May 5,
2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 21
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Before we start regular proceedings today, we will
adhere to a time honoured tradition as we welcome new members to the House of
Assembly. Today we are going to be
welcoming Ms Cathy Bennett, who was just recently elected to the District of
Virginia Waters in a by-election on April 9.
I have been advised by the Clerk that she has taken her Oath of
Allegiance as required by the Constitution and has also signed the Members'
Roll.
Welcome, Ms Cathy Bennett.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I present to you Ms Cathy Bennett, the Member for Virginia Waters, who
claims the right to her seat.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Please take your seat.
MS
C. BENNETT:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of Port
au Port, the Member for the District of Bonavista North, the Member for the
District of Burgeo La Poile, the Member for the District of Kilbride, the
Member for the District of St. John's South, and the Member for the District of
Exploits.
The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CORNECT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to congratulate the winners and nominees who
were honoured at the Stephen Awards Banquet in Stephenville on April 13 as part
of Volunteer Week 2014.
Rosa Dollard was honoured with the Citizen of the Year
Award while Simal Qureshi was the recipient of the Youth of the Year Award, both
being recognized for their outstanding volunteer service to their community.
Tiuri Lomond won the Junior Male Athlete of the Year Award; Rita-Jane St.
Croix was presented with the Junior Female Athlete of the Year Award and Chris
Dugas was presented with the Senior Athlete of the Year Award.
Twenty-seven Certificates of Merit for outstanding
volunteer work were also presented, Mr. Speaker.
Marie Alexander, Cator Best, Cecelia Burke, Mary Burt, Mark Burt, Wayne
Butt, Norma Childs, Tom Collier, Debra Coughlin, Michele Dawson, J.J. Furlong,
Susan Gallant, Don Gibbon, Michelle Hawco-Stokes, Yvonne Healey, Arch Locke,
Gwen Lomond, Angela LeRoy, Ivan MacDonald, Nancy MacDonald, Avril McIsaac, Lloyd
Pye, Mondella Stacey, Corinne Tulk, Christopher Vaughn, Chelsey White and Gus
Willette.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all the members to join with me in
congratulating all the winners and nominees of the Stephen Awards on their
invaluable contributions to our communities, our Province, and our country.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.
MR.
CROSS:
Mr.
Speaker, I take great pleasure in standing today to recognize the artistic
efforts of a young constituent.
In October 2013, Ocean Rogers, along with many
classmates and students from Centreville Academy and hundreds of others from
around the Province participated in a poster contest sponsored by the Royal
Canadian Legion.
Ocean submitted her pencil sketch, as no colour was
allowed, which represented the symbolism that Remembrance Day meant to a fifth
grader in a small rural community.
On April 17, 2014, just a couple of weeks ago, Mr.
Nelson Granter, a representative of the Royal Canadian Legion visited
Centreville Academy where Ocean Rogers received a certificate and monetary prize
for her art work and she was declared the provincial winner for her category.
I am sure that in years to come, Ocean will look back
on the 100th Anniversary of the start of World War I and have a
special memory of her award and this remarkable year.
I am sure as a collective voice of this House of
Assembly, I extend congratulations to Ocean.
I am also confident that projects sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion
and the eager participation of students at schools like Centreville Academy, we
will never forget the contribution of those who sacrificed for our freedoms.
Lest we forget, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize the efforts of the Autism
Involves Me, or AIM for short, group and the generous donors who assisted with
the purchase of physical and sensory equipment for special needs children.
The AIM sports program takes place at the Bruce II
sports complex in Port aux Basques, which provides free space for the equipment
and staff to set up the equipment.
In exchange for this space, the Bruce II is able to use this same equipment to
provide a program for pre-school children.
This joint initiative is working quite well for everyone involved, and
most importantly, the children.
There are two main categories of equipment, one for the
physical aspect and the other for sensory awareness.
The group received their initial funding from the Jump
Start Program and Canadian Tire.
This was followed with donations from local businesses and parents of an
autistic child. This is a fantastic
way for special needs children to participate in physical activity at their own
pace and without any pressure or intimidation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join
with me in extending congratulations to the AIM group and the Bruce II sports
complex in providing a safe and happy environment for special needs children to
participate in physical activities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DINN:
Mr.
Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to highlight a very successful local
business in the District of Kilbride that was recently profiled in
The Telegram.
Topsailstar Pet Center, located at 70 Ruby Line, is
dedicated to pet care and training twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
The owners, Valerie and Barry Reid, pride themselves on running a
top-notch business that provides daycare and boarding for dogs that are fully
vaccinated. Training and grooming
services are also provided.
Topsailstar is a busy place with lots of happy dogs around at all times.
Personnel working at Topsailstar are trained in
handling and caring for dogs, and that includes everyone from groomers to kennel
attendants, to those who entertain and supervise the dogs at playtime a total
of ten employees, counting the owners.
Topsailstar Pet Center also features a retail section with an assortment
of nutritious foods, toys, and other products.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of this House of
Assembly to join me in commending Valerie and Barry Reid for operating such a
good and successful business.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to recognize Travis Penny, a junior high school student at
St. John Bosco School in my district.
Travis is currently in Winnipeg, Manitoba representing Newfoundland and
Labrador at Youth Bowling Canada, their National Championships.
It is always exciting to see young people excel in the
area of sport within our Province, but it is especially exciting to see them
earn their spot to compete on the national level.
Travis' success has no doubt been achieved through hard work and his
dedication to his sport.
I would like all hon. members to join with me in
congratulating Travis and in wishing him well during the remainder of his
competitions at the Youth Bowling Canada, National Championships.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House today to recognize
the contributions to the Town of Leading Tickles by the Leading Tickles
Volunteer Firefighters, in particular, the dedication of Mr. Cliff Chippett who
was chosen Firefighter of the Year.
We are all aware of the commitment of these volunteers
being ready for duty twenty-four hours a day and, of course, this would not be
possible without the support they receive from their families.
Cliff has given his time unselfishly for the good of his community,
always ready to respond to emergency situations, to volunteering for community
events, and helping those in need.
For these reasons, his dedication is certainly recognized by his peers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me
in congratulating Cliff Chippett on being named Firefighter of the Year.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today to talk
about Emergency Preparedness Week 2014, which takes place this week from May
4-10.
Public safety is a top priority of the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly during emergency situations, and being
prepared can make a huge difference and save lives.
Individuals, families, communities, and all levels of government should
be ready to respond to any emergency that may occur.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend all residents of the
Province to know the risks, make a plan, and assemble an emergency kit.
I would also like to encourage residents to visit getprepared.ca, for
tips and basic directions about how to assemble a seventy-two-hour emergency kit
for their homes.
Emergency Preparedness Week is an excellent opportunity
for families and the neighbours to engage with one another, and have
conversations about how they can help each other during emergencies.
By having these important discussions, residents will be better prepared
to face any emergency situation that may arise.
Mr. Speaker, on a municipal level, communities are
encouraged to update their emergency management plans and validate them through
emergency exercises. Through Fire
and Emergency Services-Newfoundland and Labrador, our government supports
municipalities, government departments and agencies in developing, maintaining,
and exercising emergency management plans. We
continue to stress the importance of this on a daily basis.
I would like to highlight our recent participation in
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador's Emergency Preparedness and Disaster
Management Conference that took place last week in Gander.
During this conference, Fire and Emergency Services officials joined
municipal leaders, the Canadian Red Cross, the Coalition of Persons with
Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador, the media, and other stakeholders to
learn from each other and discuss the importance of emergency preparedness.
Finally, I would like to ask all hon. members in this
House today, are you ready? If not,
start preparing immediately during Emergency Preparedness Week.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. The Opposition also
understands the importance of being prepared for emergencies.
If you look at DarkNL, which was a crisis in my view that we had, and
just as the report that came back on DarkNL it said we will have future
blackouts. The need for being
prepared is even getting greater with natural flooding that happens in
Newfoundland and Labrador and natural disasters.
We all need to be ready and prepared.
Mr. Speaker, to the municipalities, a lot of
municipalities and we asked this question this morning in Estimates - about 85
per cent do have their plan in or are in the process of finishing their plan,
but the municipalities need resources so they can carry out their plan in time
of need.
To the Red Cross, the Coalition of Persons with
Disabilities, and other groups, congratulations for stepping up to the plate on
many occasions to help out Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr. Speaker, the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, I know the
minister has spoken to them. For
people with disabilities, that is a different, unique set of circumstances that
we must face. We must have a plan
for different communities for people with disabilities.
We encourage everybody to be prepared.
We encourage government to keep up the work to help towns to have their
emergency plans updated on a regular basis.
We urge the government to supply water resources
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to thank the minister for the advance
copy of his statement. It was good
to hear in Estimates this morning, of course, that there were 96 per cent of
municipalities, I think, so far that had their emergency plans.
We need to get that other 4 per cent done, so I encourage the minister to
keep pursuing that.
We know we are facing dark ages coming ahead, not only
with the challenges with electricity, but the challenges as well for climate
change. We know we have to see more
government investment, for example, in roads and bridges.
We know the Auditor General has said that.
We also have to have our confidence as well and
government needs to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know this to
know that government has been doing the right things, for example, for 911.
They say 911 is going to be ready for December 2012.
We are hoping they are going to meet the challenge, but we need to hear
those regular updates.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today is STOP!
Clean Your Hands Day, a national event that coincides with a global
initiative of the World Health Organization called
Save Lives: Clean Your Hands.
The focus of today is to bring greater awareness to the
importance of washing our hands as a way of preventing disease by controlling
the spread of germs.
The simple task of washing your hands with soap and
water or an alcohol-based rub can have a significant impact on your health and
on the health of everyone you come in contact with.
For our health care workers, hand hygiene remains the
primary means of reducing health care associated infections.
Mr. Speaker, we have placed an emphasis on hand hygiene
and we have provided the necessary resources to ensure that patients are
protected.
While there is always room for improvement, the number
of health care associated infections has declined in Newfoundland and Labrador
since 2009.
As a result of our monitoring and prevention policies,
including education and surveillance, we have among the lowest rates of
C-difficile infection in Canada and have seen a significant decline in
Staphylococcus infection known as MRSA over the last number of years.
Mr. Speaker while we will continue to work on improving
health prevention initiatives with our health care system, I want to strongly
encourage all residents to make a habit of regular hand washing.
This simple, yet effective action can help prevent the spread of illness
such as influence, norovirus, and many more serious communicable diseases.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement, and I congratulate him on his new role as the Minister of Health.
I am looking forward to working with him in this, obviously, very
important portfolio.
This seems to be a very simple thing that we hear about
all the time: wash your hands, wash your hands; but I do not think we can drill
it into people's heads enough of how much this simple action of washing your
hands can help prevent the spread of communicable diseases and infections.
We see the signs out there, we see them in hospitals,
we see them in schools, and I think we need to continue on with that.
I note that our rates are still amongst the lowest in Canada and that is
a good sign, but we need to do more to eradicate this altogether.
This simple act that takes only a few seconds can help stop the spread of
what can be deadly infections.
I think we need to start with our youth.
I take my three-year-old, for example, and we have started him in that
routine of washing your hands all the time.
Sometimes we are like a drill sergeant, but I think we need to start with
youth and we have to continue forming these habits and creating them and
spreading them. As they continue
into adulthood, once they have these strong habits, it is only going to help
prevent what could be an easily avoided infection.
I appreciate the time, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement, and congratulations to the minister on his new portfolio.
I, too, look forward to working with him.
Hand washing is an excellent preventative health care
measure, and I congratulate our health care workers who have this growing
success in reducing infection. I
hope this government will not stop there.
Ensuring that people have access to home care based on need will also
contribute greatly to ensuring hospitals are not overcrowded unnecessarily and
providing free glucose strips and providing the insulin pump to adults over
twenty-five so people can afford to manage their diabetes and avoid more serious
complications that end in preventable hospital admissions is an important thing.
To provide a more comprehensive adult
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, last week the public became aware that government released Humber
Valley Paving from an $18 million paving contract for the Trans-Labrador
Highway.
I ask the minister: Now that you claim to be an open
government, will you provide a copy of the contract that Humber Valley Paving
was released from?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the department, I guess, our number one
initiative is to make sure that we provide a service to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and we get contracts finished on time and on budget.
The contract that we had released with the particular contractor in
question here today, once the tender was awarded, that was a public document.
So there is no problem at all for the Opposition at any time to get hold
to that contract.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister said that Humber Valley Paving submitted a request to be
released from the paving contract on March 13, 2014.
I ask the minister: How was this request submitted?
Again, now that you claim to be an open government, will you provide us
with a copy of that particular documentation?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, within the Department of
Transportation and Works, when we award contracts to any tender we keep a very
close contact with the contractors.
Our objective is to make sure that tenders and contracts are done efficiently,
effectively, on time and on budget.
We have constant contact and conversation with all contractors during the
process of a contract after it is awarded.
What we do then in this particular case, there were constant
conversations with the contractor.
We monitor throughout the contract being fulfilled.
What we did in this case is that we had to
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I asked the minister, how was the request submitted on March 13, 2014,
and will you provide us with a copy of that particular documentation?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, what we do is we keep
constant contact with the contractors.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, was a very difficult year
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Last year, Mr. Speaker, was a very difficult year with unforeseen circumstances
that nobody had any control over, government or the contractor in this case.
Of course, what I am talking about here, Mr. Speaker, mostly is the
forest fires that were throughout Labrador, especially in Labrador West and
spreading into Eastern Labrador which closed down the highway for an extended
period of time. This caused
unforeseen delays, as well as extra expenses to the contractor.
The contractor then in March approached, and I will continue when he asks
the next question.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I have to ask the same question again.
The contract was released March 13, 2014.
I ask, how was the request submitted and will you provide us with a copy
of that documentation?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will pick up where I left off the last time.
We were approached then in March by the contractor.
Of course, the first objective from my perspective as the Minister of
Transportation and Works is to get that contract finished on time and on budget.
We were into verbal conversations with the contractor
and then we had to make a decision.
Do you enter into a negotiation to let them out of the contract?
We could have said no and held them to the contract.
We put all of the options on the table.
What we felt the best thing to do for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador was to sit down and see what the best options were that we had.
Again, I will continue on the next question.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, there was a request submitted on March 13.
I ask the minister very simply: Will he release that
documentation, yes or no?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we were into verbal
conversations then with the contractor.
What I, as the minister, had to decide then was, what were the options
that I had?
First and foremost, I wanted the contract finished on
time and on budget. Secondly, I
wanted to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the employment to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thirdly, I did not want to see a Newfoundland and Labrador company that
since 1996 has been providing very good professional service to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador we have been very pleased with the work they have
been doing.
I was left with a very small window of opportunity.
I sat down and I felt that the best option in order to get the work done
was to enter into a contract
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, it is apparent we are not going to get a copy of that document.
I note the minister said he was in verbal conversation with somebody from
the company.
I ask the minister: Who were you speaking to about this
matter?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we sat down then and
there was a mutual agreement between the contractor, in this case Humber Valley
Paving, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that the best option in
order to get the work done on time, on budget, protect the
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MCGRATH:
citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, protect jobs for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and to ensure that a company that has provided a very
good professional service within Newfoundland and Labrador with this government
since 1996, that we did not jeopardize the future of that company.
There was a small window of opportunity to retender the work with other
work within Labrador.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Prior to the decision on March 13 to revoke this
contract or renege on the contract who were you in conversations with?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off there.
Then there was a mutual agreement between the
contractor and the government, a small window of opportunity to be able to
bundle that sixty kilometre piece of work with a much larger piece of work, an
eighty kilometre piece of work in Eastern Labrador on the Trans-Labrador
Highway. As well as a piece of work
within Hamilton River Road in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and a small section on the
eastern side of the Trans-Labrador Highway, about three kilometres that has chip
seal that has to be redone. By
bundling all of that work together, along with the sixty kilometres, we felt and
still feel the best decision was to bundle it together to get the work
guaranteed to be done on time, on budget, this season, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister has indicated that he is not going to release any of the
documentation, he is not going to tell us who he talked to, and we are talking
about millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Will the minister confirm that you will not release the
information or who you spoke to with Humber Valley Paving about this?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
As
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we felt that was the best decision at the time, still
feel that in order to get the work done on time, on schedule, on budget, was to
bundle it together. The people we
talked to and I will say unequivocally that at no time have I ever had a
conversation, as the Minister of Transportation and Works, at no time have I
ever had a conversation with Frank Coleman concerning Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
The people I spoke with were the people that at the time represented the
contractor, in this case Humber Valley Paving, and there were verbal
conversations from March 13. Then my
senior officials, on March 21, entered into an agreement to terminate the
contract.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: When was the first communication, formal or
informal, written or verbal, between the government and Humber Valley Paving
about the cancellation of this contract?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite announced in his
preamble earlier, it was on March 13 that the company had first approached
government to enter into a verbal conversation to move forward to make a
decision whether or not there could be a mutual agreement that termination of
the contract would be in the best interest of the government, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the contractor in question here now.
That was on March 13.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Prior to March 13, 2014, did the minister ever
discuss this with the Premier?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have many conversations with the Premier
as well as the Cabinet and caucus, and verbal conversations.
I will not say that I did not have a conversation with the Premier
concerning this because, as I said, I have conversations almost on a daily
basis, especially with Cabinet.
There is no written documentation as there was not with Humber Valley Paving.
On March 13 they approached us to see if we could have a discussion,
whether or not it was possible to move into negotiations to terminate this
contract. On March 21, because of
the window of opportunity I had to bundle this with another tender, my senior
officials agreed to terminate the contract.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Just to confirm, Mr. Speaker, the minister did discuss this matter with the
Premier prior to March 13.
I ask the minister: Was this a departmental or Cabinet
decision to cancel the contract?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this was strictly a departmental decision.
I sat with my senior officials.
We had to make a decision.
The urgency I felt from a government perspective here, as well as a business
perspective, was that we needed to act faster.
We had a very small window because we were about to send out a tender for
the other eighty kilometres and the five kilometres to be retendered.
