June 4, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 26
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
I apologize for the there seems to be a relatively
high temperature in the room today, but if you keep your debate calm you
will find things much better.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will be hearing members' statements from the Members representing
the Districts of St. John's North, Labrador West, Burgeo La Poile, Humber
Valley, Exploits, and Bonavista South.
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today to recognize the excellent volunteer
spirit in the Larkhall Academy school community.
This volunteer spirit was on full display at Larkhall
on May 9 when parents and teachers pitched in to put off the school's annual
spring fair. Larkhall's annual
spring fair is the school's main fundraiser for the year.
It is also a wonderful event which brings the school community all
together.
This year's spring fair featured ever-popular games
like fish pond, ball games, bean-bag toss, and others.
There was a cafe serving a variety of refreshments from coffee and
tea to barbequed hotdogs and hamburgers.
There was a silent auction and a variety of ticket sales for items
donated by parents, teachers, and local businesses.
There was also a bake sale with a variety of items to choose from.
This year's spring fair earned over $12,000 to support
school programs. This success
was due to the many volunteer hours contributed by committee members
including: Krista Molloy, Paula Allured, Michelle Coady, Michael Taylor,
Tracey Spurrell, Michelle Culleton, Debbie Collins, Ruby Mullett, and Gordon
and Jeannie Stokes.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the
Larkhall Academy community and thanking their spring fair volunteers.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Mr. Speaker, last Friday I was both honoured and humbled to participate in
an evening of celebration with great food and friends.
The Knights of Columbus Reverend Whelan Council in Labrador City in
Labrador West celebrated their fiftieth anniversary in Labrador City.
Over the past fifty years the Knights have unselfishly
been providing services to the community helping the less fortunate as well
as those impacted by disastrous issues.
This group of Christian soldiers performs and support these projects
and services with only the well-being of the recipient in mind.
During the evening celebrations there were some
significant awards presented: Richard Pittman received a recognition pin for
his fifty years of service with the association; Pat Carroll, along with his
wife Clara and their family, were recognized as the family of the year for
the dedicated service to the community through the association; George
Power, with his wife alongside him, Kathleen, received two very prestigious
awards, Knight of the Year from the Rev. Whelan Council after forty-five
years of service, and also the Knight of the Year within the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask all hon. members to please join me in
congratulating the Knights of Columbus of Labrador City on their golden
anniversary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to recognize and commend Ernie Meade of Fox
Roost, Clifford Lillington of Margaree, and Roland Sheaves of Port aux
Basques on their rescue of Mr. Clyde Chant and Mr. John Caines.
This past Monday, June 1, while travelling on Route
470, Mr. Chant and Mr. Caines' truck went off the road and became partially
submerged underwater. Their
vehicle was spotted by a school bus driver who flagged down Mr. Meade and
Mr. Lillington driving by. They
were later joined by Mr. Sheaves.
They could see the two men hanging onto the tailgate of
the truck. Mr. Chant was able to
make it to shore; however, Mr. Caines could not swim, so Mr. Meade waded in
to get him. He said the water
was so cold that he got weak. At
that point Sheaves and Lillington also came into the water; the three formed
a human chain, and got Mr. Caines ashore.
Both men were taken to the LeGrow Health Centre as a
precaution, but they are now doing well at home in Burnt Islands.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me
in commending Mr. Meade, Mr. Lillington, and Mr. Sheaves on their heroic and
brave actions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to commend the Elwood
High Envirothon Team of Deer Lake on their tremendous success at the
Envirothon in Nova Scotia just last month.
The Envirothon program fosters team building and critical thinking
around issues related to our natural environment.
Not only did Elwood finish first overall, but they
placed first in urban and community forests, and in wildlife.
Elwood also placed second in aquatic ecology, and soils and land use.
The team will move to compete at the National Envirothon Competition
at Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri.
This event is recognized at North America's largest high school
environmental education competition, and will take place from July 27 to
August 2 of this year.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in
congratulating Elwood Envirothon team members Emily Finlay, Alexis Locke,
Kyle Hiscock, Rachael Paddock, and Daniel Williams, along with their team
advisors: Mr. Oral Roberts, and Ms Dionne Snow.
We wish them all the best as they represent our Province at this
prestigious competition this summer.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, Shane Pope is one of this year's graduates of Botwood
Collegiate. He is a goal-driven
leader who confidently motivates others.
I feel honoured to be able to list some of his achievements:
President of the Botwood Student Council; board member
of the national, provincial, and local Boys and Girls Clubs; board member of
the Community Advisory Committee; Fusion 2015 National Youth Forum,
organizer and host; Member of the Premier's Youth Advisory Committee;
Newfoundland and Labrador Student Volunteer Award; Future Shop Generation
Scholarship; French Merit Award; Frank and Flossie Antle Memorial
Scholarship; the Harrison McCain Scholarship, valued at $16,000; honour roll
since Grade 7.
Mr. Speaker, Shane Pope is an individual of character,
integrity, perseverance, and dedication.
He has a positive attitude, quietly taking care of business, and no
doubt will be one to watch for in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me
in congratulating this inspirational young adult on his achievements and
wish him much success in the future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Honourable colleagues, I would like to recognize and
congratulate the Grade 4, 5, and 6 students, and their teacher Mrs. Aylward,
of St. Mark's School in King's Cove for winning $10,000 with their
application to the School Energy Project sponsored by Shell Canada and
Canadian Geographic.
Throughout the months of February to April of this
year, the students were involved in the Energy Diet Challenge.
One of the projects within the challenge was to submit an application
on ways to improve their school to make it more energy efficient and to
reduce waste production. The
students developed a plan that consisted of three separate projects: the
implementation of a school-wide composting program, the development of a
school greenhouse, and the replacement of the cafeteria microwaves with more
energy efficient ones.
Once the application was completed, the students
developed a video explaining their proposal and then worked on receiving
public votes. Once the votes
were completed the top five schools from across Canada were judged by a
panel of judges and, as a result, the school won the top prize.
Mr. Speaker, members of the House, please join me in
congratulating the students and all involved of St. Mark's School in King's
Cove.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On June 4, 2014, a tragic event unfolded in Moncton,
New Brunswick, which resulted in the deaths of three members of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police and injuries to two others.
On the one-year anniversary of that tragedy, I would
like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to once again offer our condolences to the families, the
friends, and the colleagues of the officers who lost their lives on that
tragic day.
As well, I would like to offer our support to the two
officers who survived.
The officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice on that
day were: Constable David Ross, Constable Fabrice George Gevaudan, and
Constable Douglas James Larche.
The two officers who were injured, but fortunately
survived were: Constable Ιric Stιphane J. Dubois, and Constable Marie
Darlene Goguen.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to being outstanding police
officers, all three constables who died that day were also fathers and
husbands. All three were
integral members of their communities.
All three are greatly missed.
To mark the anniversary of the event in Moncton and to
commemorate and acknowledge those officers who died and for the ones who
were wounded, staff with our local RCMP B Division have established a
memorial display at their headquarters located in St. John's.
As well, Assistant Commissioner Tracy Hardy is in New Brunswick today
on behalf of her officers from this Province to participate in a number of
events.
Mr. Speaker, tragedies such as this reinforce just how
dangerous the nature of police work is.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have hundreds of officers patrolling
our communities each day working to make this Province as safe as possible
for all of our residents. They
do so at great risk, and each day they leave their homes, and there is no
guarantee they will return.
Since 1861, twenty police and peace officers in this
Province have lost their lives in the line of duty.
That is twenty too many.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supports our police and peace
officers and we acknowledge the important work they do in circumstances that
are often challenging, unpredictable and dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with those
who were impacted by the events in Moncton last June, as well as with all
police and peace officers who work diligently to ensure that this Province
remains one of the greatest places in which to live, to work, and to raise a
family.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Premier for the advance copy of his
statement today. It certainly is
a tragic anniversary, not just for the people of New Brunswick but for,
indeed, all law enforcement across the country, including right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We also pay tribute today to the three RCMP officers
who were killed and the two officers who were wounded in Moncton one year
ago. Our thoughts and our
prayers are also with their families and their fellow officers.
The loss of our men and women in uniform is tragic, no matter when or
where it occurs. Police officers
put their lives at risk every day to protect others.
They put themselves in harm's way so that we can feel safe in our
homes and in our communities.
Moncton, like so many communities in Newfoundland and
Labrador, is a close-knit community.
When the tragic was unfolding last year, a Newfoundlander was playing
a key role within the RCMP.
Assistant Commissioner Roger Brown of the RCMP detachment in Codiac, New
Brunswick, is a Newfoundlander.
Of course, even in our Province we can relate to the tragedy of such violent
incidents.
Our hearts go out today to the people of Moncton who I
hope will someday find peace. We
must also realize and appreciate the commitment of law enforcement to ensure
our safety. I join my colleagues
in this House today to honour our men and women of law enforcement as we pay
tribute one year later.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, words are not enough to express the extent of sorrow this
tragedy has caused for so many.
In the name of the officers who have died by serving the people of Moncton,
I want to thank all those police and peace officers who give so much to our
community.
To ask people to serve our community in this way
carries a huge responsibility.
As legislators, we must ensure proper resources are in place to not only
keep our communities safe, but to keep those men and women doing this work
safe as well, including any services they need to help cope with the stress
of their very important duties.
As a final note, Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of Moncton asks
all Canadians to leave their porch light on tonight in memory of these brave
RCMP officers.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House to recognize June as Stroke
Awareness Month in Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed across Canada.
During the month, residents throughout the Province are encouraged to
learn more about how to prevent heart disease and reduce the risk of stroke.
This week, I joined with representatives of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Heart and Stroke Foundation to proclaim Stroke
Awareness Month in an effort to promote public awareness about the
importance of cardiovascular health and to officially launch the
foundation's Stroke Month Campaign.
Mr. Speaker, more Canadians die of heart disease than
any other disease. Over 74,000
deaths from heart disease occur every year and one person in Canada has a
stroke every ten minutes. Since
2006, we have provided over $500,000 in funding to the Heart and Stroke
Foundation to support their education and awareness efforts.
Our government remains focused on stroke prevention, treatment,
rehabilitation, and community reintegration initiatives, as well as
exploring opportunities to further enhance our quality stroke care and
services.
Evidence tells us that up to 80 per cent of premature
heart disease and stroke is preventable.
We are committed to supporting individuals, families, and communities
in their endeavour to live healthy lives through a variety of strategies,
initiatives, programs, and services.
It is never too late to adopt healthy behaviours and make lifestyle
choices that will decrease risks for stroke, even after a stroke has
occurred.
Through our integrated stroke strategy, we are
continuously working with the Heart and Stroke Foundation and our four
regional health authorities to enhance stroke care in Newfoundland and
Labrador and to improve patient outcomes.
Through the twelve designated stroke centres in the Province, we have
the necessary resources, including diagnostic equipment and pharmaceuticals,
to treat acute stroke.
Residents are reminded that stroke is a medical
emergency and every minute counts.
Knowing the signs and acting quickly could mean the difference
between life and death, or between a full recovery and lasting disability.
All you need to remember is FAST.
Face is it drooping?
Arms can you raise both?
Speech is it slurred or jumbled?
If yes, then it is Time call an ambulance right away.
I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing Stroke
Awareness Month. I also want to
thank the Heart and Stroke Foundation for their continued hard work in
supporting the health and well-being of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you.
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 an advance copy of his
statement. It is very important
that we raise awareness about stroke in our Province.
The rate of strokes here in Newfoundland and Labrador is the highest
in Canada. We need to do better.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation has said that excess
sugar consumption is linked to heart disease, stroke, obesity, and other
health conditions. They want
Canadians to limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft
drinks, fruit drinks, and juices.
We could also discuss the promised e-cigarette
legislation that we have heard about, but I do not suspect we are going to
see any time soon. It appears
the other side is more worried about legislation that keeps them in power as
opposed to legislation that might save lives.
In addition to having the highest rate of stroke, we
also have the highest rate of heart attacks.
Defibrillators can increase the heart attack survival rate by up to
75 per cent. Last year, our side
lent support to the Heart and Stroke Foundation; the big red team took a
ride on the big red bike.
Education and awareness can save lives and we thank the
stroke foundation for their work in trying to improve the lives of the
people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Heart and Stroke Foundation is
doing amazing work in promoting awareness about heart health and stroke
awareness. Thank you to all the
staff and volunteers who do this great work.
Bravo! It is crucial
government support their work.
Prevention and education are so important.
Mr. Speaker, I have received numerous calls from stroke
victims at home or in long-term facilities begging for physiotherapy, who
need help from physiotherapists or assistants in order not to deteriorate.
The wait-lists are totally unacceptable and detrimental to their health.
It is time government improve this and have a heart.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the fifty
members of Team Newfoundland and Labrador that participated in the
twenty-first annual Skills Canada National Competition which took place May
27 to 30 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Every year, individuals from all corners of Canada,
travel to attend the Skills Canada National Competition where they compete
in over forty skilled trades and technology contests.
This competition provides hands-on work experience related to skilled
trades and technology careers.
It inspires students, including apprentices, to demonstrate the passion and
dedication in skilled trades and technologies.
This year, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that Team
Newfoundland and Labrador took home fifteen individual and team medals in
twelve different trades and technology-related competition areas from this
event three gold, seven silver, and five bronze.
These competition areas included autobody repair, electronics, brick
masonry, robotics, steamfitter/pipefitter, baking, car painting,
architectural technology and design, job search, job skill demonstration,
photography, and public speaking.
The medal winners attend College of the North Atlantic, the UA Local
740 Training Centre, and high schools located throughout the Province.
Mr. Speaker, Skills Canada Newfoundland and Labrador
was established in 1998 as part of an effort to maintain Canada's
international competitiveness, with a goal to raise awareness about skilled
trades and technology sectors.
In today's global community, education is vital for success and our
government is committed to accessibility and affordability so that our
students have the tools they require to be the leaders of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is supporting
the continued development of a highly-skilled, well-educated workforce
through a variety of initiatives designed to revitalize Newfoundland and
Labrador's apprenticeship program.
In fact, the provincial government has committed more than $100
million over the past seven years to support skilled trades.
I wish to congratulate all students who participated in
the competition and I hope they continue to show an interest in a skilled
trades occupation and consider choosing one as their career path.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. It is indeed a
pleasure today to join with my colleagues to celebrate all fifty members of
Team Newfoundland and Labrador on their participation in the Skills Canada
National Competition.
The Skills Canada National Competition is the only
national multi-trade technology competition for students and apprentices in
this country. The Province was
represented well with fifteen medals in twelve different competition areas.
Such competitions give people an opportunity to learn from their
peers across the country, network with industry leaders, and have their
skills recognized on a national stage, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it is a pleasure to join with other members of
this House in congratulating the participants and the medal winners in this
very important competition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement here today.
Congratulations to all the students who have participated, Mr. Speaker.
We think it is outstanding.
It is no secret that workers from Newfoundland and
Labrador are renowned worldwide for their skills.
I think that we have always known that.
The skyline of New York City, for example, is a testament to the
ironworkers of this Province who come from Harbour Main and the Holyrood
areas.
Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that government has a plan
to support these fine young men and women by ensuring that they have a
chance to live and work in this Province, should they want to.
We hope that government keeps that in mind every day.
We do have an example where government did not pay
attention to that particular issue when it came to the Argentia welding
project down on the South Coast of the Province, Mr. Speaker.
We could have done better than let that work go offshore.
We could have had our people working there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has announced that he plans to push this
year's election out to November, past the fixed election date that is
currently set by law. The Chief
Electoral Officer has outlined in a June 2 letter that it is possible to
have a September election. If
the Premier wanted, he could have had our election over before the federal
election.
I ask the Premier: Why are you ignoring that a
September election is a possibility, and instead trying to push the election
out to November for your own purposes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the Chief Electoral Officer has sent a couple of
pieces of correspondence now to myself and leaders of the other parties.
He has laid out the time frame that he requires in order to prepare
for an election, should the legislation move forward and be passed in the
House to reduce the number of seats in our House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.
He has laid that out, Mr. Speaker.
Based on the review of his correspondence, I believe it would be
prudent to have the provincial election after the federal election.
He has clearly articulated that it would cause a conflict for him and
his office himself. It would
cause HR challenges for the provincial Chief Electoral Officer and conflicts
with the federal government. He
has clearly laid it out and articulated that in his correspondence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What the Premier did not say is that was a piece of
correspondence in response to a letter that I sent to the Chief Electoral
Officer, not one from the Premier's Office.
In that letter it does say that there is a window there to have a
September election before the federal election this fall.
I ask the Premier: Why are you ignoring what is clearly
in that letter of June 2 from the Chief Electoral office?
Why don't you have an election in September?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite is quite aware that there is a
minimum five-week writ period for federal elections.
The federal election being held on October 19 would mean that the
federal writ of election would be issued around
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
The federal writ would be issued around Labour Day, in September, and that
would cause a conflict with the federal election.
As Mr. Powers has articulated, it would cause a
conflict for him. There would be
an overlap, Mr. Speaker. He even
suggests that for members of the general public, it may be a concern to have
two elections running the same time.
That is why we will be moving the election until November.
I look forward to on Monday, once we receive the electoral boundaries
report, we will be making and laying out publicly our date and our plan for
the election, and also how we are going to move forward on electoral
boundary change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, the Minister of Finance once talked about the
value of fixed election dates.
He said this: It forces government to focus on governing the province and
not positioning itself for an election, or continuously thinking about what
might be opportunistic and call an election at a time when it suits the
circumstance the best. He also
said: Without fixed election dates
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BALL:
there could be manipulation of the electorate.
I ask the Premier: Since the benefits of the fixed
election dates are clear, why do you want to change the law and push the
election date past the federal election?
Clearly, September is an opportunity for this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants to go down a road of someone
once said. Well, if someone once
said that it would be okay to move, he would be finally in full agreement
with moving the election a few weeks if it meant to avoid a conflict with
the federal election.
The member opposite also once said he agrees with
reducing the number of seats in the House of Assembly.
The member once said he does not agree with reducing the number of
seats in the House of Assembly.
The member opposite changes his mind on a daily basis.
He should be able to identify sometimes when that occurs, Mr.
Speaker.
We are taking the advice of the Chief Electoral
Officer, we are going to avoid a conflict with the federal election, and, as
he has endorsed himself, we are going to move it a few weeks so that we do
not conflict with the federal election.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier goes through this plan to push the election
out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BALL:
This is twenty-two months after this Province had an opportunity to vote for
a Premier. The spirit of the
current law is to keep that period of time within one year.
The Premier is now trying to push this out twenty-two months.
So I ask the Premier: Do you intend to use your
majority in this House to cancel the law that requires you to call an
election within one year of being sworn in?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
So again, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is confirming that he has changed
his position on when the election could be held, because he has clearly
articulated in the past that he supports the concept of moving the election
a few weeks in order to prevent a conflict with the federal election.
