves with a cause or an interest group.
I
remember when I was sitting over there, Mr. Speaker, in 2015 budget. I remember
saying that we could line up every group out through the door of the House of
Assembly, every group in the province that receives funding – and did receive
funding back in those days – down the steps of Confederation Building and down
the Parkway, we could line them all up and I can assure you they'd all come in
one after the other and say yeah, you've got to reduce the cost to government
but don't cut us because – because everyone will be able to make an argument of
why their particular group and organization is important, and they are
important.
There is
so much good work that goes on in this province by such groups and organizations
that are around our province that over the years have received lots of funding
from the provincial government and have done some fantastic work on the ground
in not only urban centres, but also in rural centres. Providing a recreation
activity for a senior, providing a support service to a youth or to a child, or
finding a particular matter or issue that needed more attention.
I wear
my daffodil today, this being Daffodil Month and our first day back in April,
and we're all wearing daffodils on this side of the House in the Opposition in
representation of daffodil because it's important to me personally, but it's
also important to us as a province.
It's an
endless amount of money you could throw into supports and services, but also
into research for such matters. Anybody who has a research project – if someone
wants to do a research project involving cancer, as an example, could come in
and make a really good case of why their research project is important. I've
been involved and helped fund research projects in the past, separate from
government. I've been involved with a research project today that's very
important to a certain segment of the population to certain types of cancer.
It's
very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because people quite often say all that money
spent and they can't find a cure for cancer. There have been lots of cures for
cancers that have been found and there are so many different types and forms of
cancers, but there's more can be cured today than ever before. There are other
drugs and treatments that are less challenging on patients than they were
before. There's nothing fun about cancer or having cancer treatments at all, but
there are drugs and different processes which provide better outcomes for a
patient but also a better experience for the patient as well. There are lots of
steps and improvements.
My
point, Mr. Speaker, is that it's easy to stand over here and say: Do more and do
more and do more. We've done it. We've done it here in the House saying to
government: Why are you doing this and not that? Why do you want to spend money
here but not there? They're all important.
There
are a number of areas I want to talk about today on spending and some areas that
the government is spending. Also, I want to talk about, to get back to how this
budget replicates in so many ways what they've done in the last two years.
I
remember in 2017 when the budget came out and there wasn't a significant change.
When you look at 350 taxes and fees broke down in the total list, there wasn't a
significant change overall to all those taxes and fees. There were some changes
but they very quickly did away with the book tax. They eliminated the book tax
which they were getting some particular pushback on. They also made a plan to
say they're calling some taxes temporary and those kinds of things. The taxes
and fees put on people were really difficult for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, especially those who are living on the edge of trying to make ends
meet. There are lots of families in our province who work very, very hard to
make ends meet and provide for their families and for their children.
When
2017 budget came, people were like oh, thank God, there are not another 300 new
fees. Well, there couldn't be 300 more new fees. They couldn't find another 300
fees. All the fees that were on were put on in 2016 and people were relieved,
oh, we haven't got more of that. In 2018, I predicted it would be much the same,
and it is exactly what it is.
There
are some programs they've done, and I've said publicly about them – the housing
program, for example. We brought forward in 2015 the first homebuyers'
assistance program. I remember criticisms being heard about you're going to
upset the market. You're going to increase the value of one aspect of the market
compared to another. All the work that we done we believed it was a good
program, and it's proven to be. I still get, from time to time, a message from
someone who says I just bought my first house and was only able to do it because
of the First-time Homebuyers Program.
This
year they've changed that a little bit, they increased some of the numbers, they
changed it a bit but also increased the second program. So this one was quite
interesting as well because we all know there's a significant inventory of homes
that have been built that have not been sold and not lived in. We know that in
the province there's a significant inventory of houses for sale of previously
owned houses, existing homes versus new homes or previously not lived in homes.
So they come up with a new program, within a couple of days before the budget
was delivered, to try and stimulate the sales of those new homes.
Mr.
Speaker, I well understand and appreciate the value of home construction in the
province. We saw significant increases even before 2003 back to the years before
that. I remember my time in municipal council and as a councillor very focused
on where we can we help grow our town, the Town of Conception Bay South. I was
deputy mayor there for a number of years and councillor and we were always
focused on how we can build our town because we knew building the town created
economic value within the town.
The
construction, sales and moving of land, the civil construction side of it and
then the building of the structure itself and then all of the sales and supplies
that went with it, maintenance of equipment and vehicles and sales of equipment
and so on. The huge amount of impact for salaries of people who were working in
the construction business were all super important to that little – some people
call CBS a microclimate; I'll get to that. But that area of Conception Bay
South, it was so important to the town because people now are buying at the
corner store, they were going to the local Home Hardware in Manuels which had a
thriving business. As that grew, instead of driving to St. John's or driving
elsewhere to buy their supplies or materials, they quite often will find it
within the Town of CBS, a great value.
I fully
understand from that level, from that small town level or the smaller community
– CBS is not a small town but that centralized area – how that impacts a region
and how it impacts a province as well. It does create tax dollars when a person
gets a paycheque and people buy goods and services and they buy items and
materials. It helps to drive; it cycles that money through the economy.
What the
government has done and said is we're going to give $3,000 – so this applies to
anybody. You don't have to be a first-time homebuyer. It doesn't matter of your
salary or your wealth or your ability, if you're buying a house up to $400,000,
a new home up to $400,000, the government would contribute up to $3,000 toward
your down payment.
That
seems like a good program, Mr. Speaker. I had some questions about it and I
don't mind articulating what they are now. That was based on $1 million put into
the program. Would assistance support the sales of 330, 333 homes if there were
all based on $3,000 each? If the value of the home was less and the down payment
is less, I'm assuming the down payment assistance would be less as well. But
you're looking at over 300 new homes that can be sold in the province.
Of
course, there are areas in the province where there's a very robust new home
construction industry happening and other areas of the province where not so
much so. This is done in coordination with the Home Builders' Association.
Again, I say to reiterate it: I believe it's a good project to help move that
inventory of new homes.
I do
wonder what the impact on existing homes is. What I mean by that is if you have
a neighbourhood – which Phase 1 has been built and sold and there are homes
there that are existing homes, if you have 50 or 60 homes. Phase 2 is going to
be another 50 or 60 homes and there are 20 homes that have never been lived in,
newly constructed homes that are for sale. If someone down the road wants to
sell their house and move into another new home, maybe something larger or
something different, or the home they have doesn't fit them, then the program
doesn't apply to existing homes.
I wonder
what the impact is on a person, an individual or family that says: We want to
sell our home and we want to buy something else, or we want to upgrade or we
want to downgrade or whatever the case may be. I don't know what the impact may
be on that. Maybe it will be very little. I don't think it would be significant
but I'm sure the government has probably – I would have expected them to have
analysis done on that. I'd be very interested to know what the analysis had said
on it.
There
are some good programs here. There are some community-based programs and
initiatives that are going to be helpful as well. There is some new legislation
that's coming. The minister outlined one this morning that I haven't had an
opportunity to get any details on yet, but I look forward to seeing that. It was
announced this morning with some interest. So I look forward to that.
Government does things that help to improve lives. That's what governments are
supposed to do, help lives. At the same time, we have a budget which is a repeat
of last year and 2016. The Premier's pitch on the budget and what he's been
telling people is that – and the minister has been telling – our plan is
working. He said everything is going in the right direction. I look forward to
hearing more from the minister on his commentary about everything going in the
right direction.
One of
the things that we do as an Opposition, we look at the material that's available
to us, we read the Budget Speech, we go through Estimates. There's a Budget
Speech which is delivered on budget day on March 27. There's an Estimate book
which is probably the largest of all the materials. It has all the government
departments laid out in it and it has the Estimates for spending for government
departments. Then it also gives an overview of spending and revenue for the
province and so on. All the government departments are laid out in that book.
Then,
there's also a book on The Economy. I
always like very quickly to go to the Provincial Economic Indicators which is
located on page 13 of their budget document on
The Economy. I'd encourage anyone to read it, especially Members of
the House, Members on both sides, on government side as well, should have a look
at it. I heard some of them say and follow the Premier's lead, it's a good
budget, it's on the right path, it's the road to the future and so on, but the
Economic Indicators don't say that, Mr. Speaker. The Economic Indicators paint a
different picture.
As the
Member for Bonavista said, the Opposition likes to say things. They can stand up
and they grandstand and all that kind of stuff. What I have here now is the
government's own document, Mr. Speaker, that I'm reading from and referring to
as I speak here today. The government's own document on Provincial Economic
Indicators, almost all of them – there are a few exceptions and I'll point them
out – show the Economic Indicators going in the wrong direction. They're all
still going in the wrong direction.
We have
to remember that Newfoundland and Labrador wasn't the only province that
suffered through the significant unpredicted downturn in the oil industry. Look
at Western Canada, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Look at Alberta and
how tied they are. We're the only province now that's still going in the wrong
direction. We haven't been able to turn a corner.
According to these Economic Indicators which lay out from 2016 to 2022, through
this period of time, even though it goes back a couple of years, retroactively
to 2016, it does lead us up to 2022. Many of these indicators continue to go in
the wrong direction. I'm not going to go through all of them. There are 13 or
14, I think, indicators altogether. I'm not going to go through all of them but
I'll go through some that may be of interest to the people of the province.