If we did not move that and bundle it together, then I did not feel that
sixty kilometres would be done on schedule and on budget.
I think we made the right decision to get that work done by the end of
this summer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister states he did discuss this with the Premier and that this
was a departmental decision, however.
I ask the minister: Do all departments discuss their
decisions with the Premier prior to making them or do they usually happen
strictly within departments?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for other departments, but
I will guarantee you that as part of being an open government and as part of
being a communicative government, I certainly discuss many issues as a minister
of the Crown with the Premier, who actually governs this whole government.
I would think it would be responsible that you do have conversations with
the leader of your party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to releasing Humber Valley
Paving from the paving contract, government did not call the bond associated
with this contract.
I ask the minister: Now that you claim to be an open
and accountable government, will you release a copy of the bond?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the
question because after listening to the political spin that was put on bonds
when it comes to how a bond works and I heard members of the Opposition
announce publicly that a bond of $9.5 million could have been held back from the
contractor in question and spent in an Opposition's district.
Mr. Speaker, how a bond works, and the bonding agency
works, is that a bond is the same as an insurance policy.
A bond is put in place. There
is not actually $9.5 million in cash sitting there and you can decide whether
you are going to keep it or not. It
is an insurance policy. Many of us,
I would hope, pay insurance on different things.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I asked the minister a simple question.
I will ask him again.
Will you release a copy of the bond, yes or no?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the bond is an insurance
policy that quite often is part of when a contract is awarded the bonds are
necessary. Those insurance policies
are put in place, and once a contract is mutually agreed upon to be terminated,
well then all bonds or pieces of documentation that are referred or related to
that contract, they are also terminated, Mr. Speaker.
It is very easy for the Opposition to access that.
As I said, once this tender was awarded, any documentation that went with
that contract that was being awarded was public knowledge also.
He is more than welcome to go on site and get that.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind members that the Speaker acknowledges one speaker at a time, and only one
speaker should be on their feet at any one time.
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: What kind of bond did Humber Valley
Paving have in place that government did not release?
Was it a labour materials bond that was not released, a performance bond,
or both?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Mr.
Speaker, as I was saying, the bonds that are related to any contract in this
case the performance bonds, they are related to that particular contract.
Once there was a mutual agreement to terminate the contract with this
particular contractor, any issues, any bonds that were related to the contract,
they also are terminated. As I said,
that would be public knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
Whenever they want to go on the Web site, they are more than welcome to
access that information. It is
already public knowledge.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask the minister again: Did he not call the
performance bond in addition to the labour and materials bond?
Both of those bonds, I am assuming, were in place for Humber Valley
Paving.
I am asking the minister: Were both bonds released back
to the company without being called?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, when the contract was mutually
agreed upon to terminate the contract then all bonds that were related to that
particular contract also terminate.
It was not in the best interest of government to call
in the bonds. Had we called in the
bonds my first and most important objective in this whole issue was to get the
job completed, the sixty kilometres completed on schedule, and to get it
completed on budget.
The most sensible thing when I sat down with my senior
officials was to bundle that sixty kilometres with another large tender I had
coming out in that very near future.
There was a small window of opportunity.
Had I kept the bonds or called in the bonds, Mr. Speaker and I will
repeat on the next question.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot see how it would not be in the best interest
of government to call a bond on a tender that was not completed.
I ask the minister: Would either of the bonds that were
not called have provided any protection to creditors if the bond had been
called?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is a good question again by the member from the
Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Again, if
it would help the member from the Opposition and he would like a briefing on how
bonds work and the bonding agency, I would be more than happy to have my
department give him a briefing as to how the bonding agency works.
A bonding agency and the bonds that are related to a
contract, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, is an insurance policy.
It is not a matter of having the $9.5 million bond and being able to
spend it whichever way you want.
What happens between private industry and another private industry, government,
and the bonding agency has nothing to do with that.
Had we called in those bonds, what we would have had to
do there is a process that you have to go through.
I would have jeopardized getting the project done on time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I will ask the minister: If he had called the bond, would it have
provided either of the bonds, the labour and materials or the performance
bond. Would either of those bonds,
had they been called, provided any protection to creditors that are looking for
money?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if I had called in the
bonds I would not have gotten the job done on time and on budget.
The job would have been delayed to go through the bonding agency process
which could be very lengthy. It
could lead to litigation.
Once you call in a bond, the bonding agency then has to
do research and see, were there circumstantial reasons that would suffice the
company, or the contractor in this case, saying it was not in the best interest
of the company to stay within this contract?
Government and the contractor in this particular case mutually agreed it
was in the best interest of the Province and the best interest of getting the
job done on time and on budget that we terminate the project.
In order to terminate the project, we also (inaudible).
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister previously stated that he did not call the
bond, claiming that it would cause Humber Valley Paving to suffer.
Mr. Speaker, there are many suppliers and small businesses that cannot
afford to suffer a loss should they not be able to collect on outstanding debts
of Humber Valley Paving.
I ask the minister: What measures has government taken
to ensure that the suppliers and other creditors will not suffer because they
are not able to collect the money that they are owed?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Again, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Member for St. John's South does not
understand how the bonding agency works.
Government
SOME HON. MEMBER:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Speaker has acknowledged the Minister of
Transportation and Works for an answer.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, as I was saying, it is obvious that
the Member for St. John's South does not understand how the bonding agencies
work and government does not get involved in financial issues from one private
enterprise to another; that is not how we govern.
What we did in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the best opportunity to get this project completed and on budget, was
the decision that we made.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when a bond is issued guarantors provide a
promise to pay if a company defaults on its contract.
I ask the minister: Who were the bond guarantors for
the contract and will he provide the documentation for these guarantors?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it was in the best
interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that the decision that we made, we
made it on the premise that we wanted to get the job done on time and we wanted
to get the job done on budget. We
did not want to risk Newfoundlanders and Labradorians losing on employment, and
I did not see any issues in jeopardizing a company that since 1996 has done very
good work, very professional, work with the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In order to move forward and get this job done on time
and on budget, I think we made a very sound decision in terminating that and
getting it retendered. The bonds
then, once we terminated the project, the bonds also terminated.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask the minister again very pointed, very
directly: Can he provide us with a list of the guarantors for the bond for this
contract?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, I say that the information would be
public information; they are more than welcome to go and look up the tender.
All of the obligations that go with that tender are public information.
They are more than welcome to look that up.
Again, my objective as the minister, when this decision
was being made, was the people of Newfoundland and Labrador getting the job done
on time, on schedule, on budget, and protecting the employment of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. There was
a small window of opportunity here.
I had the other tenders almost ready to go out on the eighty kilometres and the
five kilometres in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
By bundling these tenders together, government feels we will get a much
better price and still be on budget.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South, for a quick
question without preamble.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Is
Frank Coleman a guarantor, yes or no?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, for a quick response.
MR.
MCGRATH:
Again, Mr. Speaker, as I said unequivocally, never never have I had as the
Minister of Transportation and Works a conversation with Mr. Frank Coleman
concerning this issue. We dealt with
the contractor themselves on any conversations we had.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Humber Valley Paving payback stinks
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MURPHY:
to sum it up. Right or wrong, some
members of the public suspect an impropriety has occurred.
In the interest of clearing the air, will the minister
ask the Auditor General to take a look at this matter?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I extend the invitation.
When I extended an invitation
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I extended an invitation to the Opposition, I also
extend an invitation to the Third Party, if they want to step in.
The Auditor General can come in and audit any time he wants to any issue
that happens in the government. What
the Auditor General does I have no control over.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very open decision I have made
and I stand by my decision. I think
it was the best decision for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, we have all the power in this House to be able to bring in the Auditor
General, as was done already back in 2007.
When the cable deal came forth, the House of Assembly asked the Auditor
General to look at it. He was asked
to look into the controversial fibre optic deal.
He found no wrongdoing and the deal went ahead.
I ask the minister: Why would he not want to clear the
air on this matter?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the member from the
Third Party, I have no air to clear.
I think I made a very sound decision, a decision in the best interests of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the best decision for the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and in this case the best decision in the benefit of
a contractor. If the Auditor General
wants to investigate that, he is more than welcome, and I have no say in that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, I say that it might be a good decision for him and maybe for his
department, but it is not the best decision that he has made on behalf of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the taxpayers, who want some clarity on
this matter. They want the air
cleared, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister please give this House
other examples where government released companies from their contractual
obligations without penalty?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder: Is the member from the Third Party suggesting
that it would be in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not to
have this contract for the sixty kilometres completed?
I feel the decision I made gives the best opportunity for this sixty
kilometres to be completed.
I wonder, if the Third Party, while they were asking
that question, had they done the research on the tender that is out now to close
on May 14, he would be able to answer that question himself and realize that
there was another contractor where there was a mutual agreement between the
contractor and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that is actually
retendered in the tender that is out to close on May 14
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, I do not believe it. They
still do not think on the government side that there are no implications to not
clearing the air to the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayer.
I do not understand why, through a motion of this House even, if you
wanted to bring in the Auditor General and put in a formal request, that it
could not be done as it was in 2007.
I would like the minister to explain that.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member from the
Third Party has done his research because as I just stated, in the tender that
is out now to close on May 14, his question was: Can you give examples of other
contractors where there was a mutual agreement to terminate a contract?
Had he done his research, he would realize that within the 145 kilometre
tender that is scheduled to close on May 14, there is another contract that was
terminated in November 2013 that there was no talk about at all,
and that is retendered now.
So I wonder: Is there political posturing and that is why we are up here
in the House of Assembly today talking about what happened?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, I do not call looking after the taxpayers' money in this Province, the
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who give you the money to
spend in the first place, as being that.
Mr. Speaker: What implications does this have now for
the future contractors who are going to be posting bonds in this Province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, he says he does not call it
exactly that. Well that is exactly
what I do call it, political posturing, because when the contract was terminated
in November there was absolutely no word.
Here we are today with the exact same tender,
retendering two projects. One was
mutually terminated in November, 2013; a second contract was terminated on March
21, 2014. There was never an issue,
never a word about a contract being mutually terminated between the contractor
and the government until it was in what they thought what the Opposition and
the Third Party thought would be in their political best interest to try and
smear what this government thought was in the best interest, and still thinks is
in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to get a project
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MCGRATH:
As
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to get a contract finished on time, on budget, and
protects the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, group homes in Burin, Grand Falls-Windsor, and Stephenville were
successfully caring for youth for years with very well-trained staff, some with
decades of experience. These homes
submitted proposals to government to continue their good work.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Who made the decision
to not accept their proposals?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JACKMAN:
Mr.
Speaker, one of the homes mentioned is in my district.
I recognize the work that these people have done over the years and the
service they have provided to the youth of our Province.
Through the Auditor General's recommendation, an RFP was called and
tenders were awarded according to those RFPs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre for a quick question without preamble.
MS
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: What was the role of Deloitte in making these
decisions?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services for a quick response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JACKMAN:
Mr.
Speaker, all I can say in response to the member's question was that through the
Auditor General an RFP was put out.
The proponents who won out in this one are recognized quality child service
providers. As such, that decision
has been made.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
In accordance with section 19(5)(a) of the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, I hereby table the
minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting held on March 13,
2014.
Also, under section 37 of the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act the Commissioner of Legislative
Standards conducted an inquiry into the conduct of the Member for Gander for the
alleged contraventions of the House of Assembly Code of Conduct.
Under section 38 of the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act the Commissioner of Legislative
Standards delivered his report to me, as the Chairperson of the Management
Commission of the House of Assembly, and this report has been distributed to the
members of the Management committee.
In accordance with 38(1) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act, I am hereby tabling the report of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards into the conduct of the Member for the District of Gander.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR.
CROSS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice of the following private member's
resolution, moved by me, the Member for Bonavista North.
WHEREAS the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans
in allocating quotas for Northern shrimp this year has reduced the allocations
for the inshore fleet disproportionately by adopting a last in, first out
policy;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House calls on
the Government of Canada to eliminate the last in, first out, LIFO, policy of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and to instead distribute more equitably
the Northern shrimp quota allocations based on adjacency and historical
dependence.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, to add to the previous motion, to serve
notice that the motion provided by the member will be seconded by the Member for
Humber Valley and Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Member for Signal
Hill Quidi Vidi and Leader of the Third Party in the House.
I further serve notice that the motion just read in
will be the private member's motion that we will debate this coming Wednesday.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Answers to Questions
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
I
am sorry. I thought you were still
calling.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall
move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2014.
Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall
move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 6, 2014.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand on a petition today concerning the hospital in
Corner Brook.
WHEREAS we wish to raise concerns regarding the recent
delay on the construction of the new hospital in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to commit to the planning and construction of a new hospital in
Corner Brook as previously committed to and in a timely manner as originally
announced without further delay or changes.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here today from people
from Massey Drive, from Humbermouth, Humber Heights, Petries.
There are so many people, Mr. Speaker.
It was even on the back of the all over, there is Golden Globe,
O'Connell Drive.
Mr. Speaker, there is some good news for the people of
Western Newfoundland and Labrador and parts of Central in the last little while.
It is that there will be a radiation unit and a PET scanner at the
hospital in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, I just find it pretty strange.
I have to give the action committee, Israel Hann, Gerald Parsons, Wayne
Rose, and a lot of the members on the committee credit also for supporting this
and taking it to a new level.
I just find it very strange that we hear the former
Minister of Health out talking about you cannot have it because the numbers are
not there back on March 28 or 29, or April 1, at that time.
Now we hear the Premier of the Province saying we are not going to put
one, but we may put two in there. We
may put two in there. Some of his
comments was people from Central can avail of these services also.
I think it is good news for Western Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I have to remind people
of in Western Newfoundland, and they can rest assured that I am going to keep
vigil on this matter. The same
Premier who announced there is going to be a radiation unit, a PET scanner at
the hospital in Corner Brook in the last little while, is the same Premier, when
he was minister at the time, stood up in 2011 and said construction of the new
hospital will start in 2012, knowing full well there was not even a design for
the building.
I am not saying it is not going to be done, but I am
just saying on past history you have to remain vigil.
I say to the action committee, I am going to start presenting petitions.
I am going to start presenting information because the information I
presented before was all false until four days ago, when all of a sudden now we
are having two machines.
I am going to talk about ultrasounds.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the ultrasounds are going to be cut from six
to three. The wait time is going to
go from 147 days to 350 days.
Last year I was told I did not know what I was talking
about, about radiation and PET scanners.
Guess what? I was proven
right. I will be proven right about
the ultrasounds. The action
committee also will stay vigilant on this here because we cannot have a cut in
services to make room for this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided
a comprehensive approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully
understood and dealt with the complex issues of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the
most serious issues facing our Province today, and the cost of the impact of
domestic violence is great both economically and in human suffering; and
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was
welcomed and endorsed by all aspects of the justice system, including the
police, the courts, prosecutors, defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family
Services, as well as victims, offenders, community agencies, and women's groups;
and
WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through
the court was 10 per cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and
WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent
of the entire budget of the Department of Justice;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the
Family Violence Intervention Court.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to women's groups all over
the Province, women's groups who deal with issues of domestic violence, women's
groups who are experts in this area.
I have spoken to police. I have
spoken to officials of the courts. I
have spoken to prosecutors; I have spoken to defence counsel.
I have spoken to members from Child, Youth and Family Services, as well
as victims, offenders, and community agencies.
Everybody is saying that the Family Violence Intervention Court was
integral and was an important part of working on the issue of family violence.
It was a key element in solving the issues of domestic violence.
There is no good reason this government has yet stated
as to why they closed the Family Violence Intervention Court.
Five hundred and twenty thousand people in this Province and the court
was $520,000 a year. That is $1 per
citizen. How much money was wasted
on Humber Valley Paving? How much
money went down the drain there that belonged to the taxpayers of this Province,
money that could have been spent on the Family Violence Intervention Court?
That was simply tossed out the window and forgiven.
How much money is spent every day, every single day, on
Muskrat Falls?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
ROGERS:
Every single day, millions of dollars millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker and
we are talking about $500,000 to save the lives of women and children in this
Province. This government has
obviously lost its way in the area of family violence.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of
the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Holy Cross school is a small family-oriented
school that gives all of the children the highest education possible; and
WHEREAS the school helps support the many children who
have difficult and/or learning disabilities to reach their highest potential;
and
WHEREAS the school has a friendly atmosphere for
children and parents, the staff knowing all of the children and parents by name;
and
WHEREAS the teachers at Holy Cross bring extra supports
that would not be present in a larger school or larger classroom;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to consider keeping
Holy Cross open and to allow the children of the area to attend a neighbourhood
school as was promised with education reform.
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues here.
It is a smaller school and from my experience, because I have a smaller
school in my district, I firmly believe that they provide a greater level of
education because of the relationship between the parents and the teachers, and
especially between the teachers and the children, and the fact that the teachers
know all of the children by name.
The school itself has a feeling of community.
Generally speaking, I would say that smaller schools,
where there is a greater one-on-one level of support for the students, would
tend to have a higher grade point average than some of the larger super schools
and the super structures. I
understand and I realize that the super schools, Mr. Speaker, provide additional
amenities, additional lab equipment and so on, but you do tend to lose that
personal feeling that you have in a smaller school.
On top of that, we have the issue of all-day
Kindergarten that is going to be put in place.
When it was determined that Holy Cross Elementary was going to close,
all-day Kindergarten was not a reality.
The children from Holy Cross are now supposed to go to St. Theresa's
School. I would contend that if we
are going to have all-day Kindergarten then throughout the City of St. John's
the number of Kindergarten classes is going to double; therefore, we are going
to need additional space.
I ask government to reconsider the issue of closure of
Holy Cross Elementary with that in mind.
On top of the fact as the parents say in this petition they were promised
neighbourhood schools, Mr. Speaker and this is a neighbourhood school.
For some of the children to be bused to St. Theresa's, the new school to
be constructed certainly is not the neighbourhood school.
That is not the concept of education reform when that was voted on in
this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR.
J. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of
Trout River, which is an enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and
WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than
100,000 annually, expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park;
and
WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important
aspect of everyday living for residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone is an essential safety tool for
visitors and residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business
development;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage
throughout Gros Morne National Park, and the enclave community of Trout River.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I spent yesterday afternoon in Trout
River, and you will recall that I have presented this petition on a few
occasions in fact, on more than a few occasions and the evidence of the
shortfall in cellphone service and the fact that Trout River does not have
cellphone service could not have been more borne out than yesterday when I was
leaving Trout River.
Twenty kilometres back from Trout River in Woody Point,
I came across a vehicle with somebody in it, and that person was from the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The person from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was the security person
dispatched to secure the whale that is ashore.
Of course, the person is a security guard for DFO, cannot use his
cellphone from Trout River, so he has got to stand guard over the eighty-one
foot long blue whale which is in Trout River and is quite a conversation piece,
then he has got to drive back twenty kilometres so he can report in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
J. BENNETT:
So,
Mr. Speaker, how bizarre is it that we would have in a major national park in
our Nation, a community with 600 or 700 people, a community that the entire
focus of the world has been drawn to in the last few weeks, was the whale having
gone ashore with the media coverage, with the Royal Ontario Museum making an
agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to see if they can acquire
the whale and put it on display.
People will be looking to Trout River, and what is the one thing that they are
not going to have, all of the scientists who come and stay in Trout River in
order to be able to generate maybe as much as a couple of year's work locally?
They will not be able to use their cellphone.
So, Mr. Speaker, one of the first things that the Royal
Ontario Museum probably will be well advised to do, I guess they should rent a
house or something so they can get a telephone installed, because we know there
is no cellphone available for them.
What kind of a black eye is that for our Province that we cannot even extend
cellphone service to such a place?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
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 Route 430, the Viking Trail, is the primary
highway on the Great Northern Peninsula; and
WHEREAS the current road condition of approximately
sixty kilometres between Plum Point and Eddies Cove East have sections that are
in dire need of resurfacing and/or repaving; and
WHEREAS it is government's obligation to provide basic
infrastructure to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS an improved road network on this primary
highway is needed to enhance road safety, and help with local commerce, as well
as deal with increasing passenger traffic levels in this section of highway;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to
urge government to allocate funds under the provincial roads program to pave
this section of Route 430.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I guess like my colleague, the Member for
St. Barbe, this petition follows both of our districts and also would transcend
to the traffic that would be going to Labrador with the Strait of Belle Isle
ferry crossing.
As well, we look at having advanced transportation and
telecommunication networks as key.
We have the Strait of Belle Isle cable crossing and drilling happening in the
Shoal Cove, Pines Cove area where there is heavy equipment working right now,
and the road in that area is one of the worst sections.
You have a lot of development happening there in pertaining to the
Muskrat Falls Project, yet we are seeing our basic infrastructure being eroded.
That will have a significant impact on other transportation of goods and
services, on our tourism economy where we have a UNESCO heritage site in L'Anse
aux Meadows, as well as another UNESCO heritage site that goes to Red Bay, and
then there is one just near the Trout River area in Gros Morne National Park
that is being talked about.
It is all interlinked when we look at infrastructure,
when we look at our road infrastructure and when we look at our
telecommunications infrastructure.
It is time government look at making investment, do some resurfacing, do some
repairs in this section of primary highway for the good of all Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is a waste recovery facility being
proposed by Eastern Waste Management in the Peak Pond-Reids Pond area;
WHEREAS such a site would drastically impact the pond
and general area in a negative way from an environmental perspective; and
WHEREAS there are many species of wildlife that will be
negatively impacted by such a site such as moose, rabbits, loons, ducks, Canada
geese, et cetera; and
WHEREAS such a site will result in litter and strong
odours in the general area; and
WHEREAS there are significant number of cabins and
permanent homes in the Peak Pond-Reids Pond area, which will be negatively
impacted by this site; and
WHEREAS Eastern Waste Management has many sites
available to them for such a facility, including former dump sites in the area;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to intercede in the matter and advise Eastern Waste Management to
withdraw the proposal and find a more suitable location for this waste recovery
facility.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition now a
number of times. It actually started
out, for me, when I was contacted by some people in my district who actually own
cabins and summer homes in Peak Pond-Reids Pond, and so on.
Since that time, I have spoken to some permanent residents up there.
This has actually grown now from beyond simply the cabin owners to people
in the general area who have concerns over this site.
Today on my petition I have people here from Old Shop.
Of course, there is Mount Pearl and St. John's.
South Dildo, Blaketown, and Whiteway are some of the different
communities that are represented here today.
Mr. Speaker, as is indicated in the petition and as I
indicated before, this whole process, this whole plan to put a waste recovery
facility in that area, was done without any consultation with people in the
area, any of the cabin owners, or any of the permanent residents.
They were not even given the opportunity to even know it was on the go.
They had to read The Telegram
or something one day or something in the media to even find out about it, which
in itself is problematic.
Since that time,
there was an environmental assessment process, which was supposed to have been
completed a couple of weeks ago but it has not been for some reason.
I am not sure. Residents still
have not had an opportunity to give their input.
The bottom line is
we all recognize the need for such a facility.
There are eight other facilities across the Island, transfer sites and so
on. I think we all agree they are
needed. It is all about the location
and this is certainly not a suitable one.
I will continue to
present petitions on behalf of these people until it is changed.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The member's time
has expired.
MR. LANE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call, as per
Standing Order 32, we move into Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
A motion for Orders of the Day has been
called.
All those in
favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, a reminder in advance, so I do not
forget, for members. At 6:00 p.m.
today in the House, the Government Services Committee will meet to review the
Estimates of the Department of Transportation and Works and Labrador and
Aboriginal Affairs.
Further, Mr. Speaker, a reminder of tomorrow, May 6,
Tuesday, the Social Services Committee will meet in the House at 9:00 a.m. to
review the Estimates of the Department of Justice, Attorney General, and the
Labour Relations Agency.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health
and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of A
Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal, Bill 8, and that the said bill be
now read the first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of
The Province Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of A Decision Or Order Of
An Adjudication Tribunal, Bill 8, and that the said bill be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall
have leave to introduce Bill 8, and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province
Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of A Decision Or Order Of An
Adjudication Tribunal, carried.
(Bill 8)
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of
A Summary Of A Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal.
(Bill 8)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR.
KING:
On
tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
On
tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 2, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act, Bill 9, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Environment and Conservation, that the said bill be now read a third time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.
(Bill 9)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass
and that the title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue
Administration Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on
the Order Paper. (Bill 9)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to call from the Order Paper,
Motion 1, to move that the House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government, the Budget Speech.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Motion 1 has been called, the Budget Speech.
Does anyone want to stand and be recognized to speak to it?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
It
is a vote.
MR.
SPEAKER:
We
are going to vote on the sub-amendment?
Oh, I am sorry.
You have heard the motion.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is defeated.
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Yes, Mr. Speaker
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
want to remind members now we have just disposed of the sub-amendment, and we
are now going back to the amendment.
I am acknowledging the Minister of Advanced Education
and Skills, speaking to the amendment.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to stand in my place in the House today to
talk to Budget 2014-2015, Mr. Speaker.
Today I would like to split my time from talking about my own district in
regard to what that Budget means to my district, and also to my department.
I will start off essentially with my district.
Over the last couple of weeks or so, I and a couple of other ministers
have made some major announcements in regard to my district, which were well
received. I look back at Gander back
in 2003, previous to 2003, going back really to 1999.
I have referenced in this House previously as well, Mr.
Speaker, that I have three children, three girls.
I am quite proud of the three girls.
Back around 1999, 2000, 2001, I never thought that either one of them
would live in Gander. I thought that
neither one of them would live in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker,
because we did have a bleak future back then.
People were moving and doing all kinds of things in regard to seeking a
productive life. I did not think
they would for a minute, but things have changed, Mr. Speaker.
One of the fastest growing communities in Eastern
Canada, next to Paradise, probably, is the Town of Gander, with about 120 to
130, 140 new houses built each and every year for the last five years or so.
Our population is increasing as I speak, to be honest with you, Mr.
Speaker, because each and every time I go back to Gander somebody else is
building a house in one of the subdivisions in Gander as well.
That is one of the reasons why we, as a government,
have invested heavily in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have invested in schools.
We have invested in health. We have
invested in education. We have
invested in enabling people to go back to school, to seek a skilled trade.
We have enabled people to go to Memorial University and not incur the
debt that they had incurred in the past.
We have invested in our future, Mr. Speaker.
That is exactly what we have done over the last ten or eleven years.
Especially since 2005, we have invested heavily in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the MHA for Gander.
I am very proud to be able to work with all the different stakeholders in
my communities, the various councils, and also the chambers of commerce and any
of the other stakeholders. The
non-for-profits that we have out there too, Mr. Speaker.
We work well together and we have achieved a lot over the last number of
years.
I want to reference the schooling system in Gander.
Gander Collegiate has been totally redeveloped over the last number of
years. As a matter of fact, the
Minister of Education saw fit to redevelop the parking lot between St. Paul's
and the collegiate last year which was really welcomed by both the faculty and
the students as well.
As a matter of fact, it was only this week past that I
met the principal of Gander Collegiate.
He referenced how it has actually enabled them to cut down on their
overall maintenance cost in that particular school as well because the mud and
the dirt is not coming into the school and that kind of stuff, and destroying
some of the things they had there, Mr. Speaker.
St. Paul's has been expanded, Mr. Speaker, and
redeveloped as well. We have
announced that in past budgets. It
is all investments in education.
I had the privilege last year of announcing, and then
also announcing that we will start site work and hopefully get some steel onsite
in regard to the new four to six school in Gander as well.
We had to pick a site. We had
to swap some land with the Town of Gander too in regard to obtaining that site.
So that took a little while to get the particular legal documents and
legal process finished, Mr. Speaker, but right now we should be starting site
work in the next few weeks or so.
As well, in this Budget the planning money is there in
regard to the new K-3 school. Both
schools will probably be in the vicinity of between $40 million and $45 million,
or $48 million once done. The old
Gander Academy school was built in 1957.
It certainly does not meet the needs of the students today, Mr. Speaker.
I am so proud I was able to work with all of the stakeholders to
establish and have funded two new schools for the District of Gander, which has
a growing young population base, young students, and I encourage people to look
at Gander as a place to live. It is
a great place to bring up a family.
I moved there back in the early 1970s, saw that and never looked back, Mr.
Speaker. It is my home.
Mr. Speaker, over the last while, as a matter of fact,
I know the airport has commissioned a study to downsize the particular footprint
of the airport terminal. I
understand why they are doing that because aviation has really changed over the
last number of years and whatnot, but with that came a bit of criticism in
regard to that downsize. People have
to understand that aviation has changed.
The City of St. John's has changed and the traffic load has changed as
well. The airport terminal has given
the airport authority some challenges in regard to the overall maintenance
costs, operational costs, et cetera.
They are going to have a look at that and see how much of it they can
incorporate in the new plan and whatnot.
I saw some things out there in the social media.
I am not on social media myself but it was brought to my attention that
people were questioning in regard to politicians being involved in the Gander
airport and what they have said in the past and how important that piece of
infrastructure is to the Town of Gander.
Well, it absolutely is, and we have been involved as a government.
That is why we invested over $3 million in a $10 million project to
redevelop the main runway in Gander.
That is the reason why we invested in Garrett Drive, an intricate piece of
infrastructure connecting the business park to the airport.
It was in deplorable condition and we invested in that as well.
That is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, we invested in new
water bombers because everybody in this House realizes that the water bomber
base, government air services is located in Gander.
It has been located there for many, many years.
These people do some great things for this Province, take great risks,
especially when they are fighting fires as was seen in Lab West last year with
massive fires, and they do that kind of thing.
They should have the equipment that they absolutely need.
So two water bombers in the tune of $75 million is being purchased.
As a matter of fact, one is going to be delivered pretty soon or probably
is delivered.
Also, as well, we announced a new hangar in Gander
which will establish the headquarters for government air services at the airport
in Gander for ever and a day. They
require that too, because they are operating out of hangars that were built back
in the 1940s and 1950s. This will
bring them up to standard as well.
That hangar will cost anywhere between $30 million and $40 million.
The hospital in Gander, the James Paton Memorial
Hospital, will be celebrating fifty years this month, Mr. Speaker.
I may not be able to get to that celebration myself because I think it is
going to be held during the session of the House of Assembly, and I understand
the rules of the House that I cannot be out of the House in regard to district
work. I regret that I might not be
there, but my heart, my soul, and my congratulations go out to not only the
staff of the James Paton Memorial Hospital currently, but also all the staff who
made that James Paton Memorial Hospital what it is today in the past, Mr.
Speaker. I started out my career as
well in the James Paton Memorial Hospital.
I did a couple of internships there in the pharmacy.
As well, over the last years, especially under the
guidance of the past Minister of Health, the MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor
Buchans, I believe, we invested heavily in the James Paton Memorial Hospital in
both equipment and the redevelopment.
She helped me announce about three weeks or so ago $16 million for the
James Paton Memorial Hospital that will finish that redevelopment completely.
In essence, then, I would end up with a brand-new hospital in Gander,
which has been developed over the last number of years, up to standard and has
some of the best equipment in Eastern Canada, too, Mr. Speaker.
Recently, I was at the airport in St. John's.
I was talking to a gentleman who I had not seen for many, many years, in
fact a colleague of mine in my past life, a pharmacist.
He sat down with me up at the airport and we were just chatting about
Newfoundland and Labrador today as compared to 2003.
You cannot compare. You
cannot compare Newfoundland and Labrador as it was in 2003.
We did not and were not leading the country in regard to all economic
indicators or most economic indicators out there.
There was not the number of jobs and the opportunity there, as well.
Memorial University was not what it was.
The College of the North Atlantic was certainly not what it is today, as
well as the total economy.
I also recognize that everybody does not achieve.
That is the way society works.
Everybody does not achieve in a democracy, but everybody has the
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Certainly
right now in this Province, each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has
the opportunity.
We had a good conversation about that.
He brought the subject matter up to me and I had not seen him in a number
of years. As a matter of fact, I
would say it was probably about twenty or twenty-five years.
I wanted to talk more about when we were in the early years of pharmacy,
but he wanted to talk about Newfoundland and Labrador so we had that kind of a
conversation.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, when he left to
catch his flight, there was a young gentleman who was listening, unbeknownst to
us, about the conversation. I would
say that young gentleman was maybe twenty-three or twenty-four, probably even
younger than that. He did not know
who I was. He did not know who the
other gentleman was.
When the other gentleman left, he said: I overheard
your conversation. He said: I agree
with you. Even being as young as I
am, I have noticed a difference in Newfoundland and Labrador.
You are absolutely saying exactly what has happened in Newfoundland and
Labrador since 2003 and I have opportunity.
I am working here now on a kiosk, but I am only here on a temporary
basis. He said: I am going to
college and I have a great opportunity to make a life for myself here in this
Province, where I would not have had it back in 2003.
That was comforting to me as a politician.
That was comforting to me as a father.
That was comforting to me as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian that a
young person of that age is connected and recognized the investments and the
things that this government has achieved over the last ten to eleven years,
especially since 2005.
Last Thursday I had the fortunate aspect of spending an
hour on Crosstalk, I believe the name of the show was in regard to apprentices.
It was a very positive program.
It was about an hour. We had
a number of people phone in complimenting the programs that we have within
government that support apprentices and support employers.
Some of the people who phoned in made suggestions and I
took them as well, Mr. Speaker. One
in particular, and I will read, it was a lady by the name of Sarah Watts-Rynard,
an Executive Director of the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum.
She was there and she phoned in.
Here is exactly what she said, Newfoundland is really
out ahead when it comes to the wage subsidy, a much, much more generous wage
subsidy for employers in Newfoundland than is available anywhere else across the
country. A real effort to be able to
help employers who want to hire and train apprentices to be able to financially
do that. We know from our own
research that there's a great business case for apprenticeship training and lots
of reasons why employers should see the financial benefit of hiring and training
apprentices. But at the same time
that's still a key obstacle and it's really a place where Newfoundland is out
ahead of the rest of the country.
That is what we have done.
Since the Skills Taskforce we as a government have invested over $100
million in training. As a matter of
fact, with the labour market training we have about $39.8 million to continue to
develop a skilled workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Fourteen thousand people in this Province avail of some type of funding
from those programs. As a matter of
fact, between ourselves and the federal government, we have a total of about
$163 million, $164 million in regard to that fund.
That is the way we support Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to enable
them to train, enable them to educate themselves, enable them to seek the
opportunity and avail of the opportunities in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
I am hoping and praying that more and more of them will
make this their home, make this their home after Memorial University, which is
another great investment in my department in regard to reducing debt to our
students. Our tuition freeze, I
think it is $14.7 million we are going to invest no, that is actually $14.7
million over two years to complete the conversion of student loans to grants,
Mr. Speaker. That was hailed by the
students in general, and certainly by the Federation of Students as well, and it
is a great investment because it is an investment in our future, Mr. Speaker.
The tuition freeze is another $5.1 million, I believe, in continuing that
tuition freeze. So overall, in the
tuition freeze, there is $283 million invested by this government in our
students since we first introduced that in 2005.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things in my department that I
take not only a great interest, a great pride in as well, is the Income Support
part of my department, the most vulnerable people in our Province.
I said in this House and in interviews that we have a number of people in
this Province who will require some type of Income Support all their lives, and
that is an acceptable thing. There
were not born with what I have, they were not born with what all of us in this
House have, and they have challenges and they require support from us.
That is the reason why we invested $4.8 million in this
year's Budget to give them a 5 per cent increase in their basic rate, which is
really absolutely important. These
are the vulnerable people of our Province and we have to recognize that when we
are in an economy that we find ourselves in, we have to share that wealth, Mr.
Speaker. If we are going to be a
responsible government, if we are going to be a Province that people will look
at with envy and also I say this in thinking, Mr. Speaker, I go to a fair
number of provincial-territorial meetings, I go to a fair number of
federal-provincial-territorial meetings as well, and each and every one of those
that I attend, some of the ministers, a lot of the ministers have conversations
with me, and want to have conversations with me.