He has said it himself
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
he said it publicly, and he is now once again, Mr. Speaker, as he has done
over and over and over again, he is changing his position, and that he is
taking on a matter.
Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the information provided
to us by the Chief Electoral Officer, we have considered the information
that he has provided
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
we understand the conflicts that may arise.
I will be quite clear to tell you, as I said before, the election
will be held in 2015 which he was fine with, he was fine with it and it
will be held in November, and we will lay out the full rationale for that on
Monday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, clearly, what is very clear here is the Premier
is using misleading comments to this House today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BALL:
Clearly, what was said on January 15, I say to the Premier, was this: that
we would indeed support that to get away from a federal election.
What he is suggesting today does not do that, when you consider the
special ballot process.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the new boundary legislation
next week, and now with the Premier's attempt to change the fixed election
date, several legislative amendments will be debated next week.
So I ask the Premier: Will these amendments be
contained in a Harper-like omnibus bill, or will you separate the bills to
be debated in this House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we will bring forward legislation, table legislation in this
House on Monday that will make the required amendments to the current
legislation
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
to allow for the change in the boundaries, and make the necessary changes
for the election date for 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I stand by my statements
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
my very consistent statements in this House and publicly, that we will
have a general election in 2015,
and unlike the member opposite, I have not wavered one bit from that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, it is very clear today that the Premier is trying
to twist my words, just like he is trying to twist the rules of this
Legislature, I say, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier to clarify for this House: Will these
amendments be contained in a Harper-like omnibus bill, or will it be
separate bills so they can be properly debated in this House?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is quite aware that when legislation is
brought before the House, the members opposite have very much control over
how long that debate continues.
We will give them full opportunity to fully debate the legislation that we
will bring before this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, if they want to stay here for weeks or months, we will do that.
If that is what the members opposite want, we will give them fair
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, there are two sections in the legislation.
There is one around, as he mentioned about when a new Premier
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
takes office, and there is also a fixed election date.
They are the two pieces, Mr. Speaker, that have to be corrected.
We are looking at other amendments to be consistent with other
provinces.
As I have said, we will lay out our legislation and our
bill on Monday for everyone to see, Mr. Speaker.
It will go through due process in this House with a full, fair, and
frank debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has been revealed that Nalcor chose a Quebec company
for construction work at Muskrat Falls.
The company has already admitted to a collusion scheme.
At the same time Nalcor approved the company for work at Muskrat
Falls, the majority owner was testifying at the Quebec Charbonneau
commission on corruption in the construction industry.
I ask the Premier: Why did Nalcor choose a Quebec
company that has admitted to collusion and handing over envelopes of cash
for public works projects?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, the leader raises a very important issue.
I will say for the people of the Province that government is not
involved in a process of evaluating or awarding of contracts.
In the process of awarding contracts, there are some
ninety-five construction contracts in Muskrat Falls.
Nalcor has a responsibility to manage the projects.
One of the mandates that they have is to ensure they get best value.
Best value for the project, Mr. Speaker, means best value for the
people of the Province.
Through their process of making that selection, the
Opron company was successful, the work has been completed within the scope
required. So they have gone
through a process. The other
point I will make, Mr. Speaker, is the process is clearly different than
what is being followed in Quebec.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Best value with a company that was testifying in
Quebec? Is that what the
minister is suggesting?
We understand that this contract was worth between $10
million and $20 million range, and that the company is now facing at least a
dozen lawsuits in our Province for not paying subcontractors.
We would have expected that the procurement process would have
identified this company's questionable past.
I ask the Premier: With so many Newfoundland and
Labrador companies able to do this work, why did Nalcor go to Quebec and
pick a company involved in the collusion scheme?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is trying to connect practices in Quebec
with practices in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know their affinity for Quebec.
They have a long history of understanding and supporting Quebec.
The process is not what we follow here.
Let me get to the point, Mr. Speaker.
The process that is followed within Nalcor is a very detailed,
thorough, rigorous, competitive process where individuals look at issues of
commercial, technical, and safety evaluations.
There is a separate financial evaluation done through the process.
I have been assured that has been done on this company
and through a process of Expressions of Interest and the final evaluations,
Opron was awarded the contract, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the minister should clarify are you suggesting
that the practices of a Quebec company are not important to the decisions
that we make here in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting is the integrity of the process at Nalcor
protects against the kind of activity that is being evaluated and alleged in
Quebec through the Charbonneau commission.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the process at
Nalcor is set up so that individuals do separate evaluations on contracts,
it flows up the chains before the decision is made.
Like CBC reiterated today, they have no information to suggest that
there was anything improper about the awarding of the contract, and we do
not have any information likewise.
It is a concern, it is being looked at within Nalcor,
but the process has been followed, the contract has been awarded, and the
contract has been completed, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, for some time Newfoundland and Labrador's students' performance
in mathematics has been declining and sounding alarms.
This year's Budget committed to convening a group of educational
leaders to review math performances.
We have heard nothing about that since.
I ask the minister: When will government finally act on
the math curriculum crisis in this Province and accept the urgency of this
issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, recently we made an announcement, I guess, around the math
issues in this Province. We have
a brand new curriculum that has been fully introduced to the K-12 school
system, but there continues to be some concerns about math.
We take that very seriously.
I have talked with educators.
It is of serious concern, Mr. Speaker.
What we have announced is that we are going to have a
math conversation. We are not
just going to focus on curriculum; we are going to talk about broad aspects
of teaching math in the Province.
We will also look at other jurisdictions and what they are doing and
what kind of results they are having, since we do share the curriculum in
this Province as it is being delivered in other provinces.
We will look at multiple things about math, Mr. Speaker, and we look
forward to having the conversation to see if we can address those
challenges.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, it does not matter where they come from or who they are, if
students can do math, they will have a future; it is that simple.
This government is undermining our students and their future
prospects by not providing the tools they need to excel in math.
I ask the minister: Will you just stop the political
posturing and provide the resources that students need to turn around their
math performance?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to play politics with the students of the
Province. We have acknowledged
that there are a lot of issues with math being talked about in the public.
We have acknowledged it is serious.
Also, our government is committed to have the conversation about
math, include the experts, include the stakeholders, include parents, and
talk to students.
Let's get to the bottom of what the issues are with
math. Is it curriculum?
Is it the amount of time we spend teaching math?
Is it the professional learning?
Is there something out at the universities is there something
happens when they transition from secondary school to post-secondary, Mr.
Speaker?
There are many elements to consider and we want to have
that conversation, and we are fully committed to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, to date, this government has undermined our students and
compromised their employment and educational prospects by downplaying the
seriousness of the math performance crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask the minister now: If he is finally ready to get
serious about this issue, will he come clean now and tell us exactly how
much money has been set aside in this Budget 2015 for your so-called math
performance conversation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, so-call it what you will.
I can commit to the people of the Province, particularly around the
math issue, we have a million dollars in an excellent math strategy in the
department, but I will cut travel in the department to deal with the math
issue. I have no problem.
It is a very important issue and we are committed to
dealing with it; but if you want to talk about what we are committing to the
students of the Province, you want to look at how our results are in math.
Our dropout rates have improved, our graduation rates have improved,
and the results for academic students and honour student has improved.
We are seeing improvements in our education system, but it is not
without challenges. One thing
people can be assured, we are not going to run from the challenges.
We are going to take them on, we are going to bring them in, we are
going to work together, and we are going to find some solutions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week I asked the minister responsible for Income
Support if those who are homeless are able to receive Income Support, he
promised to get the answer.
Yesterday, I asked the same question, and he promised to table the answer
after Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, that minister is usually forthcoming in
providing the answers, but not on this issue.
In fact, he is being very evasive.
I will ask again today: Are people who are homeless,
without an address, able to receive Income Support?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, individuals who apply for Income Support without a fixed
address, need to find a way to receive the money they are entitled to.
Whether that be attached to an organization, to one of our so, yes,
there are ways that people can receive those supports.
Mr. Speaker, I question sometimes I discussed this
with the staff, and I think some of the staff take offence to the measures
that the hon. member is challenging some of their positions, I truly do.
These front line workers work day in and day out to approve programs
and supports for their clients, and they are to be commended for those
supports.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
It is not the front line workers, Mr. Speaker, who develop the policies, it
is the minister.
Mr. Speaker, his answer does nothing to put a pillow
under the head of a homeless person sleeping under the bridge down on Water
Street.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
The rental allowance provided by your department to those on Income Support
has not kept pace with rental rate increases over the past decade.
As a result, people who cannot afford to pay rent, find themselves
with nowhere to live. Without an
address, they do not qualify for Income Support.
A support through Choices for Youth is not Income Support.
Your department is forcing people to become homeless.
I ask the minister not to play hide and seek with the answer.
Will you confirm ?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask the member to ask his question.
MR. OSBORNE:
Will you confirm that people are becoming homeless because the rental
allowance is not sufficient to pay rent?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Now, Mr. Speaker, listen to that, just listen to that.
Mr. Speaker, the people within the department, in
conjunction with the minister, develop and roll out programs.
This member is accusing us as a government we, as a government,
work with all of the agencies out there Choices for Youth, Stella's
Circle, all who are involved in homelessness.
We have committed dollars to that.
We were down to a session just this past week and I have assured
those people that we will continue to work with them.
He need not underestimate what we are going to do and what we will
continue to do as a government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Auditor General reported that Memorial University
identified $145 million in urgent deferred maintenance needs over the next
five years. Memorial said in its
budget submission last year that putting off will threaten their ability to
provide safe, reliable and good quality facilities.
Budget 2015 only allotted $6.6 million, the lowest amount in the last
ten years.
I ask the minister: Are you aware of the implications
of compromising the quality and safety at Memorial University?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I was very surprised by the commentary made by
the Vice-President of Financial Operations at Memorial this morning.
I was very surprised.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JACKMAN:
I took it upon myself to call the President and the Chair of the Board of
Regents, Mr. Speaker. Here is
what we expect from MUN there are priorities, there are life safety
issues. While Memorial may have
major projects happening, we expect that they attend to these life safety
issues first and foremost.
I have been assured that there is an infrastructure
plan in place, Mr. Speaker. I
look forward to the priorities around life safety to be addressed first and
foremost.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, it is fine for the minister to have that expectation, but if he
does not give them enough money to do it, it is hard for them to do it.
Putting off maintenance is going to cost the Province
more in the long run, and not just in terms of physical repairs, Mr.
Speaker. Memorial University is
the only university in the Province and it is central to the population
growth and innovation.
The VP of Finance at Memorial University says serious
safety hazards exist, such as windows blowing out of the walkway over the
Parkway. Mr. Speaker, in fact,
they are thinking about closing down some facilities because of repair.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask the member to ask his question.
MR. REID:
I ask the minister: Does he think this is acceptable?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.
MR. JACKMAN:
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should take a look at some of the professors who are
operating in the House of Assembly giving up their bit of salary to
contribute to the cause.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, our commitment and our
funds to Memorial are at $320 million this year.
They have major projects underway.
Before they are going to move with any of these projects, Mr.
Speaker, we would expect that life safety issues would be addressed first
and foremost. We expect no less.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, last September government said it would pay for any
environmental liabilities at the Come by Chance Refinery without knowing
what the liabilities are, and in an article in
The Telegram it says that the
Department of Environment and Conservation is just now planning phase two of
a three-phase assessment.
I ask the minister: It has been eight months, why are
we still waiting to hear how much environmental liability government has
taken on?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, the owners of North Atlantic Refinery Limited are the ones that
are doing the environmental assessment.
We are the ones who are overseeing that process.
We are working very closely with them.
They are going to phase two.
They are on target with what they promised and committed when they
bought the refinery. Everything
is going along perfectly well.
Mr. Speaker, we are taking indemnity with regard to the
soil and sediment and water and groundwater in the area, but everything else
is the responsibility of North Atlantic Refinery Limited.
We are not taking on the full cost of remediation of that site, but
that work is getting done. It is
ongoing, and there are facts that need to be told.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, government has been promising a new Waterford Hospital for over
a decade. It is still years down
the road. How many more horror
stories do we need to hear?
Government is shirking its responsibility and expecting Eastern Health and
staff to somehow, what, just cope?
I ask the minister: What is he going to do to address
this crisis at the Waterford until a new hospital is built?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged that the Waterford Hospital needs to be
replaced. It is old
infrastructure and it needs to be replaced, and as soon as the Province's
finances will allow us to do so, we will do so.
Some great groundwork has been laid.
The functional program and master plan is complete.
It is solid work and it will inform our future decisions.
With that said, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note
that patients at the Waterford will continue to receive quality care from
well trained professionals, and some of the changes we anticipated would
come with the new hospital can be implemented in the meantime.
For instance, we want to focus on a recovery model of care where
patients are put at the center of decision making, and we are going to
introduce that regardless of when we can build a new hospital, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, how could the minister allow the psychiatric unit at the Health
Sciences Centre to fall into such disrepair?
I ask the minister: For God's sake, will he give them
what they need to properly take care of our people?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, people who are sick need access to their basic needs, such as
hot water, it is a must. They
need to be supported in their recovery.
I want to be clear, that what has happened at the
psychiatric unit at the Health Sciences Centre should not have occurred.
It should have been fixed as soon as it was discovered.
I have a lot of questions, Mr. Speaker, and I do want
answers from Eastern Health. I
have given clear direction. I
want Eastern Health to investigate the situation and I want to understand
why a solution was not pursued when a modest investment would have solved
the problem. It is completely
unacceptable. We must learn from
it, but we also must do better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the staff are telling us loud and clearly that these facilities
are falling apart. A crisis
intervention has to be done.
Everyone in this House knows there is a shortage of staff at our psychiatric
facilities.
I ask the minister: What is he going to do about this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, while we have made a lot of progress over the last decade with
our mental health and addictions strategy, I will be the first to admit once
again that we still have a long way to go.
That is why we have embarked upon an all-party committee to
investigate mental health and addictions services in this Province and come
back to his hon. House to make recommendations for improvement; but, in the
meantime, we are trying to improve the system every day.
In terms of this recent issue at the Health Sciences
Centre, I have directed Eastern Health to increase occupational therapy
assistant hours to allow access for more programming, including leisure
activities and physical fitness.
I have directed them today to purchase additional television units.
I have directed them to increase access to the kitchen which I
understand is locked for safety reasons.
We are looking at all of these issues and we are
constantly trying to improve mental health services and programs for people
in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The other day in the House the minister, when asked
about 911 service in the Province, said, and I quote,
you will recognize
very quickly that governments are constrained by the budgetary policies of
the government
Mr. Speaker, 911 service is not a budgetary policy of
the government as consumers are the ones paying for 911 service in this
Province.
I ask the minister: What say do consumers have and what
type of system delivery if they are to receive the products?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Good point, George excuse me, hon. member.
It is a very good point.
Consumers do pay. You are
absolutely right. My apologies
to the House, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. member, consumers have all kinds of say in
what kind of service they want.
That is how we have got on the path we are on.
We consulted with consumers across the Province and heard what they
wanted in a 911 operating system.
That is why we brought in, what we call, the first phase of 911
operating. We intend to take it
to the Next Generation 911 operating system.
Very clearly, as I said to the hon. member and my
colleague there several day ago on this issue, what we have right now is a
system that for the biggest portion of people living in the Province, people
in my district, in communities like Lamaline, Grand Bank, St. Lawrence, and
Marystown, had no knowledge of 911, has never had the service.
It is all brand new. We
have that in every part of the Province and we intend to build upon that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
During Question Period, the hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition referred to the Premier as misleading.
This is clearly unparliamentary.
I would ask the hon. member if he would withdraw.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I withdraw the comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
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 that was held on May 13, 2015.
Further tabling in documents?
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition to pave Route 434 in Conche.
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 434, Conche Road, is 17.6 kilometres of
unpaved road; and
WHEREAS the current road conditions are deplorable; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Automobile Association ranked
Route 434 the sixth worse road in Atlantic Canada; and
WHEREAS it is government's obligation to provide basic
infrastructure to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS an improved paved road network would enhance
local business, fish processing operations, and tourism, which is vital to
the health of the communities affected;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to
urge the government to allocate funds in the provincial roads program to
pave Route 434.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, today the petition is signed by residents
of Roddickton, Bide Arm, and Grand Falls-Windsor.
There is certainly support all across the Province to see a road like
Conche receive what it should have, as it has been a major contributor to
the provincial economy throughout the years.
Residents are becoming very vocal and outspoken.
Those who live here in St. John's and other areas that
have been from Conche, have ties to the community of Conche this town once
had a population of close to a thousand people, and there is still a very
vibrant fish plant. The only
processing facility that processes crab, whelk multi-species plant
mackerel, herring, all sorts of pelagics there.
There are about 800 to 1,200 trucks that go across this
road, as well as the tourism economy.
It is the heart of the French Shore, with a 222-foot Jacobian linen
tapestry the only one of its kind in North America that sees thousands
of people. Cruise ships come
here, there are archeological digs, and there is small business.
There is a vibrant economy in Conche, and that if this government had
the vision and the insight to pave this road, we would have a stronger
economy on the Northern Peninsula East.
There was $6 million put into this road, and now we
need to see the investment to finalize the project.
So I look forward to seeing that brought to fruition on behalf of the
people of Conche, the neighbouring area, and the people who are employed
from various districts, whether it be Piccadilly, or whether it be from
other areas of the West Coast who work in Conche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled:
WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the Southwest Coast of
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the
communities of Margaree, Fox Roost, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose
Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove, and La Poile use Route 470 on a
regular basis for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and
WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 470;
and
WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety and
communications tool for visitors and residents; and
WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 470 feel that
the provincial government should invest in cellphone for rural Newfoundland
and Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the government to partner with the private sector to
extend cellphone coverage along Route 470;
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Now, Mr. Speaker, anybody who has ever watched this
House will know that I have made this petition on a number of occasions, but
it has significant meaning, especially today, after we had a near-miss.
We had the possibility of a fatal accident on that particular road on
Monday one that I recognized in a member's statement today.
Now, thankfully those gentlemen are all safe, but the
scary part is to think that there was absolutely no way for any of them to
call anybody, because there is no cellphone coverage on Route 470.
So thank God we did not have a situation where we had to call an
ambulance or call a fire truck or call the police, because you could not
you could not call. It is
unfortunate that this government continues to do nothing when it comes to
this issue. They continue to do
absolutely nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
They are spending their time figuring out how they are going to stick around
longer when they should be spending their time governing and making sure
that people have access to essential safety communication tools, but they do
not want to do that. They are
going to continue to sit over there and cling to power while people here
were clinging on to the tailgate of a truck because in this case there was
no cellphone coverage, and it is shameful and shocking.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am proud to stand in this House and present this
petition to the House of Assembly.
We urge the House of Assembly to call upon the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make literacy a priority by
supporting the development of a robust provincial strategic literacy plan
that addresses the learning and literacy of individuals from the early years
through to the senior years.