One, for
example, is household income. In real dollars, household incomes are going to
rise slightly. In 2016, household income was $25,883 – that's $25 billion – now
it's $26,540. So it's going up a little bit.
The real
change though, however, is the negative number. What that means is when you
factor in the cost to live here and the other factors besides your income and
what impacts your income, the real change on household income and on disposable
income is actually going down. That tells us you're going to have less. You're
going to have less value for the money you have. There may be an increase in the
household income, there's still a decrease.
The real
change is listed as change, and then real change is going down. The same for,
disposable income is going down. Retail sales are predicted to go down. Retail
sales will continue to go down right through until 2022 when you'll see a 0.1
per cent increase. This year, there's going to be a 0.5 per cent decrease. Next
year they anticipate 1.9; the year after that another 1.1 decrease; the year
after that 0.4 and the year after that 0.1.
That's a
particular one of interest because people look at retail sales; they look at car
sales and automotive sales. There are a number that people – and, of course,
business people and economists and so on will consider, and retail sales is one.
You think about the impact because retail sales, quite often, is a place of
employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
It's not
unusual to see seniors in their retirement years picking up jobs or part-time
jobs in retail sales. It's certainly not unusual to see students, high school
students, post-secondary students and young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
otherwise are unemployed seeking jobs in the retail sales industry. As retail
sales continue to go down, that's an indication that the likelihood of what's
going to happen as well is the job opportunity, as well, will go down.
Consumer
price index is going to continue to go up. In 2016, there was a 2.7 per cent
change; 2017, 2.4; 2018, going up 2 per cent; 2019, another 2.2 per cent; 2020,
2.1 per cent; 2021 and 2022 another 2 per cent. That means the cost of goods and
services, as I'm sure that's reflected in some of the other numbers as well,
consumer price index will continue to increase.
Then,
another one that's very key to look at in a province and it speaks to a number
of areas, I think. It speaks to opportunity but it also speaks to confidence in
business, and that's on capital investment. Capital investment in our province
is going to continue to decrease.
It
decreased in 2017 by 25.4 per cent on capital investment, 10.8 per cent
anticipated for this year, 10.4 next year and the next three years after, 2020,
2021 and 2022, it's -3.6, -5.1 and -6.6. When capital investment continues to go
down and, again, that has that negative impact. Now, these are all the numbers
that the minister and the Premier say everything is going in the right
direction. I certainly don't see it in the ones I've talked about so far.
Housing
starts is another one. The government has brought in a new program to help
stimulate the housing industry, which I've already spoken in a positive way on
both the first-time homebuyers which helps people get out of renting and moves
into homes and provides more rental units for low-income families, particularly,
who can't afford to buy their own home, but it gives people an opportunity to
get off or get out of rental and get into their own home. I've spoken positively
about their new program, depending on other information and details that we hope
to get in the coming weeks, but housing starts continue to go down.
In 2016,
there was a 17.6 reduction in housing starts. I think that's another indicator
that speaks to the confidence of the province. In 2017, it was an increase of
0.1. In 2018, they're anticipating a 10 per cent drop in housing starts again;
another 8 per cent in 2019. In 2020, '21 and '22, they're anticipating a
turnaround and an increase.
The
numbers are getting fairly low because they're getting down to 1,159 units,
they're anticipating in 2019. On this graph it shows us, it was just 1,400 units
in 2016. So from 1,400 to 1,159 and then there is some stabilization and a small
increase anticipated and hoped for after that.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, if you look at -10 and -8; -10 per cent this year and -8 per cent
next year. So to put that in real numbers, 1,400 housing starts in 2017, only
1,259 this year and 1,159 next year; a full 100 drop over next year. So a fairly
consistent or fairly important or a fairly significant reduction in housing
starts.
In my
earlier comments, I talked about the importance of housing starts and building
and construction and how it drives the economy. It drives community. It gives
opportunity for people. People who are building a house quite often will be the
people who want to buy the house, or the people who work at a corner store who
are creating revenue – if they own a corner store creating revenue or work
there, got a job and are creating their own revenue for their family because
people are building houses or spending their money there. It's an important one.
Housing starts, even with their new programs, their improved First-time
Homebuyers Program and their new program for selling existing houses, they're
still expecting almost 10 per cent decline this year in housing starts.
Then
there's employment. I've talked a little bit on retail sales and housing starts
and so on. All of that impacts employment. Then when you look at employment
change itself, all their numbers from now until 2022 are going in a negative
direction. When the Minister of Finance says that our plan is working, what
their Economic Indicators indicate is that there's going to be less opportunity
for jobs year over year from now until 2022.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's what the minister
says. The minister says their plan is working, they're on the right path, but
there are going to be less places to work. There's also going to be less people
here and I'll get to that in a minute.
The
labour force as well – so not only employment but the labour force numbers are
going to decrease 0.9 per cent this year, 1.1 per cent next year. Right through
to 2022 the labour force numbers will continue to change.
I
respect the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have an aging population. As people get
older, they stop working. Some will leave full-time employment and careers and
find part-time jobs or they'll just do some other things. I know lots of people
have said I've worked for 25 or 30 or 35 years at a career and I want to leave
now and do what I want to do and they do those types of things.
The
labour force is actually going to continue to decrease. The unemployment rate
will continue to be high, anticipated 14.8 per cent this year which is the same
as last year, an increase from 2016. The unemployment rate will continue to be
high; 15.4 per cent next year, 15.6 per cent the year after that, 15.3 the year
after that and 15.1 per cent. All the other provinces, Mr. Speaker, when you
look at their indicators, they are actually going in the right direction because
they're trying to lower and they are lowering their unemployment rate.
Then,
Mr. Speaker, population change is the other one that I'll refer to because we
talk about population. The reality is it's a lot of hard work to change a
population and to grow a population. People will leave when they see no future
opportunity for themselves, but it's really hard to get them back.
The
population started to change in, I think, 2015, but it's still continuing to
change and drop in '16, '17, '18 and onward. In 2016 the population here,
according to the province's numbers, was 530,300 down now this year to 525,000
and, by 2022, it will be down to 514.9, so the numbers keep going.
Mr.
Speaker, I took some time to go through all that because they're the economic
indicators contained in the province's documents. They're not numbers I made up.
I'm reading right from Budget 2018 – The
Economy book on page 13. I'm reading right from it. I'd love nothing more
but the minister or the Premier to give an explanation to say while they say
their plan is working and tell us how it's working when all their economic
indicators are going to continue to go in the wrong direction from now until
2022, with the exceptions I've pointed out – the couple I've pointed out – such
as household disposable income goes down until 2021 and, in 2022, it goes up 0.1
per cent. The disposable income is the same way. Other than that, I mean they
continue to go in that direction.
I have
tried to highlight some of the ones that impact people directly. There are other
indicators here as well. GDP will see a 1 per cent growth in 2021 and 0.3 per
cent in 2022; -8 per cent this year and it will be up next year 1.1 per cent;
down the year after that, up the year after that and then down from there the
year after that. So there's no major improvement; they're up and down there.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to take some time to run over that because the bottom line is
that the cost to live here continues to be significantly high – higher than
people are quite accustomed to. While, at the same time, we have a government
who needs to try and reel in spending. Now, I will be the first one to stand
here and say not easy; been there, tried to do that, not easy.
We
attended the budget consultations – and I think we were at every budget
consultation with the exception of one that was postponed in Labrador. It was
rescheduled twice if I'm not mistaken and we were going to get there a second
time – I stand to be corrected, but I think we were trying to get there a second
time and then the third time we weren't able to get there. We did attend the
budget consultations and listened to what people had to say and what the
government had to say. The budget consultations were very focused on where to
reduce the cost, not a lot of on discussion about investment or opportunity but
it was very focused on – it looked like the government was trying to find where
do people think we should reduce costs.
The big
ones are health and education are the two largest ones in the province, the two
major costs in the province but – and they're hard long term. There are no fast
fixes with those. There have been efforts made in the past, made under our time
and efforts being made in theirs, but in health care right now we're starting to
hear discussion around the province of there seems to be some unrest and
challenges within health care.
On
Friday, I had plans to be in Conception Bay North area and I spent most of the
day out there, and I had conversations with some people out there while I was
there about what's happening in health care in Conception Bay North. It's not my
first time out there. I have family out there and friends out there and so on.
It's not my first time in that area, but I did have some conversations out there
on Friday on health care. I actually had a discussion with a lady just last
night on what's happening out there.
There
seems to be these isolated numbers, and people are talking about, is that
doctors are leaving, especially in Carbonear area, doctors are leaving. There's
a health clinic out there now, I think there's one retired, two more that are
leaving in a practice of four doctors and are looking to get out. We know that
there's one recently left a while ago and left very publicly, dissatisfied with
what was happening out there.
Mr.
Speaker, the Conception Bay North – I say Carbonear area, because that's where
the hospital is, that's where the main long-term care centre is. I think it's
representative of our province having an aging population and, as we age, we
have the complexity and needs of health care increases as the population ages.
