May 11,
2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 17
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
MR. SPEAKER:
We would like to welcome to
the public gallery Mr. Barry Fitzgerald, who will be the subject of a
Ministerial Statement today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today we have the Members for the Districts of Exploits,
Baie Verte – Green Bay, Torngat Mountains, Bonavista, Burin – Grand Bank, and
Terra Nova.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Bishop's Falls
Public Library, and the important work done by all public libraries in the
District of Exploits. The library in Bishop's Falls, as well as the Botwood
Kinsmen Public Library, the Norris Arm Public Library, the Point Leamington
Public Library, and the Harmsworth Public Library located in the neighbouring
district of Grand Falls -Windsor – Buchans, all provide countless benefits to
the people of my district and surrounding areas.
In
addition to providing books and promoting literacy, these public libraries, and
libraries right across Newfoundland and Labrador, offer services such as free
Internet access and computer training, story time, seasonal programs for
children, and information sessions on topics ranging from taxes and money
management, to gardening and Internet safety.
Libraries are dynamic, accessible community centres, and form an integral part
of our society. Libraries are places for people to come together, crack open a
good book, and share in the love of reading.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me today in congratulating the Bishop's Falls Public
Library on this their 50th anniversary, and in recognizing the vital role played
by all public libraries throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Baie Verte – Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to commend two exemplary residents of Springdale. In 2010,
Roy and Sherry Clarke in partnership with five Dominican friends set out to
improve the lives of school children in the Dominican Republic.
They
founded United for Kids, with the mandate of enabling Dominican children not
only to start school on the right foot, but to remain in school.
Since
they founded the charity, the Clarkes host various fundraisers throughout the
year with the help of their family and friends, and members of the community.
The money they raise improves the overall health and well-being of Dominican
children by supporting dental care programs, providing essential vitamins and
rendering assistance in medical emergencies. The foundation now helps
approximately 170 kids in four different schools.
In 2016,
the Clarkes fulfilled a lifelong dream and opened a preschool in the Dominican
Republic. The school, called Bea's Preschool, has a qualified teacher and
provides a free breakfast program. The Clarkes believe education is vital for
breaking the cycle of poverty.
I ask
all Members to join me in thanking the United for Kids Foundation for its
commitment to making a difference in the lives of impoverished children.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize an exceptional young woman from Labrador who was recently
called to the bar in our province.
Elizabeth Zarpa, whose family hails from Nunatsiavut, showcased a deep
connection to her indigenous culture during the swearing-in ceremony on April 21
by wearing a traditional Silapak to the event in St. John's.
Elizabeth studied law at the University of Victoria and articled in Labrador.
She wore the traditional garment after seeing other indigenous people from other
provinces do it when they were called to the bar. We believe she is the first
Inuk to ever do it in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, Elizabeth Zarpa represents a new attitude among indigenous young
people, who now more than ever, believe that all things are possible and
dreaming of a career in any field, including the law, is open to them.
As for
wearing the Silapak at the ceremony, Elizabeth said she wanted to let people
know she was proud of where she came from and proud of her heritage.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Elizabeth Zarpa on her success and
we wish her well in her legal pursuits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, it's an honour
to stand here today and recognize all the volunteers in the District of
Bonavista. Coming on the heels of National Volunteer Week, I feel it important
to acknowledge those who give their time to make our region a better place.
Volunteerism is the heart of every community and without volunteers many of the
great things that take place would fall by the wayside. As my colleagues here in
the House can attest from their own districts, those who volunteer do so without
asking anything in return. They do so out of a sense of duty, a sense of
community. It is often said that after you volunteer once, you're hooked for
life. That is certainly true for my district where we have several volunteers
with over 50 years of doing what they love to do, giving their time.
On
Friday, April 28, the ninth annual regional Volunteer Appreciation Night was
held at The Factory in Port Union. With well over 100 people present, attendees
were treated to musical performances, food and refreshment, door prizes and a
wonderful speech/performance by Volunteer Week Honorary Chair Pete Soucy.
To those
who truly make a difference, I say thank you!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Burin – Grand Bank.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chief Petty Officer Travis Perrot of RCSCC
269 Endeavour in St. Lawrence. Travis learned recently he will be taking part in
a cultural exchange in Hong Kong for two weeks this summer.
Travis
has been involved with his corps for the past six years and has taken part in
extensive training programs and numerous trips. Being chosen for such an
adventure, the only cadet from Atlantic Canada who will be participating, Mr.
Speaker, is an indication of the high regard in which Travis is held.
Exchanges and visits like the one Travis will participate in do much to broaden
the world perspective for our youth, Mr. Speaker.
Travis
is the son of proud parents Mario and Kanta Perrot of St. Lawrence.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Travis on being chosen
for this cultural exchange. I know he will represent the province well during
his time in Hong Kong.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise in this hon. House and recognize the members and volunteers
of Branch 027 of the Royal Canadian Legion.
On April
29, I had the distinct privilege of attending this year's honour and awards
celebration. Several members received pins and medals for their long years of
dedicated service including: Ralph Froude, Marvela Sargent, Glen Sargent, five
years; Beverly Lundrigan, 15 years; Barry Moores, 20 years; Dave Gullage, 25
years; Jean Burden, 30 years; Gordon Bursey, 50 years.
In
addition, Legionnaire of the Year Award went to Wesley Stringer and the
Executive Medal and Service Bar was given to Cy McGettigan. Mr. Daniel Seaward
received the Certificate of Merit for his actions which led to saving the life
of an individual during a Legion-held event.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the members and volunteers of
Branch 027 for continuing to promote the interests and benefits of veterans and
those who have served this province and country with pride and dignity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to
recognize Barry Fitzgerald, Senior Manager of Corporate Safety with the
Department of Transportation and Works, who has been selected as a judge for
this year's Canada's Safest Employers Awards.
The
awards recognize companies from all across Canada's with outstanding
accomplishments in promoting the health and safety of their workers.
Awards
will be presented in the fall in a wide range of categories with organizations
judged on health and safety criteria such as employee training, incident
investigation and emergency preparedness.
Mr.
Fitzgerald has been with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for over
three years and supports Transportation and Works employees at all levels as
they fulfill their safety responsibilities.
Mr.
Speaker, it is great honour for Mr. Fitzgerald to be selected as a judge.
There is
no greater priority than the safety of our employees and the travelling public.
The department is working to build a strong environment of workplace safety that
is squarely focused on safety first. We have made gains by improving and
updating procedures and policies. We are also taking advantage of North American
Occupational Safety and Health Week to raise awareness by holding special
activities with staff.
With
approximately 1,700 employees who daily work in challenging environments, we are
constantly seeking new opportunities to improve and enhance a culture of safety.
I ask my
hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Fitzgerald and to recognize our
dedicated employees who work diligently every day to ensure safety for everyone
in Newfoundland and Labrador
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of my
colleagues on this side of the House, I wish to congratulate Mr. Barry
Fitzgerald as being chosen as a judge for this year's Canada's Safest Employers
Awards.
Mr.
Fitzgerald is one of many hard-working, dedicated and talented public service
employees who come to work every day in efforts to make this province a better
place for us all. I thank Mr. Fitzgerald for his commitment to safety in our
workplace and thank all the public service employees for the commitment they
actually give.
The role
in which Mr. Fitzgerald plays within the Department of Transportation and Works
is an important one, and as this is North American Occupational Safety and
Health Week, I encourage all employees to follow the lead of Mr. Fitzgerald and
ensure that safety is always top of mind when you carry out the
responsibilities.
Once
again, I congratulate Mr. Fitzgerald on this accomplishment.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I'm very pleased
to join with him in congratulating Mr. Fitzgerald. It is encouraging that safety
is a priority for this government. But, speaking of those who work in
challenging environments, there's still an issue with the safety of police,
firefighters and paramedics working as first responders on the side of the
highway. There are many concerns that the Move Over legislation is not working
and drivers are ignoring the rules.
I urge
government, for the sake of all of these workers and Transportation and Works
workers as well, to look into this and work on solutions.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to congratulate the Towns of Old Perlican and Flatrock, which have
received $500 FireSmart Community Preparedness Day grants. These grants are
provided through our province's membership in Partners in Protection, a national
organization dedicated to making communities safe from wildland fires.
Newfoundland and Labrador has been a part of the FireSmart Canada Community
Recognition Program since 2013. This year, up to 20 project funding awards were
available nationally to implement neighbourhood projects.
Municipalities use these grants to continue raising awareness, protect homes and
become FireSmart. With this grant, the Town of Flatrock hosted a wildland fire
awareness and FireSmart preparedness public meeting yesterday. The Town of Old
Perlican will use its grant to host a wildfire awareness and FireSmart open
house at a later date.
Mr.
Speaker, our fire suppression staff encounter fires, particularly in the spring,
that place neighbourhoods, communities, the public and firefighters at risk. As
part of the National Wildfire Community Preparedness Day, which was on May 6, we
asked Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to become aware of techniques to minimize
the risk of wildland fire damage.
Until
the end of forest fire season on September 30, we ask all communities across our
province and the country to participate in local mitigation projects to help
reduce the risk of wildland fires in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, I would also
like to congratulate the Towns of Old Perlican and Flatrock on receiving these
grants. I know the Town of Flatrock hosted their event yesterday with
representatives from various community organizations and the Torbay Volunteer
Fire Department in attendance.
Mr.
Speaker, last week we spoke about brush fires and how destructive they can be.
It is also important to raise awareness on fire safety and events such as those
sponsored through the FireSmart grants do exactly that. We should make every
effort to protect our properties and communities and become FireSmart. I
encourage everyone to take extra precautions during the forest fire season.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased that these
two communities received grants from the Partners in Protection in their work to
make their communities safe. Seasonal wildfires are a potential problem,
especially as climate change effects make our communities more vulnerable.
I hope
the government will find ways for other communities to do the important public
education as well in order to minimize the risk of fire.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday here in the House of Assembly the Minister of Natural
Resources said the Oversight Committee is now working with EY to finalize the
interim report.
I ask
the minister: Why would the Oversight Committee be working to finalize what's
supposed to be an independent report?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Oversight Committee was the body that initiated and was responsible for the
initial report. They are working with EY to put the framework around the
parameters around the finalization of that report – not details of that report,
but the parameters and the framework around the finalization of that report.
They
were also discussing, Mr. Speaker, how the Oversight Committee moves forward
with independent assessment.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the minister that having the Oversight Committee helping to finalize a report
removes the credibility from what was supposed to be an independent report – a
report independent from government.
So I ask
the minister will she release the report as it is before her and her government
get a chance to liberalize that report.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, talk about
revising what I said. What I said was that the Oversight Committee – which, in
fact, we've put more independence on them. The former administration, the PC
government, had no independence on that Oversight Committee at all, Mr. Speaker,
which was a problem identified by EY.