Furthermore, recognizing that literacy is intimately
connected to other societal issues, we urge the House of Assembly to call
upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to invest funding in
literacy programs so that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can enjoy the
benefits of participation in our society so that no one is left behind.
Mr. Speaker, issues of literacy have been raised in
this House of Assembly through a number of questions in this Question
Period. My hon. colleague spoke
earlier today about the ongoing issues that we have as a Province with our
children's scores in math, and I listened to the minister opposite answer
the question and answer it with platitudes about things that they are going
to do.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the results of literacy issues in
our Province are clear but this government continues to choose to ignore the
facts, just like they continue to ignore the facts of what needs to happen
in the best interests of the people of the Province.
They spend more time talking about what happened yesterday and
justifying what they do in this House of Assembly than they do about caring
for the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, when we have less than half of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with a level three literacy or higher, we
have to hold this government accountable for the money that they had, for
the decisions that they made, and their inability to effect the change that
must happen in our Province to ensure a workforce for the future.
Our Province, as the Finance Minister finally admitted,
is in a recession. We have seen
eighteen consecutive months of year-over-year job losses, yet this
government continues to ignore the fundamental principles of workforce
development fundamental principles such as literacy.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province who continue to
fill out these petitions and continue to call on government to act will
continue to do so in the coming weeks when they hold this government
accountable for its lack of attention on the people of the Province and its
attention on its own selfish political priorities.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Trinity Bay de Verde.
MR. CROCKER:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS many communities in the District of Trinity
Bay de Verde do not have cellphone coverage; and
WHEREAS residents of the district require cellphone
coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and
WHEREAS cellphone coverage on many portions of the
highway in the district is poor or non-existent;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the appropriate agencies to provide
adequate cellphone coverage throughout the entire District of Trinity Bay
de Verde.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity this
afternoon to enter the petition on behalf of my constituents in the District
of Trinity Bay de Verde. It is
interesting this afternoon when you hear the Member for Burgeo La Poile
talk about the accident that happened just this past Monday in his district
and the role that cellphones could have played in safety and helping those
people who were very fortunate.
It is very similar in my district.
We have no cellphone coverage.
It was brought to my attention a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, by
actually a resident, not from my district, but a resident from New Harbour.
The New Harbour Barrens is also a connecting road between Trinity and
Conception Bay. It is in the
Bellevue district. I think the
Bellevue district has some issues with cellphone coverage as well.
The constituent said we get in there, there are very
poor shoulders on the road, similar to the Heart's Content Barrens, and
there is no cellphone coverage.
Yet the minister of public safety stands up this afternoon in response to a
question from the Member for St. John's Centre and talks about the
seventy-five cents that consumers pay when it comes to their cellphone
bills.
AN HON. MEMBER:
St. John's East.
MR. CROCKER:
St. John's East, sorry. The
seventy-five cents that every one of us pay on our cellphone bills every
month, is there a plan to take some of this money, Mr. Speaker, and invest
it in cellphone coverage?
You look no further than British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.
In British Columbia the government went to work, worked with Telus,
and now they have a plan to expand cellphone coverage on their primary and
secondary roads. So I urge the
government.
The Member for Lake Melville got up last week in this
House and talked about how it was great for people in urban areas to have
cellphone coverage, but he could not understand why us in rural Newfoundland
and Labrador would even want cellphone coverage.
Well I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the people of Trinity Bay de Verde
want cellphone coverage, and they deserve cellphone coverage for safety
reasons amongst others.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Motion 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the
House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, June 4, 2015.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion is carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also move, seconded the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Motion 8, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the
House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, June 4, 2015.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion is carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also wish to give notice, under Standing Order 11, I
shall move the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2015.
I further give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall
move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I further give notice, under Standing Order 11, I move that the
House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 2015.
Furthermore, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I
shall move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9,
2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Furthermore, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the
House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 2015.
I further move, under Standing Order 11, that the House
not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to call for
Orders of the Day, Order 2, Committee of Supply.
I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of
the Whole so that we can now consider the Estimates of Executive Council as
well as the Office of Public Engagement.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that this House now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole
to consider the Estimates of Executive Council.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
Today we are considering the Estimates for the
Consolidated Fund Services, Executive Council in the Legislature.
Just a word to the hon. members, we will start with the
opening remarks from the individual in the Opposition for fifteen minutes.
We will go back to the minister who responds for fifteen, then ten
minutes and ten minutes thereafter, the same as Estimates.
I just want everybody to be on the same page as we go
through this. Just a suggestion,
can we start with the first entry, which would be the Consolidated Fund
Services
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
CHAIR:
Office of Public Engagement is where we wish to start?
AN HON. MEMBER:
No.
CHAIR:
No.
Okay, the Clerk to call the first heading.
CLERK:
Excuse me, it is Executive Council we are starting with?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader, for some direction, please.
MR. KING:
Yes, it would be our wish, Mr. Chair, to start with Public Engagement
because that is the group that did not get covered in the Estimates that
were scheduled. The member
opposite has been very adamant and wanting to do that, but if members
opposite wish to start in a different order we are prepared to co-operate.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The Clerk to call the subhead, please.
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Given that the Office of Public Engagement Estimates have already been
devoted, my preference would be to start with the Consolidated Fund Services
so we can debate Estimates that have not been we only have two hours and
forty-seven minutes, so I would like for us to get started on those.
CHAIR:
Fine, thank you.
The Clerk to call the first subhead, please.
CLERK:
Okay.
Consolidated Fund Services, 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.01.
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask questions relating to
page 1.3 of the Estimates.
CHAIR:
Page 1.3?
MS C. BENNETT:
Page 1.3, which refers to item 1.1.01 Temporary Borrowings.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.01 Temporary Borrowings.
MS C. BENNETT:
The Debt Expenses in the Budget for fiscal year 2014-2015 were $50,000,
revised were zero, and Estimates now for this coming fiscal year are
$50,000. I would ask the
minister if he could explain that.
Mr. Chair, for speed, can I go through a number of
these questions and give them to the minister, or would you like them one at
a time?
CHAIR:
Minister, do you have any preference?
One question at a time or a number of questions?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you.
The member, if they want to lay out a series of
questions on a particular area if we are going to do that, let's try to
contain it to a smaller area so we are not rambling all over a number of
different pages. If there are a
number of things you would like to comment on with respect to consolidated
fund revenue and then you want to raise them, then I can go back through
them after. That may facilitate
it easier rather than you and I popping up and down every two minutes.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, what I will do, with the minister's permission, is certainly
follow the pages as they are listed.
That will make it easier for all of us to follow along.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MS C. BENNETT:
I have asked a question about the Debt Expenses.
I will move now to 1.1.02 Treasury Bills, which speaks to the,
Appropriations provide for the interest expense on treasury bill
borrowings.
Under the Debt Expenses there, Budget 2014-2015 had a
budgeted amount of $5 million.
Actual expenses were $2.3 million higher than that.
Then the Estimates are $6.2 million.
I would ask the minister if he could explain those numbers as well
when he gets a chance to get up.
I will move over to 1.1.06.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.06. So now you are
on page 1.4 is it?
MS C. BENNETT:
Yes, please.
CHAIR:
Okay, 1.1.06, yes.
MS C. BENNETT:
At the very top of the page under Revenue Provincial, the budgeted amount
in fiscal 2014-2015 was $711,600, the actual was $432,700.
This year Estimates are $151,900.
So I would ask the minister if he could provide some information on
that one.
I will continue to move along.
Over to page 1.5, under the heading
CHAIR:
Could you just say that again?
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Sure. I am moving to page 1.5 of
the consolidated funds.
CHAIR:
Page 1.5, yes.
MS C. BENNETT:
Down to the item 1.4.01.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.4.01 Guarantee Fees Non-Statutory?
MS C. BENNETT:
That would be correct, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MS C. BENNETT:
Under the Operating Accounts, there is a listing there for Professional
Services. It was budgeted at
$50,000. No money was spent, and
again there was another $50,000 budgeted in this coming year.
I will stop there.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.4.01.
MR. WISEMAN:
Subhead 1.5.01, is that where you are?
MS C. BENNETT:
No, sorry, 1.4.01.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.4.01, Minister.
MS C. BENNETT:
The 1.5 was a page in the Estimates, my apologies.
MR. WISEMAN:
Subhead 1.4.01.
MS C. BENNETT:
Subhead 1.4.01.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
CHAIR:
Yes.
MS C. BENNETT:
With that, I will sit down and let the minister answer those questions for
now.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make sure I captured them all.
I understand the first question was around 1.1.01 Temporary
Borrowings. The question was
centered around the $50,000, the zero in the budget, the zero for the
actuals, and then the original for this year has been $50,000.
Mr. Chair, government has a couple of ways of raising
capital. They can go to the
market, as we did this past year and floated a $500 million debenture.
We have an opportunity through using treasury bills to raise some
short-term money, but we also have a line of credit with the Royal Bank of
Canada. We have an arrangement
with them where there is some-$200 million line of credit that is available
to us as a part of our cash management process in any given year.
We have staff in the Department of Finance who monitor
our fiscal position on a daily basis, managing our cash flow, looking at
what our cash requirements would be on any point in time.
So we take advantage of opportunities to save money and take
advantage of opportunities of low interest rates.
A number of times we will use treasury bills to borrow some money
short-term, to raise some capital, generally ninety days, but we also have
available to us this line of credit.
If we were to draw on that line of credit, if that
became an option we chose some time throughout the year to use the line of
credit, then we would have to pay interest on that line of credit.
We need to make a provision in the budgetary process, should an event
that we need to actually use that line of credit, then we have to cover off
the interest. What we have done
here under the temporary borrowings provision, we have made a provision here
for interest that would be paid should we use the line of credit.
As it happened last year, because of some decisions we
made, we did not need to draw on that line of credit, therefore we did not
spend any of the money.
Obviously, as we look forward to the year coming, we are not certain what
this year will bring; market conditions, interest rates, our circumstance.
We may find ourselves having to draw on that line of credit, and
should we find ourselves having to do that, regardless of what that amount
would be, we need to pay interest.
This $50,000 that you see here, Mr. Chair, is a provision for the
interest that may be paid on a line of credit should we decide to draw down
on it.
I believe the next question centered around 1.1.02,
which deals with Treasury bills.
I just made reference a moment ago to the Treasury bill program and that
fact that we use Treasury bills as a means of raising capital.
I think the member had a question around the dollar amounts, what we
were actually allocating last year for those costs, what provision we made,
and how much we actually will pay this year.
This activity in 1.1.02 is just that.
It sets up the expense that we incur for interest that we pay on our
Treasury bills.
As I just mentioned a second ago, as part of our
strategy in managing cash and looking at debt and what portions of our debt
may be long term, what portions of our debt may be short term, these
Treasury bills are bills we generally issue for ninety-one days.
They are ninety-one day Treasury bills.
Every week, we go to the market, flow the bill as a part of our cash
management process.
So a couple of things happened last year.
When we started out the year, we thought about how we would manage
our fiscal circumstance this year.
I remember last year in the Budget debate there was a bill that came
to the House that sought authority of the House of Assembly to borrow what
was going to be about $1 billion last year.
So we had the authority to raise up to $1 billion through borrowing.
As we moved through the year, we had to make some decisions, whether
some of this was going to be by way of long-term debt or by way of
short-term debt.
As it turned out, we did not borrow the full $1 billion
anyway, but not all of it was long term; $500 million was long term and we
borrowed some additional on short-term Treasury bills.
So a couple of things happened.
When we started out the year, we were anticipating that we would be
borrowing around $490 million-odd through our Treasury bill program, but
because of favourable interest rates, the interest rates on Treasury bills
are 0.75 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
As a result of that, Mr. Chair, because of favourable interest rates and
because of our cash management processes in place, we found ourselves
realizing that a better way to raise some capital last year was going to be
by way of enhancing and expanding on our Treasury bill program.
So two things happened.
We thought we were going to be borrowing around $494 million, but we
actually borrowed some $780 million.
The interest that we had forecasted to spend was about $500 million,
but because we borrowed more through this program, we actually spent some
$7.3 million.
Two things happened.
The reason we choose this route is interest rates were very
favourable last year. Short-term
money was a better way to manage our cash, a better way to manage our
finances, so we chose to borrow more through the Treasury bill program than
we had originally thought, and that is how we managed, Mr. Chair.
Throughout any given year, as we have said, we will look at our cash
requirements, look at our borrowing options, and some of it might be long
term and some of it may be short term.
So two things happened, really, to influence that
number, that change from the $5 million to the $7.3 million.
Number one, we borrowed more through the Treasury bill program than
we had initially thought, but at the same time interest rates were much
lower than we had originally thought.
Now, as we look at this coming year, the same thing will happen.
We have made a provision here for $6.2 million we are borrowing in
our Treasury bill program, because we believe that this year we will
continue to use that program.
Interest rates are still favourable, but again this year we will do some
longer term borrowing, and we will do some Treasury bill borrowing as well.
So will maintain our Treasury bill program similar to
what it is now. In fact, when we
go to the market again for some longer term borrowing, depending on what
interest rates might be like, we may choose to liquidate some of that
short-term debt and convert it to a longer term debt.
That may be an option, but fundamentally, the provision here of $6.2
million is just that, it is a provision for the interest that we will pay on
our Treasury bill program throughout the coming year.
Now, I want to make sure I captured them all.
I think the next area was 1.1.06, was it?
CHAIR:
Recoveries on Loans and Advances, yes, Minister.
MR. WISEMAN:
Recovery 1.1.06. The questions
centred around the difference that you would see in a forecast recovery of
$711,000 versus the $432,000 that we actually received.
Mr. Chair, fundamentally this item here captures and
acknowledges and records the interest revenue that we get from the Student
Loan Corporation. That number is
changing, obviously, because the amount of money that is in that Student
Loan Corporation is not continuing to grow, and the reason it is not
continuing to grow is because of some strategic investments that we have
made in eliminating the Student Loans Program and converting it to a
grants-based system. So this
program here, over time, will disappear totally; and as time evolves as
well, as the amount of money that is paid interest starts to come down, the
number that we will recover on annual basis will be much less.
These numbers actually reflect just that.
Last year in our Budget forecast we talked about
$711,000, this year we actually are going to be talking about $151,000, and
we actually only achieved some $432,000.
So already this picture that you are seeing here shows the decline
that is occurring as a result of the decisions we made to replace the
Student Loans Program with a grants-based system.
So students who are going to university now find themselves not
having to borrow as much. As a
result, the interest coming back to the Province through the Student Loan
Corporation is a diminishing number and, over time, will disappear
altogether.
The other number I think was 1.4.01, if I am not
mistaken, Mr. Chair, the Guarantee Fees.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.4.01, yes, Minister.
MR. WISEMAN:
Subhead 1.4.01. Mr. Chair, we
provide a number of loan guarantees.
Sometimes it is through private enterprise we will guarantee some
loans. There are loans that we
guarantee through Nalcor. For
those guarantees there is a premium, there is a price.
We charge a fee for those guarantees.
Obviously if the Province is guaranteeing a loan to an
enterprise it needs to acknowledge that in its financial statements.
So we need to make a provision should something happen.
Should something happen and the financial institutions need to
realize on their security, then we need to make a provision for actually
paying that off.
In theory we are kind of setting aside a pot of money
to make available should we be called upon by a bank to liquidate a debt
because of our guarantee. So we
have a number of guarantees to private corporations.
We have Nalcor as well, or more precisely Newfoundland Hydro.
Newfoundland Hydro, a regulated entity, a division of
Nalcor, has borrowings. Because
that is a Crown-owned asset it is a Crown corporation, it is an asset of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador was called upon to guarantee their borrowing.
As a result of that we charge them a fee.
So the banks have said that if you want to borrow
money, we want the guarantee of the provincial government.
We have said we will provide that guarantee, but because it has an
impact on our financial position and it is recorded in the books of the
Province, we want to charge a fee for that.
Right now there are four loans or four entities rather, I should say,
where the Province has guaranteed the loans.
We charge those entities a fee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
What this number here reflects are the fees associated with those
guarantees. Mr. Chair, I think
that was the last one that there was a question around, 1.4.01?
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The hon. member I am going to go there and come back
to you.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Sure.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East, would you have any questions
between 1.1.01 to 1.4.01?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, Mr. Chair, I do have a couple of questions.
The question is more of a policy question for the Finance Minister
when it comes to actually dealing with the debt of the Province and the
servicing of the Province's debt.
I know in the next couple of weeks, Mr. Chair, what
they are talking about in the markets is an actual possibility of an
increase in interest rates. So I
am wondering about the timing of that, if these numbers are going to be
susceptible to any changes as a result of that, or what government has
negotiated as a result of some of the potential interest rates they are
going to be paying in some of the long-term debt that they are going to be
surfacing?
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Chair, it is an interesting question, because obviously markets change
and we need to be very much aware of what is happening around us.
We have a circumstance, as the member has pointed out, there has been
some speculation for quite some time about what the markets might do, what
interest rates might do, how that might change.
We are talking about this year's Budget.
We laid out a five-year plan, and that plan includes some borrowing
over the course of the next four years.
We want to make sure we have accurately reflected what we anticipate
our costs to be in that Budget, because there are a number of things that
this Budget highlights for us. I
just wanted to bring members' attention to the Highlights document that was
a part of this year's budgetary information, where we talked about a
borrowing program, we talked about performance targets.
So there are a couple of things that are really relevant and impacts
your question.
One of the things we have done this year is that we
have said not only do we want to have a budget for this fiscal year, but we
want to build a plan that takes us out for the next five years.
Over the course of the next five years we will have revenues, we will
have expenses, and we will have to borrow some money to be able to offset
our revenue shortfall for at least the first four years.
One of the things we are very cognizant of is the more
we borrow, the more our debt servicing goes up.
So we need to be aware of what the interest rates might be.
We need to be aware of the amount we borrow, and we need to be aware
what that will do as a burden on future years, and how much of future
revenues will be gone to actually service that debt, to pay the interest on
it.
One of the things we have said, if you look at the
Highlights document, particularly page 3 one of the things we have said is
here is our debt expense as a percentage of gross revenue, because it was
not all that long ago, it was back in 2003, this Province was running at
over 25 per cent of all the revenue that was coming in was going to pay the
interest on our debt.
When you talk about 25 per cent of your revenue going
to service debt that is just the interest, nothing to do with principle,
just the interest. We want to
make sure we will never find ourselves back in that spot again, so we have
developed a performance target.
We said that our debt servicing ratio will never go beyond 13 per cent of
our revenue so we can contain that cost.
We need to be mindful of that target and mindful of that performance
measure as we borrow money, and not only do we think about the amount that
we borrow but what we anticipate to be the interest rate.
We have enjoyed, as a country, very low interest rates
in recent years. It has aided
consumers in purchasing cars and homes.