I know
of a gentleman out there who requires regular blood work and his doctor left the
local town – a doctor who had been there for years. The man was a legend out
there. Been out there, been practising medicine for, I don't know, 50 years or
55 years or something, just extraordinary amount of time.
This
gentleman requires regular blood work. So the advice that he was given was
there's a walk-in clinic now available to him that was set up in Bay Roberts – I
think it was Bay Roberts. So he goes to the walk-in clinic in Bay Roberts and
says: Well, I need my blood work done. The walk-in clinic says: Well, we're not
going to do your blood work. We can't do your blood work here because now we're
going to have to track you. We then have to take you as a patient, because it
means we'll have to order your blood work, you'll get your blood work done, your
blood work will come back, we'll have to analyze it and we'll have to tell you
what the result of your blood work was.
We're a
walk-in clinic. We'll give you a script for antibiotics if you need it. We'll
find out is that a cold or a flu or pneumonia or what you have. We'll do a
one-off exam. We're a walk-in clinic. We're not going to track you. And the
suggestion was, go down to Carbonear, down in the emergency room. Which I know
the minister before the Easter break talked about how there's been an increase
in some emergency rooms. And in Carbonear there's been, what I'm told
anecdotally from people who experience it – and I'm sure the minister could
probably find and have a look at the numbers himself – a significant pressure
mounting in that area waiting in the outpatients and even blood work done. We
can't do blood work in outpatients. That means we'll have to track you. It means
we'll have to send it off, get your blood work done, have to wait to come back,
call you and let you know what the results are, modify your medications, have a
look at all the medications you're on, have a look at your bigger health picture
and understand what your health concerns are. How do we address those health
concerns, what modifications you may need?
Then you
become a patient and that's not what outpatients or emergency rooms are for. I
understand in Carbonear now recently there's a walk-in clinic that's been
activated as well which is going to relieve and alleviate some of those
pressures. The problem with not having a family doctor or a GP that is tracking
you, working with you and so on is that then the people's level of health care
and monitoring, especially someone who needs regular blood work, starts to
decrease and becomes more problematic.
We know
the new long-term care centre out there is full. We know there are people
waiting to get into long-term care. There was a plan put in place and people
hired to open the only remaining unit that is not open in long-term care. We've
asked the minister in the past here about the numbers in long-term care,
long-term care patients that are occupying acute care beds. The common problem
throughout our province is not isolated to this year or last year, it's been
ongoing for some time. That's why there was a plan moved then to create more
long-term care. I know we have an aging population. It's not going to be a
short-lived requirement; it's something that's going to happen for many, many
years.
The
long-term care was built in Carbonear but there's one unit that remains not
open. They had all the staff and everything in place ready to go so you could
alleviate wait times on acute care beds, move people out of the acute care beds
in the hospital and move them into long-term care. That frees up acute care beds
in the hospital. It avoids what people experience quite often about delayed,
cancelled or postponed surgeries. All those snags that happen when you don't
have enough beds; it would alleviate some of them. Plus, it's a better
environment for long-term care patients.
An acute
care bed is not the best place for long-term care patients, I don't think
anybody would disagree with that, and move them over to long-term care. They had
all the staff ready to go open it up, but don't have a doctor. It was supposed
to be announced a few weeks ago, I think back on April 1, 2 or 3. It was
supposed to be opened and it was postponed because they don't have a doctor.
The
pressure on health care is not isolated to Carbonear. We're hearing issues in
Gander, the minister's home district, Grand Falls-Windsor. We're hearing issues
on the West Coast; we're hearing issues in Labrador. What's interesting is
people are telling us and sharing their issues and their concerns with us more
and more all the time and looking for relief.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm quite well aware it's not easy to do. Recruitment is something that
should happen and should happen smoothly. I heard a third-hand version of a
physician wanting to go to an area and was frustrated by the whole process of
trying to be able to move to that area and provide services. I won't say where
it is or anything. I certainly wouldn't want to identify the doctor who was
looking to move into an area. We shouldn't hear those stories. We should be
bending over backwards to try and find an opportunity to bring a doctor,
especially into a rural community.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, I think I'd be remiss if I didn't make a comment about
the quality of people that work in health care. We have fantastic people working
in health care. Everything with health care is not good. Everything with health
care is not great, but people there are pretty darned good is what has been my
experience. Sure, there are times when it's hard to get in the system and you
have delays and wait times for an emergency room or for an outpatient clinic,
and routine diagnostics take time to do, but my experience has been – and I've
heard it many, many times from people – that once you have an issue and it's
identified your issue, then things work fairly well.
I've
heard complaints about, but it takes longer to get there. If you speak to people
in cardiology or cardiology patients, and doctors in general, will say that
sometimes in cardiology one of the issues is it's so hard to get into the
cardiology stream, to get into that. There's such a demand for cardiology
services in our province, it's hard to get there. So by the time you get to the
cardiologist, you're sicker than quite often you'd be in other jurisdictions.
If you
could get there quicker, then the fix sometimes is easier and the outcomes are
better. The fixes are more effective and more efficient if you get in there
earlier rather than later. I've heard that talked about recently, about how hard
and how long it is to wait to see a cardiologist, how long it can take to see a
cardiologist. Then by the time you get there, your complexities are so much more
challenging than they would have been if you had gotten in to see a cardiologist
a few months before.
My
colleague for Conception Bay South talked on his feet today a couple of times in
the House about ARVC, an illness that's well known in the Bay Roberts,
Carbonear, Conception Bay North area. It's not unique to that particular area,
but it's very prominent in our province and it's very much hereditary. I know
families who are inflicted by ARVC as well.
My
colleague and I actually attended a fundraiser there a couple of weeks ago for
the gentleman that he spoke about today. Very lucky, actually, because when he
ended up at the Heart Institute in Ottawa, I think he was six days from the time
he actually went on the wait-list to the time they had a heart. It's phenomenal,
Mr. Speaker, six days. He had a heart in six days, which is phenomenal. When you
think about expectations, my expectations would have been much longer than that.
I know
another case of a young man from Conception Bay North who was over the last
number of years dealing with ARVC. ARVC, for people who don't know it – and I am
in no means an expert – but it's a genetic hereditary condition that can
essentially cause your heart to stop. You can drop dead with little or no
notice.
When it
becomes known, they can install a defibrillator in a person's chest which will
help to restart the heart and put the heart back in sync again. If you don't
know you have it, you're at great risk. But as time goes on, my experience has
been, for people I've known who have dealt with it, the complexities get more
difficult and more problematic.
In the
two cases we're talking about here today in particular, they were two cases
where people ended up in Ottawa at the Heart Institute. Is the Heart Institute
the right name for it? The Heart Institute, I think, is the right name for it.
I'm
looking at the minister now to see if he can tell me or not. The Ottawa Heart
Institute, is that what it's referred to, the Heart Institute in Ottawa?
MR. HAGGIE:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
I said is it the Heart
Institute in Ottawa? Is that the right name for it?
MR. HAGGIE:
The Heart Institute
(inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, it is. They do great
work up there. They've done great work with patients from Newfoundland and
Labrador. To have a patient for Newfoundland and Labrador who had a transplant
within six days and all indications are so far, he's responded very well to it.
The experience I had with a gentleman last year as well has had a very, very
good outcome considering the gravity of what they've experienced.
All that
starts here in Newfoundland and Labrador and about diagnosing, getting
diagnosed, understanding what the issues are. How do you extend quality of life
for a longer period of time, and then when you need to make a move outside the
province to find services that are not available to them here?
My
comment, Mr. Speaker, is that my own experiences, as well as people who I know
that generally say once you have an issue identified and you have a health
concern, then the response is very, very good from health professionals in
Newfoundland and Labrador. I've experienced it myself. I can't say enough about
the great people that work in health care and the work they do.
Bear in
mind, health care is not a perfect science. There's nothing perfect about it.
Everybody is different and successes vary. They'll talk about risk factors and
they'll talk about percentages and likelihoods and so on. If you do this, here's
the likelihood of an infection as an example, or here's a likelihood of a
complication from a medical procedure. Most times they don't but they'll talk
about maybe this could happen or that could happen. It's certainly not a perfect
science by any means, but we do have good people.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of areas that I wanted to speak about today other
than health care. One of the Members opposite was speaking about the
relationship with the federal government. The Premier spoke about it today. He
started off by saying he couldn't get in the door. He said that a number of
times; you couldn't get a meeting. Well, we did have a meeting. Then he said you
couldn't trust them. I wasn't afraid to speak honestly about my experience I had
with the former prime minister.
There's
been talk about delivery of funding from the federal government. My colleague
from Ferryland has talked about this today, as well, in some aspects of it
because there are a number of areas. The federal government provides support and
funding to provinces, period. It doesn't matter what government is in a
particular province or what particular colour or background they are, the
federal government provides support and funding to provinces.
The
provinces go and negotiate changes to that funding. They can look for more
funding. They can look for changes, new opportunities and so on. When it comes
to roads, infrastructure and so on, a lot of it is population based. Provinces
are going to get their funding no matter what. How you utilize it and how you
can partner can be beneficial to the province.