I can
tell you that the Oversight Committee is the group is engaged with EY. EY is
independent, as we all know, and will produce and finalize the report from last
year. The Oversight Committee is not working in conjunction with EY; the
Oversight Committee is responsible to engage EY and provide the framework.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to remind the Member opposite – with all respect – that the clerk of the
Executive Council who was clerk while we were in power was completely
independent from any political partisanship and from what government was doing.
An independent clerk is what we had appointed there and was also a member of
that Oversight Committee. That was independence on that Oversight Committee, Mr.
Speaker.
Months
have passed, Mr. Speaker, months –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Fourteen months have passed
since the due date announced by government in December 2015. One of the first
commitments that this government made to the people of the province is they'd
have an independent report finalized by March 2016. Now, the minister said the
oversight committee is working with EY using their tools.
If this
is the case, I'll ask the minister again: When will they release their
liberalized report?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all hon. Members, the only individual I wish to hear from is the individual
recognized to speak.
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
With respect, Mr. Speaker, it
is doing an injustice to the people of the province to twist words and
manipulate ideas.
Mr.
Speaker, what I said was the oversight committee was responsible for EY and
responsible for oversight. Mr. Speaker, they are also looking at how do we
engage and ensure independent assessment as we move forward in this process.
The
report of EY in April of 2016 outlined a number of recommendations that we have
implemented, Mr. Speaker. One of the identified issues was the Astaldi contract
which the former administration didn't have exactly right. So Nalcor was working
to ensure that the Astaldi contract was renegotiated and redeveloped to ensure
the powerhouse could be completed.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, in
actual fact, it was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the minister
himself who proudly said they were going to conduct an independent report. It
was announced on December 21, 2015. They said they were going to undertake a
comprehensive independent review; the process will be completed by March 2016.
We're far from that.
Mr.
Speaker, what we have over there is we have a Minister of Education who last
week is completely hands off an independent review and now we have a Minister of
Natural Resources who can't keep her hands off an independent review.
Minister, how are you doing business in your department?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I will not be
schooled by the Opposition Leader when it comes to improving Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, one of the
issues identified in the report by EY was Astaldi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. COADY:
The former administration and
the current Leader of the Opposition knew there was a problem with the Astaldi
contract way back in June of 2015 and did not act. That was what the EY report
indicated in April. We spent right up until – we, as in Nalcor – December
discussing, renegotiating and improving the terms of that contract. That was
successfully concluded in December.
In
January, the oversight committee, and I actually engaged as well in that
discussion with EY to say: How do we finalize the '16 report and how do we
ensure independent assessment going forward – something that they never did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Finance Minister referred to the Oil Revenue Risk Adjustment as a
buffer against moving oil prices.
Minister, you had one last year, none for this year's projection, but have one
in again for the next five years. Why not for this year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite. One of the things we did this year when we were building
the budget, that hadn't been done in former years under the former
administration, is that in addition to the lengthy list of oil forecasters that
we use, we also held a round-table discussion that I participated in with
officials, with economists from our banking syndicate.
Their
advice was that based on the information that we had that oil price risk is
higher in our out years. As a result, the decision was made based on the
learnings over the last year that we would modify how we use the Oil Revenue
Risk Adjustment to make sure that our budgeting was reasonable.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: If she included a buffer in your 2017 budget
forecast, would the budget meet your deficit reduction target of $800 million?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the budget that
we presented to the House of Assembly that is being debated is based on the best
information we have on revenue. As the Member opposite surely would understand
based on his experience, their inability to accurately forecast oil created a
situation where when oil was at $120, $140, they had some of the highest
spending we've had in our province.
Our
department and our officials, working very closely with advisors, are making
sure that the oil forecast that we put in the budget is reasonable. Like every
other Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I'm watching that oil price very closely,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's my understanding that the 11 international forecasters that the
minister used are the same ones that the prior administration used.
I'll ask
the minister: This year's budget is based on oil of approximately $75 Canadian a
barrel, yet year to date the average is approximately $70, so you're already
behind. Without your buffer, how do you expect to make up this shortfall?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, as we clearly
communicated as part of the budget this year – and the Members opposite have
this information – the oil price for this year is forecasted at $56 US, with a
US exchange rate of 75 cents US.
As we've
seen in the last five to six weeks, that oil price has been preforming less than
we had anticipated but, certainly, as last year is an indication, oil price
continues to be volatile. It's one of the reasons, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker,
that we need to continue to focus on our spending and get our spending in line
for the amount of money that the people of the province have for the services
that we provide.
This is
a volatile revenue and should not be used as one that sustains the spending of
the province, Mr. Speaker. We are quite concerned about that and we'll continue
to make decisions that are responsible, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
Estimates meetings last week, the minister was very evasive when asked about the
proposed biofuel plant for Botwood. We were told that there is no active
application and they would have to submit a business plan before a decision
could be made. However, through an access to information response, we now know
that much talk has happened with the company and a business plan has indeed been
submitted.
Why were
you not forthcoming with that information, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Any
potential business plan or development that anybody wants to talk to the
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation can certainly do so. We
have a business analysis division. We have a major projects investment unit that
would receive those proposals, that would do due diligence on it, would run an
analysis, would work with other departments that would be impacted by this, such
as the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources, as well as Finance, to look
at a return to Treasury and all the impacts that would happen.
Whenever
we look at a big project on any scale, we have to do our due diligence, Mr.
Speaker, and not make haste decisions on the back of paper napkins as they did
opposite.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the minister did
not answer my question. It's great to get the education about what goes on in
his department, but on this file we got information last week that conflicts
with what we found out through an access to information request.
We've
got the local MHA and the minister responsible for forestry in the news saying,
basically, that this project is a done deal, while the minister responsible for
business says something very different.
Last
week, the department told us there wasn't even a business plan submitted, when
we find out there in fact is. Who should we believe?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, what I have been quoted as saying, and the Member for Exploits and the
Member for Grand Falls as well, is that we've worked with this company. We've
identified a fibre supply. We will continue to work with this company as they
work their business proposal forward.
Any time
a company comes forward to our department, and the Department of Business, I'm
quite sure we'll certainly work with them to identify their needs.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I thank the Minister of Land
Resources for actually attempting to answer the question, at least.
I ask
the minister – I ask that minister: Have other sawmill operators in the province
been consulted regarding this proposal and are they supportive?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
One
thing that we have done since becoming government, I know the former minister
who was responsible for forestry and myself have consulted very regularly with
our forestry industry, no different than some of the challenges that are being
faced today with softwood lumber.
Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you that when we look at a project or different projects
around the province, we always take into consideration our existing operators,
and we'll continue to do that as we look at these proposals.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I thank the minister for
answering my question.
A
follow-up question, Mr. Speaker: How will the proposed biofuel plant impact
existing sawmill operations in the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite should remember back to when they expropriated the
mill in Grand Falls-Windsor because what happened when that mill closed, there
became about 285,000 cubic metres available in the province that was used in
Central Newfoundland.
I
believe it was the previous administration who said that they would use that
fibre to attract business to Central Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. As
a government, we're going to continue to use that fibre, that resource that
belongs to the people of our province, for the best interests of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, in response to
the questions earlier this week on the Liberal tax on icebergs, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment committed to take action by Friday, and even
called one of the seven companies that have been impacted, and I commend him for
doing that.
But I
ask today: What action will the minister take by tomorrow to correct this
situation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find
the questions getting much better since there's a leadership race there in the
front benches.
I have
to say, Mr. Speaker, what I told the producer, what I told the person I spoke
to, it's by next Friday that we'll have a review – it's next Friday.
Mr.
Speaker, what I always say, though, is when you're dealing with companies, you
always have to work together. You can't say yes – you can never say never.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
I'm glad the minister thinks
it's funny. I don't think the Liberal tax on icebergs is funny at all.
So I'll
the minister then: What action will he take by next Friday?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with
the person. I said to the media by next Friday we're hoping to have a resolution
and I will call back the people involved.
Mr.
Speaker, there's one little thing here I have to mention: the licensing fee –
and usually you work with the groups, you work with them to try to find a
solution – one little part is that every five years – that administration
doubled it in 2015. That was never ever brought to attention.
They
doubled the licensing fee. The reason why the fee wasn't even actually in place
is because it's done every five years. If they hadn't known and looked at it –
they had the fee already doubled in 2015, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the recent
increase, the new Liberal tax on icebergs, represents a 2,500 per cent increase.
I ask
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation: Why didn't you
consider the impacts on our province's small businesses when you made the
decision last year to increase the iceberg tax by 2,500 per cent?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the Member, two days ago when he asked me to consult with them, which I did do,
but that's not good enough. He asked me to find a resolution which we are
working with the industry to help find a resolution.
Mr.
Speaker, we had to find some way to put some value on water. As we said before
and I said in the media, some of the bigger water producers is what this
legislation is for and the people who are processing icebergs are caught up into
that.
We are
working with them. I made the call, I spoke to him personally. He was very
pleased with the call that I made. He was very pleased that I said by next
Friday I'll give him a call; we'll work back at it.
Mr.
Speaker, I will work with the industry on this. I made a commitment that I will
get to him by next Friday and I will fulfill that commitment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
executive director of the AIDS Committee in Newfoundland and Labrador is on
record this week acknowledging gaps in government's opioid action plan.
Will
government take immediate action, as we requested last week, and provide free
naloxone kits to pharmacies, to shelters, to youth homes and to our province's
schools?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Parliamentary
Assistant to the Department of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. B. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
Member for the question. We saw this opioid crisis coming. We had put an opioid
action plan in place. We put 1,200 naloxone kits on the streets – not all of
them have been taken advantage of at this point – at 74 public sites across our
province.
We have
a planning committee in place, a working group, trying to increase the reach of
those naloxone kits to ensure they get in the hands of the individuals that
require them the most.
These
are important things, decisions being made by people that understand what they
have to do, much more than anybody in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Wow! It's nice to see the
minister's arrogance has rubbed off already on the parliamentary secretary.
Mr.
Speaker, the 1,200 kits are not on the street. That's exactly the issue. We have
pharmacists who are qualified all over the province that could be part of the
solution. Local pharmacists have said that pharmacies should be distributing
naloxone kits as they are more than qualified to dispense, to consult and to do
injection training.
Will the
minister move quickly to ensure pharmacists are working at their full scope of
practice, better positioned to save more lives? Let's put the kits in
pharmacies, in schools and in other places where they can actually save lives.
Will the department finally commit to doing the right thing and follow the
advice of its own advisory group?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Parliamentary Assistant
to the Department of Health and Community Services.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member
isn't suggesting that we just go out and do this without having the industry
professionals make those decisions. So we've established a naloxone distribution
network. Those are trained professionals, pharmacists are there, represented,
industry professionals, community partners that we're working with. We want to
get these into the hands of the people that need them the most. We're going to
continue to do that.