It has aided governments in their borrowing and their debt servicing
costs.
Mr. Chair, one of the things we have tried to do is to
be prudent in our forecasting, both in our borrowing and prudent in our
forecasting with respect to our debt servicing costs.
So we have given ourselves a bit of a cushion.
We have had a look at what we borrowed for this year.
For example, we have a very favourable credit rating,
which will help us, I say, Mr. Chair.
A very favourable credit rating will help us.
We have a circumstance today where we have three bond rating agencies
that have provided ratings.
Standard & Poor's have given us an A-plus rating; Moody's, an AA-plus
rating; DBRS has given us an A rating.
So that puts us in a position where we are able to borrow at very
favourable rates, but the favourable rates, obviously, are relative to
whatever the rates are at that moment in time.
For example, this year when we borrowed we went to
the market back in March of this year and we borrowed at a 2.3 per cent
interest rate. We borrowed a
$500 million amount this past March and we had a 2.3 per cent interest rate,
but we know that 2.3 per cent may not be a valid number next year.
It may not be a valid number the year after.
So what we have done in our forecasting, we have built ourselves a
bit of a cushion.
We had the benefit of the work that we had done on our
pension plan. This past year we
went through a massive exercise with our public sector unions to do some
reform of our pension plans, and we had some actuarially people do some
forecasting for us. We needed to
know the plans performance. We
needed to know about future economic conditions, or at least forecast what
interest rates might do and what the market would look like in future years
for us to be able to do some evaluations for our pension reform.
We had the benefit of all that kind of work and
expertise brought to bear in the last year to help shape some of our
thinking on that. One of the
things we have been able to do is we built in a bit of cushion.
So, rather than use what our most recent borrowing cost has been at
2.3 per cent, we have given ourselves a bit of cushion.
What you see reflected in this year's Estimates in the
forecast of what our interest costs would be, we are assuming that new
borrowing, not what we already have on the books, but all new borrowing we
are using a 4 per cent interest rate for our target.
The numbers you are seeing in our Estimates for our
debt forecasting, or interest cost forecasting, and the numbers you see in
the Highlights document, when you look at the Highlights document when you
see that forecast and what that performance indicator looks like, and we
have mapped that out, we have also said we will use 4 per cent.
If it ends up being 3 per cent, or ends up being 2.5 per cent, then
obviously it is a bonus. Just to
be careful and to be prudent, we have used a rate that is a little better
than 1.5 per cent above what we have actually been given in this past
well, just a few short months ago.
We believe that 4 per cent cushion will give us
adequate protection, and will give the assumptions and the forecast we have
made in our Budget documents. It
will validate them, and they have been validated by the actuarial work that
has been done as a part of our pension in recent months.
That is the number we have used in
our future forecasting.
CHAIR:
Okay. Just for clarification for
Opposition members, I am going to start back with Ms Bennett.
We are going to run the clock for ten.
When the clock expires at ten, I am going to go back to you, the
Member for St. John's East.
There you go, that was your ten minutes.
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under the line item of 1.5.02.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.5.02 General Expenses.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, for those people who I am sure are home watching this afternoon's
proceedings, I would just like to take a minute to remind them that the
conversation we are having in the House of Assembly today is
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I ask hon. members it is very difficult for the Chair
to hear, obviously then it must be difficult for the Minister of Finance to
hear the questions from members opposite.
I ask hon. members to take their conversations either outside the
Chamber or to the corners, or sit there quietly, please.
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I was saying, I am sure that those people of the
Province who are home watching today's proceedings will by now understand
that we are debating and asking questions as part of the review of Estimates
that goes on as part of the I guess the deep dive into what the Budget
document is saying.
That in this particular format of discussion, members
have the opportunity to ask government questions, and certainly the
government has a responsibility to answer those.
I think what is certainly evident from the conversation that was
already witnessed here in the House, there is an awful lot of debt that this
Province has as a result of this government.
The cost of servicing that debt is certainly one that requires a
tremendous amount of prudent discussion.
The cost of servicing that debt continues to rise.
Not only are people of the Province, through this government,
spending money to finance the debt that this government has amassed over
more than a decade, now they also have to pay increasing costs associated
with servicing that debt, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask a question about that number.
We have seen the increase in the
overall servicing of the public debt go up and when you have a cost
associated to managing and executing the items that the minister has spoken
to already, there is no doubt that managing debt certainly takes up a
tremendous amount of time and effort and talent in our public sector that
could be better deployed for other services.
I would like to move now to 2.1.02, which is the
Ex-Gratia and Other Payments Non-Statutory, which are listed under the
Employee Retirement Arrangements.
For those listening at home, these are payments related to special
pensions that have been approved by various governments over a number of
years and these would be people, for example, who and I am sure the
minister will correct me if I am wrong my understanding is this would be
for individuals, say, for example who serviced in the military, who may have
not been available for a pension and this is where governments in the past
have seen fit to make things right for those hon. men and women who serve us
in making sure that we are safe.
One of the questions I would like to ask and I did
try to ask this in Estimates, so I hope, with the minister's permission,
this would be the right place to ask it.
When we were doing work on this side of the House and researching and
speaking to a variety of people around the PeopleSoft implementation, one of
the things that we discovered for those listening at home, just to
clarify, PeopleSoft is a very large piece of technology that government
purchased. It involved several
departments coming together to implement a software program that would allow
our valued public sector employees to be paid appropriately and get every
single penny of every single benefit that they are entitled to under their
contracts.
Mr. Chair, part of what we discovered during the
discussions around PeopleSoft was that some of the many, many changes that
were made uniquely in Newfoundland and Labrador's use, in this government's
use of PeopleSoft, actually related to this pension line and no other
jurisdiction had the amount of complexity around pension management that
this particular Province has. As
a result, the software had to be changed.
So I would certainly like to ask the minister if he
would like to use this opportunity to share some insights on PeopleSoft,
which I am sure will come up a couple of more times this afternoon.
For those listening at home, I think the amount that government spent
on that implementation was somewhere just north of $35 million.
Mr. Chair, I would ask, moving over to page 1.9 under
the heading of 2.2.02 Deferred Pension Contributions Interest, there is an
item there at the very bottom, consolidated funds.
The estimate there has moved up from an actual, under the revised, of
$469,683,900 to over $708 million.
I am sure the minister has the information there to provide us this
afternoon with exactly what that is. That
was 2 Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Subhead 2.2.02 the last total, Total: Consolidated Fund Services, the
difference between 2014-2015 and the Estimates for 2015-2016.
Am I correct, hon. member?
MS C. BENNETT:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MS C. BENNETT:
In continuing to use up the remaining four minutes that I have, I would like
to move through to the Executive Council.
CHAIR:
Can we ask the minister, just for ease of maybe we can support these
MS C. BENNETT:
Will I get the four minutes back if the minister uses his ten?
CHAIR:
Well, I am going to come back to you, so you are going to get your chance.
You are going to get every fair opportunity, hon. member.
MS C. BENNETT:
Absolutely. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
CHAIR:
Yes, thank you.
The hon. minister if you could respond to 1.5.02, the
member's question, 2.1.02, the member's question there, and to 2.2.02.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Chair, did you say 1.5.02?
CHAIR:
Yes. I think the question around
that was the Servicing of the Public Debt, hon. minister.
MR. WISEMAN:
Subhead 1.5.02 is a general expense.
CHAIR:
General Expenses. Servicing of
the Public Debt was the reference, the increase.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Chair, this category provides for the issuance of costs associated with
the new capital borrowing. So
fundamentally when we borrow money, we pay a fee for the person who actually
brokers that for us.
The $239,000 that she is talking about here the
$255,000 last year and the $239,000 forecasted for this year are fees that
you pay for the bond rating agencies to do the rating.
They do that, but we have to pay for them.
It is important for us to have our ratings done.
It is important for us, for the people who lend us money to
understand I am just wondering, Mr. Chair, of the time.
Am I running on the clock?
CHAIR:
No, you are fine. You are going
to answer those three questions, hon. minister, and then I am going to move
forward.
MR. WISEMAN:
Okay.
I just want to be cognizant of the time because I
thought the clock was being reset for each speaker.
These are the fees associated with the ratings and the bond rating
agencies that we do and there are also some fees there that we pay as a part
of our borrowing process, but the bulk of these fees associated with
professional services is with the bond rating agencies.
I think 2.2.02 was the other question, if I am not
mistaken. You can correct me if
I am wrong, Mr. Chair, 2.2.02.
No, it was more around the Ex-Gratia, 2.1.02.
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. WISEMAN:
The question came up around the Peoplesoft question and, as the member
opposite referred to, a similar question in Estimates last week.
So obviously, there is an interest in the decision to implement a new
software system.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had a
variety of payroll systems. They
are the people who have retired from teaching.
There is a payroll system that was accommodating their pension
payment. People who teach in the
system, there was a payroll system that accommodates their payroll.
We had people who work within the core government departments, the
House of Assembly employees here, for example.
There was a payroll system that accommodated their payroll.
The payroll system was quite old and had minimal
functionality for other human resource information that was required in the
modern-day time to manage a workforce appropriately.
Then the other part of this and in addition to its functionality, the
software, like payroll software in human resource information systems, they
are supported by vendors who support the software, no different than our
personal computers. You might
have an operating system on your computer today, a version that was ten
years old, and all of a sudden some companies says that the version that you
have on your computer we are no longer going to support so if it crashes you
are done, you are finished, and you have no support for that.
You need to be current with these information systems.
One of the things that government chose to do back in 2008 because of
a variety of reasons such as that, government decided that it needed to do a
couple of things: to make sure that the human resource information systems
that it had to deal with its payroll, to deal with other information,
tracking information around leave entitlement and benefit entitlement, all
needed to be managed in a very comprehensive way by an information system
that was more current, had more functionality and better applications to use
for the people not only a benefit to the employees, but benefit to the
people who manage those benefits and provide those services.
There are attendance systems as a part of that, there are benefit
administration programs, and there are leave-management systems as a part of
that process.
So what happened back then in 2008, government decided
to make an investment in consolidating the systems and making them more
current. So that replaced the
old one that was there for the general public service, it replaced the
pension program, and it replaced the teachers' payroll system.
So we then started a process to implement that new system.
With bringing in and over time under the old system, there were many
changes that were made to reflect the tracking of benefits that were
negotiated in the collective agreements.
Some of the things that happened in the human resource information
system are driven by some of the benefits and some of the things that are
provided for through the collective bargaining process.
So that influences what might be there.
The other thing that happens is your old system starts
to track a lot of historical information and starts to trend patterns and
activity and summarizes data, so you need to be able to import that into a
new system. What we found ourselves
doing, Mr. Chair, we started to do that incrementally over time.
It took up to 2012. The
decision was back in 2008, and when we got to 2012, the first step was to
take what was the core public service component of that payroll and move it
over into the new PeopleSoft system.
PeopleSoft is a software, as I understand it, that has
a great reputation. In fact, it
was in the process of going to the market, it was found that this, in fact,
was the best option, what it had to offer, its functionality, and its
ability to be flexible and ability to make change to reflect the uniqueness
of various payroll systems and the uniqueness of various collective
agreements in this jurisdiction.
So, as part of the implementation team, there was a
project team put together that mapped out a transition strategy from the old
system to the new, and in so doing identified those unique areas of the old
payroll system, the unique areas of collective agreements that provided for
a need to track certain information in a certain fashion, and then started a
process to work with the vendor to identify some modifications.
To help them with that process, they used the services of an outside
expert in this area to work with them through the process.
Then after the core public service was done, we move on
to the pension payroll system and then move on to the teachers' payroll
system. Each of those employee
groups has various uniqueness.
Teachers, for example, have teachers who get called in to work on a
contract. If a teacher phones in
sick this morning and they need someone to replace them, there are temporary
teachers who get called in.
Payroll systems needed to have some flexibilities to do that.
It is a fair observation I suspect, Mr. Chair I am
not intimately involved with it, but I suspect it is a fair observation to
say that when you are trying to have a payroll system that reflects the
uniqueness of a variety of collective agreements because obviously human
resource information systems do things that are payroll related, yes, but
they track other things. They
are tied to an influence and how robust that system becomes and the need for
uniqueness and customizations that occur are all a reflection of the
diversity, the uniqueness, and the nuances in a variety of collective
agreements.
If you think about it for a moment you have a teachers'
collective agreement, you have the marine services collective agreement, you
have skippers on ships, you have people who work with general service, who
work maybe with the Department of Transportation, you have people who work
with the Department of Health, so you have a variety of collective
agreements governing a large number of public sector employees.
The nuances of those agreements need to be reflected, and the need to
track and capture the benefit of entitlements is needed in a robust human
resource information system.
When the member talks about some of the changes that
occurred as a result of the implementation of this system, she is absolutely
correct. Choices, I guess, I am
assuming I was not around for the evaluation of it, but I am assuming at
the time the choices could have been do we actually build our own system
internally, or do we actually go to the market and find a system that has a
solid base, a great reputation, has an ability to be able to accommodate the
bulk of the requirements of what government needed at the time and, at the
same time, be flexible enough to accommodate most customizations that need
to be made for a full and successful implementation.
Mr. Chair, hopefully that gives some context for the
member. There is still some work
being done. For example, there
is some work to be done in some areas of occupational, health and safety;
there is some functionality in the software that can be used to manage our
workplace safety program within government.
That is being worked on as we speak, so there are still things being
done with that system. As I said
a moment ago, it was selected because it was robust.
It was selected because it provided the flexibility to accommodate to
the member.
I see my time is out, but I am sure I will get back to
answer the question. There are a
couple of things that were raised on I think it is 2.2.02 that I did not
get a chance to answer.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. WISEMAN:
When I stand again, I will do that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the member has four minutes and twenty-four seconds.
Then George, after the four minutes and twenty-four seconds expires,
I will be back to you. Okay.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, under the Office of Executive Council, 2.1.01, I would like to
ask the minister and the Premier
CHAIR:
Subhead 2
MS C. BENNETT:
Subhead 2.1.01 under the Premier's Office.
CHAIR:
Subhead 2.1.01?
MS C. BENNETT:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MS C. BENNETT:
I would like to ask the minister why
MR. WISEMAN:
Excuse me. Mr. Chair, this is a
point of clarification, not a point of order.
I just want to understand.
I understood in your introductory comment we are going
to deal with the consolidated funds revenue and then we will move on to the
Executive Council. Now we are
moving into the Premier's Office in Executive Council.
I understood we were going to deal with one section at a time and now
we are moving off into Executive Council.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. WISEMAN:
I do not have any difficulty. It
is better to track
CHAIR:
Can I go back there? Okay.
MR. WISEMAN:
It is difficult to jump all over the Estimates.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East, anything left
on Consolidated Fund Services?
MR. MURPHY:
Yes, Mr. Chair, just a couple of points really for the Finance Minister, and
at the same time a question about one of the particular line items there, if
nothing else for the benefit of the viewers and the listeners out there
listening to the debate this afternoon.
The first point I have right now for the Finance
Minister, I would certainly like to see some of these actuarial forecasts
that his department may have. I
am wondering if he could table those.
I would certainly like to look at the numbers that they are talking
about at the time, like 2.3 per cent interest now that is rising to about 4
per cent interest right I believe they were talking about in 2021.
I will put a question mark on that particular part of
it because I presume you will be talking about the debt financing up to 2021
under the budget forecast. I
think that the department is good here with the numbers.
I could see a quarter-point interest rate over the next year forecast
to happen, but I cannot 4 per cent right off the bat.
So I think the department is safe on that.
Having said that, Mr. Chair, the question I have is on
page 1.6 of the Budget, 1.5.01, Discounts and Commissions.
I would like to get a breakdown of the Professional Services from the
minister again. I am not quite
sure if I caught this one earlier or not; I think I missed it.
The Professional Services right now for this year are
showing $14.7 million in the budget Estimates.
The revised figure for this year was only $3 million.
The budgeted forecast for 2014-2015 was $7 million.
That is 1.5.01, Discounts and Commissions,
Appropriations provide for underwriting commissions and management fees on
new capital market borrowings by the Province.
So I am just wondering if you could
give us a breakdown, the list of the Professional Services at the same time
that the government received for the money that it is paying out.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board on 1.5.01.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The forecast last year, and as the member has pointed
out, we had built into our fiscal forecast last year $7 million.
You may recall, last year in the Budget debate and during the Budget
discussions last year, the government introduced a borrowing bill and that
bill was asking permission of the House to borrow, I think it was close to a
billion dollars, in or around that.
Now I just forget the exact number, but it was around that number.
We needed to build a number into the Budget as to what
if we were to go to the market, if we went to the market and actually
borrowed that kind of money, what would we reasonably expect to pay when it
comes to some commissions and management fees when we went to the capital
markets? That is where that $7
million came from, but the reality of it is, you never really know what it
is going to be until you actually go out and look for the money.
It is a forecast based on the information you have available to you
at that moment in time.
Last year, when we decided we were going to build in a
$7 million forecast, that was back last year in March 2014.
Fast forward now to March 2015.
As I said a moment ago, back in the first part of March of this year
we went to the market to borrow $500 million.
As I had said earlier as well, our borrowings last year were part of
we went to the market for long-term debt and then we decided we were going
to use treasury bills for some of the short-term debt.
That $500 million that we went to the market with in March was
several months after our forecast.
So a couple of things happened.
When we went to the market the numbers were better than
we thought, in terms of the commission.
I think we paid something like sixty cents per hundred for ten years,
because it is influenced by the tenure.
If we had gone to the market for thirty-year money, it might be a
very different fee structure.
So with the ten-year money, $500 million and favorable
rates, favorable conditions keep in mind, the Province has not gone to the
market for quite some time. It
was in 2007 or something when we went to the market the last time.
We did not have a more current experience of what our commissions
might have been. The $7 million
to be certain, gave us adequate coverage and adequate protection in terms of
our forecasting so as not to be caught short.
We picked the right time to go to the market.
We were fortunate, because of our rating, because of the manner in
which we went to the market, that our selection of a ten-year time frame
versus longer term money, we were able to come up with a very different
figure; hence, the $3 million we are talking about.
When we use the $7 million, obviously, we were thinking it might be
about seventy cents a hundred, but it came out to be sixty cents a hundred.
This year now, you questioned about: Why the larger
amount this year? You recall on
Budget Day when I talked about the fiscal position of the Province, I talked
about the borrowing. Again, if
you go to our Highlights document, you will see clearly our borrowing
pattern that we have projected to have over the course of the next number of
years. We envisage, in this
coming year, going to the market for what we believe to be $2 billion.
Now, if circumstance changes, and through cash
management processes, that might become $1.8 billion, $1.9 billion, but we
believe it is going to be about $2 billion.
A little later on I will be introducing a bill to the House to get
permission of the House to borrow.
So I will be introducing, in near term, a new bill asking the House
for permission for government to go out to the markets and borrow again this
year. I will be asking the House
to approve a piece of legislation that gives us the authority to borrow up
to what we believe to be about $2 billion.