The
government liked to talk about the Fisheries Fund. They said: Oh yeah, the
Fisheries Fund that you never had a deal on, you never signed a deal on.
Everybody who reads the materials that we provided says: Yeah you did, you had a
deal. If you don't want to believe that, it's fine. The Newfoundland and
Labrador Fisheries Fund became the Atlantic Fisheries Fund and it changed
dramatically. It's not a fund just for Newfoundland and Labrador; it became a
fund, as well, for Atlantic Canada.
We just
recently saw how a portion of quotas was moved from a Newfoundland and Labrador
base to a Maritime base by a decision by the federal government. The federal
government can move and change policy no matter what the impacts. The Atlantic
Fisheries Fund in the 2017-2018 budget was $10 million, so a fair chunk of
change to be invested in the fishery.
We
certainly know – based on what's happening with surf clams today, concerns about
the cod fishery, ground fishery, concerns about what's happening in the seal
fishery as well and others – $10 million can be a significant amount of money to
invest back in the fishery. Government, last year, was quite proud of the $10
million in Grants and Subsidies. It's on page 10.6 of the Estimates book. I
should refer to that, Mr. Speaker, because I talked about Estimates; it's a line
by line. What I'm referring to now, what I have in my hand here, is actually
right out of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Estimates on page 10.6.
As we
say in Estimates, it's 2.1.03. Atlantic Fisheries Fund is the line I'm looking
at. In the 2017-2018 budget it was $10 million. Then what happens is this year
when the budget comes out and this book is produced, the government does a
revised line from last year. They had a certain amount they anticipated they
were going to spend last year and then, this year, they revised that to reflect
more accurately until the Auditor General and all the audits are done from the
books for the previous year. But they're revising that estimate to what actually
flowed. Under Grants and Subsidies what actually flowed was $1.5 million. A
promise of $10 million in 2017-2018 under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund became
$1.5 million.
Mr.
Speaker, when the Members opposite talk about the relationship with the federal
government, they talk about how great the relationship is under them and how
terrible it was under us. The Member for Bonavista was up earlier and he talked
about taking down flags, beating your chest, protesting, fighting for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and how ridiculous it was for the previous
government to fight for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's what the Member
for Bonavista talked about when he was up.
They had
an Atlantic Fisheries Fund they so proudly talked about, $10 million which they
were going to receive in 2017-2018 and actually received $1.5 million. That's
all that went into the Atlantic Fisheries Fund. Of course, it leaves us with
lots of questions as to how that could happen, why it could happen and what
could happen. It's $9.698 million, so $9.7 million is the estimate for this
year, Mr. Speaker, with $301,000 taken out for Salaries. It's done under Grants
and Subsidies but they're taking $301,000 out now for Salaries under the
department. I'm sure in Estimates and as the House proceeds and discussion on
this continues we'll continue to ask more questions on it.
Mr.
Speaker, for the government to stand up and talk about – I'm glad they have a
relationship with the federal government. I am. I wish I had a good relationship
with the former federal government, but I didn't because I stood my ground. They
promised something to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they didn't deliver.
It's a simple as that. It wasn't us; it was them, the former federal government.
What we
have here is a $10 million commitment last year that wasn't delivered. It's very
much the same, Mr. Speaker, as what happened, only the approach is very
different.
My
colleague from Ferryland asked the Premier today about when the prime minister
spoke about the country. He was talking about people working in Alberta. The
response, I was gritting my teeth when I heard it because I get annoyed. I know
lots of people get annoyed when they say: Oh yes, from coast to coast, from Nova
Scotia to British Columbia.
It just
gets annoying when you hear that when you know that there's another province out
past Nova Scotia. Our friends in the Yukon may say well, actually, they're
further west than BC, but from BC to Nova Scotia certainly leaves out
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would
never defend that. The Premier today defended that. The Premier today defended
the prime minister for his commentary and said some other time he said St.
John's. But when he was talking about people working in Alberta and the benefits
to Alberta, he left it out and that was okay.
Mr.
Speaker, we've talked about equalization. My colleague from Ferryland, I can
tell you, spends a fair bit of his time looking at relationships between the
province and the federal government, funding and also the implications on
equalization. If we look at this year again and see some of the numbers – just a
moment now, Mr. Speaker, I find my notes here.
This
year, we could look at Quebec again; 2017-18, $11.081 billion and '18-'19,
$11.73 billion. That's $11.73 billion. Nova Scotia has gone from $1.779 billion
to $1.9 billion. Prince Edward Island has gone from $390 million to $419
million. Imagine the difference in our economy if we had that here. Ontario,
$1.4 billion; theirs has gone down to $964 million. Manitoba has gone up $1.8
billion to just over $2 billion as well. That's $19 billion in equalization
going out to provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador gets zero.
Mr.
Speaker, I've heard the Premier say and others get up and say: You never did
anything about it. Well, we certainly did. I know former Finance Minister Tom
Marshall actually spent time with the federal minister trying to make the case
for Newfoundland and Labrador. It absolutely did happen and did make the case.
But what we have over now is what is apparent and not a willingness to go fight
for that equalization.
Hopefully that's changes and that equalization will change because it would have
a profound impact on all of those economic indicators. I was predicting to
someone the other day – they were talking about the economic indicators because
someone had heard me talk about it and they had a look at it. I said if the
provincial government in 2019 can get the federal government to move on
equalization by then, then all the economic indicators change. Of course, what
the provincial government is going to do is: Look what we did, all of our plans
worked, all our taxes and fees that we've charged people over the years have
worked.
Mr.
Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are smarter than that. I don't think
for second they're just going to forget what happened in 2016, repeated in 2017
and repeated in 2018.
In a
couple of weeks' time, Mr. Speaker, we're having our own leadership. The Member
for St. John's Centre; I offer my congratulations to her in recently, during the
Easter break, becoming the new leader of the New Democratic Party. We'll have a
new leader in a couple weeks' time as well. Time's change and things move and so
on. People quite often will say to me: What are you going to do? We have to
change the government; we can't have the government stay where they are.
Different people list a whole bunch of reasons for it.
That's
up to people. I tell people all the time, you have a chance. When ballot time
and voting time comes around, you can vote, but don't forget what you've paid
out in taxes. Look at insurance tax, for example. I got my insurance bill the
other day and there was the retail sales tax on my bill. I took a long, hard
look at it. People are filling out their taxes today, their personal income tax,
looking at the levy on their income tax line. They've been doing it now for a
few weeks. Those are the topics that get raised with me when I'm in coffee shops
or I'm speaking to people.
Mr.
Speaker, my hour is running down. What I propose to do right now is to introduce
an amendment of non-confidence motion, moved by myself, Topsail - Paradise,
seconded by my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, that all words after the
word “that” be deleted in the motion before the House and the following words be
substituted: “THEREFORE this House expresses its lack of confidence in the
government because of its continuing failure to create conditions for growth and
opportunity in Newfoundland and Labrador.”
I so
move that amendment.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Thank you.
We'll
take a recess to look at the amendment and ensure that it's in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Are Members ready?
Is the
government Whip ready?
I've
examined the amendment as presented and found it be in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the
Official Opposition speaking to the amendment.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to
rise again and start a fresh hour on speaking to the amendment just proposed.
Before
the short recess for you to take some time to consider the amendment, I was, in
my debate, discussing the impacts of the economy. I was basing my comments
around the economic indicators that are found within
The Economy book.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You speaker is not on.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Your mic is on.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mine is on.
Yeah,
mine is on, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You're on. It's on.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's here. It's on, yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
The Minister of Finance can't
hear me. Come on over, sit over – no, don't do that.
Mr.
Speaker, I was basing my remarks on the economic indicators. I was having some
discussion about them.
If I was
to sum up the taxes and fees that were placed on the province in 2016 – and
based on the people of the province in 2016, continued in 2017 and where people,
for a large part, were relieved that there were no new taxes and fees, and then
2018 much the same as 2017. When tax dollars or when dollars out of someone's
paycheque or their income is removed from their paycheque and goes directly into
taxes, then it doesn't cycle through the economy.
If I had
an extra $100 a month that I now pay in taxes and fees, instead of me paying
that at my local grocery store, or hardware store, or restaurant, or tourism
destination – or if you do something for amusement, go see a movie or you do
something like that – instead of spending it within the economy, it drives
certainly through the economy because if I go see a movie, I spend it there.
They pay employees. They buy goods and services. When they buy goods and
services, they pay taxes on that, employees pay taxes and the money cycles
through the economy further.
When you
pay it directly to the taxman, being the government, it doesn't cycle through
the economy. When I got my insurance bill just the other day I had a look at it
and I said: These are hundreds and hundreds of dollars that are not going
through the economy that's going directly into taxes to the government. Whereas
if that was in my pocket, I'm very likely to spend it and that's what people do;
I'm going to spend it somewhere on something. You don't have to spend it if you
can't spend it, but if you do, then you spend it within the economy, which
drives jobs, growth, business, helps drive investment, helps to turn those
economic indicators around. That's why in our time in government we worked
continuously to lower those taxes.
There
were a number of things that were happening when we were making those decisions.