We're
not going to follow suit on the plans that you've made. We're focused on the
plans that are in this initiative. We're working with those independent experts,
arm's-length from us, and we're going to listen to those people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, when you announced in late February you were moving Crown Lands to
Corner Brook, you said to position it near the majority of agriculture and
forestry activity within our province.
Can you
tell us where the majority of agriculture requests have come from in recent
years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, if you look at the changes that we've made as a government with regard
to agriculture and making the land more accessible to our farmers and our
processors, it's very important for us. If you look at the 64 new parcels of
land that we've gone out and cut down the silos on so they're available for
farmers in an expedited way, I think it's about 95 per cent of those lands are
located off the Avalon, and the vast majority of them west of Grand Falls.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, the majority of applications for Crown lands are on the East Coast,
and many of the related services and agencies, like Registry of Deeds, are also
located in St. John's.
Can you
tell us how this will make Crown Lands' process and service delivery more
efficient?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Labrador Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the opportunity to correct what he's saying here today. Mr.
Speaker, last year in Eastern Newfoundland there were 1,054 Crown lands
applications and Eastern Newfoundland would include the Clarenville office.
Mr.
Speaker, those 1,054 people will see no difference this year than they seen last
year. Because if the hon. Member wants to make a Crown lands application in
September or October or November of next year, he'll still do it at the Howley
Building the same as 1,000 people did last year, Mr. Speaker. The 1,054
applications last year represented about 37 per cent of the applications in the
province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
my question to you minister is, why is it being moved? Why is it leaving where
it is if there's no benefit?
Minister, the Lands Act requires the
Lands Branch to maintain a registry of documents. The current public registry is
located in a fireproof vault at the Howley Building in St. John's.
Are
hardcopies of all Crown land records moving to Corner Brook or will you have to
renovate the leased space to accommodate the Crown Lands material and equipment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, the reality is there are records
in that vault that date back to the 1800s. Last year under the previous
minister, they started to put a plan in place to have those records digitalized.
This past Monday, we started on a project that's going to last until about the
end of this summer to digitalize those records. You have to remember, Mr.
Speaker, those records date back to the 1800s. They need to be digitalized.
One of
the things that the new digital records are going to make accessible, Mr.
Speaker, is that people throughout this province are going to be able to go
online and find their record. Not only that, we're also committed to an atlas so
that in the future people will only have to go online to do Crown lands
applications, and all records now will be protected for generations to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, we're being told
it's going to take a lot longer than three to four months to digitize these
records.
Can you
tell us how you plan on getting those records digitized by the end of August?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, we're going to
use the technology, I'll tell the hon. Member, called a scanner. We brought in
the equipment to make this doable. We've hired the people to make this doable,
Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the hon. Member that we will take the time that's
required to get these records digitized. These records are very important to our
province, Mr. Speaker. You have to realize there's a historical value. These
records date back to the 1800s.
I can
assure the hon. Member opposite, stop fear mongering, we will get this done and
we'll get it done right.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I've
often reminded Members of the Legislature to respect the individual stood to
speak. I will make one final plea today. I expect that the only individual
recognized to speak is the individual that is recognized to speak.
The hon.
Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, you just referenced these very fragile documents. They've been in
storage since the 1830s. You told us in Estimates you were planning to do this
work in-house.
Who is
doing the work to handle these fragile, historic documents and do they have any
specialized training?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. Member is questioning the capabilities of staff at
Crown Lands. They deal with these documents on a daily basis.
He talks
about the value of these documents dating back to the 1800s. Absolutely, Mr.
Speaker, and we respect that.
We know
that The Rooms has an interest in these documents that date back to the 1800s.
They're very important to us, Mr. Speaker, and we'll ensure it's done in a
timely fashion and a fashion that's respectful to the value of these important
records.
To keep
coming back and throwing out numbers, Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that 65
per cent of the Crown lands applications in this province come from outside the
Avalon. We're going to respond to the needs of the people around the province
who want to use Crown lands. Again, I'll reiterate, the service for the people
that use Crown lands today in St. John's and Clarenville on the Eastern part of
the province will not change.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay South, a very quick question without preamble.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, have you hired any additional staff to do this specialized work?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker,
we've hired additional staff. At the moment I think there are eight additional
staff working with the people that are already there that has the expertise.
A lot of
this work is IM work and we'll make sure that it's done in a proper,
professional manner. Anybody going in to do this work, Mr. Speaker, will be
properly trained.
As well,
I have to remind the hon. Member, he stands up day after day fear mongering, Mr.
Speaker. We will do what's best for the people at Crown Lands.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In
Budget 2017, government doubled the
expected cut to Memorial University, ignoring the multi-year MUN attrition plan
that government had agreed to. This cut could result today in increases to
tuition and other student fees.
I ask
the Premier: Will he take responsibility for any tuition and other fee increases
at Memorial?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Advanced
Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, this government
will indeed take responsibility for providing Memorial University of
Newfoundland with $56.4 million this year to encourage and incentivize a tuition
freeze for Newfoundland and Labrador students.
Mr.
Speaker, we have encouraged as well the university to consider – before raising
any revenue from students or expecting more money from taxpayers, we ask them to
consider reducing their expenses. We also ask the university to supply greater
disclosure and transparency for the funds that they do receive from the public
purse and from students as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, last year,
government reduced the grant portion in the student loan program and increased
the loan portion. This year, students will be forced to max out the federal
portion of their loan before they can qualify for a provincial grant.
I ask
the Premier: Will he take responsibility for imposing this new financial burden
on students or will he continue to hide behind his AESL Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Oh my, Mr. Speaker, there's
no one hiding from anyone.
There
was a decision that was taken by the federal government approximately a
year-and-a-half ago, I understand. Some good decisions where they would increase
the amount of student grants that would be available through the federal Student
Financial Assistance Program. They also did some modifications to the
eligibility criteria which were quite helpful to students.
Mr.
Speaker, as I explained in the Estimates Committee, the federal government also
did impose or require that students would have a fixed-rate contribution. In
other words, what that means, no matter what the means, whatever the ability for
the student to be able to provide for their own education, they would require a
minimum of $3,000. That was a change of policy. Modifications by the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador were meant to offset that, and it did indeed
achieve that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker,
Budget 2016 included a poorly thought out and regressive book tax
that includes taxing books sold at post-secondary institutions, resulting in yet
another financial burden on students' shoulders.
I ask
the Premier: Will he do the right thing and immediately remove the tax from
post-secondary books?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very
pleased to inform this House that within the Student Financial Assistance
Program offered by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have taken
into consideration the means and expenditures of the student, their cost of
attending post-secondary education. Built within the cost structure of a student
is indeed of course the cost of textbooks.
The full
in cost of all textbooks, including any additional taxes, are indeed included
for the consideration for the student's access to grants for their education. So
we have accommodated that by providing additional grant opportunities for
Newfoundland and Labrador students.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, there are no
additional monies in those grants to pay for the hike in textbooks because of
the tax.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: How much did government make on the book
tax from January to March 2017, and how much of that amount was from
post-secondary textbooks?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, for the Member
opposite, as the Minister of ASL has already communicated, students who meet the
means testing that is available and who qualify for grants can have the entire
costs of their academic books that they need at university covered; but, Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to what the Members opposite refer to as the book tax,
which really was a rebate on behalf of the taxpayers of the province for books
in Newfoundland and Labrador, we made the very difficult decision that that was
an action we had to take last year.
As I've
said to the Member opposite, we will continue to look at that as part of the tax
review that's coming up this year. When we have the ability to rebate for books
that are purchased versus paying for hospital beds, we'll certainly take a look
at that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to table a document here related to position eliminations and
position creations associated with the change to the management structure, and
this document I'm tabling today on May 11, 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, as per my commitment to this House, today I'm tabling a list of
positions eliminated as well as a list of positions created as a result of the
changes to the management structure announced in February. This information
reflects actions taken as of May 8, 2017, and there are a number of items that I
wish to highlight and these are noted as footnotes in the materials that I will
be tabling.
The term
actioned, for the purpose of this report, means that the department has notified
any impacted employees. In all but 16 cases, the position has been vacated and
is ready to be eliminated. The 16 positions that have employees attached to
them, these employees have been notified that the position will be abolished at
a later date; therefore, the net reduction is 292 positions reflecting actions
taken as of May 8.
With
respect to the position creations, there are some positions yet to be created,
but because the action has not occurred yet, these have not been included in
this list, Mr. Speaker, and I'll table that.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to take the opportunity to table a response to a question
I was asked yesterday in the House. The Member for Ferryland asked me a question
about the information I tabled last week specifically related to position
reductions in Budget 2016.
In
Budget 2016, I announced there would
be a reduction of 450 FTEs in the agencies, boards and commissions, and 200
positions in core government. I also indicated at that time that upcoming
retirements presented an opportunity and that our government will continue our
commitment to using attrition as a preferred means to reduce the workforce.
The
information tabled last week reflects decisions made as part of
Budget 2016. It provides the list of
full-time equivalent eliminations to date for the agencies, boards and
commissions as of November 2016, and position eliminations for core government
as of March 31, 2017.
For
positions identified in core government to be abolished but have not yet been,
these would reflect the budget decisions for 2016, former attrition targets by
the former administration, government renewal initiative decision, as well as
changes to the management structure that have yet to be acted on and positions
that have yet to be abolished.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite also asked yesterday about questions related to a
particular department –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. C. BENNETT:
– and I'll certainly provide
him with that information at his leisure.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think the first was a
document to be tabled. I think the second was an Answer to a Question for which
Notice has been Given. We'll consider it tabled under that.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice I
will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Natural
Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I
give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend
The Proceedings Against The Crown Act. (Bill 11)
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisional Standing Order 11, I
give notice under provisional Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not
adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, I further give notice that under provincial Standing Order 11, I shall
move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2017.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has removed the provincial point-of-sale rebate tax on books which
will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and
WHEREAS
an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local
bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must
be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada and the
other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to encourage
reading and literacy; and
WHEREAS
this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we
will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government
a tax to read the books of our own writers;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, it was very interesting to hear the non-answers or the answers to the
questions I raised to the Minister of AESL and the Premier and the Finance
Minister about their tax on textbooks; textbooks, Mr. Speaker, an absolute
necessity. Not a frill. Not a luxury, but textbooks. It makes no sense at all.
Not only
should the tax be immediately removed – it is a rebate, we know that, but for
the ease in speaking about this issue. This tax rebate should be reinstated or
the tax should be removed. Not only should that happen, but we also believe that
students who have paid taxes on their school books, on their textbooks, that
those taxes should immediately be reimbursed as well. So not only to cut the tax
on books, but to also reimburse students who've had to pay taxes on books.
It's
very interesting the way government has pitted students and administration
against each other at MUN now because of government squeezing the university and
the administration, but then to do an extra burden on students by placing a tax
on textbooks. It just flies in the fact of reason, Mr. Speaker. There's nothing
to be gained in this. No one wins.