They want to find out how we are doing things.
We are doing things different.
They want to get and glean that information from us, from my officials,
from me as a minister, where they can possibly support their people as well.
I am not just talking about vulnerable people.
I am talking about the people of the Province, and we have done that
effectively and we have done it well.
I will go back to my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot
compare this Province today as it was in 2003.
You cannot compare 2003 to now.
We are living in a different Province today, a much better Province than
we found it in 2003.
As a government, do we do everything right?
Absolutely not! Do you do
everything right? Absolutely not!
We are all human beings and we do make mistakes.
You are limited by your budgets and all that kind of stuff.
Would you like to do everything?
Absolutely, you would, but that is not possible.
That is not possible in a household.
That is not possible in a business.
That is not possible in Memorial University.
That is not possible in the College of the North Atlantic, because you
live within a budget.
You only have so much money to go around.
That is not possible for yourself.
Absolutely not! You cannot
decide as a young person that you want to go out every night and you are going
to spend and you are going to spend and you are going to spend.
You are going to run out of money. That
is the way it works. We have tried
to invest as wisely as we possibly can and make this Province a better place.
Mr. Speaker, this Budget was a great Budget.
This Budget was a great Budget for Education.
This Budget was a great Budget for Advanced Education and Skills.
MR.
SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
I remind the hon. member his time for speaking has
expired.
MR.
O'BRIEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was great to speak to this Budget.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR.
J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thought I was rising out of turn, apparently I am in
turn.
Mr. Speaker, today in speaking to this matter I would
like to address the issues that I have become familiar with in our Department of
Justice and the Attorney General's Office over the past five or six months.
I was privileged to be able to devote a significant amount of my time
being appointed critic at the end of the year.
To me, it seems like we have had a report on our prisons, which was
called Decades of Darkness, and I think we could easily have a talk today about
our Department of Justice and we could say a decade of neglect.
We have had a decade of neglect in the Department of Justice.
First of all, in the broad strokes, what do we mean
when we look at the Department of Justice and the Attorney General's office,
which generally is overseen by one minister, but not so in this case?
First of all, we see the one we are familiar with having the mandates,
the various mandates that come under Justice.
One is that people should feel safe and secure from violent crime, from
being extorted, and from having people out on bail breaking into their homes.
That is the one we see in the news media.
That is the one that leaves us with the person we are being warned about
is on the loose. The police are
warning us up to a few hours ago. Do
not approach this person. A woman
who is on the loose breached some conditions, which means a prior offender, and
apparently ran into somebody.
Then we look at another area of the Department of
Justice, and that is providing access to the courts for people who have legal
issues and legal problems. Mr.
Speaker, quite often it seems to me that all of the attention, or most of the
attention, is focused on the crime and punishment aspect of the Department of
Justice without enough focus on other parts, the part of the Department of
Justice which says people who have legal issues and people who have family law
cases, and I am speaking about matrimonial matters, custody and access for
children, and businesses that need to resort to the courts for legal matters, to
have due process. In that area, we
are absolutely bogged down in the courts with no idea of when that may lighten
up.
To go on further with the Department of Justice and
Attorney General's office, we look at risk management.
Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with several lawyers at the Department of
Justice, both on the civil side and on the criminal side.
In my view, they do an outstanding job with the instructions they are
given. Lawyers are accustomed to
going to work because they have received instructions.
That means they wait to be told what they are supposed to do on what
cases, and that is done through a management team, but it comes from the
minister. The minister represents
the people who say: This is the policy we are going to pursue; this is what we
want to accomplish. Then the people
in the department carry out those instructions.
A third particular area on the civil side of the
Department of Justice and the Attorney General's office, which is sorely
lacking, is in loss prevention, risk management, providing advice, and providing
opinions back to the government so that the government does not do things like
expropriate paper mills that they should not expropriate inappropriately.
This was an error. It was a
bad move in the first place. It was
stampeded through.
Then we see the Department of Justice ought to be able
to provide advice on the civil side back to government over different issues
that government comes up with so we do not get caught up into litigation, like
class actions over runaway moose. We
need to have a Department of Justice and Attorney General's office which is
accountable. It provides almost as
if it is a three-legged stool, and this is what the Department of Justice and
the Attorney General's office provides for the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. If, in
fact, that stool has three legs, they are three very wobbly legs from neglect
and from lack of direction.
In the area which is crime and punishment, which I have
said seems to be there, it gets the most media attention.
There appears to be no focus whatsoever from this government as to what
direction we are taking with respect to organized crime, violent crime, family
crime, Aboriginal crime, white collar crime, any kind of crime.
It is almost as if the Department of Justice by giving no instructions,
they are not saying that I can see two Crown prosecutors if somebody comes
before the court with a violent crime, then for certain you must oppose bail.
When I see a newspaper story which says somebody comes
before the court who is arrested after a long time police investigation,
consuming thousands and thousands of dollars in resources, and these people have
over $300,000 in cash, nine millimetre automatic weapons that are designed to be
small, compact, and used as personal weapons of offence, generally, and when I
see that in no time the person is out on bail.
That means if the two lawyers, the defence counsel and the prosecuting
counsel, come before the judge and they are content to let the person out, the
judge has to assume they have made proper inquiries and investigations if it
means that person is sent back out on the street to commit more crime, more
crime and more crime.
Mr. Speaker, every time I read a media release today
and it says that such-and-such a person was arrested for impaired driving, a
high-speed chase, an assault with a police officer, and then they say and
breaches'. Well, Mr. Speaker, there
are two kinds of breaches. One is a
breach of probation which means the person is on probation and probably ought to
be supervised better, or they have had a lapse.
The other is generally a failure to comply with an order of the court,
which is typically a breach of a bail condition.
That means that the person is out.
The person has been given the benefit of walking free with the
presumption of innocence even though they are alleged to have committed one
offence, maybe two offences, or maybe multiple offences.
My colleague for Torngat Mountains has been looking at
the number of breaches, and the number of charges.
It is almost as if people who are involved in criminal activity are told
well, we are going to give you better yet it is going to be cheaper by the
dozen. The more crime you do, the
less time or fewer fines you are going to have to serve.
If we look at the collection of fines in the Province,
it seems to be totally ignored, and totally forgotten about.
The Auditor General some time ago made certain recommendations as to what
steps could be taken in fine collection.
Other provinces, for generally petty offenders, may have fine option
provisions, which means a person can work off a fine if it is relatively low.
This is a non-violent type of offender.
If a person is ordered to pay a fine and if they do not
pay the fine, then they rack up fines that are $10,000, $20,000, $30,000,
$40,000. We heard recently one which
was much higher, but I understand that may have been an exception because there
was a substantial tobacco fine involved in that one.
The person may well have been paying and that was more than $160,000.
If the person has racked up tens of thousands of
dollars in fines, in my view that shows an absolute and utter contempt for the
court. What does it say to a person
who has committed a relatively minor infraction, maybe it is a driving
infraction, and they have had not relatively nominal fines?
How does it give the generally law-abiding citizen any comfort to say now
you have a fine, Mr. Whatever, for, say, speeding and you have a $200 or $300
fine, but we are not going to bother to collect $20,000 or $30,000 of fines from
somebody else? When you want to
renew your driver's licence, you are going to pay this fine.
Why is it that we do not pursue offenders of large amounts of fines?
Why is it?
These people have not vanished; they are showing up
regularly. Not only is it showing
absolutely no regard for law and order and the administration of justice in
causing a slippage in bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, it
means that people are on our streets who are driving unregistered, unlicensed
motor vehicles, an absolute hazard to other members of the public.
A very simple set of instructions to chase down those fines and give
people their opportunity, and if they do not pay then we may not imprison
people any more for failing to pay fines; however, we do imprison people for
contempt of court. If the person
cannot demonstrate to a judge that they are making their best efforts to pay
those fines, then for sure that can be seen as contempt of court and they can
face yet another charge and incarceration.
Another of the issues I see having toured Her Majesty's
Penitentiary, and I certainly encourage the minister to tour Her Majesty's
Penitentiary and all of the prisons in the Province, is Her Majesty's
Penitentiary was built in 1859. By
way of comparison, I have earlier referred to Darwin having written his
masterpiece, On the Origin of Species.
Well, in the 1850s, the United States government also opened Alcatraz.
Alcatraz was opened in the same decade as Her Majesty's Penitentiary in
the then colony, ultimately Dominion, and now Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The prison is absolutely archaic, but even more so, one
of the initiatives of government, which is not going very well, is that inmates
are permitted to wear everyday street clothing inside.
That is very ill advised. It
is ill advised because the corrections officers know that people who wear street
clothing in the prison for weekends or for any other use are astute of smuggling
contraband. They can have pills sewn
in seams. They can have various
types of drugs sewn into clothing that goes inside the prison.
As was explained to me by somebody working in the
prison only a few weeks ago, in addition to street clothing providing avenues
for contraband, street clothing often is taken away, extorted, or stolen from
the weaker inmates so that the stronger, heavy on the range, gets the street
clothing. Then the person who lost
the street clothing, maybe it is a $250 jacket, reports it as stolen, and maybe
it was sold for drugs on the inside, and the authorities inside our penitentiary
then have to launch an investigation to find out what happened to this person's
street clothing. If they cannot find
it, then the taxpayers have to reimburse this inmate for street clothing that is
lost inside of the prison. Clearly
some direction from the Minister of Justice on ceasing wearing of street
clothing inside would solve a lot of issues on moving contraband and violence
inside.
Less than a week ago I toured the most modern
provincial prison in Canada. The
South West Detention Centre has been built to house approximately 300 inmates,
so it is roughly twice the size of Her Majesty's Penitentiary.
In the South West Detention Centre, the inmates in that detention centre,
the most modern one in Canada, they wear uniforms.
Not only do they wear uniforms, the South West
Detention Centre has a wing for male inmates, a wing for female inmates so the
female inmates with families primarily in the Northeast Avalon area, St. John's
area, do not have to be shipped to Clarenville; they could just as easily be
serving their time locally. The
uniform for male inmates is orange overalls and the uniform for female inmates
is track pants and a sweat shirt, and it is as simple as that.
This is something that these very minor steps, at minimal cost, could
improve the efficiencies of the prison system in this Province.
We are not doing that.
Something else that they have that we have not even
considered in our Province with roughly a 150-year-old prison is that they have
a mental health wing. For people who
are sentenced to prison, they can serve their time in a mental health wing.
Because many people who commit offences and who are in prison have mental
health issues, they also have an infirmary.
They have an eight-unit infirmary so that, as was explained to me by one
of the personnel who was kind enough to give me approximately a three-hour tour,
if somebody gets sick and we are responsible for that person, that inmate,
regardless of what offence they have committed and this is not a federal
penitentiary; this is a provincial prison for up to two years less a day.
The take on transporting someone to the hospital means
two correctional officers two guards and a driver are taken out of the system
for one inmate to go to the hospital.
If that inmate is kept in the hospital, you have to have two guards,
twelve hours on and twelve hours off, to oversee that person.
Yet if they have an infirmary and they have multiple nurses, more than
a dozen nurses working in the prison, and we have one nurse practitioner.
That is what we have in Her Majesty's Penitentiary.
The prison in Windsor, Ontario, the South West
Detention Centre, it really was not built so much for the inmates; it was built
more for the staff because the people who work in the prison work in conditions
that if it were an industry, I am pretty certain it would not be allowed.
I am pretty sure that somebody could not be hired at a company and say
now you go down in the basement and you sit there for twelve hours and watch
monitors with no daylight and no fresh air.
That is the working conditions of people working in the prison.
If people do not care about the inmates I am not saying they do or they
do not, but if they do not we should at least care about the staff who work at
Her Majesty's Penitentiary.
Contraband is a significant issue.
Some of the contraband issues include outsiders being able to throw drugs
over the wall. Then people are able
to acquire the drugs thrown over the wall, and this causes more trouble on the
inside.
Another one of the issues that the Minister of Justice
would do well to review is people who are doing temporary absences, intermittent
sentences, also known as weekends.
In my view, somebody should have to convince a judge that yes, I should be
allowed to do my relatively short stretches on weekends.
This could be fourteen days, thirty days, sixty days, whatever it happens
to be, because right now it seems to be they are receiving this as a matter of
right.
People who are doing weekends, now some people have
stretched out weekends and say well, I am working on the weekend so I want to do
my weekends in the middle of the week.
That means that the people inside who we have heard are pretty much
formed into a prison gang are able to say to people who are coming in: If you do
not bring drugs into the institution, then you are going to be beat up.
We know you are coming back in.
These people are put in the general prison population.
There is another wing; quite often, it is overcrowded.
I have toured the other wing in our penitentiary, but there should be no
communication between people who are doing the short stretches on weekends
because people doing the short stretches bring in drugs and are coerced into
bringing in drugs for the heavy-duty inmates on the inside.
Mr. Speaker, in preparing as Justice critic I have had
the opportunity to review the press releases issued by this government for the
last half dozen years. If the
government had done all of the things that they said they were going to do over
the last half dozen years, we would have a much better system.
I believe that we would also be participating more fully in the Canadian
Confederation.
For example, a half dozen or so years ago a former
Minister of Justice was saying he was making representations to then Public
Safety Minister, Stockwell Day, saying we want a 70-30 split on building a
prison in our Province because there is not a federation institution.
That seems to have fallen by the wayside and the Province is now building
our own institution.
Another issue that a former Minister of Justice was
taking up with the federal government is that we have never, ever had a Justice
of the Supreme Court from this Province to be appointed from this Province.
Mr. Speaker, sixty-five years in Confederation and one-half dozen years
ago the Minister of Justice said he was making representation so we could have
one of our judges and we have enough judges who are experienced enough and
smart enough to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada.
It seems like government has given up on this entirely.
It is as if, from time to time, they pump out a few press releases, a few
feel-good press releases, and there is little to no follow-up.
Certainly we should be entitled to participate on the bench of the
Supreme Court of Canada. Given our
smaller population, undoubtedly we will not get very many appointments.
Given that there is already a formula in place of the
nine justices, three from Ontario, three from Quebec, two from the Prairies, and
one from Atlantic, we would not expect to get very many judges.
For sure after every sixty or seventy years, we should be allowed to have
one judge in this Province on the Supreme Court of Canada.
It would seem to make sense to me in order for us to be able to
participate more fully in the fabric of Canadian society.
Many of the issues that the Department of Justice could
be dealing with to improve our society are significant.
Many of them are large; many of them are smaller.
This government has consistently withdrawn Provincial Court services from
small rural communities. Mr.
Speaker, they have done so on the Great Northern Peninsula, and they have done
so on the Bonavista Peninsula. This
means that people have to travel greater distances.
These are people who are often unemployed looking for child support
payments. They are trying to enforce
their right in our Provincial Courts, in our provincial civil courts, yet
government continues to downgrade and withdraw the services.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the last member say how far we
have come. It seems to me we have
also fallen further behind than we were ten years ago.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is great to rise today to speak to the amendment.
It is like the news program we watch on Sundays and we have the three to
watch. The first portion of this,
the sub-amendment, has been voted down.
Now we are talking to the amendment on this Budget.
We will get into the third act to get back to the Budget debate itself.
I would just like to as my first words on this Budget
and the amendment make a couple of comments about the first Budget of our new
minister. From the travels around
the Province and the talks she had with constituents and residents around the
Province, the shared views that were shared with her and her committees and the
other ministers who were doing the consultations in different parts of the
Province, then we certainly listened to what was said to us through the last few
months.
This Budget came about and has quite austere measures
in it for this Province and is in quite capable hands.
I would not want to refer to the fact that this new minister has huge
shoes to fill. You know what shoes
she would have to step into; she would probably get lost in them, in the sense
of physical size. I will refer to
her capable hands that this Budget and how it was brought in, how it is
presented, and the themes in which she came in with shared prosperity, fair
society, and balanced outlook towards our Province, then I am sure that through
these actions this Budget was prepared by capable hands through her and her
officials in her department.
Before I get right into the Budget, I do want to take
just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to welcome the Member for Virginia Waters.
I guess now I am the first to welcome her; she was brought into this
House today. I hope she gets used to
her seat, and that in the few days to come that we will hear much from her.
I would also refer to a new addition with regard to the
Cabinet today, the Member for Terra Nova.
His time has finally come and he stepped up to those ranks for Tourism,
Culture and Recreation, and I am sure the job will be done quite well.
In the next ranks behind, the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, I
would just like to congratulate her on her new role as well, and others who may
have been in new roles since we left two short weeks ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSS:
To
look at this Budget, Mr. Speaker, again the themes from the Budget: shared
prosperity, fair society, balanced outlook.
Shared prosperity: What and how can you actually take that and explain it
for the residents? We are working
together for a growing of our economy, sharing the economic benefits, the shared
prosperity, through most of our great Province.
In a fair society we care for the vulnerable; we care for those who are
probably less able to protect themselves and to fight and fend off themselves.
We also look at this balanced outlook to the future that we are spending
and sustaining. It is not all cuts,
but it is not all debts. It is not
all cuts; it not all borrowing. This
Budget is a balanced outlook for the future.
In looking at all of us who speak here in this hon.
House, Mr. Speaker, we all speak with a different tune, so to speak. We know we
dance to different tunes on different sides of the House, but every single one
of us has a unique district. Every
single one of us as members are unique persons.
A good friend of mine, and a teacher who taught with me, whenever I would
make a comment like that, he would say, (inaudible) would say, and no two of us
are alike either. So I just want to
refer that as we all speak to this Budget we do have different points of view,
we do have to look at our own districts, we do have to look at the entire
Province, and we do have to really look at the entire country as it melds and
welds into our Province and the relationships we have to continue on with Ottawa
and outside governments, and all these other aspects of what happens to make up
this great society we are developing here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now, many of us get up and we talk mainly about a
particular interest to us. A lot of
us do not talk a lot about the Budget, so I want to take two or three minutes.
My last position was a Grade 6 teacher of math.
I was a principal, but I also taught math in Grade 6.
One of the biggest challenges was taking the idea of math and to put it
in context for a Grade 6 student, which should be able to explain this to all of
the people.