If that materializes and we get competitive commissions
and competitive fees associated with that, then we believe the cost will be
in the order or magnitude of $14 million; hence, the distinction between the
numbers that you referred earlier.
We started out with a Budget last year of saying it is
going to be $7 billion. We ended
up actually spending $3 billion, which obviously is a savings and one that
we would obviously, gracefully, take.
Then next year, because of the increased borrowing over what we did
this year if you look at ratio-wise, it cost us about $3 million to get
$500 million, and if we have a forecast expenditure of $14 million for next
year and borrowing about $2 billion, then that is the order of magnitude.
I do not know if that answers the member's question.
If not, I will be only too glad to
take a follow-up question from you, to give you a more detailed explanation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. MURPHY:
St. John's East, Sir.
CHAIR:
East, I am sorry.
MR. MURPHY:
That is okay.
I am finished my line of questioning, Mr. Chair, but I
am just wondering if the Finance Minister can table those actuarial reports?
Is that a possibility to have a look at those or are they proprietary
information?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
The actuarial reports I talked about were a part of the pension reform
process. Offhand, I cannot think
of why they would be proprietary.
They were prepared by a couple of different companies for our pooled
pension plan, and I am certain that information is but I will follow up to
make sure that it is not. If it
is not, then it is fair game and I will share it with you and I will table
it in the House.
MR. CHAIR:
I ask the Clerk to call the clauses for Consolidated Fund Services.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.01 to 2.2.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Subhead 1.1.01 to 2.2.02 inclusive.
Shall these carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.2.02 carried.
CLERK:
Total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, total carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates of the Consolidated Fund Services carried
without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, Estimates of the Consolidated Fund Services
carried without amendment.
CHAIR:
Moving along to Executive Council, the hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will move on to 2.1.01, the Premier's Office.
CHAIR:
Subhead 2.1.01, the Premier's Office page 2.4, for those who are following
along.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister to provide information on exactly what
the costs were associated with Frank Coleman's failed attempt to become
Premier of the Province, and was that related to the amount of salaries that
were overspent last year in this particular office at $215,000?
Is that what the severance packages are for those individuals who
actually were let go by this government as part of that failed transition
when that leader, who decided not to become the leader, then came into the
House of Assembly or tried to get in the House of Assembly?
I move on now to the Cabinet Secretariat, 2.2.01,
Executive Support, under Professional Services.
Mr. Chair, I would ask that in the Cabinet Secretariat if the monies
associated there, there was a spend of $166,000, but only budgeted $30,000.
I wonder, are those expenses related to the changes that had to
happen as a result of Mr. Coleman's, again, attempt to be the Leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party?
Which took six months, which procrastinated this government's ability to be
able to find a leader and get a leader in place, and has us in the position
now to be able to be debating a Budget that a government that does not have
a mandate; an $8.1 billion Budget, that a government does not have a mandate
to bring in, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS C. BENNETT:
I will move on to Purchased Services, line item 2.2.02, under the heading of
Planning and Coordination. Under
Purchased Services, the amount that was budgeted was $9,400, but they
actually spent $25,000. This is
under the area of Planning and Coordination, all under the Office of the
Executive Council.
I would ask the minister what exactly those additional
expenses were for. Are they
related to consulting fees that this government is paying through the
Premier's Office and other departments in Executive Council to prop up its
positions and its messages as part of a political campaign to use the
people's money in the Province to actually defend themselves in the public?
Mr. Chair, I move on then to 2.2.03, Economic and
Social Policy Analysis.
CHAIR:
Yes, 2.2.03. I am just trying to
keep track here, hon. member.
MS C. BENNETT:
No problem, I know I am going fast.
I am a little excited today, Mr. Chair.
Subhead 2.2.03, Economic and Social Policy Analysis.
It is interesting that on this particular line item, Mr. Chair, under
Economic and Social Policy Analysis, this government underspent.
In the area of Economic and Social Policy they actually underspent by
$131,700.
Mr. Chair, I scratch my head, and I am sure the people
at home who are watching today also are wondering, that in a Province where
we have a recession as has been admitted by the Minister of Finance why
would we be underspending and analyzing the real reasons why we have a
recession? Was it related to
salaries? Was it related to
positions that this government could not fill?
I look forward to hearing the minister's answer on that line item.
I will continue over now to Communications, 2.3.01, the
Communications Branch.
CHAIR:
Subhead 2.3.01.
MS C. BENNETT:
In this particular area, under Salaries they underspent by $92,000.
I wonder if the minister could clarify if this spending was
underspent as a result to the excessive overspending in the prior fiscal
year, in 2013. I would also ask
under this line item, exactly how many positions remain unfilled?
We have seen in Estimates throughout
the last number of weeks that many positions have remained unfilled over the
last couple of years in numerous departments.
I move down to Professional Services.
In this particular line item, I am going to be very curious to see
exactly what government underspent on $498,000.
I certainly hope this was a result of the discretionary spending cut
that this Premier brought in last November, that he now has chosen not to
have in place when they are borrowing what is the highest amount of money a
government in Newfoundland and Labrador has ever borrowed in a short period
of time.
If this $498,000 is the result of this government's
choice last fall to implement a discretionary spending freeze, I would
suggest maybe the minister may want to consider that if you were able to
save that much money, how much money would you be able to save if you
brought back the discretionary spending cuts into this year, Mr. Chair?
I move on to
CHAIR:
I ask the hon. member you have asked six questions.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
CHAIR:
Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Go back to her.
CHAIR:
Okay, go ahead hon. member, the next question.
MS C. BENNETT:
Subhead 2.4.01 under Financial Administration.
CHAIR:
Subhead 2.4.01.
MS C. BENNETT:
This particular area refers to the Salaries that government in this
particular line item under Financial Administration, I would ask
specifically, how many positions are unfilled there?
I move down to Purchased Services.
I am wondering what exactly in this area are you planning to spend
$13,000 on?
Mr. Chair, since we are following along in the
Estimates, and the next up would be the Office of Public Engagement, I will
leave those questions to the minister today.
I look forward to hearing what his answers are about the Premier's
Office and the expenses that were associated specifically to the layoffs and
severance packages that were provided to the employees who were let go when
Mr. Coleman was to come into the office, and then what other expenses this
government incurred as a result of continuing to transition through, I
believe it was, multiple Premiers in a single year.
I would ask the minister to clarify that for the people who are
listening at home.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, that is quite a rant.
I am not sure how you would in Question Period, we get forty-five
seconds to ask a question and forty-five seconds to answer it.
It is kind of a sharp question.
When you lay out a series of questions over ten minutes, but you lay
your questions out with a lot of political commentary, I am not sure how to
respond. The member laid out
some comment about what we were doing here, so let me provide some
additional commentary about what we are doing here today.
Every year in the House of Assembly there is a series
of Estimates that are done for people in the House, in this case here, the
Committee of the Whole. The
entire House is looking at the Estimates of certain sections.
We are looking at Executive Council.
We just finished Consolidated Fund Services, and now we are going
into an area of the Estimates called Executive Council.
This is where we look at the Budget itself and look at
an item that is expended throughout, to say government plans to spend this
much money on salaries or this much money on professional services.
Members get a chance to ask questions about what we are spending it
on and how we are spending it, and the Finance Minister gets up, or some
minister will get up, and provide an answer as to why we are spending that
money and how it is spent.
Obviously, there is always a little bit of political
commentary as we go. I just want
to make sure that members opposite do not get a sense that this is a banter
about political 'upmanship', so I just want to make sure that we understand
clearly what we are debating here today.
We are debating the Executive Council in the Committee of the Whole.
Over the course of the next little while we will go
through areas of Cabinet Secretariat.
We will look at the Communications Branch, we will look at our Human
Resource Secretariat. We will
talk about Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
We will talk about the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
The Office of Climate Change was dealt with a little earlier on in
the House, called and voted on.
Today, we had the Minister of Health stand and offer
himself to answer some questions about the Office of Public Engagement, but
the Member for The Straits White Bay North did not want to do that.
He did not ask questions the other night in the Estimates.
He did not want to answer questions today.
So I am not sure whether they are not interested, or whether or not
they would prefer that we would wait until next year to do it again.
I am not really certain.
[Technical difficulties]
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister to clarify his comments or withdraw the
remarks, because I certainly did not say that I would not ask questions
today on the Office of Public Engagement.
CHAIR (Cross):
The hon. the Minister of Finance, to the point of order.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
He is supersensitive I guess, because the Office of
Public Engagement, the minister stood and offered his services and said he
was available, even though the Table has indicated they had been voted upon,
or deemed to have been voted on, so therefore I suppose in terms of the
rules of the House technically, they have been disposed of.
The minister has very gracefully offered himself to
MR. MITCHELMORE:
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Member for The Straits White Bay North, on a point of order.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
The Member for Virginia Waters clearly asked questions on the Premier's
Office, the misspending that has happened there
CHAIR:
There is no point of order.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
the Premier-Designate to be Frank Coleman, and no answers coming from the
Minister of Finance.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Member for The Straits White Bay North has
political sensitivities when it is fine for members opposite in the posing
of questions to make political accusations about what happened on this side
of the House or what government may or may not do.
Then in response to a question they do not want any political
commentary at all. I say, Mr.
Chair, you need to recognize that debate in the House goes two ways.
I was prepared as we did in the Estimates the other
night to answer all questions with respect to the Estimates and the
forecasted budget items. We
stuck to the text and we stuck to the Estimates.
I am prepared to do that again today.
If the members opposite want to engage in a political debate and
pretend it is a campaign-style Estimates debate, then I am game for that
too. We can do this whatever way
you want.
I am trying to enlighten those who are listening to
this as to what normally takes place in this process.
The normal process here is that we talk about the Estimates which is
a budget forecast. I just wanted
to make sure that we all understood that.
To the member's point and over the course of the next
couple of hours, I will get a chance to answer all of the questions.
I did not track them myself, but I understand the Chair tracked all
of the points being raised. I
think I will go section by section.
The member talked about 2.1.01.
I do not recall in the last year having a Premier whose name was
Frank Coleman. I do not recall
in this Province having an elected MHA whose name was Frank Coleman.
So I say, Mr. Chair, there is nothing in the Estimates here, there is
nothing in section 2.1.01 that has anything to do with a Premier whose name
was Frank Coleman.
Over the course of the last couple of years, Mr. Chair,
there have been a number of changes that have occurred in the leadership of
this Province. We have had
Premier Marshall who retired last year, we had Premier Dunderdale who
retired last year, and we now have Premier Davis in that office.
We have had some changes in the Premier's Office in the recent year.
Over the course of last fiscal year, there were some changes in the
staff that were in the Premier's Office.
I would only be too glad to talk about some of the
changes that occurred there.
There were some severance payouts as a result of people leaving.
We would all recognize in fact, members opposite have their own
staff who work in their offices.
Some of them have members who work in their constituency offices as
constituency assistants. Some
would have people who would work in their caucus offices and there are staff
that are appointed by their political party or appointed by the member
involved and there are certain benefits that they have.
They get paid every two weeks.
They have insurance programs.
They contribute to a pension program.
They also are entitled to and they accrue severance.
When they leave, they are entitled to that severance whether they
leave after two years, or whether they leave after three years, or whether
they leave after ten years.
There is a severance entitlement that they have when they leave.
Anybody who would have left the Premier's Office, or
anybody who would have left the Department of Finance, or anybody who would
have left the employment of either one of the caucuses that are represented
in this House would have gotten payouts which would have included any leave
that they would have been entitled to that they had not used.
It would have included any severance that they would have accrued at
that time.
Regardless of when they leave, or regardless of what
prompted their departure, they leave with those benefits.
I would only be too glad to provide the members opposite a profile of
those who have left the Premier's Office and the severances associated with
that, or if there is interest in having an understanding of what severances
would have been paid out across government, I can give you a sum total of
what has been paid out across government, I say, Mr. Chair.
There has been any number of times when there has been staff changes,
and I would be only too glad to provide the member.
Interesting of note, there are a number of things with
respect to the Premier's Office in terms of the cost of transition.
One of the things is in this year's Budget that was not in last
year's Budget is a reduction in the number of employees who work in the
Premier's Office. Today there
are two fewer people working in the Premier's Office in this fiscal year
coming than there was last year.
We have seen a reduction in the staffing in the Premier's Office in this
coming year. That is a
reflection of this Premier's intent of leading by example, wanting to ensure
that as a Province, as a government, under his leadership that we have
prudent fiscal management.
We are looking at areas where we can continue to
provide services, continue to provide valuable services to Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, and doing it as fiscally prudent as possible and making
sure that he is providing the leadership.
What we have seen this year, Mr. Chair, is a reduction in the overall
cost of running the Premier's Office fewer people and a different
allocation across a variety of expenditure areas, Mr. Chair.
What we are seeing here is a reduction in the total cost of providing
services and supports to the Premier, directly in the Premier's Office with
fewer people and a smaller budget than last year's forecast, and in fact a
smaller budget than we actually had last year.
Included in that actual cost from last year, Mr. Chair,
there were some severance pays that came as a result of changes in staff
that were there, but that is a normal course of doing business.
Every person who comes to work as a part of a political staff the
members opposite, your own staff, as I said a moment ago, they too are
entitled to severance.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I think the minister's time has expired.
MR. WISEMAN:
Hopefully, I will get back given that long list that was shared earlier,
over time I will get a chance to knock them all off.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will keep it simple when it comes to some of the line
items here in most of the sections.
I will not get into any policy questions in general.
I wanted to get a breakdown of 2.1.01.
In the Premier's Office, there is an obvious difference here in the
Salaries that I would like to ask the minister about.
In 2014-2015 budget line item $1,703,500 was actually budgeted for;
the revised figure shows $1,918,300 was actually spent.
I would like to know the difference, why the over expenditure here in
this particular case?
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The member has asked about the difference in the
Salaries that were budgeted.
Under the salary item, as I was explaining a moment ago, in that salary
category it is the actual salary that a person gets paid but also should
they be paid a severance upon their departure, then there would be severance
that would be paid out to those.
Last year, there were severances associated with nine
employees that were paid out of the salary from the Premier's Office.
That difference though, the difference between the $1.7 million and
the $1.9 million is not all severance.
There was a greater amount of severance paid out than that but the
Premier's Office last year, the Premier implemented some austerity measures
last year in his department and offset some of those costs of the
severances. There are nine
individuals who received a severance last year out of the Premier's Office.
Those nine there was additional savings that provided some partial
offset for the cost of that, so the difference you see between the $1.7
million and the $1.9 million was associated with the severance that was paid
out.
If you forward then on to this year's budget, the $1.6
million in this year is much lower than both the budgeted figure last year
and the actual figure last year.
That is the reflection and the reduction in the staffing levels in the
Premier's Office. The Premier's
Office this year has a total of nineteen people on staff.
That is a reduction of two from last year.
That is the difference between those two.
There are a couple of other areas here where you see
again in Transportation and Communications, this year's budget is
significantly reduced from last year's.
Last year, you can see that the Premier's Office had spent $161,000
on Transportation and Communications.
That is a reduction from the $276,000 that was in the forecast.
What we are seeing here now is $181,000 in this year's forecast,
which is a reduction from last year's budget item.
You can see how overall, Mr. Chair and to the
member's question if you look at the Premier's Office budget for this year
compared to both its actual from last year and compared to its budget from
last year, the forecast this year is lower than both the actual and the
forecast from last year.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to get an explanation of the Transportation and
Communications line I ask the Finance Minister under the 2014-2015
budgetary line item, $276,700 was anticipated, but you only spent $161,400.
Question number one here is: Why wasn't all the money
spent in this particular case?
Number two: What were the appropriations for in the first place that
government had anticipated having to spend $276,700?
Why the difference?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As the member pointed out, last year's budget and I
was not in Finance last year when the Budget came down and I do not know
exactly what was envisaged to be spent in the forecast.
What I can tell you, though, is that the $276,000 that was in last
year's forecast much less than that got spent.
I think that is a reflection of a couple of things.
A reflection of, number one, there was a change in the Premier's
Office last year. Former Premier
Marshall retired and the current Premier moved into the office.
There as a transition period.
One was coming and one was going.
The other part of that, which is the most significant
part, Mr. Chair, is the current Premier, as I said a moment ago, has made a
commitment that he would lead by example in this process.
As a result of that when he moved into the Premier's Office, he in
fact made some decisions, announced publicly that there was going to be a
freeze on discretionary spending, and that we were in a very different spot
at that point in time than we were when we developed the Budget last year in
March.
So, again, leading by example he reduced the cost of
operating the Premier's Office, and this was one of those areas where he had
some control over and was able to reduce his travel and reduce his
communication cost in his office.
What we are seeing here is the result of that, which is an actual
expenditure level much lower than forecasted.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Subhead 2.2.01 under Executive Support, Professional Services, this
particular line showed $30,000 expenditure was anticipated, but $166,000 was
actually spent. So I am
wondering, number one, what the extra $136,000 was spent on that would be
the number one question and number two, if we can get a list of those
Professional Services at the same time and have a look at them ourselves.
Thank you.
MR. WISEMAN:
Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.
There are two things that drove that.
One of them, you may recall there was a consultant who was engaged to
do a piece of work around the Humber Valley Paving contract and that was
about $10,000 or $11,000; and secondly, there was a consultant engaged to do
a piece of work around Muskrat Falls.
The two of those together came to about $143,000.
So that is the difference in last year.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Can I ask the minister exactly what the consultant was asking around Humber
Valley Paving and around the Muskrat Falls Project, and who this consultant
was?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Those reports, I understand, have been made public.
I think it was Ernst & Young did the Lower Churchill, Muskrat Falls
evaluation. It was KPMG did the
work on Humber Valley Paving. I
think both of those reports may have already tabled or they have been on
government's website.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
I am not quite sure that I saw the KPMG report myself.
The Ernst & Young one, I do recall that one.
Mr. Chair, I am a little bit concerned here about the
spending why they would anticipate then this year that under Professional
Services they would be spending another $120,000.
What consulting work are they going to be undertaking for that amount
of money, number one, versus the $166,000 that they spent this year?
CHAIR:
It is a minute-and-a-half, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You might recall very recently the Premier announced
that he wanted to make sure that as an employer in government, we wanted to
make sure that we were dealing with harassment issues appropriately, and
wanted to make sure that we were responding to the dynamics that exist in
workplaces, and making sure we had a safe work environment for all our
employees, and that any incidents of harassment of any kind was dealt with
quickly, swiftly, and appropriately.
To do that he wanted to make sure that our current policies and
practices reflect the best practices that could exist in a workplace today.
He announced at that time that we would be engaging and
went to the market. In fact, the
RFP is already out. I am not
sure what the status is in terms of whether it is closed or not, but this is
to engage some outside expertise to evaluate current policies and current
practices with government to make sure that we have a workplace that is safe
from harassment. This amount of
money here is a placeholder to ensure we have the money to fund that study
when it is done.