This has been a topic as well, Mr. Speaker, talked about here in the House. I
know my colleague from the NDP talks about the impacts quite often on gender,
gender imbalance and on women. When we sat in Cabinet and made decisions, that
was a required review consideration. Impact on poverty reduction was a required
review consideration. Reduction of red tape and reducing the regulatory burden
on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and business was a requirement. How is this
going to impact the red tape on people of the province and businesses in the
province?
There
were a number of considerations that were always followed and how those impacts
would happen. There was consideration saying if we do this, what's the impact on
people? What's the impact on poverty? What's the impact on women? What's the
impact on rural? What's the impact northern and so on? A lot of those were
considerations that were made.
The
budget itself also refers to some concerns because the government is not done
with taxes. The next tax to come now is going to be a carbon tax. The government
in their own budget documents say it's going to cost, there's going to be an
impact. It says, and I quote, “at an added cost” when referring to carbon tax.
It's going to be an added cost to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We don't
know what that is. Government refuses to say what it is, won't tell people what
it is, but it's coming. Of course, what they do is they say: It's not us. That's
the federal government requiring us to do it.
It's a
good circumstance or comparison. Someone should be talking to the federal
government and say: We're doing our bit to reduce carbon emissions. Muskrat
Falls will reduce carbon emissions. You don't have to go very far out of town to
go to Holyrood, in the town where I live – and, again, I go back to my colleague
for Conception Bay South who can see the emissions coming out of Holyrood as he
drives home in the evening and will see it tonight when he goes home. I've seen
it myself many, many times.
Not long
ago there was a celebration that power was being brought in from Nova Scotia. At
the same time, I could see the emissions coming out of Holyrood. So Holyrood was
running while bringing in power. And commonly you get complaints – he gets them
more than I do, because his district is closer to it – about soot. Every now and
then it seems like there's a blowout of the stacks or a backfire or something
happens and people experience soot on their vehicles and in their gardens, on
their homes, on their windows and those types of things. So there are lots of
reasons why Holyrood operation has to go.
I quite
often compare it to driving a – if you got two cars in your driveway, you got a
2018, I'll use Chevy Impala as an example, and you got an 1970 Chevy Impala
because they made them back in those days too, you got two completely different
cars. And what's in Holyrood is the equivalent of that 1970 Chevy Impala. If
you're going to use that every day to go back and forth to work it's going to
cost you a lot to operate, it's going to be unreliable, it's going to fail and
it needs significant repair and upgrade. And back in 2003, it was quickly
learned that it had been deficient of maintenance and required repair.
So now
we have an opportunity to what's going to significantly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in our province while the federal government is going to impose a
carbon tax, and the government's own budget document refers to it at an added
cost – whatever that means, but that's the words they used: at an added cost. So
there's going to be a cost come to that.
As an
Opposition, Mr. Speaker – we're all elected Members of the House. Depending
which party gets the most votes will determine where you sit in the House and
what your role is in the House. We sit in the Opposition because we have a fewer
number of seats than what the Members opposite have. And being over here we have
a responsibility. And the responsibility is to ask those questions and to hold
them to account.
They can
give all the history lessons they want in Question Period and other times they
get up – you did this and you did that and so on, and they can do that all they
want. The bottom line is that we have a responsibility. We are hired and elected
to ask those questions and to hold government to account and inquire about their
decisions and how they're making them and how they're conducting the business of
the province, because that's the process that we have in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, in our first day back from the Easter break, I opened Question
Period in asking the Minister of Finance some questions on marijuana, and the
cost and implications of marijuana. I've also, after Question Period, laid down
notice that on Wednesday, which is Private Members' Day, when we can bring
forward a motion for debate, and government can do it next week, and then the
NDP can bring one down, so it rotates throughout the House – on Wednesday
afternoons we have a debate on a private Member's resolution, and mine today
gave notice on Wednesday to debate the legalization of marijuana, and what are
the impacts going to be, and will we delay it until we understand exactly what's
going to happen? Once it's done, Mr. Speaker, you can't put it back.
I was
reading on some of the jurisdictions in the United States where they've
legalized marijuana; Colorado is one. Colorado was the first one that legalized
marijuana. Their state has changed. There's no changing it back. Once it's
changed, once they legalize it, life, the focus of life and quality of life and
all that stuff is changed and it's never going to change back. There's only one
chance to get this right.
I
understand that government offices say: This is not us doing this; the federal
government is forcing us to do this. We have to do it. I get all that. There's
only one chance for the government to get this right because when it's done,
it's done and that's the end of it. It's done. Once it's out, there's no putting
it back in the box. It's not going to happen. Once it's out of the box, it's out
of the box.
In
Estimates in Justice a couple of weeks ago there was a line item come up around
the funding that was expected from the federal government in relation to the
legalization of marijuana. In the Department of Justice they told me they're
expecting $500,000; $100,000 for fines administration, $100,000 to beef up or
support the additional cost for public prosecutions and $300,000 for additional
costs to operate our courts. It's really an admission by government, just in
that case alone, that there are going to be additional costs to govern and to
manage the affairs of the province because of the legalization of marijuana.
Of
course, the question comes then, if that's a cost we now know – because we've
been asking about costs that are a little less tangible and a little more
philosophical or realistic. Not about the cost to operate the courts, $500,000
additional costs to operate the courts, but what's the impact on people and
communities? How is it going to impact their health and their social well-being?
What's going to be the impact on small communities? If we have a small community
and it has a skyrocketing usage of marijuana, what's the potential impact? What
we're going to debate on Wednesday is that this whole process should be slowed
down until the government understands it, and they don't.
Even in
the numbers today – because I asked the Finance Minister what is the total
funding? Could he table the breakdown and what would be used for each
department? I asked: What's the total funding received from the federal
government? The first thing he said: None that he was aware of. Then he
clarified it. Then I asked him again – and they're having their discussions over
there. I said: It's $500,000 at the Department of Justice. He said: Well,
actually, it's 1.9 million plus the $500,000, so $2.4 million.
Then he
said he expects the revenue to be $5.8 million. Revenue will be $5.8 million and
the cost to NLC to be $4 million. So that's revenue of $1.8 million, plus the
$2.4 million from the federal government? His numbers never made any sense, Mr.
Speaker, because that would be then $4.2 million. He started off first saying
there was no money coming but we know there is.
The
other interesting part about it is that while the government is bringing forward
legislation to allow for the legalization, sales, production and distribution of
marijuana, they don't know what the numbers are. They don't know what they're
going to receive from the federal government. In Estimates, one of the officials
made a comment that said this is what we're expecting. His commentary was about
we really don't know. I'm just looking for his actual words because I made note
of them from the record of Hansard.
They didn't really know what the number was going to be from the federal
government.
Mr.
Speaker, there's a lot of guessing going on here and it only leads one to wonder
what's the rush? Once it's done, there's no getting it back. There's no taking
it back. What's the rush when we don't know what the numbers are going to be?
I heard
some snickering over across the way there when I was talking about tabling the
analysis of social impacts. What's going to be the impact on our prison system
that we have in our province? What's the impact on highway safety? I heard some
snickering but, Mr. Speaker, some very serious conversations.
Everyone
knows my background. I've been supportive of what police use, of DRE. I know
lots of people who are police officers who are trained as DRE which are drug
recognition experts. Back in my time they would go away. I think they train them
here now but they would send them away to go to the States for very specific and
specialized training. I've heard growing concerns about the use of DRE, not only
in Canada but also in the United States.
I saw a
CBC investigative report recently. I could be off on this, Mr. Speaker, but if I
remember the numbers correctly that they quoted, they said that it's somewhere
in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent of cases that are contested where a person
has been charged of being impaired by a drug based on a drug recognition expert
examination. I think it's up to now 40 per cent of cases are lost in court
because of the drug recognition expert process being questioned.
There's
roadside sobriety testing that has taken place as well. The difference with
alcohol is a roadside sobriety test can give you the grounds to demand a person
give a breath sample. You can't just ask anybody willy-nilly for a breath
sample, you have to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe they're
impaired by alcohol in order to give them a breath sample.
One of
the ways to do that is to do a roadside analysis or roadside field sobriety
testing. The other way to do it is a roadside device that's used. You can't be
charged if you fail the roadside device, but it can give you the grounds to
bring a person for the breathalyzer. The difference is of course, this process,
when it comes to alcohol versus marijuana, is that alcohol in your blood is
directly related to the level of impairment; whereas, the amount of THC in a
person's blood does not necessarily relate to their level of impairment because
it can stay in your body for a long period of time. The impact or the effects of
the drug are long gone but your blood will show up the fact that you've consumed
marijuana.
One of
the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, people in Newfoundland and Labrador are undergoing
drug testing – people who go to Alberta or work offshore are subjected to drug
testing, quite often random drug testing offshore. I know, anecdotally, again,
that people working in those areas won't use marijuana because it lingers in
your blood and can show up for some time after. It can show up in random testing
sometime after. If a person is a drug user, then sometimes people find other
drugs.
Cocaine
became prevalent in our society because it comes in and it comes out of your
blood very quickly. Alberta was much the same way where marijuana kind of
lingers on. There's not a sure-fire test, Mr. Speaker, where you can just take
someone to hospital, do a blood test and determine the impacts or how impaired
they are by the use of marijuana. But make no mistake about it, once marijuana
is legalized, the same as alcohol, people will consume alcohol and drive.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's a big question.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's a very big question and
they will do it more and more.