As the
minister says, well, then people who are going to get government grants, they
get some money for textbooks and that will cover their textbooks. However, Mr.
Speaker, that's still an unnecessary burden on students – students who are
getting grants and also students who aren't eligible for grants.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned resident humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
we insist that the well-being and safety of our families take priority over any
economic consideration; and
WHEREAS
we reject, in advance, any Nalcor-led plan to send its experts to Labrador to
inform; and
WHEREAS
we are calling for a process where independent experts are provided with
everything they need to ascertain the safety of the North Spur: i.e., the proper
mandate, documents, financing and time; and
WHEREAS
we demand this process have a public component where we, the people, can have
access and can ask questions; and
WHEREAS
the Premier promised to open the books on Muskrat Falls and, so far, that has
not happened;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to consider the establishment of an independent
expert review of the North Spur.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand and present this petition on behalf of people
who believe that this government should be paying much more attention to the
concerns of people in Labrador with regard to the North Spur which is related to
the Muskrat Falls Project.
I do
know that besides my having the petition that this petition was presented to
government through the Minister of Environment. They have great hope that
government is going to pay close attention but, so far, there are no signs they
are going to.
It is
very important, Mr. Speaker, that an independent review panel be put in place.
We really haven't had a fully independent review body. We know that there are
people around the world, geotechnical experts, who have real concerns about this
North Spur and who are interested and willing to look at this issue and to
present their views and their evidence with regard to the concerns about North
Spur.
An
expert review panel, an independent review panel, could call upon such
international experts that are out there with their concerns. We have experts
here in our own province. There is so much confusion around this issue and many
different positions. For the government and for Nalcor and for those responsible
for Muskrat Falls to move ahead pooh-poohing those concerns which are based on
evidence as well and which come from experts as well is irresponsible.
We also
have the traditional knowledge of the people from Labrador who have lived and
hunted and fished in that whole area and have long-standing traditional
knowledge of generations, Mr. Speaker. That knowledge was presented during the
environmental assessment panel, but government refused to listen to the
recommendations of that panel.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
infertility is not an inconvenience, it is a disease of the reproductive system
that impairs the body's ability to perform the basic function of reproduction;
and
WHEREAS
infertility affects women and men equally; and
WHEREAS
treating infertility is excessively expensive and cost prohibitive; and
WHEREAS
infertility impairs the ability of individuals and couples to conceive children
and begin to build a family;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to implement a program that assists individuals
and couples allowing them to access affordable in vitro fertilization services.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition has been signed by residents across Newfoundland and
Labrador. This is an issue that affects families throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador. I've heard from a number of my constituents and a number of people
outside of my district as well who have asked that we raise this issue in the
House of Assembly. It is one that, as I said, touches many.
I
received a note from one constituent who indicates that she feels like fertility
is something that's taken for granted by most people and taboo for those who
actually go through it, and because of this, it's not talked about enough. She
notes that people go to a fertility clinic, get their tests and procedures and
try to forget about it.
She
urges people to start looking at the clinic as a relief and an exciting
experience knowing that there may finally be a solution. She says the last thing
that should influence a person's emotions and decision making at the clinic is
finances. No one should have to remortgage, take out a loan or sell the things
we have worked so hard to get. Most people are worried about saving money for
maternity leave when people with fertility issues have to owe so much money from
the beginning.
Basically what she's saying is: Why should we wait until every other province
covers fertility treatment? Why don't we join a couple of the larger provinces
that have taken the lead in that regard? I think it's an issue that's worth
looking at. I believe there is more that can be done. And given the number of
families that are affected in our province, I would urge government to take a
closer look at the issue and see what can be done.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition. It's
certainly an issue that I've brought to the floor of the House many times
before.
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
Budget 2015 announced a new school for
the Witless Bay-Mobile school system; and
WHEREAS
the planning and design of this school was completed; and
WHEREAS
the project was cancelled in Budget 2016;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reverse its decision and construct the
proposed school for the Witless Bay-mobile school system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Again,
we have gone through a process with the residents of the area in regard to
asking government to reconsider this. We've certainly made representation to the
Minister of Education and the parent community has come as well and has made
representation to him. They have asked to have a meeting with the Premier. I
think on April 4 they asked. I asked him yesterday in the House if he would
consider discussing this issue and hearing the thoughts and understanding of
those in that region from Bay Bulls to Bauline. We haven't got a response on
that, which is unfortunate.
The
other evening on a Facebook Live CBC interview the Premier was asked about it by
one of the parents from the area that emailed in a question. At that time,
amazingly, he said the decision was made by the Newfoundland and Labrador
English School District, which was totally incorrect; it was inaccurate.
Everything to date has demonstrated that this decision was made to cancel this
school by the current government. It was approved in 2015 based on a BAE-Newplan
report that indicated that a middle school was the best alternative here. The
Newfoundland and Labrador English School District approved that, recommended it
to government. Again, last fall when they put their infrastructure list to this
current Liberal government, they included this new middle school on the list. It
was this government that denied it, I guess, the Premier and through Cabinet.
But
yesterday, or the other night the Premier stood and basically said that wasn't
the case and the English School District had cancelled the school, which is
totally incorrect. Even to date, with the nine classrooms that are being
proposed the Newfoundland English School District has never approved that, has
never recommended it. And even today, what we're hearing with the consultants on
site in Mobile and the footprint, it's something that they're having trouble
even making do with the footprint of Mobile High. The cost is escalating. Even
the rationale behind this is getting more ludicrous by the day as they move
forward in their region to do this.
We urge
government, the people of the community as well, for the Premier to answer their
call to sit, meet and discuss this; to get back and look at the numbers and for
rationale to why this was originally approved, to why that hasn't changed while
the numbers still exist; still support it, and let's move on and get this done.
Even the
parent community has said to government: If we need to push this out for a year
or two to reach the financing, we're willing to work with you to do it. A
government that's hailed consultation and let's sit down and resolve issues, yet
today they won't do that. This is a blatant case.
We don't
know why this is cancelled, but we wish at some point someone would tell us and
we move forward in the best interests of those people in that region.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the provincial government has mandated the Eastern Regional Service Board to
implement modern waste management practices in the Eastern region; and
WHEREAS
the Eastern Regional Service Board has opened a waste recovery facility on Old
Brigus Road in Whitbourne to receive bulk items such as appliances, furniture,
electronics, car and truck tires, construction and demolition debris, shingles,
et cetera;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to insist mitigation measures be established to
contain waste held at the facility and improve esthetics surrounding the
containment area.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I have numerous petitions on this same issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
It has to do with a drop-off
facility that's located on Old Brigus Road in Whitbourne. As I've just said,
it's not your household garbage but it's the larger items.
There's
a tender that's been called. Right now there's going to be a fence erected
across the front with, I believe, six trees. Residents don't feel this is going
to be adequate to close it off. It's an eyesore right now to residents, the
travelling public and tourists alike that come up and pass by there. There will
be an increase in that, obviously, as summer season approaches.
There's
garbage that's blowing all around the community in areas around close to that
area. As I said recently, there was even a box spring that blew out on the
Trans-Canada in the median. Residents have concerns. They've brought this to the
town and they've approached me to bring it to the House of Assembly and petition
government to urge the Eastern Regional Service Board to insist on better
mitigation issues.
One
thing that's being proposed is fencing going right around this facility. Another
issue is to provide covered containment. Right now it's just holes in the
ground, I think, with concrete walls around. They're not adequate on windy days
and as we know, it's not uncommon to have a lot of those days. It's not doing
the proper work. They'd like to have those areas contained and covered.
Another
thing that's been asked and people are requesting is maybe when they put the
fence up, provide a berm to cover off from visibility, people can't see it and
it also would serve as somewhat of a buffer to preventing stuff from blowing
around.
One
other point that residents have also expressed concern about is, unfortunately,
you can't control behaviour but there are people dropping off other garbage in
the gateway outside this area. So they've suggested to the Eastern Regional
Service Board to maybe install video surveillance. Unfortunately, those things
are inevitable to happen but they don't want to turn this into a dump on the
side of the road and not meet what is required to do, as being just like a
transshipment facility. Right now it's becoming an eyesore. It's a great concern
to residents in the area.
While
this tender is being called, residents are calling upon the Eastern Regional
Services Board, which I am lobbying government, to insist on extra measures
being taken so that when they do it the first time they do it right, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
smaller class sizes, adequate learning environments and effective curriculum are
paramount to success of our youth; and
WHEREAS
recent budget decisions have negatively impacted student supports, educational
resources and teacher allocations; and
WHEREAS
the provincial education system should ensure that each child has the ability to
reach his or her full potential;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to enhance the education system in Newfoundland
and Labrador; introduce initiatives which ensure smaller class sizes which will
provide more sufficient personal space per child and allow more individual
learning opportunities; develop effective curriculum which will enable youth to
develop both life skills and optimal academic achievement; provide resources to
ensure a fully beneficial inclusion model is in place and to ensure all children
in our province have equal standards of education in their learning environment.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've been presenting a number of petitions around education for the
last number of months because I continue to hear and receive emails and calls
from concerned parents, from students themselves, which is alarming when
students identify that there is inadequacies within their school system and
there are challenges that are not being met.
We're
hearing it from school councils. We're hearing it from the prospective agencies
that work within the school services: the Association of Psychologists. We're
hearing it from the NLTA. We're even hearing it from NAPE and CUPE, agencies
that work within the school system and other avenues.
It's
becoming a real challenge here and a real issue about how do we address some of
the issues within our education system. When you have parent organizations, and
particularly all over this province – and I note, just looking at some of the
names here, some of the communities. They're from Random Island, Shoal Harbour,
Bunyan's Cove – well then that tells you that this is not isolated to one
particular school or isolated to one particular area of our province, or one
particular age category or level of school.
It's not
just around high schools or middle schools or the elementary schools. This is
about parents, students, administrators, teachers, counsellors, the public
having a concern about our education system and the holes and the gaps we have
in being able to provide an adequate, safe environment.
As we
noted a few months ago, CBC had a three-part documentary on Monday evenings
where teachers from various backgrounds, various geographic backgrounds, periods
of time they've served in it, the role they play in the education system,
outline their concerns. Concerns were about class sizes. It was about having the
resources to do things properly. It was about having more engagement to address
the needs, particularly around inclusive learning, but you can't do some of
these things if you don't have the proper resources.
They
talked about violence in schools. When you've got 28-30 students in a classroom
and you get some students who may be volatile with each other, there may be
conflicts, you may have some behavioural issues, it's a lot harder for that
instructor, that teacher to be able to deal with those situations.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this and many other issues that
are in the education system over the near few weeks.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders
of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would call from the Order
Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech, main motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to be able to stand again today and speak to the budget. For those who
are watching, we are now in the final phase of the debate on the budget. We are
now debating the main motion. We've had the vote of non-confidence, which was
defeated by government, and we had the sub-amendment, which was defeated by
government. So now we are back to the main motion, and I'm very pleased to speak
to this.