CHAIR:
Okay, I now recognize someone from the Official Opposition.
Just to clarify in a few seconds, the clock is set at
ten minutes. If you choose to
use as much as you want of the ten minutes, if you take the entire ten
minutes, we will offer the minister the same amount of time to answer.
If you want to get up and down for three, or four, or five questions
that will be brief and the minister is brief, you can go back and forth in
the ten minutes, I will recognize the same member.
So right now the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a few line items.
What I will do is I will compile them and then if I could have some
co-operation from across the way, I do have just a few questions and I will
ask them one at a time. We
should not use the ten minutes.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Under Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, I will go through the line items.
I will number them, Mr. Chair.
Section 2.5.01.01, Salaries, the budget last year was $72,300.
The actual was $105,000.
This year the budget projection is $302,600.
That is the first question I have on line items.
The second one is under 2.5.03, Labrador Affairs.
Purchased Services, last year the budget was $309,600, the actual was
$205,000, and this year we are seeing a proposed $192,600.
The third and final line item, Mr. Chair, is under
Aboriginal Affairs. Professional
Services, last year the budget was for $10,000, the actual was zero
expenditures, and this year we are seeing an increase to $107,500.
Those are the three line items, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the very first question, it was kind of a two-part
question there, Mr. Chair, concerning Salaries.
We had $32,700, which was the difference.
The delta there, I say to the hon. member across the way, was simply
the fact that we had a part of a year with which to put a full ministerial
office in place that was not jointly shared with the minister having several
portfolios. That was a partial
cost for that.
The $230,300, in the second part of the hon. member's
question, has to do with the full complement of the ministerial office.
Of course, having to put in communications personnel, having to put
in the executive assistant, having to put in all of the positions that
normally would not have been there had the minister had several portfolios.
Moving on to the member's third question about
Purchased Services and the $104,600 question there, that was a buffer that,
in the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we had put in place for rent; due to,
of course, the markets there fluctuating.
We had anticipated we might have to move from the current office
location. That buffer was put
there in case we did not extend that lease there, which in turn we did.
We did sign that extension, so there was no need.
Moving on to the last question from the hon. member,
the difference in Professional Services that the member is questioning about
has to do with a consultant being purchased for the Labrador Inuit
Settlement Agreement Land Use Plan that will be working with the Nunatsiavut
Government on. Basically, the
land use plan, of course, designating inside the settlement area what can
and cannot be done, everything from hunting and fishing, worrying about
wildlife sanctuaries, mining, prospecting, et cetera.
That is the one-year cost for that consultant which will be put on
there for two years, Mr. Chair, at a total cost of $200,000 across those two
years.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a few questions now, the first one is pretty
direct. The second one has a
couple of little questions attached to it.
In 2015-2016, the attrition plan shows a reduction of
twelve positions within Executive Council.
I will just ask the minister if there are any of these positions from
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, and if so, how many?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When it comes to attrition, we have earmarked an amount
that would be our attrition target, if you would, Mr. Chair.
We have no positions, as such, earmarked for that at this particular
time but as we move through the year we will adjust and make that decision
at the time.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Chair, in the minister's speech on the Budget, tackling the wood project
through the Muskrat Falls site, I would just like to know which department
bore the cost of getting this wood out.
The minister did mention Nalcor playing a role.
I would just like to know what that role was, and what role Natural
Resources played; how many cords of wood there actually were, where did this
wood go, and what the total cost was.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I say to the hon. member, yes, we did have a small wood
project, a pilot project if you will.
What we did was we partnered with the Department of Natural Resources
on a 50-50 split. We took wood.
Of course, from the wood that was cut during the Muskrat Falls
Project, we put wood in North West River.
We put wood at a location just outside not just outside, but at
what we refer to as the Middle Docks for people from Happy Valley-Goose Bay
to access, and we put logs down in Sheshatshiu for sawyer training.
Of course, there are not a whole lot of wood stoves down there in
Sheshatshiu, but in order to continue assisting Sheshatshiu in some of the
transferring of skills to some of the youth in the community, we felt that
appropriate.
I believe the cost was approximately $50,000.
That was for the shipping, the trucking of the wood, Mr. Chair.
We worked Aboriginal organizations, the Labrador Friendship Centre,
the Nunatsiavut Government, the community corporations in North West River
and Happy Valley-Goose Bay with which to try and get the low income and
seniors direct access to the wood in an organized fashion.
To the hon. member from across the way, I will add to
the conversation, that recently we have been meeting again with the
Nunatsiavut Government. In the
past, what we have done with some of the wood from Muskrat Falls is work
with the NGC, the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies, associated with
Nunatsiavut to get that wood up to some of the elders on the North Coast of
Labrador. We are doing that
again. We want to revitalize
that, Mr. Chair, and we are talking about that partnership and where it is
going to go.
I hope that is pretty much it for that topic.
If the hon. member has any more questions, I will certainly do my
best to answer them.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just one question on that topic, and then I think I
will ask the third question while I am at it.
Mr. Chair, the only other clarification I wanted was you mentioned
the role that Nalcor played, if you could just clarify what role Nalcor
played in this project.
My final question is on the status of the I guess you
could can call it the new Northern Strategic Plan that is being developed.
How much is budgeted in 2015-2016 to develop the plan?
What stage is the plan at now?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When it comes to Nalcor's involvement with that wood
pilot project, it was simply a matter of access to the individuals we
contracted out to move the wood from point A to point B.
In that regard, it was a matter of getting access to the site and
making sure they had what they needed to get to the woodpiles.
So there were no other contributions other than that, Mr. Chair,
except providing access.
When it comes to the Northern Strategic Plan, Mr.
Chair, I think we can all certainly agree that things have been quite
different in Labrador in terms of what is happening with Muskrat Falls, in
terms of some of the things we have seen in Labrador West in terms of
commodity prices taking a dip, and people not being able to invest in the
mining sector at this particular point in time.
What we are doing with the Northern Strategic Plan is we currently
have a new planning process underway to take all these things into
consideration.
In terms of what we are going to be using in that plan
in terms of the budgeting, we have the different grants that come with
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
I am just going to list out some of those for the hon. member across the
way.
Mr. Chair, under the department as I briefed the hon.
member across the way in the past on as well, and I am certainly looking
forward to doing that many more times $351,000 for the Labrador
Transportation Grooming Subsidy.
It is a wonderful program, Mr. Chair.
People go in there and they have access to all the different
communities where we do not have road access traditionally.
The Combined Councils of course, Mr. Chair, will have
$100,000. They meet regularly.
Coming up actually next week, I believe, in Happy Valley Goose Bay
you will see the municipal leaders from all over Labrador getting together
and passing resolutions.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind the hon. minister the time for that line of
questioning is finished.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Sir.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Just to continue the line of questioning around
Labrador Affairs, I do have a couple of policy questions.
Hopefully the minister can deal with them.
There were some issues mostly with the federal
government program in this particular case, so I am just wondering if the
provincial government might have had some conversations with the federal
government over the Nutrition North program.
There were some problems with regard to pricing of consumer goods as
they would reach the people of Labrador.
I am just wondering if government might have had any conversations
with regard to that. We can
start there.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will say to the hon. member across the way, when it
comes to, particularly the Districts of Torngat Mountains and Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair, our Air Foodlift Subsidy tops up what happens with the
Nutrition North program, Mr. Chair.
The federal Auditor General did do a review of that particular
program. We are in the process
of reviewing that. We are
certainly going to make ourselves, as the department, available for a
briefing on our findings.
In particular, I will say and this is probably what
the member is specifically getting at the big question around Nutrition
North and the Air Foodlift Subsidy is whether or not the cost of the
programs and the allocations, both on the federal and provincial side,
actually end up in the hands of the consumer where it is intended to be.
What we are going to be paying strict and close
attention to, at the federal level, Mr. Chair, are the federal actions on
profit margins concerning the people who are in these Northern communities,
specifically, who are distributing these goods and availing of the program.
We want to make sure that, just as the feds are looking at it right
now, if you are going to be availing of the subsidies and when it comes to
fresh fruit and produce and all that stuff everybody knows what the intent
of the program is. The intent is
there.
More or less to sum it up, what I am going to say is if
they want to avail of the subsidies and the programs, then they are going to
have to open their books, so to speak, Mr. Chair.
They are going to let us look at the profit margins so we can
identify, in fact, that the intent of the program is achieved and that it
gets back to the consumer where it should be.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, that is a direct concern, not to mention the
simple fact of the health of the residents along the coast and receiving
proper nutrition. So I would
certainly hope to hear of a program, an update if you will, from the
minister in the coming weeks on that to see what progress they are making
along with their federal cousins on that particular matter.
I know it is of utmost importance.
Mr. Chair, I will ask the minister the Lab West
Regional Task Force was created three years ago to work on the impacts of
mining expansion. I know that we
are in period of difficulty right now when it comes to the whole centres
around mining. Albeit there is a
lot of hope, too, up there in Labrador when it comes to the future
development of some potential properties that are up there.
I am just wondering what the Regional Task Force is
working on right now, and if they happen to be working on some of the
elements of the well, I guess you could say in this particular case, the
economic crisis that we are having to go through right now in Labrador?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is a great question.
We have all recognized the downturn in terms of the mining sector and
what is happening. I say to the
hon. member from across the way the total effort at present now is
connecting people with opportunities, new education, and working closely
with Advanced Education and Skills to get people jobs in Muskrat, to get
people back in school to repurpose the skill set for what is happening
there. Mr. Chair, we are also
talking about tourism opportunities.
We are going into the district to talk about what we can do in the
meantime while the downturn is being experienced.
Full effort is also being put onto realizing that this
is temporary. Of course, markets
being what they are, and being cyclical, we cannot walk away from the mining
industry. We still want to
explore opportunities. We still
want to work with the communities involved, all levels of government, and
those interested parties, and we are still seeing them.
People still have their claims.
There is still a lot of work to be done.
I agree wholeheartedly with the member from across the
way. There is still one heck of
a lot of promise in Labrador West and in Labrador in general when it comes
to mining.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I think that while Labrador is not necessarily all
about nickel, it is not all about iron ore.
There is iron ore, copper, gold what would be known as IOCG
deposits and sapphires around the St. Lewis area.
So I mean the whole area, Mr. Chair, I guess there is only one way
you can say it; Labrador is a gold mine for the Province in some ways.
Mr. Chair, just one last question when it comes to some
of the policy matters in Labrador.
This comes back to the whole question around the Combined Councils of
Labrador. I know the funding for
the Combined Councils I think it was a couple of years ago they were
affected. They did end up with a
funding cut of about $20,000 I think.
The minister may recall exactly how much it was.
I know that the dedicated funding right now on the part of the
government is about $100,000.
I am just wondering if government has given any thought
to giving the Combined Councils of Labrador some more funding.
We know that Labrador is an expansive area up there, and of course
the travel expenses are probably one of the first big costs that they are
dealing with. I am just
wondering if the minister is considering adding more funding to the Combined
Councils of Labrador in this particular case.
That will be my last question with regards to Labrador Affairs.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is another good question from the hon. member from
across the way. We certainly
recognize the great work that the Combined Councils do.
We recognize the value and the amount that we put in there, and right
now this year's allocation being $100,000 for them to congregate, to talk
about the issues.
We give them access to guest speakers as well, Mr.
Chair. What we do is we go in as
ministers of the Crown as well and the MHAs are going to be there.
We are going to give them equal access to the politicians to ask
questions about policy and things like that.
We are also in a point in time where we are willing,
and we will give full and fair consideration to any of the requests that
come out of the Combined Councils of Labrador.
In terms of putting additional monies in there I think we would
certainly entertain them and their requests that would come forward, but at
this particular time, I think the allocation is adequate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the Executive Council
minutes.
I just want to point out for the audience at home that items like section
2.2.04, the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Minister of
Environment and Conservation was so gracious to allow this to happen in the
Estimates Committee meeting scheduled in the past.
Women's Policy was scheduled and voted upon in Estimates in the same
way with what should have happened with the Office of Public Engagement.
We are here with very limited time
and those minutes have been voted upon.
I do have questions for the minister that I hope he will explain, as
he has agreed to do.
Under 2.7.01, Public Engagement, Executive Support, why
was the spending of Salaries below budget, $395,600 compared to a budget of
$417,600? Why was the spending
on Employee Benefits reduced from $600 from a budget of $2,600?
What was planned for Transportation and Communications that did not
happen last year? Only $18,000
was spent of a $53,900 budget.
CHAIR:
Page 2.12, I think.
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of
Public Engagement.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have been very much looking forward to having a
chance to discuss the Estimates related to the Office of Public Engagement.
As members will be familiar, the office is a part of Executive
Council; it falls under Executive Council.
That is why it is okay for us to be having this discussion during
this debate within the House of Assembly.
As I have said multiple times on multiple days, I am
more than happy to answer any questions that the member has.
Recognizing we have just over an hour to go, if there are additional
questions that the member has, if he provides them I will get him answers.
If he wants to meet with me, we can do that, whatever works.
If anybody has questions about the
budget of the office, I am more than happy to provide the answers, Mr.
Chair.
The question that the member asked relates to Salaries.
What we have in the Estimates document, we have the original budget,
a projected and revised budget for last fiscal year, and a restated budget
as well. I will do my best to
answer the member's questions.
His first question is related to the changes in the
Salaries lines. The first
difference of $19,000 reflects an overrun of the 2014-2015 budget related to
insufficient Youth Engagement salary funds.
So we offset that by other salary savings within the Office of Public
Engagement. We have expanded our
Youth Engagement office. We have
more staff working to advance many of our Youth Engagement initiatives
within the office. So that is
the reason for that change.
The difference of $32,600 reflects a net decrease in
the budget consisting of some savings associated with deficit reduction and
some savings associated with the attrition targets.
For our attrition target for this fiscal year, we have spread the
amount across several budget lines.
Of course those two reductions are offset by a need to budget for the
3 per cent salary increase for public servants.
The member also had some questions related to Employee
Benefits. So you see slight
changes in both of those lines as well.
First of all in terms of the projected revised budget, the $5,100
reflects saving from last year's budget related to a re-profiling of funds
to cover the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act review
expense requirements.
Throughout the Office of Public Engagement budget there
were significant adjustments over 2014-2015 to reflect the need to
consolidate funds to support the work that was conducted by the Review
Committee. Of course the review
is a statutory review required under the act.
It needs to happen every five years.
Former Premier Marshall made the decision with Cabinet to do the
review a year earlier to address concerns.
I am glad we did that, it did have a cost, and we had to find funds
within the Office of Public Engagement budget to accommodate that.
Those are the explanations on those two line items, and
I am happy to answer any other questions the member has.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you.
I appreciate the minister's willingness to meet and
also table and provide information as he has suggested on the Office of
Public Engagement. Certainly
that is something we want to see from this government.
We have not quite seen the openness and the accountability aspect.
So if the minister is willing, I would ask a number of
questions under 2.7.02, Public Engagement.
What purchased services did the office purchase last year?
Why was the revised figure under budget?
What is the $78,200 in this year's budget?
What grants and subsidies are granted by the office?
Why was the revised total of $3.6 million compared to a budget of
$3,778,400? What was scheduled
for this year and will he table them?
What was the source of the $360,300 in provincial revenue last year?
Why was there no revenue budgeted from last year or this year?
Then under 2.7.03, Policy, Planning and Research, why
was there only $6,000 spent under Transportation and Communications when the
budget was $76,800? What is the
$51,800 in this year's budget for?
For Professional Services why is this revised figure $38,000 compared
to a budget of $154,500? What
was planned that did not happen last year?
The same question applies for Purchased Services.
Then under 2.7.04, Access to Information and Protection
of Privacy, why were Salaries under budget by $85,500 and why was there only
$45,800 spent on Transportation and Communications when the budget was
$124,900? Why was Professional
Services over budget? What was
the $987,500 spent on?
I believe the minister will confirm that this was the
ATIPP review that happened two years early.
Why was Purchased Services over budget?
How many ATIPP requests were received last year?
Can we have a breakdown and by department?
The Open Government Initiative that is planned for 2021, how much
resources are allocated for it and the cost of operating the Open Government
Initiative website?
If the minister does not have enough time in my limited
time today, I certainly would appreciate either the documents tabled or
provided to me, or the House, so that everybody has that information or
maybe made available on the open Government website.
As well as the Youth Advisory Committee that has been reinstated, the
cost of that, the cost of their transportation budget and the resources that
are applied for them to give the recommendations forward for this particular
year.
Those matters would be greatly appreciated because
those are certain things that I have certainly been pushing for in the House
of Assembly to see the reinstatement of the Youth Advisory Committee, and if
the minister can highlight any of the positons that have been cut on a
go-forward basis.
I realize there is only two minutes to answer those
questions, but we do have limited time.
It is not like in Estimates Committee where you would have three
hours where you can go back and forth.
We are debating the entire Executive Council and consolidated
revenues, as well as the Human Resource Secretariat and Women's Policy.
Those things would not all happen here in the House of Assembly as
they have in the past.
So I put forward my questions to the minister.
He has agreed that he will table them or provide the answers at a
later date. So, I give it to the
minister.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Chair, as long as there is co-operation from both parties opposite, we
can answer all the questions here today.
As I have said, if this is not sufficient time, I am happy to meet
with the hon. member and answer any questions that he has.
I was also prepared, though, to have this discussion
during the allocated Estimates time, as I have also made clear in this
House. Staff were ready.
It was scheduled. I had
suggested that we do Office of Public Engagement first.
That was not acceptable to the parties opposite because the member
did not show up on time for Estimates, which is unfortunate, Mr. Chair.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
(Inaudible).
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
I was fully prepared. Staff were
prepared. I am prepared today,
under the scrutiny of this public Chamber, to answer any questions that the
member has, as I am prepared to do any day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
It is hard to hear, Mr. Chair, with the nonsense from the back row of the
Opposition bench.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of
Public Engagement.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With co-operation, we can go back and forth.
I know I only have twenty seconds left on the clock, but I am happy
to answer all of those questions.
I made note of as many of them as I could.
I am happy to go back and forth or if the Chair will allow me a full
ten minutes, I will answer as many of them as I can and we can go on.
So, I understand we need an intervening speaker, Mr. Chair, and then
I am happy to answer the member's questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to just ask a couple of general policy
questions here of the minister, if that is possible.
When it comes to 2.7.02, Public Engagement, I am just wondering about
the cuts in this particular line item, number one.
I am just wondering about the cuts, if they are due to travel
freezes? Is that a normal part
of
MR. KENT:
I am sorry, I cannot hear you.
MR. MURPHY:
In 2.7.02 let me come up with that section again now, I was just looking
at it under the benefits, Transportation and Communications.
Are these cuts due to travel freezes on the part of was that a part
of government policy that there would be travel freezes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair is having trouble hearing the member as well.