The
people we've met with and spoken to expect an increase in the use of marijuana.
There will be an adjustment period. A lot of people who, through society and so
on, have been users of alcohol – people who are mature adults – have some sense
of the expected impact based on the amount of alcohol they consume. Some people
can drink large quantities with very little obvious effect, while other people
can only drink a small amount. People know the difference if they drink a beer
versus a drink of rum, versus a glass of wine, versus a shot which we see happen
a lot, especially with young people.
People
have some sense about that. The only safe level for anybody is simply: Don't
drink and drive. The only safe level to make sure your ability to drive is not
hampered or impaired by alcohol or drugs is not to use any, completely abstain.
But marijuana, new to people, they won't know. They won't know what that impact
is or how much it is going to affect them until they use it.
I'm
hearing all these versions of different types of marijuana. If you want to feel
calm and subdued, that's one type of marijuana. If you want to get giddy and
funny and giggle, it's a different type of marijuana. If you want to go to
sleep, that's a different type again. There are all these different types of
marijuana that – like there is with alcohol. There's beer, there's wine, there
are different kinds of liquor and so on but nobody knows.
There's
medical marijuana that is designed – they have different varieties of medical
marijuana with different strengths that we don't know yet. Society doesn't know
what the impacts are.
The
other thing, and we're going to talk about this more on Wednesday, Mr. Speaker.
The other aspect of marijuana that comes to mind is this deal they did with
Canopy Growth, because what happens in government, Mr. Speaker, is that
sometimes people are making decisions in government that people who are close to
the decisions don't like it.
On
Sunday, a few months back –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Could I
ask the Members, please, to take your meetings and discussions outside? It's
just becoming too difficult to understand what the Member identified is saying.
Thank
you.
Please
continue.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I knew
Cabinet was meeting and was going to finalize a decision to do a sole-source
agreement with Canopy Growth. I asked about it in the House the next day. I
couldn't get any answers from government. They wouldn't answer and danced around
it.
By
Thursday I asked them – you were about to announce it, because I knew they were
going to announce it on Friday as soon as the House closed. There was some
uncertainty about when the House was going to close. The House did close that
Thursday evening and on Friday they announced it. While they couldn't give us an
answer in Question Period, they had it all ready to go and announced it the next
day.
Mr.
Speaker, that's quite often an indication of people who are involved in the
process don't like the process or are concerned about it. It might be because
Cabinet ministers are out talking about it to people that shouldn't be talking
about it, but sometimes it's because people inside are not happy with a process.
Mr.
Speaker, in this province, what happened is Newfoundland and Labrador did a
sole-source agreement with a single supplier. The sole-source supplier was given
a significant contract to be a supplier for when marijuana is legalized and they
would be a supplier. Of course, there was a big bonus that came from the
provincial government in the $40 million range to go along with them being sole
source.
What's
really interesting, Mr. Speaker, is look at other jurisdictions.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Did (inaudible) get $40
million?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, certainly in Manitoba
they didn't, because Manitoba did a call for proposals. They did a competitive
process, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Financial Post
article, which I have in my hand here, written by Mark Rendell, dated February
16, 2018: the Government of Manitoba announced four groups that will run the
province's cannabis retail Friday morning, wrapping up a competitive process
that saw more than 100 groups apply for only four private retail licences and
the government had “conditionally accepted” them. One of the proposals is a
group called, a partnership between – industry giant, the article refers to them
as, is Canopy Growth.
Canopy
Growth was one of the successful bidders in this retail market in Manitoba, to
get into this retail market. When here in Newfoundland, Canopy Growth, I think
they get two outlets, guaranteed two outlets, and also a $40 million kick-start
from the government, but in Manitoba they had 100 groups compete. Imagine the
difference, Mr. Speaker.
We
quickly heard from groups and organizations here in Newfoundland and
Labrador who have an interest in production of cannabis, and said: Well, how do
we get in on that? Now the minister of business said if anyone else wants to
come in they'll get the same deal. So it will be interesting to see how many
have gotten $40 million from the government to help set up their operation here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How are locals going to
compete?
MR. P. DAVIS:
How are locals going to
compete? Well, you know, it's a good point you raise. Because one of the
cannabis growers and retailers – they're the growers, they distribute and they
sell – contacted me and talked about brand recognition and brand development.
The
point this grower made was that once you get your foot in the door in a new
market and you're the brand, you come in this market and you establish a brand
and people become accustomed to the brand, they know the brand, they get to know
the retailers. They know what it is they're buying. They become quite familiar
with the particular brand and the process of buying and its impacts and effects
on you and so on, and they learn to trust the brand and like the brand, that
they're less likely to change.
If you
look at the big breweries here, for example, which have the biggest portion of
the markets here in our province, when we have these small microbreweries who
for their size are doing quite well, but it's really hard for them to grow into
larger operations because they're competing against those brands that are so
strongly affixed and known. Quite often you'll go to one community in the
province and the big brand is Labatt, and you go to the next community down the
road the big brand is Molson. That changes; it's checkered all over the
province, depending on the community you are in and so on.
Within
Molson there's a certain brand everyone likes or within Labatt there's a certain
brand that most people like and they have those little nuances. What this
marijuana producer, grower, distributor and sales business operator said to me
is, it's really hard to go in that community and get a foot in the door and
switch people over from the brand they know.
People
quite often buy the same kind of car over and over and over. If they have a
Honda, they're quite likely to go back – if they're happy with it, to go back
and buy another Honda. If they have a Chev or a Ford, or American car, they'll
go back and buy that over and over again. Because you get fixed on a brand, you
know the brand, you like the brand. If you're happy with the brand you'll go
back to it. If you're not happy with it you'll go somewhere else. But of course
the goal of producers is to have a brand that people like.
What
happened in Manitoba, very unlike what happened here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, is they had 100 groups apply for four licences; for only four
licences. These are retail licences, by the way, Mr. Speaker, which is a little
bit different. They had 100 groups apply and there were four retailers they
partnered with. They were conditionally accepted – subject to them being
accepted.
The
difference has to be very clear in doing a sole-source versus doing a
competitive process. Generally speaking, in government you are required to do a
competitive process. Government just brought in a new procurement act. I've
talked to some people in government agencies who are trying to adjust what they
used to do for purchasing of goods and services. They're changing the process
now where you used to have to do a tender process, now you only need bids, as an
example. They're going through processes now trying to learn the new process as
things change, but the point is the government expects overall, and in a large
way, there's a competitive process.
There
are various competitive processes available, but the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador, the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador decided not to
do that, but to do a sole-source with Canopy Growth. Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying
anything bad about Canopy Growth; huge company, great success around the
country. I was going to say they're growing like weeds, Mr. Speaker, but that
would be too much of a pun – but they are growing in a big way. I hope they're
not growing too fast to cause them – and I mean business-wise, they're not
growing too fast, their business is not growing too quickly and they're going to
be able to keep up with the obligations they've made.
Again,
it speaks to slowing down the process. What's the rush? Because one of the
answers the government probably looked at is we don't have time to go through a
competitive process, we have to hurry this through. When you hurry things
through, you don't get best value and you make mistakes. We've seen it in the
past, Mr. Speaker. No doubt.
There
are things I've done in the past where I say, well, I wish I had revisited that,
or I'd done something a little bit different or took a little bit more time, or
did another piece of research on it and then you'll understand it better, or you
might do it differently the next time.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the implications of an economy that's going in the wrong
direction becomes the very basics of living a quality life. The very basics of
food, clothing and transportation are all necessary to people. Housing is a
significant one and when you have economic indicators going in the wrong
direction, then lower cost housing becomes a higher requirement.
Earlier
this year, we had discussions in the House about Jade Holdings, a company that's
owned by the Premier who actually applied for funding – because government has
gotten away from building all these units themselves. They're partnering with
private business and allowing private business to maintain, operate and manage
housing that's affordable housing for families.
We saw
that earlier this year when the Premier's business – while he was Premier –
received $400,000 towards what's known as IAH, Investment in Affordable Housing
Program. Lots of people apply, Mr. Speaker. Lots get them and they do good
programs. They provide a benefit to the people who get the chance to reside
there, but the program also provides a benefit to the landlord because the
landlord wouldn't be able to build the asset quite likely, or less able to build
the asset if it wasn't for the $400,000 boost through the federal government.
One of
the stipulations in the contract – it doesn't exist in the application, but it
exists in the contract – it clearly outlines that an MHA, an MP, or Senator
can't avail of the funding, or can't benefit from the funding that flows. Mr.
Speaker, we saw that this year. The contract is a public document. People still
raise the matter with me and talk to me about the matter of how can the Premier
and the minister sign off or approve a contract through Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing, an agency of the government, while he's Premier.
The
Premier himself actually said that he knew about it, he was aware of it, and
actually stopped the process – so he was actually hands on – until his
businesses were in a blind trust. So what he said was: Okay, I'm going to
receive the funding, I approved the funding, but don't cut the cheque to my
business until I'm not controlling the business anymore. Mr. Speaker, it just
doesn't pass the smell test, especially when the contract says that an MHA can't
benefit from it.