When the
time comes to vote, I'm sure I'll be voting against the main motion and
government will be voting for it, but I will continue to speak to this budget
and to speak to how this budget is not a good one. How it builds on an extremely
bad one, the one from 2016, how this maintains the budget of 2016 and continues
down the path of a route that is not going to be good and is not good for the
people of the province. We will continue to speak against it and, of course,
we'll vote against it, just as we had to vote against 2016.
I know
what the government is facing. All of us in the province are well aware of what
the government is facing. The provincial deficit is a very serious issue – I'm
not going to doubt that and it must be addressed, but the way in which this
government is dealing with it, Mr. Speaker, is the issue.
This
government's approach to reducing the deficit is that their attack on the
deficit is taking priority over the needs of the people of the province. What's
starting to happen is that we are going backwards, not forward. Things that had
been put in place for the good of the people, things that had been put in place
in education, things that had been put in place in health care, things that had
been put in place in assistance for people who need help, things have been taken
away that had been put in – these weren't frills, Mr. Speaker.
Yes,
it's quite possible that down the road or in the past there are things that were
put in budgets that were not for the good of the people and benefited the
government and made them look good. When we start cutting the programs for
people that we were starting to put in place in this province, when we start
cutting those because we're giving priority to the deficit, then we have a
problem.
Senior
government leaders show a great passion to address the issue of the deficit. The
Minister of Finance shows real passion to reduce the deficit. The Premier shows
real passion to reduce the deficit. Government shows real passion to reduce the
deficit. People see that. What I'm saying to the government, what I'm saying to
the Premier, to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Education and Early
Childhood Development, what I'm saying to everybody who's sitting in that
government is that we want to see the same passion for providing the best
services to the people of the province. That's where the passion should be.
Then the
goal should be how we address the deficit while still meeting the needs of the
people of the province. The deficit needs addressing for sure, but the needs of
the people of the province, all the people, need to be the necessary
consideration, not a secondary consideration.
The need
of the people of the province is to see that passion. They need to know that
government is concerned about them, that they are government's focus, they are
government's passion, not satisfying and appeasing the bond raters and money
lenders but focused on the needs of the people. This government has to have what
is needed to say back to the bond raters and the money lenders, we know our
responsibility, here's our plan for that responsibility but that plan has to
include the needs of people.
Mr.
Speaker, I have spoken in this House before and mentioned structural adjustment
that went on decades ago, thanks to the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. What happened there was a fight back eventually had to be taken
by governments to say this is not working. Cutting services, cutting social
programs, cutting things that are helping the people of our countries, the
poorest countries in the world, that's not the way to go and they fought back.
Even the World Bank and IMF changed their tactics.
This is
what this government has to do, Mr. Speaker. It has to look at what are the
needs of the people. The debt, a product of decades of mismanagement, must be
addressed but the people of the province need to know government is on their
side, as I said, not on the side of the bond rating agencies and the business
community. The people of the province do not have that confidence – far from it,
as a matter of fact.
Government seems to need to be reminded. Let's look at what happened in 2016 and
what's still going on, Mr. Speaker. One of the things, for example, was the
transportation benefit for parents under the Child Care Services Subsidy
Program. That was eliminated last year. It is still eliminated. This was a
benefit that was provided to low-income families to pay for their children to
use buses operated by daycare centres. The subsidy ceased in the fall of 2016.
Some daycare centres depended on the benefit to help operate their buses, which
can cost tens of thousands of dollars. But besides the daycare centres
themselves, the parents who got the subsidies can't afford to pay for those
buses.
I don't
know how the people on the government side of the House think that people on
low-income, people earning minimum wage for example, have the money to do that.
This is why we need real plans put in place for a child care program in this
province, a public, universally accessible child care program. We've got to
start taking seriously the need for that program: one, for the good of children;
two, for the good of parents; and three, for the good of the economy.
If this
government were to take that seriously and put a plan in place and show the
people they're trying to appease, the moneylenders and the bond raters, and show
them how this plan could work both for the people as well as for the economy,
I'm sure that those people would listen. I'm sure that the creditors would
listen; they just need to see plans in place to do that.
The only
plan this government has is cut, cut, cut in order to get at the deficit and in
order to help with the payments with regard to the debt – cut, cut, cut. What
they're cutting are the people of the province. They use terminology that takes
the humanity out of it, and that's what's really disturbing, Mr. Speaker. It
does take the humanity out of it.
Let's
look at something else with regard to early childhood development. This
government in 2016 eliminated the workplace training program for early childhood
educators. What they had is a workplace training program that helped them to
access certification by training on the job.
Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development was working
on the program. There was a budget of $500,000 in 2015 to train 50 employees a
year, but it was not implemented. The money was in the budget and wasn't
implemented.
It was
designed to help child care staff upgrade to Level I which is a requirement
under the early childhood development strategy. Under that strategy, the workers
were required to upgrade to Level I. The idea of putting the training in place,
the on-the-job training program, was to bring those workers up to Level I, a
minimum requirement.
Employers would receive funding to hire substitutes while their employees were
taking an accelerated ECE program. There was to be a prior learning assessment
and recognition component where experienced staff could obtain credit for skills
acquired in the field.
There
are many staff out there who have all kinds of experience and really do know
what they're doing, but they're not certified. It's absolutely important in this
day and age for them to be certified. What they could do, because of the
on-the-job training program, the way it would have been designed, would give
them credit for skills already acquired and then further their certification.
The
Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador came out
strongly about the need for this program to get people properly trained because
there is a shortage of Level I ECE workers. So we have regulations in place but
we don't put in place what's needed to help people be able to live up to those
regulations. Again, something that this government did in the 2016 budget which
is still continuing, they have not put in place, they have not made operational
a plan that was a solid plan in the 2015-2016 budget. That is just unacceptable,
Mr. Speaker.
Let's
look at some other things under Education and Early Childhood Development. We
had last year an increased class size. We had multi-grade classes brought in,
and those two things, Mr. Speaker, eliminated 61.5 teaching units at a time when
we have the highest unemployment and do not need more people unemployed. Not all
of those units resulted in people being unemployed but a lot of them did.
An
additional 15 units have been cut in this year so far, Mr. Speaker. That's what
happened because of 2016 budget and the budget this year. I cannot believe in
this day and age this is going on in our educational system, at the same time
that we use the fancy language of having inclusion education when in actual fact
we don't because we're not putting the resources in place to really have a full
inclusion model.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, people in the system, parents, teachers, those who
are involved with the educational system and who are affected by it, they tell
us that the so-called inclusion model because of inadequate resources is
actually excluding rather than including. Everybody in the classroom is
suffering from this, not just children who have exceptionalities and exceptional
needs on whatever end that might be, especially those, Mr. Speaker, who have
learning disabilities, who are on the autism spectrum. Besides those, there are
also the children who are highly capable, have high IQs, all of them, Mr.
Speaker, are suffering from the lack of resources in our classroom, lack of
resources in the system to allow the inclusion model to work.
I can't
understand why this government can't see it. It's crazy, because I know what
they're trying to do but while they're trying to do it, they're causing a whole
lot more damage in the name of taking care of the deficit. They're causing a
whole lot more damage. How much more damage is going to be done to our children,
to our system during these years that they are doing all these cuts and
maintaining these cuts? It's just crazy, Mr. Speaker.
It's
like saying to somebody who has a disease, in order to get better you really
need this, this and this to get better, but we can't start it for two years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, by the time the medicine starts or by the time the health
care starts for that person, the person is going to be much worse when it comes
to the disease that the person has. That's the same thing that's happening here.
More and more damage is being done in our system because of what this government
has done.
If they
don't take seriously the report from the Task Force on Educational Outcomes, I
am really going to be very disturbed because I cannot believe the task force is
going to be saying anything much differently than what I'm saying myself, what
others are saying out there, what those who went to them and witnessed and made
representations have said.
I am
convinced they're going to have strong messages for this government and strong
recommendations, especially when it comes to the resources needed for inclusion.
Inclusion is not a tack on; inclusion is now supposed to be the model. That's
supposed to be the framework of the model, but this government is not making it
work.
Let's
look at AESL, Mr. Speaker. Today we asked some questions around this because we
have a reduced grant portion and an increased loan portion for our students. The
minister can speak all the way he wants, he can twist things around all he
wants, the bottom line is students are finding it harder. Their debt load is
being increased. They are really feeling pressured when it comes to grants.
Not
everybody qualifies for grants, Mr. Speaker, so let's talk about the tax on
textbooks. If you're not somebody who qualifies for a grant, then everything
that was said here in the House today in response to questions in Question
Period means nothing. Yet, not being eligible for a grant doesn't mean you're
wealthy. Yeah, there are people who are wealthy and there are students who have
wealthy parents, but in this province they're in the minority.
The
majority of students who are out there paying $300 and $400 and $500 in tax –
I've had the students come to me and tell me, paying that much in tax on their
books and they're not getting any rebates. They're not. So how this government
can continue to support the things they've done in their budgets, I don't know.
They
eliminated the grants for students studying outside the province in programs
available in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, there may be really solid reasons
why students are studying outside the province. I've had again students come to
me.
In the
case, for example, of students who are a couple, one of the couple needs to go
away to study, needs to. What the person wants to study is not available here.
In order for the couple to stay together, the other person goes also, even
though, maybe the program they are doing is available here, but their reason for
going is so valid, and to think they're not available for a grant. That's not
acceptable, Mr. Speaker. Especially, if we're looking at trying to keep our
young people here in this province.
A couple
who goes away like that, a couple who goes away because one needs to go in order
to further his or her education and the other goes so that the couple can stay
together. They go away and one of them finds a good job opportunity. The other
one says, well, I will look for a good job opportunity too. So they stay away
and they don't come back.
This
government has such a short-sighted vision with regard to what our needs are. No
long-term vision at all, Mr. Speaker. Long-term vision and long-term planning is
what is missing. That's what I'm begging them to start doing and that's what the
people of the province want, long-term planning. Not just for eliminating the
deficit, long-term planning for the good of the people in the province. This is
what we're looking for, Mr. Speaker.
Let's
look at AESL. Eight offices were closed, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Eight
offices closed in this province; eight of them last year, still closed, making
it very difficult for people to access Income Support, emergency housing and
other services. The government can try all it wants to say: The phone is there,
you can call. Madam Speaker, it doesn't work It is not satisfactory.
What
people need is to know that they are being taken care of. They need to have
continuity in terms of the people they're speaking with when they have an issue,
and they don't have that continuity. They want to have some sense of security
that the person they're speaking to is not just reading from a piece of paper
and saying: Yeah, I know your history, but that they really –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
It's
very hard when you get interrupted by shouts from the other side because one
loses one's train of thought.