MR. KENT:
(Inaudible) 2.7.02, Transportation.
MR. MURPHY:
Under Public Engagement, yes. I
am wondering about the cuts. Are
they just travel freezes that government had instituted as part of policy at
that particular time the freezes?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand the format we are following is we are
allowing this ten-minute interval for this exchange.
So I will answer the member's questions and then get back to the
other questions that have been proposed.
Transportation and Communications, 2.7.02; the change
of $16,700 reflects an overrun from the 2014-2015 budget related to
increased travel requirements.
Included with this overrun is $10,000 that was re-profiled to cover the
ATIPPA review expense requirements.
So again a lot of money was moved from budget line to
budget line last fiscal year to utilize resources that were required for the
review of the ATIPPA legislation.
You are going to see that in multiple budget lines.
The change of $55,500 reflects a decrease in last
year's Budget related to deficit reduction.
So it was a reduction of discretionary spending, discretionary travel
in light of the Province's fiscal situation.
That is the situation there and I am happy to answer the rest of the
member's questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
That is great. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chair.
Under Grants and Subsidies, Minister, can we have a
list of the subsidies that might have been passed out to the various
Community Youth Networks, youth organizations and such?
Allied Youth, I think, was one recipient as well, and the Community
Sector Council and Harris Centre.
Do you have a list of the grants and subsidies that might have been
passed out that we can have a look at?
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR. KING:
A point of order.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. KING:
Yes, I am just trying to establish the parameters that we are operating in
here. In Committee of the Whole
it is usually ten minutes for the minister to ask and ten for the other
member to respond.
CHAIR:
Can I just clarify what we have been doing for the last few minutes?
MR. KING:
Yes, you can no issue with that
CHAIR:
I understand, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. KING:
but what had I observed at the beginning, that is why I raised the point
of order sorry, the Member for The Straits White Bay North would like to
speak?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
What happened at the beginning was the Member for The Straits White Bay
North spoke for just shy of nine minutes, and the minister was given less
than a minute to respond. So I
am looking for some clarification you cannot have a ten-minute block and
not have equal opportunity to ask a question and respond.
In order to make it equal it has to be ten-minute blocks.
Maybe you can offer some clarity on that.
CHAIR:
Okay but in that ten-minute block prior to that, the member had asked
three questions in series, and the minister had stood three times during the
previous ten minutes, and he was at the end of the time.
I was prepared to offer the minister the same amount of time as was
taken by the member in his question.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Oh, it is just to the point of order, Mr. Chair, but I think it is already
straightened away that we were asking in ten-minute blocks, and I guess
depending on how they would use it, I guess everybody was happy with it.
So I think we are all good anyway but I thank the minister for his
concern in the meantime. He took
up a couple of seconds of my time
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So I am just wondering if the minister might be able to
answer that question again. Can we
get a list of the grants and subsidies that would have been given out for,
in this particular haste, the $3,608,700 that was given out last year?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Chair, we will gladly
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KENT:
It is hard to hear, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
We will gladly provide the list of grants.
Of course, as we do through this process, whatever information we
provide to one party we will provide to the other; that is not a problem.
The grants funding is largely for our Community Youth
Networks. We have, I believe, it
is twenty-four Community Youth Network sites throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador that provides very valuable service to young people primarily
school-age young people, primarily older elementary, junior high, and high
school students throughout our Province.
Although, there are some exceptions.
From talking to MHAs on both sides of the House, I know there is a
great appreciation for the work that our Community Youth Networks do with
very limited resources, I would say, Mr. Chair.
The grants that the member refers to, such as the
annual grant to Allied Youth, is under our Grants to Youth Organizations
program. I believe that the
deadline either just passed or is about to pass for this year.
We will move quickly to review those applications and get funds out
to the dozens of youth organizations that benefit.
For many of those organizations this is really core
funding. There is an annual
application process, but many of these organizations have been receiving
funding through government. The
office has moved over the years, but for the last number of years it has
been through the Office of Public Engagement.
They rely on those funds annually to fund their operations.
I will gladly provide the list of all the recipients.
Of course there will be an announcement in the weeks ahead,
hopefully, about this year's grants for youth organizations as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I see I have about three-and-a-half minutes left here.
Mr. Chair, I just want to get an explanation too from the minister on
line 02, Revenue Provincial in 2.7.02.
Could he give an explanation as regards to what that $360,300 is for?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That revenue line and the Member for The Straits
White Bay North asked the same question so I will answer it now reflects a
refund of unspent grant funding.
So I suspect that relates to our Community Youth Network funds.
I will get the detail and certainly provide it to hon. members.
What it does relate to is a refund of unspent grant
funding that was returned, hence it was revenue.
That was not anticipated, which is why it was not budgeted in
2014-2015, and it is not being budgeted in 2015-2016.
I will certainly get the details and provide them to both members
opposite.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the minister for the answer.
Mr. Chair, under 2.7.03, Policy, Planning and Research, under
Professional Services the department only spent $38,000 of an appropriated
amount of $154,500. I just want
to get an explanation from the minister.
Number one, what was the money budgeted for?
What did they anticipate that they were going to be spending the
money on? Number two, why didn't
they spend it? Were there
groups, for example, that was due to receive it that did not?
What happened there?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a number of Professional Services line items
within our department's budget just like there are in most departments.
The Member for The Straits White Bay North asked the same question
so I will cover it now.
In terms of the adjustment in the revised budget, there
was savings in the amount of $116,500, I believe.
We re-profiled funding to deal with the ATIPPA review.
So what that meant was that a number of other initiatives may not
have advanced as far due to spending constraints.
Professional Services would be utilized to support a
number of departmental activities; things related to our Open Government
Initiative, things related to the community sector, and things related to
Youth Engagement. That funding
under Policy, Planning and Research exists to support policy planning and
research work throughout the office for the multiple functions of the
office. A decision was made to
re-profile a chunk of that funding to support the ATIPPA review.
In terms of the Budget for this year, there is a net
decrease of $85,000. There was
$25,000 for the Open Government Initiative and we re-profiled that in from
other areas of OPE. We have
taken some money out of that Professional Services line for the creation of
the new Collaboration Incentive Fund.
Mr. Chair, $55,000 is going into that new fund that we announced
during the Budget. We have also
taken $55,000 out of that budget line as part of the deficit reduction
exercise as well.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I think the time has expired.
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move to page 4 of Executive Council
summary for sorry, my apologies, page 2.11, Women's Policy Office, 2.6.01
please.
MR. KENT:
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement on a
point of order.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Chair, there were several questions by the Member for The Straits
White Bay North that I have not had an opportunity to answer.
If the member will give me time, I will answer those questions now
and then we can certainly move along.
I just want clarification from the Opposition.
Are we finished with Office of Public Engagement or are we not?
I would like to answer the questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you.
Just for clarity, was that no point of order there, Mr.
Chair? I just want to make sure.
Under the Women's Policy Office I would ask the
following questions. Under
Salaries there was an increase of $200,000 in 2015-2016.
I would ask why? Are
these temporary positions?
Under Transportation and Communications, this office
underspent its budget by $100,000.
I would ask why? What is
typically covered in this area with regard to Transportation and
Communications for the Women's Policy Office?
Under Professional Services, this office underspent by
almost $100,000 here again. I
would ask why? There was a
significant increase in the budget for 2015, almost $230,000 higher.
I would ask what exactly the government is budgeting for here under
Professional Services at an amount of $230,000?
Under Purchased Services, this office underspent by
$200,000 here. I would ask why?
I would also follow up and ask what are you planning to purchase this
year as part of the budgeted line item related to Purchased Services?
Mr. Chair, the area that I would like to focus a little
bit more deeply on as well would be the area under Grants and Subsidies.
This office underspent by $550,000.
I would remind those listening at home, and certainly members of this
House as well, that in Estimates 2014 the minister said that money, which
was $550,000, was money that was destined to accompany the rollout of the
new Violence Prevention Initiative Action Plan, which to date we have not
seen from this government.
I would assume that would explain why the money was
underspent. I would ask the
question if you budgeted for it in 2014 and you did not actually execute on
it, don't you think that maybe you certainly did not commit to a plan, and
actually execute it the way that you had promised you would?
From what I understand, that money is not budgeted as part of this
year's Budget.
Under the area of Grants and Subsidies as well, I would
ask why isn't this unspent money of $550,000 being carried over to
2015-2016. Some would assume the
$500,000 that was supposed to be for a Violence Prevention Initiative Action
Plan that did not get completed and that is still being touted by this
government that it is important there is no money there to actually
execute on that and deliver on that.
As has been brought up in this House many times, I believe that
amount is enough to pay for the operations related to the annual expenses
related to a family violence prevention court.
Sadly, that was a service in the area of violence
prevention and safety for women, children, and men who are in abusive
situations. That was money that
this government cut several years ago and advocates have been advocating
that this be brought back in. It
is surprising that the government did not see fit to redeploy that money
last year, and actually act quicker and faster to be able to provide the
services for families and women and children who needed the supports.
As well, under Grants and Subsidies continued there
is $2.5 million in Grants and Subsidies here.
I would ask for clarification on the organizations and the
initiatives that are specifically receiving funding in 2015-2016.
I would ask the minister if he would I should say, I ask the acting
minister if he would table the list in the House.
With that, I will stop and give the minister a chance to answer the
questions.
CHAIR:
Okay, the minister has six minutes or so.
Or up to ten, if you require it.
We will extend it to six minutes.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a number of points being raised in the hon.
member's questions. I will see
if I can touch on each of them.
I want to make sure I do not miss anything.
A couple of things; the grants number that she talked
about, there is a forecast this year of $2.5 million in the Grants and
Subsidies. Women's Policy Office
provides supports to a number of community-based organizations that do some
great work themselves on behalf of the residents they represent.
A part of that funding, a million dollars of it will go
to eight women's centres around the Province.
We have one in Bay St. George; there is one in Corner Brook; there is
one Gander; Labrador West; the Gateway Status of Women Council; the Makkovik
status of women council; the St. John's Status of Women's Council; and the
Status of Women Central a total of $1,021,000.
Then, Mr. Chair, there are ten regional anti-violence
groups. The total they will get
would be some $820,000. There is
one in Burin; there is Central-West; the coalition in Avalon East; the
Communities Against Violence; Eastern Regional Committee Against Violence;
the Northern Committee Against Violence; Roads to End Violence; the
Southeastern Coalition to End Violence; the Violence Prevention Labrador;
and, then the Western Regional Coalition.
Those get a total of $820,000.
Then there is the Transition House Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador, they will get $105,000; the Newfoundland and
Labrador Sexual Assault, Crisis and Prevention Centre, they get another
$110,000; the Multicultural Women's Organization of Newfoundland and
Labrador, they get $100,000; the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network,
they get $100,000; and the Aboriginal Women's Violence Prevention Initiative
will get $200,000.
There is a block here in fact, it is a small
increase. There is a block of
miscellaneous because throughout the year there will be various issues that
may arise that may require some special funding.
So there is a block of $85,000 there that provides for a
miscellaneous amount.
One of the things this Budget does this year and
there was a lot of discussion around this earlier on before the Budget was
delivered in the House. There
was some concern about whether or not these organizations, and many others
who do great work in the Province, were going to have their budgets impacted
as a result of the fiscal position the Province finds itself in.
Prior to the Budget, Mr. Chair, the Province, this government,
recognizing the great work they do, made a commitment that all these
organizations would maintain the core funding they had, that was allocated
from previous years, and we would carry forward the same number into this
fiscal year to support the great work they do.
This Grants and Subsides is an amount that is
significant. It is an amount
that reflects, I think, our recognition, and values the work that is done by
many of these organizations; hence, our commitment to maintaining last
year's funding level. That is
the issue of where the money goes and what the grants are used for and who
would get them.
I think one of the other questions that arose here is
around some of the other changes.
I think there was a reference particularly to Professional Services
and Purchased Services, and why the spending last year was much less than
what was actually allocated.
You might recall, Mr. Chair, one of the things we
announced was the intimate partner violence initiative.
The money for that initiative was placed in this budget allocation in
Women's Policy, but the actual initiative is the Department of Justice's
initiative, and more precisely, a partnership between the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary and the RCMP.
The money was allocated in last year's Budget to assist
with that initiative. There were
some delays in moving that forward, and the Minister of Justice may be able
to provide you a little more detail with respect to the program itself.
In terms of the budget allocation for the program, it was embedded in
the Women's Policy Office. The
money is still there this year.
So you can see where the allocations for example,
under Professional Services the number $334,000, and $209,000 for Purchased
Services. The money that has
been allocated for that intimate partner violence initiative is embedded in
Women's Policy and is spread over a couple of those budget areas.
What you are seeing here, Mr. Chair, is the money that
is committed to the project staying embedded in the budget.
The money will then be used by the Department of Justice and, as I
said, more particularly by the two police forces as they move forward with
their initiative. I do not know
if that answers the question with respect to the variances in some of those
salaries.
The other part of it was in terms of the related
revenue issue here. There is a
revenue stream that came back in 2014-2015 that is not in this year.
One of the things that happens is all those community organizations
that I just talked about that get grants on an annual basis to maintain
their core programs and services, if they do not spend that on an annual
basis, it gets returned. So what
you are seeing here is last year, the $77,000 came back kind of late in the
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
I remind the hon. minister his time has expired.
MR. WISEMAN:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. WISEMAN:
Can I get a chance to finish my answer?
CHAIR:
By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
CHAIR:
Okay, by leave, Minister.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
A point of order.
CHAIR:
A point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Yes, because the Deputy Premier got up earlier and made commentary on this
matter
CHAIR:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, (inaudible) give leave for the Minister of Finance to finish his
answer.
CHAIR:
Leave to finish your answer, Minister.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
What happens is the money comes back into
MR. MITCHELMORE:
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Chair, the health care budget is $3 billion.
The Office of Public Engagement is $7 billion
CHAIR:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to respond
to the question.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will try to get it out this time.
The $77,000; as I was saying, money that they do not spend they
return at the end of the year.
As it turned out, the previous year not 2014-2015 but the previous year
2013-2014 the accumulative surpluses got returned, but they got returned
too late to be captured financially in the financial records in 2013-2014.
So they are recorded here.
This was not a claw back of last year's money.
This was purely
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
No leave.
CHAIR:
No leave.
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I ask a specific question, I have to say I am
very, very concerned that we do not have either a full Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women or an Acting Minister Responsible for the Status of
Women to be responding to these questions.
We usually do this in a full Estimates session in terms of looking at
the Status of Women and Women's Policy Office.
I do not know what kind of message this is sending to the women of
Newfoundland and Labrador, but I can tell you, Mr. Chair, I do not think it
is a very good message. I am
very, very concerned.
To think how this government is talking about being so
committed to the issue of violence against women and $1 million of a measly
budget for women's issues not spent last year.
That is absolutely shocking.
I am appalled, and to think of the suffering that women are going
through, and right now in this economic situation that we face ourselves in,
that women are mostly affected by the downfall in the economic situation.
It is inexcusable to not have a Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women to be answering the questions here today.
It is absolutely ridiculous.
If this is what this government thinks of women of Newfoundland and
Labrador, well I think it is a sorry message.
Mr. Chair, I am very interested in what the Minister of
Finance was saying that $77,000 was returned from money the previous year.
I know and have spoken to almost every women's group in this Province
and there is not a women's group in this Province who does not need every
single penny that they get because of the great services they provide, and
they provide services on a shoestring budget.
I would be very interested asking the Minister of Finance to give us
a list of the money that was returned, who it was returned from, and why it
was returned.
Also, Mr. Chair, women's centres were guaranteed
certain core funding. When they
were guaranteed core funding they were also guaranteed a 5 per cent increase
every year in order to be able to keep up with the increase of costs that
they experience. In 2011, not
only did they not get their 5 per cent increase, they actually got a 5 per
cent decrease, which meant they were cut by 10 per cent.
They did not get their 5 per cent increase, plus they were cut by 10
per cent.
There has been nothing done by this government to
address that budget shortfall, even though we see a million dollars was not
spent last year. If they were
getting the promised 5 per cent, they would have been up to $146,000 a year,
Mr. Chair, rather than $127,000.
That is a shortfall of $19,000 to women's centres that are doing life-saving
work.
I am asking the minister why, when we see a surplus,
when there was a million dollars not spent why was that not given as the
promised 5 per cent increase to the women's centres across the Province?
The other question that I have, Mr. Chair, for the minister, if
$500,000 was supposed to be for the rollout of the new Violence Prevention
Initiative why was that not done?
I also know that there was a commitment to do a series
of educational videos on LGBTQ issues that were to go hand in hand with the
anti-violence and the educational program that was rolled out in the schools
all over the Province. There was
a promise to do that. Where are
those ads? I do not see them.
Were they budgeted for?
If so, why was that money not spent?
All the money, when we look at Professional Services
and I am also wondering the Professional Services, the $334,000 going to
Justice, to the RNC, and the RCMP, why is that not coming out of a Justice
budget? Why is that money not
spent within the women's community to do the programs that are so
desperately needed? It is the
same with the $209,000.
I know that there has been an application from the St.
John's Status of Women Council for a program called SHOP for $127,000.
They asked for that money for a full-time worker to work with women
who are sex workers, some of the most vulnerable women in our Province.
They will close their door in September if they do not receive this
funding.
They work with over 100 sex workers in the St. John's
area. They work with them and
they get them methadone, they take them to court, and they deal with their
sureties. They go to Clarenville
and work with these women who then come back into town.
They handle the sexually transmitted infections that are rampant
right now in that community. To
not fund this project I believe would be a mistake.
Yet, again, we see $1 million that was allocated, that was budgeted,
in the area of Women's Policy and not spent.
I will sit down at that point, Mr. Chair, and hopefully
we can get some answers.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has six
minutes to respond.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just quickly, the issue of the LGBT video, that is in
the Department of Education. The
reason it is not here is because it is in the Department of Education's
budget. So when you did the
Estimates for the Department of Education that would have been an
appropriate question for the Minister of Education.
Just to clarify what is relevant to these Estimates.
The other thing, Mr. Chair, I just want to go back to
the point the member made at the very beginning.
I think what is really important for the Women's Policy Office and
for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador and people who are actively
involved, whether it is supporting issues with respect to women or dealing
with women who are in crisis, regardless of what their circumstance is and
what program or service is being provided and funded by government, it is
not as much about who stands in this House to answer questions.
Members of the Opposition, whether it is in Estimates
or whether it is in Question Period, can stand and ask a question of
government and government will be providing an answer to anyone who asks a
question in the House and the answer will be provided by a minister on
behalf of government. The
critical thing, it is not who answers the questions; the critical thing is
the commitment that government makes to the issue at hand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
So let's talk about this for a second.
MS C. BENNETT:
(Inaudible).
MR. WISEMAN:
The Member for Virginia Waters will get her chance in a few moments to stand
and ask questions. I would ask
her to let me answer the question uninterrupted.