We all stand in our place here inside this House and
talk about different things, but what we really think we are doing at the same
time, we are talking to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, whoever is tuned into
their TV sets watching the debate that is taking place here.
Basically, what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is try to explain this in a
perspective that maybe after I am finished today, some of my Grade 6 students
might understand what I am trying to explain about how to create this Budget,
but also most of the populace in the Province would as well.
Usually when you talk about graphs you talk about pie
charts. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, and
all my Grade 6 students and all of the constituents out there, that you are
taking a huge pie plate and you are going to fill up your pie plate with all of
the different parts that make up this Budget.
How much do you actually need?
Well, this Budget this year we needed $7.5 billion to create this pie.
If we take this pie, look at it, and say we are going to cut it into
pieces, how do we fill up the pieces of this pie to create the Budget we are
creating for this year?
Taxation, Mr. Speaker, and residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador; if we had to take it and say this pie is created out of ten equal
pieces, then four pieces of this pie is created and filled in the pie plate from
taxation around our Province.
Taxation has to be done in a certain way.
The philosophy, I am trying to say, is that in the last three, four, or
five years, government had a very competitive tax rate such that we have kept
money in the hands of the Province.
To increase and balance our Budget this year, we could have not left that money
in the hands of the residents; we could have had a little bigger piece of the
pie out of this Budget from taxation, but we did not because we are balanced and
fair.
Another piece of the pie, Mr. Speaker, out of the ten
pieces comes from investment, fees and fines, as the last member was talking
about on the other side, and other provincial sources.
One piece of this pie comes from that.
That makes up half of this Budget, Mr. Speaker.
Then we come to the offshore royalties, which we are
enjoying at this time but they are not sustainable.
We are extending them but they are not sustainable to keep us going in
the future, and that is the reason why we need to diversify.
There are three pieces out of this pie that comes from the offshore
royalties three pieces plus four pieces is seven pieces, eight-and-a-half
pieces, Mr. Speaker. The remaining
piece and a half of this Budget comes from the federal government; 15 per cent
of this year's spending comes from the federal government.
There were years ago when 30 per cent-plus of our spending came from the
federal government. We are quite
proud that we are able to go this our own way.
Now, that is how we filled up the Budget.
That is how we filled up the pie that we are going to use.
How do we take that pie and serve it around to the different parts of the
Province? How do we serve up this
Budget to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
The biggest portion of this Budget, Mr. Speaker, as my
grandfather would say five and three parts, or almost six pieces of this pie
goes to the education sector, the health care sector, and other social sectors
in our Province. It includes: Health
and Community Services; Justice; Child, Youth and Family Services; Education;
Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Then we go on to another piece of our pie of just less
than two pieces, Mr. Speaker, and it is the resource sector.
In that resource sector you are talking about Natural Resources,
Fisheries and Aquaculture, Tourism, Environment and Conservation, Advanced
Education and Skills. The final
sector, about two-and-a-half pieces out of this pie, is for Finance, Service NL,
Transportation and Works, Executive Council, the legislative part of our
government, and the Public Service Commission.
When all of this was put together this year, we needed
one extra piece of the pie. That was
where we had to borrow to make up the difference to enable all of this to go
forward for our Province. In this
borrowing, we enabled a lot of the extra things that were asked for by the
people of this Province.
Key statements from the Budget, Mr. Speaker,
reverberate of the share, fair and balanced aspect.
The key commitment in this Budget is to maintain competitive tax rates,
and since 2006 this government has decreased taxes by hundreds of millions of
dollars. This year, in particular,
about $600 million will stay in the hands and pockets of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is no
small measure, Mr. Speaker.
Since 2005-2006, Mr. Speaker, we have had surpluses of
approximately $5.6 billion that we have paid down on the debt.
This year we have a short-term measure where we are going to grow that
debt a little. In order to sustain
and go into the future that is not a long-term trend, Mr. Speaker, it is just a
short-term pain.
In promotion of this fair society of post-secondary
education that is accessible and affordable to all, Mr. Speaker, we continued
this year even though we had rough times or whatever here, we have kept $5.1
million currently into our Budget to keep the tuition freeze for post-secondary
students.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
CROSS:
It
is no small measure, Mr. Speaker.
Should we have taken that away to balance the Budget?
We are also injecting nearly $15 million in two years to eliminate the
provincial loans for our post-secondary students and replace them with upfront
grants. It is no small measure, a
good measure in promoting the fair society for education for all of our
residents.
The Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Speaker, is the
envy of the country. Again, this
year we invest $170 million in 2014-2015 to bring and exceed $1 billion since
2006 into our Poverty Reduction Strategy.
It is no small measure. Would
we have taken this out to balance the Budget?
They are hard people to pull money from.
Low Income Support this year is increased by 5 per
cent, Mr. Speaker. In times when we
have to be tight with our financial constraint, we increased our spending to
those who have Income Support. The
Low Income Tax Reduction threshold this year increased to $18,500 for an
individual and $31,400 approximately to a family.
It is extra money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
For someone in that income bracket, when you allow them
to keep $500-plus in their pockets, they would certainly appreciate that and
they can do a lot more. It would
make a lot more impact on their life than it would to most of us in this House
possibly. That is a part of our
Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Our senior benefit this year, Mr. Speaker, is raised to
the highest it has ever been, up from $971 to $1,036 which is a great increase.
It is some well-deserved cash that stays in the pockets of senior
citizens in our Province.
With the fair and equitable balance of this society
that we are creating, early childhood education this year, an extra $5 million
over three years to enhance initiatives aimed at zero to three year olds.
Full-day Kindergarten, Mr. Speaker, although some may claim to announce
that they had this in their in platforms far before we might have had it in
ours, but when it is put in a platform on this side, it has all been figured
out, it has all been investigated, and we know that it can balance with what we
are saying we are going to do.
The full-day Kindergarten, we have to renovate and
redevelop the schools, have some additional resources in the schools as well as
teaching resources, and this full implementation plan will be fully in place for
September, 2016 a great measure from this government.
There are 43,000 extra hours of student assistant time
because people told us student assistant time is in great demand.
As a former principal, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure yourself in your former
role, you always struggle every year, when you close down in June to when you
came back in September, not exactly knowing what your student assistant hour
allocation was going to be. This
year, we know there is more coming forward throughout the year, throughout the
summer, so most principals now actually know what hours they are going to have
in their schools and how this is going to impact on them for September another
great, great, educational measure in this Budget, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
CROSS:
Mr.
Speaker, everyone stands up and everybody talks about deficits in different ways
and all kinds of other things that are problems around here, especially when we
hear it coming from the opposite side of the alley here in the middle.
Just think now, I am going to talk about infrastructure spending in this
Province this year. I am going to go
through several departments in just listing what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker.
Just imagine that if we had to take all of this out of this Budget, then
is that where the other people on the opposite side of this House want us to be?
Infrastructure; let us start off with Transportation
and Works, a total investment $850 million.
I will say it again: $850 million.
That is bigger than any deficit $81 million for roads.
In Bonavista North we are going to benefit because there is a bridge
replacement which I will mention a little further down below and there are
several kilometres of road that were announced just a few days ago.
Again, every district in this Province potentially is
going to in some way realize some of this $81 million for roads.
A lot of it announced a lot faster, a lot earlier, and a lot bigger
announcements than ever before that we can remember in history, thanks to our
great minister.
There is $76 million for the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Let us just talk about these big numbers: $71 million for ferry
replacements and maintenance; $9 million more for terminals and wharves.
There is $80 million in water transportation for us.
Thirty-three million dollar expenditure in the Confederation Building and
the Sir Richard Squires Buildings in St. John's and Corner Brook; $29 million
for the Placentia Lift Bridge and the Sir Robert Bond Bridge; $28 million to
manage and operate the 600-plus pieces of heavy equipment.
I am going to remind the minister there is a town in my
district who would like to have a truck as it comes out of commission again this
year. Again, at Musgrave Harbour, it
is a very good thing for them, in a small community of 1,000 people, to be able
to find a flyer that is taken out of commission and be able to use it for two or
three years at a very low cost to them rather than buying a brand-new truck.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that since 2004 more than
$5.3 billion
AN
HON. MEMBER:
How
much?
MR.
CROSS:
You
still know how to do that, right? In
total that has been spent in this Province on infrastructure $5.3 billion.
All I have mentioned so far here and my time is starting to run out.
I probably will not get through the end of my list by the time my time is
out, but I have another time coming.
Did you also know that Health and Community Services
this year, Mr. Speaker, had $190 million expenditure in infrastructure, $120
million in new construction and redevelopment, $50 million for new equipment,
and $20 million for repairs and renovations?
Again, that is just in infrastructure.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, just to interject here as
well, that in 2014 I believe I heard somebody say and I could be corrected
the investment in infrastructure in this calendar year is the greatest we have
ever had, except or probably even surpassing Igor when we had to spend money for
emergency services for many areas of our Province?
That is a phenomenal thing to be able to say based on this Budget.
There is $200 million in Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs. Again, I
need to speak to this because there is some money going into my district, about
$1.5 million or more, in Centreville-Wareham-Trinity, New-Wes-Valley, Gander Bay
South, and Carmanville. Most of the
expenditures there, as the minister says, are based on safe drinking water and
management of waste water, which are very high priorities, so a very low
expenditure there on kilometres of black top as it goes through.
The commitment is there, like I said, for clean drinking water, waste
water systems, and roads.
Of this, approximately half of it is allocated to the
seven largest towns. We also hear
that none of our towns this year, as well as last year, received lower Municipal
Operating Grants than they did before.
In fact, most of them increased, but at least the guarantee was none were
lowered. That is a phenomenal piece
of information.
I also have information here on Advanced Education and
Skills, but I am fast running out of time.
I will use those in my next time, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to say that this government, this Finance Minister, has
listened to the advice of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, identified the needs
as they expressed them, and each and every special interest group that spoke to
her and her officials are the primary focus.
She had to blend these focuses together to make for a good Budget for
Newfoundland and Labrador, and I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a good Budget for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I take pleasure in standing up and talking about the
Budget again today, and to address some of the concerns that I have with the
Budget, and to address in particular some of the comments that have been made in
the House as regards to the Budget, and to give my thoughts and our party's
thoughts on the document.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I have to do is address,
of course, the Department of Transportation and Works and the comments by the
previous member who just arose, because I am really quite surprised sometimes,
and quite astounded sometimes when I hear some of the numbers that are brought
up in the House of Assembly and spoken about.
I hear $81 million, Mr. Speaker, is a record amount of
money to be spent in Transportation and Works.
Then I look at the Auditor General, who surely has the record number to
beat all numbers, when he gets up and the Auditor General speaks and says you
need $800 million for bridge work in this Province, and there is good
substantive evidence according to the Auditor General's book that some of that
work has not been done since 2003.
So I beg to differ whenever I hear of an $81 million expenditure done on roads
in this Province; there is $800 million less work than what should be.
Now we are at a situation where we have come to see our
bridge work literally collapsing under our feet, where we have seen this year
more potholes on the roads, more rutting that is on the roads, than ever we have
seen in our motive history in this Province.
So I would beg to differ every time I hear something on roads brought up
by this government that the right investment has been made on roads.
Every time I hear a dollar amount, the same as any
other taxpayer in this Province, I question the expenditure that has been made
in the past and I even question this one.
This one is not about making a strategic investment to maintain what you
have, but now government has themselves backed into a corner where now they have
to come up with more money to pay for what they did not maintain before, as well
as pay for what is needed today. Now
they have double the costs of what it would have cost twenty years ago, for
example, to maintain roads.
Why do we have that today?
Because we simply did not have a plan for roads, something that might
have taken you on a five-year rotational basis or seven-year rotational basis,
whatever government wanted to work with, as long as it was a plan to constantly
revisit the idea and the ideal of having a road construction plan.
That is why we are in the situation today.
Taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador, do not be fooled
any time you hear about record numbers of dollars being invested in roads
because it is not a happy story sometimes when we hear it.
Sometimes it is a story that is painted to be happy so that they can come
out with the proper excuse to say we did not invest according to the Auditor
General $800 million ago, so now we have to throw in a few extra bucks to try to
play catch-up on the damage that has been done out there and the neglect that
has been out there.
We can say the same thing about the ferry system in
this Province when they made the announcement for two new ferries a short time
ago. We have been arguing for years
over here on this side of the House that there was a plan needed for ferry
replacement. That so far has yet to come
to fruition. We have heard money
that was thrown out there for ferries of course, for new ones, which is great.
Hopefully they will be a central cog in a new plan for ferry replacement
that will be ongoing in the years to come.
We still need the investment into smaller boats,
particularly those on the South Coast of the Province.
Those smaller boats have yet to be addressed in spite of them having work
done by Knud Hansen Limited. I
believe they are out of Denmark.
That company has come up with some fine designs for some boats.
That was back in 2010-2011, yet here it is 2014 and nothing forthcoming
so far on those new boats being replaced.
We have problems with the coastal Labrador boats of
course. A lot of people are having
problems with services up there. Of
course, a couple of times I managed to stand up here in the House talking about
the need for new coastal services anywhere between Nain, Hopedale, and Happy
Valley-Goose Bay.
That was done by some citizens up there, forwarded on
to me, and I had the pleasure of standing up I should not say the pleasure of
standing up in the House, Mr. Speaker, to deal with that particular petition
because it is something government should have been looking after and ensuring
those people they would have a free, or relatively free service rather than the
one they ended up with. I am hoping
to hear from government on the long-term proposal they will be coming out with
and see if there was a long-term buyer into that particular arrangement in the
future, and see if they are going to be able to supply a better service.
Again, like I said to the hon. Member for Bonavista
North, it is okay for him to come out and say it is a record number of dollars
being sunk in there and a record number of dollars going into the Trans-Labrador
Highway, for example. There are
other areas of the Trans-Labrador Highway, for example, that I can talk about
having been up to Labrador. The road
between Forteau and Blanc-Sablon, anywhere between Blanc-Sablon, Quebec and the
areas I travel farther up north along the coast through Forteau, L'Anse au
Clair, and L'Anse-au-Loup, absolutely abysmal.
If we go back to the days of horse and cart, I would not run the cart
over it. You need to hear a plan,
too, at the same time for the people of coastal Labrador when it comes to roads.
Like I said, it all comes back to having a strategic
plan for roads and the proper investment you are going to have for roads over a
particular time. Put the plan out
for people. Let them know what is
going to be happening in the next five, seven years, like I said, and the people
would probably be happy with that.
As long as they knew there was a plan.
As long as they knew they could go into a government
Web site and say: Yes, my particular piece of road is going to be dealt with
next year. It may be well maintained
and everything, and maybe government might not have to put in a strategic
investment into that road. The thing
is somebody would be coming by to absolutely check on it to make sure everything
was sustainable with that road. Mr.
Speaker, that is where I am coming from, strategic planning when it comes to
roads and when it comes to bridges.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know what it
means to have a ferry service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques.
They expect to have a good, operating service.
They demand and they deserve a good, solid, operating service.
One that is less costly to the taxpayer too, at the same time, not like
the boats we still have in the provincial ferry fleet.
They have seen a lot of emergency repairs.
We go through the tender documents, and I do not know
how many times I have seen it, with massive amounts of dollars being poured into
the older ferries in the fleet and no strategic plan to address the same.
Be wary, I say to the taxpayer out there, to the Newfoundlander and
Labradorian Budget watcher if you will, about that.
I say to government, I would like to see a plan, but there is no plan.
A lot of these things are done in a panic, and a lot of things are done
out of necessity because they have fallen to the point where now they need it
and it is too late to do anything from it.
Mr. Speaker, I will use this opportunity now, my part
of talking about the Budget, to talk about government's estimates on where the
price of oil is over the next year and where I think the price of oil is going
to be, having been a market watcher of oil prices over the last fifteen-plus
years. I think I have come to have a
little bit of experience with it.
Last year they planned for $105 a barrel, and they were lucky.
I said at that particular time that I do not think I would have went over
$100 a barrel because of the conditions that were playing out in the
marketplace. As a matter of fact,
they continue to play out in the marketplace this time around with no relief in
sight. If I can say that particular
term in quotation marks, no relief in sight as regards to the changes in the
market conditions.
We still have, of course, conditions of ongoing
violence worldwide. The situation in
the Ukraine is, of course, figuring in on some Brent prices, but in spite of it
all, the number that you see is grossly affected by what happens in China. Right
now they are predicting a bit of an economic slowdown as regards to what is
happening in China right now. That
is driving down the price of oil today, for example, in the markets; in spite of
the violence that is happening over in the Ukraine, the disruptions we are
seeing in supplies, for example, in the Middle East, like Libya and Iraq.
When it comes to $105 a barrel, I think again, I will
be very cautious about it because I still do not think I would have went
anywhere over $100 a barrel and here is the reason why.
The simple fact is that whenever we look at these conditions we have to
look at conditions, number one, of what is happening over in Asia, and of course
we are seeing a Chinese economic slowdown that is happening right now.
I think that is going to play out for a while yet before there is going
to be any relief.
The second big factor, of course, came forth again last
week, talking about US domestic oil production.
The Energy Information Administration in the United States talked a bit
about this last week. They talked
about an increase in domestic production, and domestic production in the US is
reaching new records. Right now, the
last number I saw was about 7.9 million barrels in the run of a day.
That number is going to change drastically.
A report I saw the week before that, before that 7.9 number, actually
said that domestic production was up around 8.4 million barrels a day.
So, there is some disparity in the numbers, but there is one thing on
both of these reports that they did agree on, especially when it came to the
Energy Information Administration, the initial reports are showing that within
the next year, within the next eight months, ten months, twelve months, you are
going to see an increase in US domestic production of oil by about 900,000
barrels in the run of a day. That is
going to do an awful lot of damage and here is why.
Like I said, this is my figure.
If you add more domestic production in for oil, of course, that is going
to end up devaluing the price of West Texas Intermediate and you will see the
West Texas Intermediate prices dropping.