So
talking –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
If the
Speaker hears any more unnecessary noise in the Chamber, I'll name Members and
you'll not be permitted to speak for the remainder of day.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Madam
Speaker, the closing of the AES offices, yeah, may have saved some money for
government, but it has made life more difficult for people living in rural
areas, in particular, and has removed the human element from their interaction
with government in having their needs met.
Thank
you and I look forward to speaking again in Concurrence.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and to speak for the third time on this current budget. This will
be my last opportunity to be able to speak on the budget.
MR. KENT:
We have one more Concurrence.
MS. ROGERS:
One more Concurrence; that's
not my concurrence, though.
MR. KENT:
We want to hear from you,
though.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you very much.
I am
pleased to have this one last opportunity to speak to the 2017 budget. As I've
pointed out previously, we have a serious job crisis in this province and the
Liberals' plan, in fact, is for it to get worse, for the job crisis to get
worse.
The
economic indicators projected in the background paper on the economy paint a
grim future of our prospects for the next several years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
Madam Speaker, it's a little
bit hard for me to hear myself here with all the noise in the House.
So the
economic indicators projected in the background paper on the economy paints a
grim future for our prospects for the next several years. Real household income,
retail sales, housing starts, real GDP, capital investment, all declining
continuously for the next several years; that's a grim picture. That's all part
of the government's grim program, the GRI, grim program. The only indicators
projected to increase are unemployment and cost of living. These are the ones
that you want to see going down; but, in fact, government is telling us in the
next five years unemployment will go up and cost of living will go up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
Members for their co-operation to keep the volume down in the Chamber or if you
have pressing conversations, please take it outside.
Thank
you.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Yet the minister's Budget
Speech sounded like something from an alternate reality. This is from her Budget
Speech from 2017: “We are on a path to gain control of our finances ….” “Our
focus will always be on positioning our province to be an ideal place to raise a
family ….” “… Budget 2017 reflects progress.”
Those
are admirable words; that's exactly what you want a budget to be able to do.
But, Madam Speaker, that's not the reality of the budget. You would have to have
rose-coloured glasses on through which someone could actually read the economic
indicators and still make sense of these pronouncements. Again, every indicator
shows us increase in unemployment and increase in the cost of living, while all
their other economic indicators are worsening.
So I'd
like to take a couple of minutes to focus on the job crisis in our province
because I believe, Madam Speaker, that is the worst crisis that we are going
through right now. Again, government has told us in all their budget documents
that the job crisis will get worse in the next five years. So we have to look at
that; that's a serious statement.
We
already have the highest unemployment rate in Canada. In our beloved
Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the highest unemployment rate in Canada, and
our jobless rate is forecast to increase every year for the next five years. So
we are going to be losing more and more and more jobs in the next five years.
That's a concern to all of us.
When
people say they're worried about the economy, really what they're talking about
is they're worried about the job crisis because they're feeling it in their
communities. They are seeing it in their families. Our own public servants are
worried about their own jobs. We know that we've lost a number of jobs in the
public service. Public sector jobs, we have lost a lot. So that's what they're
talking about when they say they're worried about the economy. They're worried
about whether or not they're going to have a job.
A lot of
people are worried about their adult children who may be coming out of
university who can't get jobs or who are coming out of university with huge
student debts and are underemployed, working at minimum wage jobs.
Where is
the progress? Where is the progress in that? A place where someone is unemployed
is hardly an ideal place to raise a family. Yet the minister said she's going to
do everything to position our province to be an ideal place to raise a family.
How is this an ideal place right now to raise a family? And we want it so much
to be so. I believe, Madam Speaker, that it can be.
Government has hyped its so-called Way
Forward documents. Incredibly, the first
Way Forward publication made virtually
– imagine this, Madam Speaker, it's the biggest crisis that we have right now,
aside from Muskrat Falls, and in their Way
Forward document government made virtually no mention of jobs. The elephant
in the room and there's no mention of jobs.
It didn't address joblessness as a problem, it didn't set a
jobs target, it didn't offer any solutions and that's what government should be
doing. It's not about moving numbers around on a spreadsheet, it's about having
a vision for the province and coming up with solutions, and coming up with a
real way forward rather than dragging us backwards. That's basically what this
budget is; it's a rehash of 2016, with no relief of the damage done by
Budget 2016.
After we rightly took government to task for this shocking
omission, the second round of Way Forward
– because it takes us pushing for government to go in the right direction – set
a jobs target. That's what we wanted them to do, to set a jobs target, although
it wasn't clear at all where any of these theoretical new jobs would come from –
no plan, nothing concrete.
Earlier this week, Members opposite flocked into the media
centre: promise of a solution. They were so excited. In they went to that media
centre and the Premier's big announcement about jobs. What was it? Exactly what
was that announcement about? What was all that air blowing around? What was it
really about? Their Premier announced that two-thirds of his Cabinet would be
working on a problem that the entire Cabinet should have been focused on – this
entire Cabinet should have been focused on it for the last 17 months.
But now they're going to get two-thirds of the Cabinet
together. They realize that there's a job problem. We've all known there's a job
problem. It said it in the 2016 budget and it really said it in the 2017 budget.
Now, after 17 months, they've woken up and they're going to get a few of their
folks together and solve the problem. Well, that's what they should have been
doing from the start.
This big announcement, this flurry of activity, there was
no funding put in place and no specific plans as to where new jobs would come
from. It was a public relations exercise and not much more. I wish it would have
been more. I wish that it was substantive. I wish that it was really a
comprehensive job strategy but, no, they're saying now we're going to get
together and talk about it, after 17 months. This is a huge crisis facing the
province.
One
thing we do know, Madam Speaker, is the public sector jobs continue to be cut in
dribs and drabs; five one day, 45 another day. They're trickling down. We're
getting messages in Estimates that these positions are going to be gone. Those
are gone by attrition. These ones haven't been filled in a while. Therefore,
zero-based budgeting means we'll take those off the spreadsheet. Those jobs will
just disappear because they haven't been filled in a while. That's what they're
doing in dribs and drabs. They are cutting jobs.
We still
haven't had a straight answer from the Premier or his Minister of Finance as to
how many public sector jobs will disappear as a result of the budget. We can't
get a handle on those numbers. Not because any of us are stupid, it's because
government aren't being really forthright about it.
In fact,
the minister gets indignant when we ask and accuses us of fear mongering.
Getting to know the actuality is not fear mongering. It is really fear mongering
in a debate on a provincial budget to ask a simple question? Is this fear
mongering? How many public sector jobs will be lost as a result of the budget?
That allays people's fears when they know for sure what's happening, when they
know for sure what the plan is, what the future looks like.
Madam
Speaker, our job is to ask those questions. That's why we're here. We have to
ask those questions, and it's the minister's job to answer those questions. We
also know what the knock-off effect of those public sector job losses will be.
How many private sector jobs will disappear as a result of the public sector
layoffs? How does that square with this week's photo op on jobs? Because that's
what it was, it was a photo op.
It's not
a coincidence that with projected increases in unemployment and reductions in
household income over the next few years that the spinoff of that is that retail
sales are projected to decline year after year as well. So we're seeing the
rollout effect of that. It's not benign. We lose job, higher unemployment,
reduction in household income, people have less money to buy things. People have
less money to buy things; therefore, retail outlets have to lay off people –
again, more jobs. It's a spiral downward.
As
retail sales decline, does anyone think the retail sector will be able to retain
current levels of employment, let alone increase them? No way. So how can anyone
describe this downward spiral as progress? It's not progress. It's not growth.
It's not even maintaining our status quo. We are spiraling downwards, but it
doesn't have to be this way. That's the thing, Madam Speaker, it doesn't have to
be this way.
We all
know the fear in our relative communities; the people who are afraid of job
losses, who know what's happening in their communities because of the drop in
household income, because of the increase in unemployment. We all know it. We
know it in our families. We know it in our communities. We know it province
wide. People are telling us and we can see it.
Madam
Speaker, the Premier indicated in media interviews following the uproar over
last year's budget that he would make last year's budget decisions over again.
That he would do that again. Well, that's one promise he kept.
Budget 2017,
for all practical purposes, is Budget 2016
all over again. It's a rehash. Warmed up hash, that's all it is. It's a rehash.
The biggest difference is the political spin attached to this year's budget –
they did a better job on the spin – was designed to obscure the bad news.
Although they did mitigate some of the effects of the levy, but that's only
because those of us on this side of the House pushed so hard, as did the people
of the province, they had to push government to do the right thing.
Madam
Speaker, household incomes are expected to decline. Unemployment is expected to
increase and electricity rates are poised to go right through the roof when the
ill-advised Muskrat Falls Project is complete. Already, though, even earlier
than that based on hydro's request for a whooping rate increase.
We have
employment going down, unemployment going up, household income going down and
power rates, electricity rates skyrocketing. It's the antitheist of prosperity.
It's the antitheist of growth. It's choking the people of our province and
they're feeling it. We know they're feeling it.
So how
does this represent progress? Is this progress? I wouldn't want to be going
backwards. This is not progress. At a time when the people of the province are
desperately looking for vision and hope, we have a budget that offers neither.
Now,
government may call us fear mongering and negative, but, Madam Speaker, the
opposite is true. We know that only by acknowledging the challenges and barriers
that we can come up with real workable solutions. That's the only way to be able
to design real workable solutions.
Government's been at the helm now for 17 months and haven't come up with any
solutions. Their solutions are only about moving numbers around on a
spreadsheet. That is not a budget. Those are not solutions for the current
fiscal reality that we face. It's not simply about moving numbers around on a
spreadsheet; it's not simply about zero-based budgeting.
I say
it's time now for government to call an all-party committee on jobs because they
have shown, government has already shown over the past 17 months they can't do
it alone. The people of the province know that this government can't do it on
their own.
Government has already shown us over these past 17 months that they don't have
any solutions. The only thing they've done is last week or this week they've
pulled together and said, hey, we're going to start talking about it, after 17
months. We know they don't have it in them to do it alone. The people of the
province know they can't do it alone. I know they can't do it alone. They have
proven that.
Our
beloved Newfoundland and Labrador belongs to us all, as does our future. Our
future belongs to us all. Government should do the right thing and call for an
all-party committee to develop a job strategy in conjunction – not just an
all-party committee but in conjunction – with a citizens' assembly. I believe
this crisis is big enough that it warrants an all-party committee and it
warrants a citizens' assembly to deal with this problem. We have to develop a
job strategy to help our province really move forward, not backwards in the
direction that this government has been taking us all in.
Madam
Speaker, we need all hands on deck, including private industry, academia and the
general population, to pull together to design a real recovery strategy. What we
need is a strategy of recovery, a strategy that will in fact compel us forward.