The kinds of commitments we have made this year not
embedded in this budget, just to make sure the member opposite understands,
not embedded in the Women's Policy budget.
We have, in fact, made a big commitment this year in the Department
of Justice's budget to return the violence prevention court back to the
Province a new model of delivery, Mr. Chair.
That is a commitment that we made.
The Premier made a commitment that we would reinstate that.
It is not in this budget.
No, it is not here. It is
not a part of the Estimates that we are talking about today, but it is
embedded so whether it gets funded in one department or another, the fact
that it gets done is what is important.
It is embedded the Department of Justice's budget.
I am assuming when this House in Committee debated with
the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General about Justice-related
issues, I am assuming if members had interest they raised the question
there and got the explanation that was required and they understand how the
program would work and they understand the funding a clear commitment, Mr.
Chair.
The intimate partner violence initiative, again, I
commented on it a moment ago with respect to the funding that is embedded in
here for that, and the fact that it is embedded in the Women's Policy Office
and not in Justice is because it is a partnership between the RNC and the
RCMP. The fact that it is a
commitment to that, it is a reflection of this government's commitment to
the issues that are important to women in this Province.
The Violence Prevention Initiative, Phase II, major
commitment building on the great work done in Phase I.
That program, Phase II, will be rolled out in the very near term, and
members opposite, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will get to see
the value and the benefits of Phase II that builds on some of the great work
that was done in Phase I.
Phase I, just to name a couple of things: the public
awareness campaign like the purple ribbon campaign a great initiative, Mr.
Chair, in Phase I. We will build
on those things in Phase II. The
Violence Awareness and Action Training, and Respect Aging training programs,
which are offered Province-wide today another great initiative in Phase I
that we will build on in Phase II.
That is another example of the commitment we have made to the Women's
Policy issues in this Province.
Whether or not the budget is in one department or
another, whether or not one minister speaks on it, does not really make any
difference. The critical thing,
what is really important to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the
issues that are important to them and that government have a responsibility
for, they get addressed. They
get addressed and people make a commitment to ensure the programs and
services are available to them.
That is what is important.
So, the member raises questions around the budget, the
allocation that we see here in this year's budget, and there has been a
discussion around a million dollars being not spent and why that was not
returned to some other area. Mr.
Chair, the money is still embedded in the department, this particular
allocation. The Women's Policy
Office still has that allocation.
I just want to clarify something very clearly.
As I said a moment ago, $500,000 of those funds, or close to $500,000
of those funds are associated with the initiative of the intimate partner
violence program that has been delivered by the RNC and the RCMP.
There were some delays in the implementation.
The process is well underway now.
The commitment is there and the program is being delivered by the
Department of Justice. I am
certain that the Minister of Justice would be only too glad to answer some
questions for you with respect to what the status of that program may in
fact be.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, on a point of order.
MS ROGERS:
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I believe that the Minister of Finance has not
accurately reflected the issue that if the budget last year was $4 million,
but only $3 million was spent, then the budget is back to $4 million.
There is a million dollars not allocated to Women's Policy.
CHAIR:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board for the remaining time.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Chair, let me try it again.
I only have a couple of seconds, so why would I bother
to try and answer a question?
When I get up on my feet again, I will get a chance to answer the member's
question.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. member his time has expired.
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, I have to say, I am surprised.
Last year in Estimates my understanding was the Women's Policy Office
was debated as part of Estimates, and this year it was shifted to the
discussion we are having today, which has certainly reduced the amount of
time and attention that this office is allowed to have debated in this House
of Assembly.
It is shameful, considering that we have now had the
third member opposite get up and speak about women's policy issues and say
things like: what we do is not important, what is important is that women's
issues are understood. Well, Mr.
Chair, I can tell you that the women in Newfoundland and Labrador very
clearly understand a million dollar cut in an office that is supposed to be
designed to support their needs and their voices in this House of Assembly
where they are drastically, drastically underrepresented.
The minister commented, during his answers to my hon.
colleague's questions earlier, about the Purple Ribbon campaign.
Well, I am sure the listening audience at home many of which have
seen these purple ribbons on vehicles throughout the Province would also
be very much appreciative to know that this office has printed,
manufactured, and distributed 500,000 of these ribbons.
Now, Mr. Chair, I think I am pretty decent with math.
When we have a population that is
slightly over 500,000 people and we print 500,000 purple ribbons, I can tell
you the priorities of this government are not about making sure that women
and children and people who are in crisis are protected, with a delayed
Violence Prevention Initiative that they should have had two years ago.
I think the people of the Province and the women of the Province see
through that very clearly.
Here are my general questions that I would ask, very
quickly: Will you be purchasing respect for women magnets and ribbons and
pins this year? If so, how many
of each, and what is the total cost of all?
Violence awareness and action training, we understand this training
is going to be revamped; the VAAT training is going to be revamped.
When will it be revised, and when will the training program be
relaunched? What consultations
have happened to make sure that training is happening in the best interests
of the people who actually need to provide this service, and that it
delivers the service of those who are actually in need?
I would ask, when will you launch the violence
prevention action plan Phase II and the Domestic Violence Court?
What role, if any, will the Women's Policy Office play in
establishing these two courts and in the exploration project for the court
in Labrador?
With regard to the work of the Regional Coordinating
Committees under the Violence Prevention Initiative I would ask the minister
although this minister who is answering the questions today is not the
acting minister for women's issues.
The acting minister for women's issues in this government is the
Premier. I remind those
listening at home, it is the same individual who said that those of us in
the House who happen to be female should pick and choose the questions that
we ask.
I would ask, Mr. Chair, can you highlight some of the
initiatives of the Regional Coordinating Committees that they have led in
their communities? Are these
groups evaluated for their effectiveness each year, or is the funding just
continued automatically?
Under the offender program, will the Violence
Prevention Initiative provide any funding for offender programs this year?
Under Emergency Protection Orders, has the department conducted an
evaluation of these orders to see if they have benefited victims of
violence? It is said that a
women is most in danger during an estrangement, and in this case, the
partner knows where she is. Has
there been any evaluation from victims of violence who have availed of this
to determine whether these people found the EPO effective in protecting them
from harm?
The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women;
we understand the current president is finishing up her term and that term
has not been renewed. Can you
tell us about the process by which that decision was made?
Can you advise this House as to how the council will be consulted on
the decision of the replacement of the future president for the Provincial
Advisory Council on the Status of Women?
How will that decision to appoint a successor be made?
That is the end of my questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to remind members opposite and the
reference was made to the Estimates.
Let's go back to what we are doing here today.
When the Budget is read, we then deal with the Estimates of each
department and each expenditure area.
There are two ways to do that.
They get referred out to one of three standing committees of the
House, or they get dealt with in the Committee of the Whole.
This is a committee of the House of Assembly.
The three standing committees are also a committee of this House.
There are four committees that deal with the Budget.
There are three committees that are standing committees together with
the Committee of the Whole. This
is a Committee of the Whole.
So whether the Estimates get dealt with here or get
dealt with as a part of one of the Estimates that get referred out to one of
the three standing committees, they are dealing with the Estimates.
What are Estimates?
Estimates deal with the budget allocations that are set out in the Budget
plan. This Estimate document
that we all have lays out by category
MS ROGERS:
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
A point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
I believe, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance is not accurately reflecting
the difference between what happens at a regular Estimates Committee when
there are (inaudible).
CHAIR:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Let's establish a couple of things so that everybody
understands the opportunities that exist to provide information and to get
information. Members of this
House, anyone in in fact some of you, I suspect, have already taken
advantage of this. I know for a
fact that some of you have, based on some areas that I have a responsibility
for.
Members of this House can at any time at all meet with,
whether it is the Women's Policy Office or other areas of government, if you
want to get an understanding of issues around policy, issues around programs
or services. I suspect that some
of you have already done that.
If you want to have one, just make arrangements with
the appropriate minister or the deputy minister in a particular area.
You can sit and have a discussion at your leisure and explore areas
of policy, understand programs and services, understand how they are
delivered, raise questions if you wish
MS ROGERS:
A point of order.
CHAIR:
A point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The Minister of Finance knows that the process of
Estimates is a public process having a
CHAIR:
I am sorry, there is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Yes, Mr. Chair, let me try again.
What I am trying to establish is an understanding and
some clarity around members having questions around Estimates versus members
having questions around policy, and how programs and services may work.
So I say, Mr. Chair, very clearly, if members opposite
wish to have some understanding
MS C. BENNETT:
A point of order.
CHAIR:
A point of order, the hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Public Estimates are about discussing policy.
I would ask the minister to remember that.
CHAIR:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Chair, policy and Estimates, there is a linkage, yes.
All I am suggesting to you here is if members would want to have a
clear understanding of programs and services there are lots of opportunities
to do that. As I have said,
members opposite may have taken advantage of some of those chances already
with various departments.
So I say, Mr. Chair, with respect to the Estimates
themselves, if you had questions around where the money is going and where
the money is coming from, then we are able to address that in the Estimates.
In so doing, there are maybe some tie-ins to some policy.
Very clearly, if you compare what was well we spent some time last
week with the Department of Finance Estimates and we had a great discussion
around the Estimates themselves.
Where the department
MS ROGERS:
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
A point of order, the hon. Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
I would like to ask the minister how much time he has spent with the Women's
Policy Office and with the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of
Women so he can ask
CHAIR:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Chair, if there are members opposite who have some issues with respect
to Women's Policy programs, or policies of government that have an impact on
women in this Province, or issues with respect to the Women's Policy Office
itself and some of the policies and some of the programs that they have; if
they have not already done so I would extend an invitation, either if you
wish some minister in the House, or the department itself would only be too
glad to set up an in-service for you to be able to answer any and all
questions you may have about programming.
If you wanted to expand on some of the questions that
you have raised here today, by all means I will make the opportunity
available to you with officials in the department-
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. member his time has expired.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Chair, I will take this moment since the minister gave it to me.
I will thank the staff from the Provincial Advisory Council and I
will thank the staff in the Women's Policy Office who have met with me and
who have been available to answer questions.
Quite frankly that is the reason why I am asking those
policy questions in this House.
Certainly those who are working in this area, besides the people who are
working in government and besides the people who are working in community;
all of these questions are questions that they have brought to me that I
have every right and every responsibility to bring to this hon. House.
I will ask the minister if he will table the answers to
the questions or at least review Hansard and provide the information.
Maybe if he is not familiar with the answers since he is
pinch-hitting for the minister who is responsible the minister who is
responsible can provide the information.
With the Chair's permission I will move to 3.1.05,
Strategic Human Resource Management.
CHAIR:
Subhead 3.1.05, just to make sure I heard you correctly.
MS C. BENNETT:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Subhead 3.1.05, Strategic Human Resource Management.
MS C. BENNETT:
Understanding the time on the clock, for those at home I have about eight
minutes to talk about a significant portion of the budget.
I will try to ask the questions as quickly as I can to allow the
minister as much time as he can have to answer the questions.
Under the area of Salaries, in this particular area the
government underspent by $741,000.
I ask for an explanation of that.
They are budgeting over $1 million more than was spent last year.
There is a substantial increase in the spending in the Strategic
Human Resource Management office.
I would ask the minister to provide clarity on that $1 million.
Under the area of Transportation and Communications,
this office underspent by $71,500.
I would ask why? Under
Professional Services, there was a budget in the prior fiscal year of
$12,500 and none of that money was spent.
I would ask the minister if he might provide an explanation.
In the area of Purchased Services, again there was an underspending
of $225,300. I would ask why?
The people who are observing this debate and listening
to this debate at home, or the discussion at home, might be asking why is
the Opposition Finance critic asking questions about underspending?
Part of the reason for that is understanding what the actual impetus
of that underspending was, and if that underspending was a result of this
government's implementation of a discretionary spending freeze last November
that they have since lifted. I
think the people of the Province want to understand exactly the fundamental
reasons why those underspending line items happened.
We move over to the area of 3.1.06.
CHAIR:
Subhead 3.1.06, Payroll and Compensation Benefits.
MS C. BENNETT:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
The Salaries there in the area of Payroll and
Compensations Benefits, ironically were overspent by $900,000, which I
believe is the same amount of money that the Finance Minister is trying to
claw back from pensioners who were overpaid on pensions, Mr. Chair.
They spent $3,446,000 last year in the prior fiscal
year, but are only budgeting just over $2.7 million this year.
So the questions would be: What positions have been cut?
Where they temporary positions, and if he would provide a breakdown
of all fund allocations related to the overspend of $903,000, as well as the
line items that make up the difference between the $3.4 million and the $2.7
million?
As we move down to Benefits Administration, under
Salaries
CHAIR:
Subhead 3.1.07?
MS C. BENNETT:
Subhead 3.1.07.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you.
Under Salaries there is an overspend here of $145,000.
I would ask why.
With that, Mr. Chair, I will provide the minister the
remaining five minutes to answer the questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will try to be as quick as I can.
I understand there is a total of five minutes left in this whole
exercise.
CHAIR:
Seven.
MR. WISEMAN:
I will try to be as quick as I possibly can.
On the 3.1.05, Mr. Chair, we have a number of what we
refer to as shared service units.
Across government, we have clustered groups of human resource
professionals to provide services and supports to a variety of departments.
They assist, and some of them are a dedicated unit to one department,
if the department is large enough.
Some units are responsible for a variety of departments that may be
smaller and have less demand.
Mr. Chair, one of the key areas of responsibility
which is one of the things the member opposite zeroed in on.
One of the key areas of their responsibility is to provide training
for very specialized areas. In
Occupational Health and Safety, for example, there is first aid; in the case
of the RNC, there is gun safety.
So there is a variety of training opportunities that are provided to staff
that are mandatory. These are
core things that employees need to have to ensure they work in a safe
environment and they are protected in their workplace.
I say, Mr. Chair, one of the areas this unit is
responsible for is just that.
That gets costed under the area of Purchased Services.
When you see last year's budget of $1.3 million and what was actually
spent was $1.75 million, then what that reflects is there were not as many
of those training sessions conducted last year as there was forecasted to
be.
What we now have done, Mr. Chair, the budget for next
year getting back up to $1.3 million is a reflection of our recouping those
opportunities that we did not do last year.
That training will continue into this year.
We need to have the necessary funding to ensure that those core areas
of safety training get provided to our employees.
Mr. Chair, that obviously is one of the things that the
member opposite had posed. The
other thing she had asked earlier as well was around the
I think the next area was 3.1.06, which is Payroll and Compensation Benefits. I
think if I captured the question correctly, there was a concern about the
Salaries and why there was a budget last year of $2.5 million and an
expenditure of $3.4 million which is a huge gap, Mr. Chair, and it is a fair
question. As I said a moment ago
in answering another question, embedded in this salary item here is the
compensation that is paid to employees who are working in those respective
areas but also captured under the salary heading is the area of severance.
Last year, Mr. Chair, there was two things that
happened in this area. There
were four individuals who retired, moved on or left I am not sure if they
retired or just left government but either way, they either left government,
left the employment of government or retired, and they were entitled to a
severance payment. Mr. Chair,
these four individuals, their severance payments were captured in this area.
The second thing that happened, there were a number of
positions within government every employee has a particular classification
that dictates their salary level and if their duties and responsibilities
change, they have an opportunity to request a reclassification.
There were a number of individuals who went through that
reclassification review process and as a result of that had their
classifications adjusted upward, retroactively, and there was some $400,000
that was spent as a result of that retroactive application of the
reclassification of those employees.
That, Mr. Chair, speaks to the difference in the
Salaries for what was in the budget and what was actual for last year.
Just speaking now to which I think was the other part of the
member's question why then in 2015-2016 would the budget be again up at
the $2.7 million level. Staffing
levels have remained relatively the same, but recall as well, Mr. Chair,
that employees ended up with a 3 per cent salary increase last year.
They resulted in a 3 per cent salary increase over last year and so
that is reflected in the growth in the budget.
The other one was there was a small adjustment as a result of one of
these units having been in rental space that is no longer required.
I just want to make sure, Mr. Chair, that I am
capturing all of the questions being posed.
I think the other one was around section 3.1.07, if I am not
mistaken, Benefits Administration.
I want to make sure I captured the question.
I think that too was around the salary difference and why there was a
salary difference.
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. member his time has expired.
MR. WISEMAN:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask the Acting Minister Responsible for
the Status of Women the Acting Minister for the Acting Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women if there is a commitment to fund the
SHOP application that is for $127,000 to work with women sex workers in the
area of St. John's. Also, I am
asking the minister if there is a commitment to increase the funding to
women's centres by 5 per cent, which was promised years ago by this
Administration.
I would also like to ask the minister to explain to me
why is a $500,000 cut in Grants in Subsidies.
That means $500,000 less for women's programming, for women's
centres, and projects across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Finance and President of Treasury Board, you have
fifty seconds.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there are multiple questions there and I think
I have thirty-eight seconds to answer the questions.
So trying to deal with those multiple questions is going to be
difficult. So, in fairness to
the question and in fairness to the member opposite, I want to make sure you
get the answers to the questions, and I cannot do justice to either one of
them in twenty-three seconds. So
why don't I commit to you to give you the answers in writing to the ones
that you just posed because this debate is over in twenty-three seconds.
Not only is my time up, but the debate is over totally.
So in fairness to you, I will give you those answers in writing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, quickly.
MS ROGERS:
I would like to know when you might be able to do that, Sir?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
I am sorry, Government House Leader, just one second, please.
We need to call the clauses.
MR. KING:
No problem.
CLERK:
Executive Council.
CHAIR:
Executive Council.
CLERK:
Subheads 1.1.01 through 2.2.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Executive Council; shall 1.1.01 through 2.2.03 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.2.03 carried.
CLERK:
Subheads 2.2.05 through 2.6.02 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Calling 2.2.05 through 2.6.02 inclusive.
Shall the clauses carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, subheads 2.2.05 through 2.6.02 carried.
CLERK:
Subheads 3.1.01 through 4.1.05.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 through 4.1.05 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 4.1.05 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, total carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates of the Executive Council without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, Estimates of Executive Council carried
without amendment.
CLERK:
The Legislature.
CHAIR:
The Legislature.
CLERK:
Subheads 1.1.01 through 6.1.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall the clauses of the Legislature carry, 1.1.01 through 6.1.01?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 6.1.01 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On motion, total carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates of the Legislature carried without amendment?
On motion, Estimates of the Legislature carried without
amendment.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that the Committee and report having passed,
without amendment, the Estimates of the Committee of Supply.
CHAIR:
The motion is that we rise and report Estimates without amendment.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the
Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me
to report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the
Consolidated Fund Services, Executive Council, and the Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that
they have passed without amendment the Estimates of Executive Council, the
Estimates of the Legislature, and the Estimates of Consolidated Fund
Services.
When shall the report be received?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board, the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that this House do now adjourn.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 p.m.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.