When the price of West Texas Intermediate drops, provided you do not have
a market for it and so far that has been slowing down in the States too, the
price of that has been dropping off a bit in spite of a lowering of inventories,
what you are going to see is that West Texas Intermediate itself is going to end
up dragging down the price of Brent Crude oil.
Brent Crude oil, like I said today, just on the one word today when it
comes to the economy in China, it is down about $1.06, I think, the last time I
looked here today.
We do have some weakness out there in the markets, in
spite of what is being said about the improvements in the US economy.
For example, the US jobless report just last week showed about 6.3 per
cent, I think it was, in the unemployment rate.
It is the lowest that it has been in years, but then again, at the same
time as that, it did not do anything to the price of oil.
That is what I am saying; there are little signs there about weakness in
oil, not so much about the strength in oil unless you see further disruptions.
Like I said, disruptions right now are happening in Libya and other areas
of the Middle East, like Iraq, and that is adding something substantial to it.
The word is, of course, on Libyan productions, it produces there about
1.5 million barrels in the run of a day.
The latest that I have heard coming out of Libya was that they are only
pushing out about 200,000 barrels a day.
Any increase in Libyan exports, of course, is also
going to have an impact on Brent.
Anything that you see happening with Iraqi crudes probably will end up having an
effect, too, on crude oil prices in Europe and, hence, an effect on the
provincial Treasury.
When it comes to balancing the news again, like I said,
that is why I think that government has gone a ways out here in predicting 105.
They may have gotten good advice about it, but I would be very cautious
about that number and, like I said, I am sticking to about 100.
The other thing that the Energy Information
Administration is saying in the United States as of last week, very interesting,
I think, when I read it, they are still sticking to a long-term dip in the price
of oil. Out to 2017 they looked at
it, they are talking about $92 for Brent prices, I think it was the figure that
they used, but for prices to actually decline in Brent, backwards to $92.
So, we have to have some futuristic thinking on the part of government
when it comes to the prediction of oil and where it is going to be going in the
future. They made a lot of bets here
as regards to the spending. No doubt
they have no other choice but to spend in certain departments, certainly in
departments like health care where we know that we have an aging population.
Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a bone of contention that I would like to
talk about.
The last time I was here in the House talking about
what is going to be happening with the future demographic in this Province, it
is probably indelible to every other province in the country depending on what
their economy is operating like. I
want to talk about the numbers and what the numbers are telling me.
For example, I looked at my own age demographic between fifty and
fifty-four years and it tells me right now that as of the Stats Canada
population survey in 2011 there were 43,180 of us in the Province at that
particular age demographic, like I said between fifty and fifty-four years.
If I go back to the age demographic between thirty and
thirty-four years it tells me this; that there are 29,275 people of that age.
Presumably they would all be taxpayers and they would be contributing
greatly to the provincial economy here at the same time.
When I go back even farther than that, if I go back to the age group
between ten and fourteen years of age, there are 27,030 people in that
demographic.
Every other year from my demographic right now, from
the fifty to fifty-four age groups, shows a decline in population.
It is showing a decline in population that government has to address.
I think this is the reason why the Population Growth Strategy is one of
the most important policy decisions that this government is ever going to have
to make. I would suggest to
government that it is not only a decision for government to make; it is a
decision for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador to make.
There are going to be some hard choices in the future coming up.
Just looking at those numbers I played with the
numbers a little bit. If I was to
put a dollar value to it and like I said now my numbers are not totally going
to be accurate when it comes to this.
When I look at the provincial revenue raised this year that they are
projecting, I believe it was $1.1 billion in basic personal income taxes.
I will get the proper number.
I think it was about $1.1 billion.
If I go forward to the number of seniors who we are
going to have in this Province and like I said the Canadian Labour Congress
has a really unique study on it it tells us that we are going to have an extra
103,000 people of the age demographic sixty-five years and over, and we are not
seeing that much money being put back into seniors' issues.
So, Mr. Speaker, just to look back on the number,
personal income tax number, the revised number in 2013-2014 was about $1.2
billion; Estimates for 2014-2015, $1.148 billion.
So, if I move ahead the age demographic, if we are going to have an extra
100,000 seniors out there and at the same time we are going to have decline in
the population that we are going to have, those people behind us coming up in
the workforce, if you will, it is obvious to me the kind of picture that it is
painting. Of course, if you are
going to have an aging seniors demographic, a lower population that is out there
working in the workforce, according to these numbers, we are going to have a
problem with our own personal income taxes that are to be raised out there in
the labour market, so we have got a serious problem, for example, as regards to
revenues that are going to end up being generated as a result of that to be put
back into such things as health care and that.
Like I said, this is probably one of the most important
policy decisions that this government would probably ever make, provided it
addresses it today. The simple fact
is, Mr. Speaker, when I also go through the books, when we talk about an aging
population, when you go back through the debt right now that the Province owes
for various bonds and holdings that is has out there, the dollars that are to be
paid back are up and coming in the next couple of years.
For example, I can go to the year 2030 when the 6K bond, payable in
Canadian dollars, is going to be coming out.
At the same time as I am talking about less dollars in government revenue
generated just from income tax, they are also having to deal with the payback of
$450 million for that particular loan in the next few years.
So, we have got future generations that is going to
have to start paying back these numbers, too.
At the same time we have a government that does not have a plan to deal
with the future generations and exactly how much money they are going to have to
be paying back in the future as well.
So then you are left with a couple of things: how do
you grow your population; how do you generate more revenue?
These things are not answered in this Budget.
What they have done is bet on the future that something is going to
happen. They cannot just bet
everything on Muskrat Falls and hope that is going to be the be-all, answer-all
for the generation of revenues. They
cannot just bet that offshore revenues are going to be the be-all and end-all,
because the predictions are out there for declining revenues.
They have to grow the population.
Mr. Speaker, right now it is disappointing to see that
I cannot see with this Budget how they were designing to grow the population.
I will be on my feet again later on to talk again about
the Budget.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when I knew I was speaking today on the
Budget, I had a number of issues that I wanted to deal with, as a matter of
fact, too many to be included in twenty minutes.
As always, when you stand and you get prepared in this House to speak,
you get thrown off kilter by something that comes from the other side.
The last time I spoke on this Budget I had to spend most of my time
reacting to comments that were made by the other side with respect to the
Department of Justice.
I find I have to do the same thing today because I
listened to the Justice Critic some time ago and he outlined a litany of ills
with respect to the Department of Justice, how we had gone downhill in the last
ten years, and that really the justice system was in shreds.
If you listen to the Justice Critic on the other side, you would think we
have the most primitive system of justice in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated to respond to that because some of the
things, I think, need to be cleared up a little bit.
Some of the things he mentioned were timely and some of
the things he mentioned I agreed with; for example, the fact that we have not
had a justice named to the Supreme Court of Canada in our history.
I agree with him. I think we
are long overdue for that. A lot of
the things he said, Mr. Speaker, they sparked in me the need to respond and I
will have to leave some of the other stuff on the sidelines for another day.
He talked, Mr. Speaker, about us not having a plan for
access to justice in this Province and we need some direction with regard to
access to justice. I agree that
access to justice is a big issue for us and a big issue for jurisdictions all
across the world. Access to justice
in this Province is certainly something we have keen interest in and serious
concerns about, and something we have been working with diligently over the past
number of years.
It is very appropriate, I think, Mr. Speaker, to
mention that just last week we had a visit to this Province by the Supreme Court
of Canada Justice Thomas Cromwell.
Justice Cromwell is chair of a committee that is working exactly on that issue,
access to justice. He just finished
a committee report; as a matter of fact, there have been four reports over the
years and the final report just came out.
He is now going across Canada meeting with various provincial
jurisdictions to discuss the report, the ramifications of the report, and what
each jurisdiction can do with respect to improving access to justice in their
jurisdictions. I had the pleasure
along with the Premier of having lunch with Justice Cromwell last week and we
talked about this.
As well, Justice Cromwell, when he was here, conducted
a symposium for stakeholders in this Province on that particular topic.
For the first time ever in this Province the stakeholders in the justice
system came together to discuss access to justice issues and how we can move
forward not just discuss it, but move forward and get everybody on side, the
law societies, the judiciary, the private bar, legal aid, businesses, and so on,
to make access to justice easier for a certain group of people who now fit into
a category that does not have proper access to justice.
People who are served by legal aid are served and people with a lot of
money who can afford the justice system can be served, but there is a group of
people in between who have difficulty accessing justice.
That is what his weekend and his trip to Newfoundland was all about, and
not only in this Province, but he was visiting other provinces.
We were glad to hear of the experiences coming out of the other provinces
in addressing this issue as well.
One of the big issues for example, Mr. Speaker, is the
unrepresented litigant, the people who cannot afford representation in the
courts. There are quite a lot of
them. One of the really distressing
factors that came out of that was that Justice Derek Green, who was the Chief
Justice of the Court of Appeal, suggested that in 40 per cent of appeal cases
one or the other parties is unrepresented.
That is concerning because when you get to the level of the Court of
Appeal you are talking about legal argument.
Court of Appeal cases are based on legal argument and when you are not
represented at the Court of Appeal then you are certainly coming in a very
disadvantageous position. The
unrepresented litigant is something that is very, very significant, very
concerning to us, and it is really what access to justice is all about.
I wanted to point out the appropriateness of his visit
and what is happening in our Province.
As a result of that, a committee has been struck.
The stakeholders have met for the first time last week.
They are plotting out a way now to move forward on this particular issue.
The focus would be on finding ways and means to resolve issues before
they get to court. That is really
what this is all about, to try to resolve issues before they have to go through
the litigation system. From all
reports, the symposium was very well received, a lot of good, enthusiastic
discussion, and hopefully we will see some good reports coming out of it.
Mr. Speaker, as well when we are talking about access
to justice, just a few weeks ago we made considerable investments in the Legal
Aid Commission, over $2 million in Legal Aid this year.
The chair of the board has already indicated that we have the best legal
aid system in Canada due to the involvement of the provincial government.
Years ago, the federal government, who initially sponsored legal aid, had
virtually withdrawn, with the exception of some small amounts, and the Province
now is putting anywhere from $12 million to $14 million a year into the legal
aid system. In terms of access to
justice, this is just another issue, another example of how this government is
moving on that particular issue.
When we say we have no policy or no direction with
respect to access to justice, we are doing as well, Mr. Speaker, in this
Province as they are in any other province in Canada and probably better than
most. We are going to continue to
explore this issue because it is a very compelling argument that will be made on
behalf of the need for improvements in that area.
One of the other things that the hon. Member for St.
Barbe mentioned was that this government has no direction, for example, for the
police with regard to organized crime.
I do not know where he has been for the last year or two, but certainly
we are very proud of the efforts that have been made by our two police forces in
terms of fighting organized crime in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, this government had the foresight in 2004
when it took office because it could foresee the development of the economy in
this area and how that was going to grow.
When you grow the economy, delinquent behaviour follows.
This government and especially Premier Williams at the time had the
foresight and the vision to invest heavily into our police forces.
Since 2004, we have put $1 billion into policing in
this Province and we put 145 new police officers on the streets.
Mr. Speaker, this Province looked ahead and saw what was going to happen
with respect to delinquent behaviour, especially the organized crime, and have
put the mechanism in place to deal with it.
Friday past I was pleased to attend a function and
speak to the Crime Stoppers Police Officer of the Year Awards along with my
colleague the current Minister of Health, who himself incidentally is a former
Police Officer of the Year. This
year they have expanded the focus of the program to include the Police Officer
of the Year for the RCMP and for the RNC, but also they have included peace
officers now as well. The Peace
Officer of the Year Award this year was a municipal peace officer from the Town
of Gander, for example.
Mr. Speaker, in talking to the police officers and
peace officers at that particular function we were able to thank them and
appreciate them for the great work that our police forces do.
We are very fortunate in this Province; we have two elite police forces,
the only Province in Canada to have two elite professional police forces, the
RCMP and the RNC, who do great work.
Only last year this government set up a special unit with a combination of the
RCMP and the RNC called the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit to address
organized crime, to address child exploitation, to address illegal drugs.
They have made considerable advances and a considerable amount of
investment went in to that, and in this year's Budget we are putting more money
into that to advance that work.
Mr. Speaker, as well this year in Budget 2014 we put an
additional $5 million into the Budget for policing.
That enables the RNC now to continue with the recruitment program and put
twenty new recruits in the system.
They will be able to hire twenty new police officers by 2016-2017.
The RCMP will be able to put five new officers in Sheshatshiu, Labrador.
We take no backseat to anybody when we talk about our investments in
terms of policing or in terms of combatting organized crime.
Mr. Speaker, we admit organized crime is here.
The police will tell you that; it is here.
That was foreseen many years ago by this government and the tools have
been put into place to help combat that.
We are very proud of what we have been doing with respect to that kind of
direction. When the member gets up
and speaks that we are not giving any direction in that area, then I think these
facts speak for themselves.
I am surprised at some of the comments he made as the
Justice critic and being a lawyer himself.
He mentioned, for example, that direction should be given, in violent
crimes, to the Crown with no bail.
No bail in certain cases. Mr.
Speaker, the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice or the government of
the Province does not give that kind of direction.
These are determined by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the case law,
and by the prosecution rules and so on.
Mr. Speaker, everybody in the justice system our justice system is
based on the presumption of innocence.
The Supreme Court of Canada has already decided all citizens have a
constitutional right to reasonable bail conditions and should not be deprived of
it, absent of just cause. That is
the law that our Crown prosecutors go by.
To say that the Department of Justice should give direction, no bail,
that just does not happen. It is not
part of the system; it does not work that way.
He talks about breaches of probation and
non-compliance; it is, again, the policy that if an offender breaches any of his
bail conditions then the onus reverts to him to prove why he should get out
again. In those circumstances Crown
attorneys always oppose bail.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring attention to these
things because they leave some misconceptions sometimes in the minds of people
who are watching on TV or whatnot, and a couple of the conclusions that our
justice system is in shambles. Such
is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address one other issue
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
MR.
F. COLLINS:
that the hon. member referred to. It
is a very sore issue with us in the Department of Justice, and that is the
collection of fines. There is no
doubt that there is nobody in this Province who has not heard on the news two or
three days a week about somebody being arrested and found out that he owed
$30,000, $40,000 in fines. When I
was Minister of Justice I hated to turn on the news in the morning if I heard
another example of someone being arrested again owing $40,000 in fines.
We kept bringing our people in what can we do to overcome this?
I am sick of hearing it every day.
It is a very sensitive issue, very concerning one.
This Province is owed, currently, over $30 million in
uncollected fines, but there are some things that need to be said.
Eighty per cent of the people pay their fines on time, and only 2 per
cent owe these massive amounts. It
is no trouble to see where they come from.
If somebody is picked up for a first offence of driving without a
licence, for example, they are driving without insurance then the fine is
$2,300. That is the first smack.
If you are caught a second time driving without insurance, it is another
$3,450. So if you are picked up
three or four times it does not take very long to get up to $10,000, $15,000.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is not just unique to this
Province. The Province of Ontario,
for example is owed $1 billion in uncollected fines $1 billion in uncollected
fines. So it is not unique to this
Province.
It is a question of what do you do to try to collect
those outstanding fines. It is not
easy. We have looked every which way
and it is not easy, because you have mobility factors with these violators.
You have unpublished cellphone numbers, you cannot find them, and you
cannot track them down. Persons have
no fixed address; persons are incarcerated or they have no fixed income.
It is very difficult to get fines out of these people.
They are not deterred by a weekend in jail or by impounding the car they
are driving; they will pick up another old clunker somewhere and drive without
any licence and insurance and it goes on.
What we have done, we have increased the number of
collection officers from one when we came in power we now have six and we
have partnered with Revenue Canada, for example, to garnish income taxes and
child tax credit. This past year, we
collected over $1 million with that mechanism alone.
We also garnished wages.
Anything $400 or over we put in the judgement enforcement agency because they
have more tools at their disposal to collect as well.
The Auditor General and most people are aware of the
fact made some recommendations to the Department of Justice of what he thought
might be proper to collect these fines.
He suggested a number of things.
First of all, there were 54,400 unidentified tickets.
It was found that these are mostly parking offences but with registered
out-of-the-Province vehicles. So,
you can write them off; forgive them.
He also suggested that we lower the threshold of $400
to the judgement enforcement agency, turn over cases that owe $150 or $200.
Mr. Speaker, if you did that you would tie up the judgement enforcement
agency, it would cost much more than the value you would collect, so there is no
business sense for it, no business case for it.
There are also people who say you should not be able to
get licences or permits if you owe outstanding fines.
Well, you cannot get your drivers permit now, your vehicle registration;
it applies to that. We have explored
every possibility. To put the
infrastructure in place, the people in place, and the administrative mechanisms
in place the business case still is not there.
It would cost more to put these in place than it would to get the fines.
You could put all of this in place and there is still no guarantee you
will get the fines back.
There is also the suggestion that people should be made
to work off their fines, give them some things to do in the community.
That has been mentioned several times.
That is not as simple as it sounds either, because that would tie up
resources in justice, including probation people, for example.
It will tie up corrections people, it will tie up fines and
administration people, and it will tie up the courts.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the business case is not there to make those
collections.
It is an area, it is an issue, and it is a concern that
the Department of Justice deals with every day and the optics of it in the media
are terrible. People are walking
around saying if I got caught, I have to bloody well pay my ticket or I will
wind up in trouble. How come they
can get away with it? You hear this
all of the time and it is difficult to cope with.
You can understand people's frustration, but it is not for want of
looking at ways and means of doing it, Mr. Speaker.
It is like before we changed the law with regard to
small claims. The law in small
claims, you could go to Small Claims Court for $3,000, but sometimes it was not
worth it. The legal work of going
through small claims for a $3,000 claim was not worth it.
It would cost you $10,000 to get you $3,000.
A similar situation exists here.
It is going to cost you more money to collect than it does otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, these are things that I wanted to respond
to. As I mentioned, there were some
things the hon. member mentioned that I agree with, one of them being that we do
not have a Supreme Court justice appointed in our history.
I think that is a sore point, and rightly so.
These are issues that it is fine to get up in this House and throw out.