The
Premier stood here in the House and talked about the residents and how they
benefit. They absolutely do benefit from it. It's a good program and residents
do benefit from it but so does the owner of the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. DAVIS:
– company, Mr. Speaker.
There's
the IAH, Investment in Affordable Housing –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
The Investment in Affordable
Housing Program will continue again this year, facilitated by Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing with funding from the federal government. Again, it's a good
project and I think that looking at the economic indicators right from the
budget is that the need for more affordable housing is only going to increase
instead of decrease.
Of
course, there's a little bit of an offset. If you get the people out of renting
and get in their own homes, which is done by the homebuyers' assistance program,
that's going to help offset some of those pressures to maybe a couple of hundred
homes at the most, or a couple of hundred families at the most. It will free up
some of those rental spaces as well.
This
project here, $400,000 for 10 units, which is what the $400,000 represents to
private business, $40,000 per unit, build a maximum of 10 and then the
obligation on the landlord is to rent it at affordable housing rates for 10
years and after the 10 years is completed, the loan is forgiven. It is a grant –
it becomes strictly a grant then to the business and the business can charge
whatever they want for rent after that.
While
some, I know in the history of IAH, and I remember my time when I was involved
with these programs, that there was a combination of experiences that people –
or after the 10 years was up, businesses, in some areas, kept the rent low,
became familiar with their tenants, knew their tenants and so on and didn't want
their tenants to go and have to go through a change in tenants, bring in new
tenants and that risk. If you have a tenant you're comfortable with, sometimes
you're better off giving them a little less rent, and it also depends on the
economy of the area.
In some
places, the landlord immediately put up the rent because there's a big demand.
Once their 10-year obligation was met, they could increase the rent
significantly. Those low-income families, after 10 years, had to move out and
move on because they couldn't afford it and then they put other higher priced
tenants in there which, of course, also results in a benefit to the landlord. So
there are a number of experiences with that particular program.
Members
opposite want me to speak to the budget and under the Budget Speech, of course,
we can speak to anything of significance or importance that we want to speak
about. I want to speak about roads for a few minutes. Government is quite
pleased, quite often, to speak about their five-year road plan. It is not fully
known because you don't know really know what is there five years from now. It's
a structure of saying well, down the road we're going to do this one and, in
four years' time, we'll do this one, three years and so on, but there are a
couple of gaps in that.
The
government sold it and couched it on taking the politics out of road decisions,
yet they won't tell us what the scores were for roads that didn't score high
enough to get work done. How is anyone supposed to adjudicate, judge or have an
understanding of how they're taking the politics out of roads if we don't know
who didn't make the grade?
Especially, there are areas in the province where people have the roads that
they want repaired, they're not on the list and they want to know why. The short
answer is well, you didn't make the cut. That's no different than what was done
in the past, unless you say to them here are the scorings, here are the scorings
for the roads that received them, here's how they were scored, here's how they
were adjudicated and here's the roads that didn't make the cut this year, next
year or for the next five years, and here's the reason why.
Of
course, because they have left space in year two, three, four and five as they
go ahead, because as the years go down they have less assigned to it already,
they can change and move that. They can make political decisions if they want.
They can also make decisions based on the condition of the road, the demand on
traffic, wear and tear and so on.
For the
government just to say look, we're taking the politics out of the road
decisions, I think it falls way short of doing what they claim it does. If they
want to open up the full list and show everybody all the roads, how they scored,
what they considered and what roads they didn't consider – because I am sure
there are roads in the province that people wanted considered that they didn't
even give a serious look at.
You
might have the regional director for Transportation and Works who says that road
is not bad and there's very little traffic on it, and the regional director's
recommendation is that you should look at another road. There wasn't a serious
analysis done, I'm sure, on every particular road in the province; but at least
if there were to release that analysis done on the roads, and on the roads that
didn't make the mark, then people could certainly have a better understanding of
why they picked the roads they did, what roads did not get coverage, what roads
did not receive any funding and what roads did.
Mr.
Speaker, a little bit of credit to the minister as well, because I had a
discussion not that long ago with him – just a few weeks ago – about his
department and stuff, myself and my colleague and some others. Besides just the
roads program, there is maintenance work to be done. The local depots have a
certain amount of maintenance they can do. So there's some flexibility there, a
fair bit of flexibility actually, by the minister to allow for certain things,
work and jobs get done.
We know
that bridges cost a significant amount. Clarenville, right now, is facing one
that's going to be a problem and I don't know what the outcome or what's being
suggested for that one, but also that the significant cost of bridges – the hard
thing about bridges is that a lot of times people don't even know. They're
underneath the road; you don't even see them. You might have $1 million bill for
a culvert or bridge or piece of infrastructure that's underneath a highway or a
main road that people don't even see, don't even know it's being done but has to
be done. Then someone may say you're not spending any money on roads in my
district and you say we just spent $1 million on a bridge. But people don't see
it and don't appreciate the value of it. Those structures are very important.
Mr.
Speaker, I was contacted by a lady recently. There was a news story actually
carried, I think, by VOCM on this particular one. It's about a pothole in
Peacekeepers Way. She actually had a dash cam of it. She's driving along on a
wet day, minding her own business driving along the road, and a truck ahead of
her in the other lane strikes a pothole. You can literally see the asphalt
coming out of the pothole, the water spraying the asphalt. It did a fair bit of
damage to her vehicle.
She
would follow the advice I'm sure any of us would give to constituents or the
people. She followed the advice that she was given – I didn't speak to her at
that point in time – to file her claim. She's essentially –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
She has nowhere else to go.
Unless it fell off the truck, it's not a legal responsibility on the truck. The
government is going to say we have a sign up, so you should have been aware that
there was danger there; therefore, we're not liable. If there's a road hazard
and the sign is up saying there's a road hazard, then we're not liable.
The
problem with this one, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit different. I don't know how
this gets sorted out. I'd like to have a chance to talk to the minister about
it. It's only since the Easter break that I've learned about this one and had a
chance to have a look at it. The difference with this one is the sign's been
there for two years.
Transportation and Works went out and put up a sign warning there's a pothole.
You drive by, there's no pothole. You drive by, there's no pothole. You drive
by, there's no pothole. You drive as if the road is fine. Someone forgot to take
the sign down, the sign is there. There's a sign up warning a driver of a
vehicle of a hazard that doesn't exist. Then you get a wet stormy day. Now the
hazard does exist and the government's going to say we had a sign up. I have a
problem with that, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand if there's a new pothole government is made aware of it, and they
can't fix it until the weather dries up so they put up a notice to motorists:
There's a pothole here, be careful. Yeah, I get all that. They've got to do
that. Until they get a chance to get out and fix it, they put up a sign. But
when a sign is there for two years and there's no issue, there's not a problem,
there's not a hole there, then there's no way the driver could say: How am I
supposed to know the hole? It's a new hazard on the road.
Second
to that is, of course, this particular lady didn't strike the hazard on the
road, somebody else did. It was asphalt from the hole; you could see it clearly
on the video from my viewpoint. It was asphalt from the road that actually
caused the damage. If the Minister of Transportation and Works has any
suggestions or recommendations, I'd be more than happy to hear them because I'm
sure the lady would like nothing more than to go back to have some kind of
solution to it.
I know
there have been cases. As I referenced earlier, there are precedents where
people have taken a jurisdiction to court, a town or province or a municipality
or whatever and said that pothole damaged my car. They say if we didn't know
about it, they can't take action to fix it. If they do know about it and they
have a sign there, until they have it fixed, then they've done their due
diligence. They're not going to be held liable because the authorities have done
their due diligence. If they know about it and it can be proven that nothing was
done about it, then you would have a claim against government. If government
didn't know about it, hasn't had time to warn motorists on it, then there's no
way they're going to be liable.
Mr.
Speaker, in the Town of Conception Bay South where I live, they now have on
their website – you open their website and a ticker shows up, report a pothole.
You click on it and a form pops up. I've used it. You put your name on it, you
put your email address and you describe the location where the pothole is. The
town gets it right away. The good thing about that is then there's a record, a
person has a record that they actually reported the pothole and you reasonably
conclude the town now has been notified.
I'm sure
MHAs experience the same thing. Quite often people say to me: Paul, there's a
new pothole in CBS on Fowler's Road, for example. Conception Bay South where I
live, Fowler's Road is a town road. I'll say: Very good, no problem. It's not
our jurisdiction but as their elected Member, I'll make sure the town is made
aware of it. That's the approach I take to it. Now it's easy. I can pull over to
the side of the road or if I'm in a coffee shop, I pull out my phone and I can
actually do it right there on the spot and notify the town of this pothole or
repair that's required.
I throw
that out there because it will seem to be a fairly simple process that the
government could follow. I phoned, myself, the after-hours number for
government. Finally, at the end of it, you'll get the dispatcher in Deer Lake.
It's generally the call centre or dispatcher's office in Deer Lake; I've been in
the office myself out there in Deer Lake. You can inform them of a road hazard
or a pothole. Sometimes it takes a couple of days to get someone out there,
especially if it's on a weekend.