We cannot afford not to do this. We did it with mental health and addictions and
I know that we can do this with our job and economic crisis.
Madam
Speaker, I would be more than happy – I would absolutely be more than happy to
sit on such a committee. We cannot afford to not do this; we need all hands on
deck. I believe we can. I know we can. We must. We have no choice but to come up
with real workable solutions. Government has proven to us they cannot do it
alone, they cannot go it alone. We need all hands on deck.
This
time, time is of the essence. We don't have any time to waste here. There is no
time to waste, so let's roll up our sleeves and let's work together. The
solutions do rest in us coming together. As the great late Jacky Layton said,
don't let them tell you it can't be done.
I
believe, Madam Speaker, that it can be done. I believe that it must be done. I
believe that working together, because that's what we have to do, because we are
in a job crisis, we are going backwards, it's time to change the direction, to
pull our people together, to pull together a citizens' assembly, to pull
together an all-party committee to look at our jobs and economy strategy.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
Seeing no further speakers –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I
apologize for being slow getting up; I thought the Members opposite may rise and
speak to the budget this afternoon and I was giving them an opportunity to do
just that.
Thank
you for giving me the opportunity to speak back on the main motion. I have
spoken for two hours already on the budget. I'm going to speak for another hour
now this afternoon, which is we are back on the main motion and I get an hour to
speak this afternoon and I'll use my time this afternoon to speak to the budget
as I've done before.
Madam
Speaker, there's so much information and so much material and items that I'd
like to use my time to cover, but there's no way that I can cover them all. One
of the aspects of the budget that people ask me about from time to time and
they'll say: I haven't heard much about the budget. I haven't heard a lot of
detail about the budget. How's the budget different from last year?
Madam
Speaker, the budget is not a lot different from last year; it's essentially the
same budget as last year, with one exception being the reduction on gas tax.
There's a bill scheduled to come before the House this spring to make an effort
to partially reduce the gas tax. As we've said, they actually had actually 350
new fees and increased fees – there are 300 increased fees and 50 new fees; 300
became the number that people used. We said we it's still 299½ on the books, so
they reduced half a fee.
As a
government who has said that they have to reduce the cost of operations and when
we drill down on all of the budget material, even from the high level, you see
what the difference in the cost of programs and services from last year to this
year, you really have to search really, really closely to find what government
is doing to actually reduce the cost of government and the operations of
government.
Back in
2014, 2015, we talked about reductions through attrition, but we also started a
program within government departments to look at how synergies and efficiencies
could be created. We know that in 2013, the government of the day – having seen
a decline in revenues occurring – took steps to reduce the size of public
service all in one year, and we know it was a tough year. It was a tough year in
doing so. While all the intentions were right and it came from criticism,
especially from Members opposite who said it was the wrong thing to do. You
shouldn't cut jobs at a time when you were in an economic downturn. We shouldn't
reduce spending and we should increase investments.
Those
types of commentaries came from the Opposition of the day who, for the most
part, is now in government. Then in '14 there was a further reduction in the
size of core public service, and again in '15. We're not sure where it is now
though. I know the hon. minister tabled some documentation this afternoon. I
haven't had an opportunity to go through that as of yet and it will show some of
– she referred to as reductions a result of a Flatter, Leaner Management System.
I'm glad she's tabled that. We'd be interested to know what the entire impact
is, the entire efforts of government, and what those total numbers are.
We asked
questions just a few days ago. My colleague for Ferryland asked questions just a
few days ago – yesterday actually – on the previous documentation that was
tabled by the Minister of Finance here in the House which showed I think it was
a further 200 positions that were planned to be eliminated through '16-'17. What
the Member has tabled today and spoke about earlier after Question Period was
some of that.
One of
the aspects of a budget is to understand how people are feeling about it, how
are people feeling about the actions of government and what they're doing. Madam
Speaker, we've seen some interesting, I think, good things happen. I know the
Minister of Municipal Affairs made an announcement yesterday about partnership
with municipalities. I think it's great for him to do that; he does it very
well. I'm glad he's doing that and it's important to partner with
municipalities, even though they have concern about the change in ratios this
year.
Many of
them are saying we can't do the work that we had hoped to do or planned to do
because they're going to get less work done for the funding you had available –
not in all circumstances, but in some categories of operations they will not be
able to complete the work that they wanted to.
But they
are continuing to have those relationships and you have to have those. In tough
times and in good times, you have to try and have those relationships. I know
from my own past experience that sometimes it can be challenging to do that.
They
made and discussed some of their actions and some of the things they wanted to
do, taking the politics out of appointments. We've had significant discussion
here in the House on taking the politics out of appointments. We see another
announcement today on appointments by the Independent Appointments Commission to
the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. Two out of three people who I
know enough about to speak about are good, quality people on their appointments.
They, I think, will bring value to the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor board,
or the liquor agency and the liquor board and how they operate. The board itself
will be enhanced by some of those appointments.
The
problem that people become cynical about is that the government and the Premier
had said that they were going to take the politics out of appointments, period,
campaigned on taking the politics out of appointments. We're not going to make
any more political appointments. They quite often stand up here and they talk
about appointments that we made. Political appointments have happened since the
beginning of time in history. There has been some really good work done by those
appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, volunteer based types of
appointments in large part, and how they've operated and functioned and some of
the good work that they've done.
The
government said they're going to change that. They brought forward the
Independent Appointments Commission bill last year and laid it out to government
and laid it out to the House of Assembly; a signature bill, going to take the
politics out of appointments. The bill was no sooner passed when we saw
something happening in the public service that was completely unexpected and
somewhat disingenuous from what they had said they were going to do when it
comes to appointments.
When you
say you're going to take politics out of appointments and you include agencies,
boards and commissions and certain extensions certain of those positions, but
you exclude positions that traditionally have not been political appointments in
such a way, with the full intention of making and politicizing those
appointments, it becomes problematic and people become cynical about it. The
clerk is an example of one that we've talked about which was clearly a partisan
appointment.
I
haven't been able to find anywhere in the country, Madam Speaker – and if
someone can find it, please send it to me – where a clerk of the Executive
Council was a previous candidate for the leadership of the party in power. I
can't find anywhere where anything like that ever happened before.
When we
look at the legislation, conflict of interest legislation, we look at the public
service legislation, you'll see the comments have been, oh, it's outdated, it
doesn't deal with that kind of position, because I don't think anybody ever
anticipated that type of an appointment would ever be done or would ever take
place because it's been just an accepted practice that the public service not be
politicized.
Now,
people are going say: Oh, well, you appointed this one to – you have certain
persons in your staff who were political appointments. Madam Speaker, those
appointments, there are people who work in the Premier's office and in
ministerial offices as political staffers who are that. They are political
staffers, but there's a separation from political staffers and a public service.
I've
explained this to some people over the last number of weeks who weren't clear
about it before, and I've explained it to them because there are different
branches of our government. There's a judicial branch. There's an Executive
Branch. There's a legislative branch. We're in a legislative branch.
Members
of the House of Assembly are also responsible for the Executive Branch and run
the Executive Branch of government. Then there's the judicial branch; the
judiciary, the courts which run independent from government. Government will not
have influence or say over policing or enforcement, or shouldn't. They're not
supposed to have say over policing and enforcement and what they investigate or
who they investigate or how they investigate them. As well as what happens in
our judiciary, what happens in courtrooms and so on should he hands off from
government's control completely.
The
public service is the people who are hired, non-partisan appointments. There are
people in public service I'm sure that are members of all – I'm not sure, I
know, are members of all parties or support all parties, but their employment
should not be done on a partisan basis. It should be done based on skills and
qualifications and hire and so on. People have a right to be associated with or
support a political party privately and independently without threat or fear of
reprisal because they don't support the governing party. It's the way it's
supposed to be.
When the
government starts to make political appointments, people who are known,
long-time supporters of the governing party, then the politics starts to work
into the fabric of government. They are different from the Premier appointing
Cabinet ministers. He can appoint whoever he likes to the Cabinet. That's a
political process, from political staff. That's a political process.
We have
political staff in my office who are very partisan because that's what they do.
The Premier has political staff in his office who are very partisan because
their role is a political and partisan one, but when it comes to the public
service then it should be separate.
Through
government, you have the leader of the government who is the Premier; it's the
highest position in government. You have the leader of the public service, which
is the clerk. While they work together and have a relationship, one is political
and one is not. That's the way our system of government works, and that's the
way our system is supposed to work.
We've
seen in the last year, while they passed their Independent Appointments
Commission legislation, they made a number of appointments – I don't, to this
day, believe we know all of them. We know they haven't announced many of these.
We found out through other ways of some of these appointments.
You have
a former Liberal MHA, a former Liberal candidate, former Liberal leadership
candidate, former Liberal political assistant, former Liberal political
assistant, former Liberal candidate, a former Liberal party executive member, a
former Liberal executive member who was also a campaign chair back in 2015, a
number of Liberal party executive, a candidate, a candidate and so on, a staffer
who has now been put in the public service. That's one of the reasons why people
are very cynical and become very cynical about this government and the actions
they've done. They say they're going to do one thing and they do something
completely different.
Today in
Question Period we had – I know Question Period there's a lot of bantering and
so on that happens in Question Period, but that's where the serious matters and
important matters are quite often raised, and it's what most people, the media
and so on, keep closest eye on. We asked about the EY report. Back on December
21 – someone is saying, what's the EY report about?
Back on
December 21, 2015, a very, very, short period time after government came into
power, there was an announcement by government and the headline is government
opens books on the Muskrat Falls Project. The Premier announced, as well as the
Minister of Natural Resources, that the provincial government is undertaking
independent review of the cost schedule associated with the risk of Muskrat
Falls Project.
The
quote here from the Premier indicates it will be Ernst & Young, known as EY now,
will undertake a comprehensive independent review and identify opportunities for
corrective action. That's what's right in the release of December 21. The
release also says the process will be completed by March 2016.
So we
were asking today, in April last year an interim or draft report was made
available by Ernst & Young to government. We've asked where's the finalized
report? It's now 14 months past due, and the minister has talked about how
they're working with EY to finalize the interim report. Actually, her words
yesterday in the House, and I quote: “The Oversight Committee is now working
with EY to finalize the interim report.”
The
Oversight Committee is their committee who is providing oversight on the
project, and reports, I'm pretty sure it was pretty much monthly last year in –
give credit to the Oversight Committee, I'm pretty sure it was every month. It
was 11 times last year they actually had a meeting and reviewed the project.
They're now working with EY who is providing an independent overview of the
process.
What's
also interesting, while we have a government who campaigned on openness and
transparency, and slammed the previous administration – they do that every day
in government, in the House here, they talk about the previous administration
this, the previous administration that. They'd rather talk about us then talk
about the things they've done, and that's their strategy, Mr. Speaker.