The Department of Justice has no vision, has no direction, we are gone
back ten years, and we are going back further all the time; people hear that and
it is misrepresentation to those people.
I think I have an obligation today, even though I wanted to talk about
the good things that are happening in my district and all kinds of them as a
result of this Budget, and even though I wanted to talk about the good things
that are happening in this Province as a result of this Budget, the hon. member
threw me off track and I just had to respond to his comments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to speak in
this House today on Bill 1, on the Budget, or on the non-confidence of the
Budget. First of all, I can
understand why the Attorney General said he was going to talk about his district
but he got distracted and he wanted to talk about justice, which is fine.
I can understand why because I was actually down in his district a couple
of weeks ago because I have family members who live down there, and if I was in
a district where the roads were in the state they are down there I would not
want to talk about it either.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, moving on, I just want to welcome
our newest member of our caucus, the Member for Virginia Waters.
I want to welcome her here.
It is great to have her and she is going to be a fantastic asset for sure.
This is her first day and this is new for her, so she has been listening
very attentively to everything that is going on.
I know she may be a little bit confused here today
because we got to a section here, Mr. Speaker, of our day which is called
Question Period. I know she must
have been really confused, but there is a reason it is called Question Period.
Quite often in Question Period we ask questions, but it is not
necessarily answer period. It is not
called answer period because we do not get any answers.
We ask questions, but there are no answers.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR.
LANE:
Mr.
Speaker, before I go on I am going to say to the Member for Cape St. Francis,
who is supposed to be here as an elected member, who is supposed to be here
representing the people, and who is supposed to be acting in a professional
manner I am sure the people of his district want him to be doing more than
simply sitting over there day after day heckling me.
Anyway, to move on, Mr. Speaker, as I said
MR.
K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible).
MR.
LANE:
As
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, before I was heckled by the Member for Cape St.
Francis once again, I can understand why the Minister of Transportation was not
giving any answers. Some people can
say he was avoiding the answers, but I am starting to think maybe he did not
know the answers. I think that is
what it was.
I do not think he knew the answers because for the last
couple of weeks he has been talking about Humber Valley Paving and been talking
about this $9.5 million bond that he was talking about.
Now we find out he had to be corrected by his officials this afternoon
that there were actually two bonds.
It is not $9.5 million; it is actually $19 million plus HST, so now we are into
$21 million of taxpayers' money. It
is absolutely amazing.
Mr. Speaker, I want to now concentrate on the Budget.
I sat in this House intently when the Budget Speech took place.
I listened to the Minister of Finance read the Budget.
Because it almost seemed like a production to me, after the Budget Speech
was finished I was expecting for this big screen to roll down just like in the
movies and we would get all the credits.
In that I was expecting to say: This Budget has been
brought to you by Scotiabank. This
Budget has been brought to you by CIBC.
This Budget has been brought to you by RBC.
This Budget has been brought to you by Visa and MasterCard.
This Budget has been brought to you by Humber Valley Paving.
This Budget has been brought to you by The Cash Store.
This Budget has been brought to you by payday loans.
This Budget has been brought to you by the pawn shop.
A lot of people have referred to this Budget I am not
one of them now, but there have been a number of people who have referred to
this Budget as the billion-dollar shopping spree.
That was not my terminology.
That is just talking to citizens, average people who said it to me.
They talk about the billion-dollar shopping spree.
In fairness, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about this
billion-dollar shopping spree it was not $1 billion dollars that was necessarily
borrowed to put in to roads, infrastructure, and so on.
We were in Estimates and we asked the question: This billion-dollar
shopping spree, where is this money going?
Half a billion, $500 million, of that is going to Nalcor.
Then I think there is something like $330 million; basically, they have
some other debts and so on which have come due and they are going to consolidate
them at a better interest rate. Then
there is another $170 million left.
That $170 million is going to go with the other $500 million deficit that we are
going to run this year and I guess that is going to go towards all of these
infrastructure projects we are hearing about and so on.
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting.
After the Budget Speech was finished, I cannot remember if it was that
same night, maybe two days later I think it was the same night and I was
listening to VOCM, to one of the talk shows.
I think it was Nightline.
I stand to be corrected. I
heard the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.
The Member for Baie Verte Springdale was on talking about the Budget,
praising up the government, and saying how wonderful the Minister of Finance is
and how wonderful the Premier is, the same old song and dance we hear in the
House of Assembly every day.
Basically what the member said was that he was so
pleased because the Premier had called all of the members into his office
individually, met with them that is what he said and said I want to talk
about what are the priorities for your district.
Mr. Speaker, I would say taking that type of approach is a positive
thing. Unfortunately, I certainly
never experienced that when I was on that side.
There was certainly no consultation at all.
You find out about stuff when you turn on VOCM the next day, but he did
apparently meet with the members and said: What are the priorities?
On the surface that would sound like a sensible thing
to do, a great thing to do, so that the Province in crafting its Budget would be
able to look at what are the priorities for the Province as a whole and what are
the priorities in the individual districts.
It makes sense. The only
problem is, though, I never got a call from the Premier saying: Paul, I want to
meet with you and talk about the priorities in your district.
I asked my colleagues all over here in our caucus.
Did any of those members receive a call?
Did any of those members -
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Cape St. Francis, I am telling you, he
is certainly doing a lot of chirping over there.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, they called those members
in, the Premier called those members in, apparently, according to the Member for
Baie Verte Springdale, and asked: What are the priorities?
He never asked any of us, not one.
I am not sure if he asked the members from the Third Party to come and
meet with him and talk about the priorities in your district and so on.
The Premier, before the Budget, no.
Okay, they are saying no. So
why would that be? If the approach
is going to be that we are going to look at the Province as a whole, we are
going to look at the districts, we are going to determine what the priorities
are to be fair and square to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, given we are
all paying taxes, we are all paying for these services, then why wouldn't we all
be asked what our priorities are?
No, they never asked us at all. They
only asked the government members: What are the priorities in your district?
Why would that be, I wonder?
Why would that be? I have to
ask the question, why would that be the case?
You could be skeptical and say: Well, it is just politics.
That is why they are doing it.
It is just politics because they are trying to figure out, we are in a
hole, what can we do to try to boost our districts, boost our popularity in our
districts and so on? That is what a
skeptical person
MR.
SPEAKER:
A
point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I do not have a point of order.
He talks about he did not have a chance to talk to the
Premier, but on August 17 he spoke up and said: I stand by our guided principles
and stand beside this Premier and this government to defend the great things
they have done to continue to support Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Mr.
Speaker, that is the first time he has actually spoken without a script.
Actually, he did have a script, he was reading it.
That was great to hear, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
LANE:
Listen, I have no regrets about coming over here.
I did the right thing and I am quite satisfied with it, so are the people
in my district.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying wow, we have silence.
Maybe we can keep it that way.
I doubt it, though. Somehow I
doubt it because the truth hurts. I
have seen a lot of red faces over there and I can totally understand why.
I can totally get it.
Anyway, as I was saying, it is interesting, Mr.
Speaker, because so you would say to yourself: Well, why did you ask only some
members, not all members? Skeptical
people would say: Well, maybe it is just politics and so on.
I am not sure if that is the case or not, but it is interesting because I
listened to the Member for Bonavista North, the wonderful District of Bonavista
North, by the way.
The Member for Bonavista North said when he spoke just
a little while ago; he talked about the fact that this year represented the
greatest infrastructure investment that we have ever had or something to that
effect. I do not have the Hansard
yet, but something to the effect, we have made the biggest investment.
We have made more investments in roads, we have made more investments in
water and sewer and infrastructure and recreation.
We have put more money in this year than we have ever put in before.
Now, that on the surface would sound like a good thing,
but isn't it interesting that last year we were in restraint mode.
This year we have oil royalties and so on, and oil money is reduced.
We are into a deficit. We are
predicting another deficit again next year. So
instead of sort of staying the course, no, we are going to go out and we are
going to borrow a billion dollars and we are going to spend more money,
according to the Member for Bonavista North, in infrastructure than ever before.
That is a really interesting one, given the fact that
not only do we have a deficit this year, not only are we projecting another
deficit next year, but if you look at government's own Budget documents, if you
look at all the economic indicators, the indicators are all pointing downward.
They are not pointing upward.
Employment is going down.
New home starts are going down.
The GDP is going down. New
vehicle purchases are going down.
Everything is going down; yet, the only thing that is actually going up is
spending. Now that does not make a lot of
sense. It does not make a lot of
sense. Why would you do that?
Why would you, in a time when revenues are down and indicators are
pointing down, why would you choose that particular time to spend more than we
have ever spent before in our history?
That does not make a bit of sense to me why that would happen.
MR.
J. BENNETT:
The
new Premier can fix anything.
MR.
LANE:
It
is interesting, yes, because I think the new Premier is trying to fix
everything, but I do not think he can fix that.
I think the bottom line here is the decisions that are being made are
obviously not being made from a fiscally responsible perspective.
They are obviously not, because you do not borrow more money at a time
when your revenues are down.
If you applied it to your own family income, it is
almost like I am working, I have a full-time job, and I have a house, I have a
car and so on. I am getting laid
off. I am going to be laid off this
year. I am going to be on Employment
Insurance or whatever the case might be.
Instead of making do, my car payment now is going to be up.
Instead of making do with my car I am going to buy a Cadillac.
That is what they have done, Mr. Speaker.
It is amazing the irresponsible decisions that are being made here.
It is absolutely irresponsible decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I have a little over five minutes left.
I want to talk about a very important issue in my district, and that is
the issue of the school situation in Mount Pearl, the Mount Pearl school
reorganization. You talk about a
flawed decision, there is another one.
I am glad we have a new Minister of Education.
I am really hopeful that the new Minister of Education, unlike the
previous Minister of Education, I am hoping he is actually interested in the
best interests of the children of Mount Pearl.
I am hoping he is going to listen to the families, the parents, the
students, and the teachers in Mount Pearl.
I am certainly doing my part to listen to what they have to say.
The feedback I have been getting has not been very good, I have to say.
There are a couple of issues, a couple of schools in
particular, Newtown Elementary and St. Peter's Elementary.
I have spoken about this in this House before but I am going to continue
to do so. Of course, St. Peter's and
Newtown were both K-6 schools. We
have unacceptable conditions at St. Peter's Elementary and there is no doubt
something needs to be done.
We have kids who are eating lunch at their desk.
They are doing gym class in the cafeteria.
They lost their music room; they are doing music in the cafeteria.
They have taken what used to be two classrooms and turned it into three
classrooms, and the list goes on. No
IT room I am talking about a mobile IT station or whatever.
They will just bring some iPads around to the classrooms and so on
because they do not have a computer room.
We have seen a similar situation occur over time at
Mount Pearl Senior High. That was
quite clearly stated by the chairperson of the Mount Pearl Senior High school
council at the presentation she made to the board.
The only reason why and she was clear on this they were accepting of
the decision to swap schools with MPI is because it was the only option they
had. There were no other options
presented.
Again, both of these situations, whether it is
St. Peter's Elementary or
whether it is Mount Pearl Senior High, were a case of neglect.
It was a case of letting things slide.
Mount Pearl Senior High was no different.
You had X number of kids in the school; the population grew.
Instead of addressing that issue, what did we do?
Okay, we can take away the art room and we can turn that into classroom
space. Next year, even more kids
come into the school. What are we
going to do? I think we will get rid
of the computer lab and turn that into classrooms.
Next year, more kids come along.
What can we do? Let us take
the music room and let us turn that into classrooms.
On and on it goes until we get to a point at both Mount Pearl Senior High
and St. Peter's Elementary where all of the specialty space is gone.
It is all gone and turned to classrooms.
Now we still have more kids coming.
What do we do? Now we are
into having to make these quick, rash decisions, and not decisions in the best
interests of the children.
Had it have been addressed by the board and by the
minister over the last number of years I know since I was elected at St.
Peter's Elementary in particular I met with the school board, I met with the
school council and so on. So did
other members and so did other colleagues at the time, in fairness to them.
They were supposed to act on it, and they did not act.
Then the next year they were supposed to act and they did not act.
Now we are into this mess.
I still believe that capital investments are required.
I believe capital investments could solve a lot of the issues here, but
the problem the board had was that the Minister of Education was not prepared to
provide any capital funding for those schools until every last space in any of
the existing buildings was used.
That might sound from a pure numbers perspective and from a pure financial
perspective saying use every bit of space, but we are not talking about numbers.
We are talking about our children.
I know in the education system it is sad that we refer to our teachers as
units or part units, 1.5 units and 1.7 units.
These are our children and we should be doing what is in the best
interest of them. That is what we
should be doing. It is really
unfortunate that this government has not seen fit to do so.
I will continue to fight for the students and the
families of Mount Pearl and I make no apologies for it.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind the hon. member his time has expired.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Mr.
Speaker, it is an absolute privilege and honour to get up today to speak on the
Budget. Before I get into the
Budget, I certainly want to welcome our newest member, the Member for Virginia
Waters. I go back to maybe fifteen
or sixteen years ago when I walked into this Chamber, not realizing how much
time I had ahead of me. Looking back
over fifteen years, it goes by very, very quickly.
You will enjoy your time here, you have a lot to offer, and I wish you
all the luck in the world.
As for myself, Mr. Speaker, I was sat down and I kept
looking at the sky. I kept looking
up. I could not help myself because
the previous speaker I figured the sky was falling.
It was just unbelievable, one thing after another.
It was depressing, I have to say.
I understand perhaps where he is coming from because,
Mr. Speaker, we on the government side do not have all the answers and no one
Budget is going to take care of all of the priorities that are in this Province.
We have an awful dilemma sometimes in trying to make sure the money that
is entrusted to us as a government is used in a manner that is going to be fair,
equitable, and
MR.
JOYCE:
Ask
Frank Coleman about being fair.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
I
say to the Member for Bay of Islands, when you are up I very seldom make a
comment
MR.
JOYCE:
You
do, though.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
very seldom, but if I do, I certainly
would apologize for anything that was said out of order.
I am standing up here today to talk about the Budget
and to make sure the people of my district are well represented.
As I was pointing out before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, we try to be
fair and equitable in our allocation of the funds that are entrusted to us by
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Of course, I have already alluded to the fact that I
have been in, probably, this Chamber for more Budgets than I care to mention.
I have seen good, I have seen bad, and I have seen ugly, but through all
of it any Budget is just that moment in time as a government, whether it is
whatever administration, is trying to do the best for the people of the
Province.
I must say, when I looked at this Budget I was more
than pleased that our Finance Minister was able to juggle, to ensure that many
of the priorities that have been brought forward from both sides of this House,
I say to the members here and what I cannot understand is that all during the
fall session this government was getting pounded over: Why don't you do this,
why don't you do that, why not this, and why not that?
In the Budget many of those concerns were answered.
All of a sudden, what things are accomplished are pushed aside and now
there is another list. How come you
did not do this? How come you did
not do that?
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that it was a fair Budget, a
Budget that really is able to move this Province ahead in ways that need to be
looked at. We had a tough Budget
last year, no doubt, but that Budget, as this Budget, is part of that 10-Year
Sustainability Plan, which is key. I
am very proud to be part of a government that can look ahead over a decade and
not just look down their noses at what is happening today.
If you were to listen to the Opposition members, that
is where they are at. They are stuck
in time. You have to be able to look
beyond that pressing issue that seems to be overtaking you.
You have to be able to look beyond it and a decade down the road I
believe, if the plan is followed, we will be well, we will not be here, I
certainly will not be here but our children and their families will basically
get the benefit of many of the decisions that have been made.
When we talk about a starting point, when we look at a
starting point, let me just read, or paraphrase it if I could, what one of our
members at one time said: Do you know what?
The only thing red that the Liberals left the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador in 2003 was the books. That
is what they left: the books. We
were in the red. They had the
Province on the verge of bankruptcy.
The Province was on the verge of bankruptcy.
The infrastructure was falling to pieces.
The roads were falling to pieces.
I quote the Member for Mount Pearl South.
The Member for Mount Pearl South said that.
He understood when he was on this side of what task was placed upon the
shoulders of this government in 2003
MR.
JOYCE:
(Inaudible).
MR.
HEDDERSON:
The
Member for Bay of Islands, you were here in 2003.
You know exactly what I am talking about, and you know, but you do not
want to listen now. You want to go
off on something else. You want to
get me down in the gutter with you, where I am not going.
I am not going there with you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
remind the hon. member he needs to address the Chair.
MR.
JOYCE:
A
point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.
MR.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, I will not get into what I said, because I asked about Humber Valley
Paving and $20 million. I do not
think any member in this House is ever in the gutter, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think anybody should refer to anybody in the gutter, because no
member here is in the gutter.
MR.
SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Thank you very much.
I figured that would get a rise on the other side, and
it did.
MR.
JOYCE:
(Inaudible) apologize.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
I
certainly will not apologize.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
I
say to you, Mr. Speaker, he is asking me to apologize.
Obviously the Speaker said it was okay; it was not a point of order.
So if I say you are in the gutter, you are in the gutter, and I am not
going there with you.
So I say to the hon. members, that again in 2003
MR.
JOYCE:
A
point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.
MR.
JOYCE:
I
just asked the member to withdraw the remarks about members here being in the
gutter. As you know, it is
unparliamentary, so he should just
MR.
SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know; is there anything wrong with being in the gutter?
It is just a term that we use when you are talking
politics which I guess we are all part of right here and if you are in the
gutter, you are in the gutter. That
is all.
In 2003 I will go back to that I was here; the
Member for Bay of Islands was here.
We had an awful task of figuring out what priorities we would put forward, but
we did say that we would do whatever we could to invest in the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I tell
you
MR.
JOYCE:
Tom, I never thought you were so low.
I never did, I can tell you that.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
We
will have to talk about that at another time.
MR.
JOYCE:
No,
I never thought you were, seriously.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
No,
no. I say to you
MR.
JOYCE:
(Inaudible).
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, I remind him that
you need to address the Chair.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly will address the Chair as I go on.
To go back again, and I will start where we left off in 2003, it is very
important, Mr. Speaker, that people realize we have an awful climb.