I
remember during the winter I called on a Friday night and I said to the
gentleman – who was very kind, very co-operative and wanted to help out. He
said: How bad is it? I said: There were actually cars there with flat tires, had
their cars already beaten up and damaged. I said: You need to do something on
it. Then, a sign appeared. Then, after the sign appeared, before long the sign
was down in the ditch. It blew down or someone struck it or hit off a mirror and
the sign is gone.
My point
I raise in this is that it's a very simple process to put on the government
website, report a pothole, click on it. Literally, Mr. Speaker, in 20 seconds
you can have it filled out and then government knows where the potholes are. I'm
sure government wants to fill them, repair the roads as quickly as they can to
make them a better driving surface. They don't want to happen what happened to
that lady on Peacekeepers Way when she had a piece of asphalt blow up and strike
her car.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about attrition for a couple of minutes. I did reference
it earlier but I want to speak about attrition. I had someone say to me: What
does that mean, attrition? Attrition generally means that if a position becomes
vacant, you're not going to replace the person; you're going to find a way to
fulfill their responsibilities and the role of that person without having to
hire someone new. What it means is instead of doing large layoffs, you let
people leave and as people leave government, you reduce the size of government.
I know
now that the minister is doing that. We're in the third year of the government;
they're now talking about attrition. Back when they started they said we don't
need to do any of that. They talked about doing cost reductions and so on. Now
they're finally doing attrition, but three years later.
I
remember in my time in government, I think there were around 450 to 550 people a
year in core government that would leave core government. I know the numbers are
lower right now but I'd be very interested to know how much lower they are. I'd
also be very interested to know how many people have they hired in contract jobs
– what's commonly known, quite often, as 13 weekers, short-term employment – how
many in management positions and the full gamut of the variety of positions.
In
government they categorize them differently. They'll have a temporary employee
versus a contract, which is something different again, versus a person who is on
a temporary fill-in and relieving for a mat leave or that type of thing, or a
person off on long-term sick. They're all categorized differently. It's been a
little bit challenging to get the actual numbers to look at the numbers. To me,
they look like they're going down and they've gone down. I believe the minister
has indicated that.
They
talk about positions; I like to talk about people. What's important to me as a
Member of the House of Assembly is people. Not so much on positions, Mr.
Speaker, but what's important to me is about the impact on people.
We had a
discussion about that, when it comes to the RNC, in Estimates with the minister.
Because they terminated two managers, and in the year that followed I think it
was seven promotions they made in the management ranks but neither one of the
two people were offered a job back. So it's interesting how the – because there
were also four positions they terminated in the year before. Four vacant
positions, and that's very different from actually terminating people.
So it
will be interesting to get the numbers on government and the direction they went
in. When we left government in 2015, we had the size of core government down to
numbers below what it was prior to 2010, which was a significant amount of work.
What that means is you want to continue to deliver services and programs to the
best of your ability but you have to find different ways of doing it.
As I
started my comments an hour and forty-five minutes ago this afternoon, I did
acknowledge that it's not an easy task to reduce the size of government. It's
hard work, but that's what people expect us to do, is to do hard work to lower
the cost of government.
I raise
the attrition point once again, Mr. Speaker, because I would really like to know
some detailed numbers on exactly the status today and the impact on our province
of where the numbers are versus where they have been and what the cost is
associated with that. Because the budget actually shows that program spending is
actually up this year over last year. I appreciate the fact that costs of
operations go up, salaries go up and so on but the cost of government program
spending continues to increase.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm almost out of time. We're almost ready to close the sitting of the
House today. I took my time this afternoon to base my commentary around what's
contained in The Economy document. As
I said earlier – and I'm cluing up here now, Mr. Speaker, but there are three
documents produced and one of them is The
Economy.
I've
used my time this afternoon based on what I found contained in
The Economy document. How economic indicators are going in the wrong
direction, despite government's insistence that their plan is working and
they're on the right road. They're on the right road because they're taxing
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They're imposing an exorbitant amount of taxes
and fees and pressures on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's what consists
in the budget in 2016, 2017, much the same in 2018 with very little change, and
it's putting those economic indicators in the wrong direction.
Mr.
Speaker, there was one other aspect I want to refer to, and it just came to
mind. I made a note for myself earlier that I didn't want to neglect to do it,
and that's to talk about my own district for a few minutes.
Mr.
Speaker, my district is made up mostly of the Town of Paradise and some of the
east end of Conception Bay South; two communities that are growing and thriving.
Because of government continued funding over the last number of years,
improvements have been made to the main road through Paradise, which is Topsail
Road. It's being done stage by stage by stage.
The
Minister of Education was out last year to identify a location for a new
intermediate school. Paradise has 20,000 people and doesn't have a high school
and doesn't have an intermediate school. It has three relatively new elementary
schools and one older elementary school. The next major need for that whole
area, because it continues to grow, is an intermediate school. The minister was
out, like I said, last year to identify it and has indicated in the budget
funding for this year for that process to continue, which is important.
I kept
my eye on the road development around Octagon Pond Elementary, which is a brand
new school. The road development out there – most of the children who attend
Octagon Pond Elementary, especially those within the 1.6 kilometre zone, have to
cross Topsail Road. East of Octagon Pond school on Topsail Road is now developed
into a four-lane road. The west of it is still operated now as two-lane but the
road has been built to allow for four lanes of traffic.
There
were some growing pains there last year as the construction season was taking
place in the fall. When school first opened there was courtesy busing provided
to students so they didn't have to try and walk and find their way through a
construction zone, which changes every single day. There was some courtesy
busing. That ended around Christmastime. In January, there were people who were
concerned and upset because the construction hadn't gotten to the point where
they felt it was safe enough, but within, I think, a few days the matter was
resolved.
We're
going to be in the construction season again before too long, before school gets
out. I'm not sure what's planned as far as what hazards may exist, but there's a
beautiful new bridge built there. On the side of the bridge there's a secure
walking path now for students and pedestrians – I was on it myself on the
weekend – where you have a concrete wall on both sides of you, a concrete wall
to the roadway, and on the other side is a concrete wall to the river where
Octagon Pond drains out on the west to go towards Topsail Beach.
I'll
keep an eye on that as well, because there's nothing more important than keeping
students safe in our province and around the schools and so on, but it's a bit
of tangly one and I know it still comes down to 1.6-kilometre rule. It comes
down to the 1.6-kilometre rule because it's old, it's antiquated and it needs to
be updated for the safety of children.
In
Paradise Elementary, which is located on Karwood Drive, children on the other
side of Topsail Road have to cross Topsail Road. So you could have kindergarten,
grade-one, grade-two children have to cross Topsail Road, five lanes of traffic.
Probably one of the busiest intersections in my district throughout the day,
especially early morning, but throughout the day as well. Quite often
bottlenecked; quite often used by heavy equipment and trucks and so on. It's
been a challenge from time to time.
People
have dealt with it now where they drive their children to school or they will
team up because it is very challenging for children to cross that area,
especially younger ones. So there's no doubt that the 1.6-kilometre rule really
needs a good, hard look. We should focus on safety because communities are
changing.
That
intersection, that roadway in that area wasn't like it is today, several years
ago. The amount of traffic and the dangers that exist there now are much greater
than they did before. As times change and communities change and demands change,
then you need to have a look at those policies.
It's
only a matter for the minister to institute that review, to have it conducted
and carried out which will be in the best interest – I can tell you, it would be
one of the most popular things you ever did. Just do a review on the
1.6-kilometre rule that's in existence right now, I can tell you now it would be
a big day for him because people will be dancing with delight that they're going
to review it. If they did make changes to it that ensured or added to the safety
of students, then it would be beneficial.
A lot of
talk, Mr. Speaker, the last couple of days about Kaetlyn Osmond and how
wonderful she did, and she absolutely did. She's a wonderful, talented,
hard-working young woman. She deserves every bit of praise and compliments that
she's received. On the world stage to perform like she did is really something
else that people and children and youth involved with athletics quite often
dream about. But I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to just mention
Liam Hickey once again and the great job that he's done –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please
proceed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
His home
rink is in Paradise and Paradise has a fabulous community centre, double-ice
arena. If you haven't been in it or anyone who has not been in it, it's
worthwhile to go in and have a look at it. If you drink coffee, if you're
looking for a coffee shop, go in there to Coffee Matters and have a cup of
coffee and have a look around because it is absolutely a fabulous centre.
The
arenas themselves are designed to benefit people playing sledge hockey. There's
equal access. It's level access from the boards or from the benches onto the
ice. There are clear glass boards around where the benches are, so there's not
an obstructed view as well for athletes. It was designed with that in mind and
its home team, Sledge Dogs – actually that's their home arena, and I'd be remiss
if I didn't talk about what a great program it is, great group of athletes and
he's done really, really well and deserves great congratulations as well.
Mr.
Speaker, the end of the day has come, I'm going to take my seat, thank you for
your time this afternoon. We have a lot of work to do on the budget. We've got
many, many, many hours ahead of us on debate and Estimates and so on, and we're
going to continue to question the government on the decisions they've made and
what's in the future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Noting
the hour, I move, seconded by the Member for Placentia West – Bellevue, that we
adjourn for the day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.