There was a tremendous infrastructure deficit and in the last decade this
government has made great strides.
It behooves me for someone over on the other side to
get up and talk about only $80 million in road investments this year $80
million. That is unprecedented.
The average throughout the last eight years has been about $60 million,
so this is again a significant investment, I would say.
It is obvious that infrastructure is an investment that is absolutely
needed.
What do I say?
Will that $80 million take care of all the roads in Newfoundland and
Labrador? Absolutely not, and we
have to make sure we are investing and investing in a way that is going to make
sure we are moving forward.
Investing in roads is one of those areas where we absolutely need to.
That is not only roads, by the way.
That is your bridges. That is
your brush cutting. That is
basically taking care of the roads.
Over and beyond that are the capital investments in perhaps the Trans-Labrador
Highway, our ferries, and so on and so forth.
Transportation is indeed a very, very important aspect of all of this.
That investment is key.
We have to keep going, but again, we cannot overextend ourselves beyond
what we can afford. This Budget
and yes, there is some borrowing that had to take place, but it is key to that
sustainability plan that is absolutely necessary for this Province if we are to
put ourselves in a position in the years to come to be the have Province that we
really ought to be. We have to make
sure, Mr. Speaker, that is taken care of.
To get back to the issues that were placed before this
government and that have been addressed.
I say the full-time Kindergarten; there are proponents for and against.
My wife's first reaction as a primary teacher for something like thirty
years is that one of the capital investments you are going to have to make is
that you are going to have to make it in cots.
In her experience Kindergarteners around 2:00 o'clock or so are going to
need their naps. There is no doubt
after a full day, but having said that, it is a tremendous investment of this
government to address a concern of many parents, of many educators, and of many
supporters of the school system.
I have already mentioned our $80 million in roads which
is so important. On the capital
side, Mr. Speaker, I am again delighted in the continuation of our ferry
replacement strategy. I was part of
that in earlier years and I know the frustration that many people have,
especially in some of our most isolated areas such as islands in dealing with
transportation issue.
The North Coast of Labrador and I am sure the member
for that particular area knows the challenges that are before anybody with
regard to the season opening with ice and so on.
The people on the North Coast of Labrador lobbied successfully with
regard to this government in making sure that the right solution was brought
into place.
The announcement of I feel a little bit tilted there,
Mr. Speaker. I do not know if it is
me or the camera there. That is
another incident that I would tell you that it is an ongoing issue.
It has been addressed in the sense that they are going to have a
roll-on/roll-off ferry, passenger and freight, that is going to be able to
travel that coast
MR.
JOYCE:
Apologize (inaudible).
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Before I sit down, I will say to him, just let it hang there for a while.
We are bantering back and forth because the Member for Bay of Islands
knows that we go back perhaps longer than we care to from the basketball courts
to the arena in here. In all of
those times both myself and the Member for Bay of Islands have never come to a
point where we are not talking to one another.
Tit-for-tat, and if there is any way you have been offended, I certainly
would take it back. With that done,
I will continue on trying to beat up on the Opposition as much as I possibly
can. Mum's the word.
Mr. Speaker, just to get back again to making sure that
the infrastructure in this Province and the infrastructure is so important,
whether it is ferry replacement, whether it is roads, whether it is bridges and
so on and so forth. Again, to get
back to the fact that and I think the Member for Mount Pearl South talked
about priorities. It is incumbent
upon every MHA in this particular Chamber to understand the priorities of their
districts and not necessarily to wait for opportunities to meet with ministers
or whatever, but they have to be clear of the priorities that the people of the
district want.
They have to, through whatever means they have, whether
it is on the Open Lines or whatever it is up to them to make sure that
government is listening. Whether you
are on this side or on the Opposition, you have to know your district because
those are the people who you represent.
The problem you will run into is that there will always be conflicting
priorities.
I have ever so many communities in my district.
They all have priorities, but trying to balance out which way it will all
go. The only thing you can be is an
advocate, making sure that your voice has been heard by the right people and
making sure we are getting things done.
Mr. Speaker, twenty minutes on your feet does not do
justice. I am looking at it and
maybe our little bantering cost me some time here, but before I sit down I have
to talk about my historic District of Harbour Main.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that my district is like all of us say, I
suppose, the best district in the world to represent.
I tell you, I have never seen such prosperous times.
Now, that is not to say all are prosperous, Mr.
Speaker, but I am just comparing it to when I came in in February of 1999.
I had some of the most skilled workers in the world who have built
bridges in New York and all over the world, who were trying to get work.
They were really in an awful state.
They had this great skillset.
They could not get work. They could
not do this.
Today, I am telling you, the people who are working in
my district are just overwhelming.
Not only are they working, but they are out in Long Harbour.
They are doing projects here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They are out in Bull Arm.
They are up working on Muskrat Falls.
They have a sense of great pride that they are sustaining.
Another thing that has happened is that for years there
was very little in the way of new houses going up.
Children were moving away.
Now I find in a lot of my communities that they are back.
They are building on family land, basically in the garden.
They are raising their children.
We now have a situation where our schools are literally overcrowded.
I will not say it is a good thing, but then again you
have to say it is a good thing because I taught in the 1980s and 1990s when our
schools were emptying. There were no
new people coming in. We were losing
teachers. The education system was
changing dramatically. Now I have a
situation where I suppose it is a good thing prosperity has brought new
people into my district. I say to
the people of my district, I am glad that it is has, but the municipalities
there are challenged to keep up with the services and our roads.
Mr. Speaker, this Budget, to get back to it and I
allude back to it, has certainly lifted up the spirits of a lot of people,
knowing full well that we are again on the rise.
Next year we are looking at a surplus.
We are also looking at building on what we have today.
This building will be quite a challenge as we work through priorities.
From the aspect of the Premier and our Finance Minister, I believe we are
in good hands, that there is a plan, and that plan is unfolding.
To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will continue as a
government to build upon that decade where we have gone from what was described
as falling to pieces to putting those pieces back together and moving forward in
a very good way.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very happy once again to stand and speak to the
Budget. It is very interesting to
hear the member across the way talk about the great plan that this Budget has
been based on, when we still see the negative ramifications of the preceding
Budget, where we still see destabilization in the public sector service where
people are still being bumped and still trying to find their proper jobs.
People are being trained for jobs.
They were bumped out of their areas of expertise.
We are still seeing the negative ramifications of the last Budget.
The last Budget, Mr. Speaker, I do not think was based
on any plan. It was a kneejerk
reaction to a fiscal reality that this government itself had created.
Particularly, there are some issues I would like to address.
When we look at the Family Violence Intervention Court, Mr. Speaker, we
knew that was an effective
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We knew that the Family Violence Intervention
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We knew the internal review of the Family Violence
Intervention Court showed that in fact the court was a very effective court,
that in the long run, Mr. Speaker, saved money.
We saw in the preceding Budget that a number of decisions that were made
in that Budget, particularly in the area of justice, had to be reversed.
They had to make adjustments because the Budget was not based on a plan
that served the people of the Province, that served the programs that were
established within the Province. We
see this yet again.
I would like to talk, Mr. Speaker, particularly about
what has been happening with creeping privatization in our public service and
also the care of young people, of youth, their safety, their rehabilitation
needs when they are placed in the care of Child, Youth and Family Services.
I have asked questions in this House already about the situation but I am
happy to have the opportunity to speak a little bit in depth about some of the
concerns that I see as someone who has spoken to staff in group homes that have
been affected by the reorganization of Level 4 residential care.
Mr. Speaker, over a year ago the Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services, who is now currently the new Minister of Health and
Community Services, issued a request for proposals asking for proposals for
Level 4 residential care in our Province.
Successful contracts were announced about five weeks ago, or possibly now
we are into our sixth week. Mr.
Speaker, this involves the placement of over 100 youth.
These are youth with real, complex needs.
Youth who may have been in trouble with the law, youth with significant
mental health issues, so these are youth who need to be cared for by people with
great experience, that are very experienced in the care of youth in our
Province. So all the proposals that
were accepted in the care of these youth, there were four agencies or companies
that were accepted.
This has affected three group homes that were in
Stephenville, Burin, and Grand Falls-Windsor.
These three group homes were group homes that cared for youth with really
complex needs for twenty years or more.
A lot of the staff that are in these group homes are people with
extensive experience. There is one
staff for instance that I spoke to who had been working in the group home for
twenty-eight years. I have spoken
with a number of staff who have been working in the group homes for twenty
years, twenty-two years, and twenty-five years.
These are people who not only have the years of experience, but also
attended real thorough training programs that were required by Child, Youth and
Family Services. So these are people
who are experts in their field.
These are also people who are public sector works.
They are public sector workers in the same way that people who work for
the College of the North Atlantic, people who work for our health authorities
because these institutions are all run by boards.
These three group homes are run by community boards, as are our health
authorities, as are our schools, through our school boards, as is the College of
the North Atlantic, as is Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, for instance; all
those employees are public sector employees.
All these agencies and organizations are run by boards, and they are
answerable to the boards that are either appointed or elected.
Mr. Speaker, these workers also, their contract is
negotiated through Treasury Board; they are paid through Treasury Board.
Also, they belong to the same public pension program that we all belong
to as public servants. They also
belong to the same medical health insurance plan that we all belong to.
They have also many rights that many of us have, and they are unionized.
So they are undeniably public sector workers.
There are forty-five of them.
Forty-five of these people about six weeks ago heard, mostly through the media,
that their jobs would be cut within three months.
These are people who have given years and years and years of their lives
to take care of the youth of our Province.
I am concerned about that.
I am concerned about the loss of those well-paying jobs, those stable
jobs that were in communities that also need stable, well-paying jobs.
They were also jobs that reflected expertise and that required expertise.
They were paid well, as they should be.
People who are taking care of youth with complex needs should be paid
well.
That is one aspect that I am concerned about, Mr.
Speaker. The other aspect I am
concerned about is the care of the children who were living in these group
homes. They also found out on the
same day that they would be moving.
These are kids, many of whom have been moved around and shuffled around all
their lives, many of them who do not have strong family contacts or strong
family supports. The group homes
that they live in are their homes.
The people who are caring for them in some ways are extended family for them.
They are the ones who provide them safety, who provide them with
guidance, and who provide them with continuity and consistency.
This is what these kids really need.
They found out at the same time the staff found out
that their group homes will be closing and that they all will be moving anywhere
from forty-five to sixty days from the time of announcement.
Many of them were absolutely devastated.
Some of them had been living in the group homes for three years or more.
This was their home.
Mr. Speaker, after that initial announcement, no one
told them where they will be living, who will be taking care of them, and when
they will be moving. The social
workers could not tell them; the staff at the group homes could not tell them.
I asked the current Minister of Health who was the Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services a number of times: What was the transitional plan and
protocol for these kids? He did not
have one. He looked at me as if to
say, well, what do you mean?
Mr. Speaker, I have done a lot of research in how these
kinds of transitions are handled in other cases in other provinces.
They do have transitional plans and protocols.
I can talk a little bit about that after.
One of the kids spoke out and said I have been bounced
around most of my life. Finally I
have stability and now I am being moved again.
I have spoken to staff in all three of the houses.
As a matter of fact I even met with staff at one of the houses in
Stephenville. I visited one of the
houses and they talked about the kids having behavioural problems now.
They are acting out. A number
of kids are dealing with suicidal ideation.
They are very, very concerned about the health of these children because
there was no plan behind this, Mr. Speaker.
This is something that was looked at by the Department
of Child, Youth and Family Services over a year ago, then all of a sudden they
have awarded these contracts and everything has to happen really quickly.
This is not the way to deal with youth who need stabilization and youth
who need continuity.
Mr. Speaker, who is going to take care of these
children? Well, this contract was
awarded to a company called Blue sky.
Blue sky is a private, for-profit organization.
I have nothing against private, for-profit businesses or corporations.
Private and for-profit corporations do a lot of good work and we need
them. They create jobs.
They can inspire the economy.
That is important. They have a role,
but not taking care of our high-needs youth.
That is not the place for private, for-profit corporations.
Blue sky has been advertising.
They have to hire staff and they have been advertising for staff at $13
an hour. Again, we know these youth
need continuity and they need stability.
There is no way Mr. Speaker, there is no way that you can get people
who have expertise in this area, there is no way you can get people who do have
expertise, if they do, who will stay in these jobs because these are really
tough jobs. The jobs are even
tougher if you do not have the expertise.
It is tough on the youth who are in care and it is also tough on the
staff.
I know, Mr. Speaker, because I have worked in a group
home. I know how tough that is.
Again, I have consulted with group homes across the country about how
they deal with some of these issues.
We have children who are destabilized.
One home added up that among all their staff they have 200,000 hours of
experience 200,000 of experience that is going out the door.
These are people who are very experienced taking care of our youth.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing is that Blue sky was
notified they have two months to purchase a home in all three of these
communities and do the renovations that would be required, because they are a
business and it is a group home so there are certain physical standards they
have to adhere to. They have to get
rezoning from the towns that they are buying houses in.
They have to get approval from the towns in order to be able to set up a
business in the communities that they are buying their houses in.
Then they have to furnish them and then they have to hire staff, and then
they have to train staff and then they have to get their programs up and
running.
Mr. Speaker, who of us in this House can even within
two months buy a house, clear it, get it renovated, just even for our own
families, and even if you are a single person or a couple, who can do that
within two months? We are talking
again about our youth who are the most vulnerable, who have the most complex
needs.
MR.
SPEAKER (Wiseman):
Order, please!
MS
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These are youth who cannot stay in group homes.
These are youth who have nowhere else to go for care.
These are youth who absolutely need experts taking care of them and
working with them.
So, Mr. Speaker, when I visited at Stephenville last
week I heard reports of Blue sky going to the College of the North Atlantic
looking for workers who had come out of a two-year community care program, young
people, twenty, twenty-one years old, with no group home experience, no work
experience in this area, being hired.
That is a problem, Mr. Speaker, because we are talking again about youth
who might have OCD, fetal alcohol syndrome, who are violent.
There have been a lot of cases and reports of violence and often staff
have to call the police. They have a
long-standing, good relationship with the police; these staff also have a
long-standing, good relationship with schools.
One of the principals said to one of the staff in one of the homes: What
in God's name is the government doing to these kids?
Privatizing ABE is one thing, but to privatize the care for these youth
is totally unreasonable.
So, Mr. Speaker, when I was in Stephenville, a house
apparently had been purchased a little bit over a week ago, and the kids in
Stephenville are going to be moved by May 19 and that is only two weeks away
from now. So last week a house was
purchased, but however they had not asked for rezoning it was in a residential
zone. This is a company opening up a
group home. They had not asked for
rezoning, they had not asked the fire marshal for absolute conditions that they
had to adhere to, and the neighbours were all up in arms.
They are going to be moving these children in two weeks.
Work orders have been stopped on the house maybe that has changed now,
but as of Friday it was not.
So, Mr. Speaker, how can these youth be moved into a
house that is not even zoned, not even ready, and not even yet staffed?
How can that happen? When I
look at this Budget and see the creeping privatization that this government has
done through ABE, through other agencies and services that the Province
provides, and now into the care of some of our most vulnerable youth in the
Province, it does not make sense. It
also is very dangerous it is very, very dangerous.
What I see is that Child, Youth and Family Services
in fact, I asked the minister: How is he going to regulate this?
How is he going to ensure that there is a proper protocol for moving
these children? He said: Well, I am
leaving that in the hands of Blue sky.
Blue sky is a private, for-profit corporation and there is nothing wrong
with that. In terms of taking care
of our vulnerable youth, there is something wrong with that.
He said: I trust that they will take care of it.
Mr. Speaker, hiring people with no experience at $13 an
hour in this kind of scenario is not good.
It leaves our children vulnerable, and it leaves the staff vulnerable.
I also wonder at this point, Mr. Speaker I ask the
Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services who once was on the board of
directors of one of these group homes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS
ROGERS:
He
was proudly on the board of directors of one of these group homes.
He saw the good work that they did.
Mr. Speaker, I ask him: What is going to happen in two weeks if that
house is not ready? If that house is
not ready, and I cannot imagine how it would be, maybe I am wrong.
I sure as heck hope that I am wrong.
I ask him: What is the plan for the children if this house is not ready
in two weeks?
These kids are being moved before the school year is
over. We all know how hard it is for
kids to move but to move before the school year is over; there was no need for
this. They did not have to move
before the school year was over.
This just goes to show that the minister did not plan for the well-being of
these children. If he had planned
for the well-being of these children he would not have put them in the hands of
a for-profit, private corporation for one thing.
For a second thing if they did have to be moved, they would not be moved
before school was over.
When we look at the other two group homes in Burin and
in Grand Falls-Windsor, those kids are going to be moved during exam week.
These are kids who have such a hard time in school.
These are kids who have so many blocks and barriers.
One of the things that the staff told me and the kids also have said is
that their rehabilitation and their success depends on building strong
relationships, strong, lasting relationships with their staff.
We know that is the basis for success in these group homes. This is being
ripped from them, they are being moved before school is over, and they do not
even know where they are going.
For Burin and Grand Falls-Windsor, I spoke with staff
again on the weekend and still to this date, aside from the initial announcement
weeks ago that the move was happening, nobody has come and spoken to these
children to tell them where they are going, when they are going, who is going to
be taking care of them, and who they will be living with.
Nobody has done that yet.
That is criminal, Mr. Speaker. It is
nothing short of criminal to treat these children in this way, again, some of
the most vulnerable kids in our society.
Mr. Speaker, who is protecting these children?
Who is speaking up for these children?
Obviously, not the minister because to have designed this kind of
situation when, in fact, they did not have to be moved before the school year
was over; they could have waited a month because apparently they were preparing
for this for over a year. Mr.
Speaker, this is cruel, it is irresponsible, it is absolutely reprehensible what
is happening to these children and that this government is responsible for it.
They had full control and obviously they have lost control.
They have abdicated some of their responsibility.
These children are put into their hands for protection and care and they
have misused it. They have abandoned
these children and have left them in the hands of private, for-profit
corporations.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given the hour of the day I move, seconded by the
Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, that the House do now adjourn.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
The House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.