Their
Oversight Committee reports have never been released. Eleven months since
December of 2015, the month that they took office, there has not been a single
Oversight Committee report released by government, not a single report. They
also have the EY report which they're continuing to work on to finalize this,
what's supposed to be an independent report.
We
raised that in Question Period because we quite often measure the questions we
ask and decide on what questions we ask, because we have tons of material, areas
and so on, that we'd like to raise in the House but there's not enough time
during Question Period. There's not enough time in Question Period to get to all
the matters but we quite often take a process where we understand what is timely
and important to people, what people want to know about. We reflect on the
response we receive from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as well who quite
often write us and contact us and talk to us about what they're hearing in the
House of Assembly.
I just
read a letter this afternoon, handwritten letter from an individual who's a
pensioner asking certain questions about what's happening with pension plans and
so on. That's quite normal. I say, Mr. Speaker, a little bit different from what
my experience was when I was in government. While I was in government they
worked really hard to try and find out what was on people's minds, how people
felt about it and they quite often shared that, but in Opposition we get a lot
more of that than we used to.
We get a
lot more response from people than I used to anyway. I can't speak for all the
others but I think generally speaking in discussions I've had with my colleagues
it's generally the same. Quite often you get people calling us and tell us
things that are happening in departments and who are concerned about it. Who are
upset about actions or directives or change in process or policy, or things that
are taking place in government departments. They quite often call us on a
confidential basis because they have a concern about what's happening or they
have an objection to it.
Sometimes they'll call us to say a good thing is going on but most of the time
when they call us it's based on a concern, and we hear from people all over the
province who have them as well. They quite often go to their MHA or contact the
department to try and get answers, and when they don't get it – or assistance
and support – they quite often come to the Opposition.
It was
no different, Mr. Speaker, before the election of 2015. People would come to the
Opposition, a different party in Opposition, because they weren't satisfied with
the response from the government of the day when we were in power. But that
happens in Opposition. It was a little bit unexpected by me to expect such
communications that we do receive, but we certainly do.
One of
the really consistent aspects of the information we receive from people is how
cynical they really are about politics, about government of the day, but about
how government has operated, how it's maintained, how people make promises and
commitments and then they don't always live up to them, such as the partisan
appointments that I just talked about a few minutes ago.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to point out, too, because I know Members opposite refer to this
from time to time, and I want to make it clear to people in the province as well
that we don't come to the House and take on the personal experience,
qualifications and such of some of these people. It's not about that. It's not
about the qualifications of people or what their experience or background is,
what their history is. It's about a process; it's about the process used to put
those people in positions. That's what we question. We question the process
used.
We know
that through the Flatter, Leaner Management System that government introduced
last year that they set up a two-tiered process. They went into some areas of
government and said you, you, you, you're gone, as part of the flatter, leaner
system; walked them out the door, which you do when you terminate management
employees like that. But they also went in and went you, you and you, you now
have to compete against each other for a new position we're creating of a lesser
position.
The
other thing we saw, which I talked about a few minutes ago – and we don't have
full openness on this yet, but we continue to pick up tidbits of information –
is where they've gone in and vacated positions, removed people from positions
and then, subsequent to that, either filled the position with a partisan
appointment, for the same position, or changed the position slightly or a small
amount and put a partisan appointment in it.
We have
a growing list of those types of circumstances. Again, I'm not making it about
those people, but that causes people to be cynical and upset. I spoke to someone
in a department recently who expressed they understand government comes in, they
do different things differently and then my colleague, who I really liked and
was well appreciated and so on, got cut. Then there was someone brought in who
backfilled that work and that upset the people in the workplace. They felt that
was wrong in the workplace. But they can't say anything about it because they
fear for anything that could happen from doing so.
Mr.
Speaker, we've gone through budget documents at some length and during two-week
Easter break, we did that. We sought outside assistance as well and opinions and
so on. There are a couple parts of the budget, but one part of the budget which
we talk about fairly regularly because we hear from community-based
organizations and groups, service organizations and so through the province that
are asking about the grants and wonder and worry about what's going to happen
with the grants.
We know
last year there was a significant reduction in many grants. The government
actually provided fairly significant information to the public. They did so with
the changes in fees that they provided last year, but they've also provided
information to groups and organizations about changes in grants and so on.
While
there are a couple of different kinds of grants, there are grants that
organizations have received over and over for many years and there are grants
that they apply for throughout the year. So they have a base amount of funding
that they expect and receive every year. Most have been impacted by a reduction
and a cut in those, not only last year but in the last number of years. Then
there are also the other one-offs that they can apply for and that, right now,
is unknown in many cases. There is some that are starting to be known, that
we're hearing from people saying okay, we've got assurance that we're going to
be okay on this and this and this, but we're not sure of other aspects.
That
creates that whole issue, that whole problem of knowing what the future holds
for the province. That adds to that problem. Because it wasn't that long ago
that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had a spring in their step. They felt good
about themselves, they felt good about living here and they felt good about the
communities and the opportunities were abound and so on.
That's
changed significantly. It's changed significantly. People don't feel the same
way anymore. There was a poll came out yesterday which talked about people's
confidence and part of it was talking about the confidence people have in the
economy, do they plan on making major purchases and so on. I think it's very
telling. It's very, very telling. I've spoken in this House many, many times now
about businesses such as those in home renovation business. Car sales, home
renovations and upgrades and home sales and so on are all really good benchmarks
to look at.
One real
estate agent talked publicly recently and said that prices are down 6 per cent
in the first quarter of 2017. If you think on a $325,000 home, that's a $20,000
drop in price in three months – just in a three-month period. That's a $20,000
drop in price in three months, one-quarter of the entire year.
Also
there was a lot of discussion about housing starts being down all over, but also
discussions then about sales and how sales have fallen off. People are
resistant, or so the observers believe, because of the unknowns that are ahead
for the province, unknowns for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the unknowns
for jobs. People are hesitant to make significant commitments in what, for most
people, is the biggest investment in their life by purchasing a home or a new
home. People are hesitant to do that.
I know
on the market today there are a significant number of homes that if you look on
the ad channels or if you go online and you look at real estate listings, it's
amazing how many are vacant. Either vacant because they were rentals that are no
longer rented or vacant because people are either moved out, moved away or have
downsized or changed their home. There is a lot vacant there as well. I think it
speaks to the feeling in the province today, the confidence that people have in
the future of the province today. I think it speaks to that.
When you
hear of businesses that are struggling today that have done well for so long and
they're struggling today – I've talked about kitchen cabinets and those types of
businesses whose business has dropped off significantly. That whole spiral
begins. I know people understand how that happens because the whole spiral
begins of, well, I'm a public servant, I'm not sure – I'll use public servants
as an example – what's in my future. I'm not sure what's going to happen to my
job in the future, so I better wait to find out. We know there are still more
reductions and cuts that are happening and I better wait to find out because I
don't want to make a big investment.
I don't
want to redo my kitchen. I don't want to replace my roof. I don't want to tear
off my patio that I was going to replace or build a new fence. I'm not going to
buy a new car; I'll fix my old one. I'm not going to replace the windows or
siding that I've been planning to do for a number of years because I'm not sure
where my job is going to be in the future. I'm not sure where my spouse's job or
partner's job is going to be in the future, so I'm going to play it cool for
another little while. Then that takes money out of the economy and puts it in
people's pocket. They have less to put in their pocket anyway because they're
paying a higher level of taxes.
We've
heard it through people going into the tax season who are looking at their tax
forms and have said now we've got to pay the levy. A lot of people call it a tax
for living in Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead of that money filtering through
the economy, providing a job, driving the economy and circulating through the
economy, it now goes directly from a person's paycheque into government coffers.
Mr.
Speaker, Members opposite have said for many, many years that it was the wrong
thing to do; heavily criticized us. In 2015, I said, as premier when we did our
budget in 2015, we're going to have to increase the HST and we had to take
efforts to reduce the size of government and the cost to government.
We were
heavily criticized for it and told over and over and over, no, it's not the time
to do it. Don't do that; it's wrong. We did it in a very minimal way compared to
what people are facing today. We did it in a very minimal way, but now that
that's happened it's had a big impact on people.
Some
believe, Mr. Speaker, that by the budget being duplicated from last year to this
year that it's okay. We know that the budget was a shock last year to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We know that once the shock was over and
people settled down, it becomes the norm. Then when the budget came this year
and people said good, no extra taxes and fees, they were relieved. But they
shouldn't be relieved because you're still burdened by those same taxes that you
were shocked about last year. And you're still restricted in your spending at a
greater level than you were last year. You shouldn't be relieved that there were
no new taxes.
I'd say
after 350 taxes and fees that had an impact on government or on people, that
there was no other fees or taxes that actually could be put on people, that it
was going to be a budget I predicted – I bumped into a person a little while ago
who said: You were right, Paul; there was no extra new taxes and fees. I said:
Well, there couldn't be. It was going to be hold-the-line kind of budget.
But
there are differences in the budget. We talked about it today in Question
Period, some differences in the budget. There are some differences that have
taken place in the budget. We've talked about the deficit reduction targets and
how there was a buffer built in last year and there's a buffer built in next
year, but there's no buffer this year.
The
Minister of Finance is on the record as saying we have a higher level of
reliability in the numbers this year. I don't know how that's different from the
reliability of last year or next year that it is different from this year. But
that's the minister's position that it's a higher level of reliability. She may
have made some other comments that escape me right now, but I'm sure she'll
correct me, as time permits.
We know
that the economic indicators for the future are telling and are concerning to
many when they look at the fact that household income is going to decline; we
look at the fact that the cost of goods and services will increase; spending is
going to decline as well. I'm just looking for the sheet that I had right from
the budget; I don't seem to have it there but right from the budget were
economic indicators. People's incomes are going to go down but the cost to live
here is going to go up.
Mr.
Speaker, just today I received a message from a Newfoundlander and Labradorian,
very heartfelt message to me to advise me – he actually says: I'm sorry to say
that my wife and my child and I have made the decision to move out of
Newfoundland and Labrador – a Newfoundland and Labrador family that has decided
to move on and actually move to southern Ontario. It goes on, in his message to
me, he says: But the events of the last 18 months have really pushed our
decision: being taxed to death, yet having some of the worst roads; access to
health care, in-class resources and seeing there's no end in sight. That, I
think, is one of the key words here: There's no end in sight. And we're puzzled
as to why we are staying or anyone for that matter is staying here. Bound for
southern Ontario, and articulates doing it with a heavy heart.
Mr.
Speaker, these are young families who should be the future of our province that
are saying there's nothing here for me anymore. There's nothing here for me to
stay in this province anymore and there's no reason for me to continue to live
in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it's a good example of a bad circumstance.
I just
got this today and I was really saddened and personally saddened to read it. A
fine young man – I don't know his family, I can't speak for his family but this
man is a fine young man and talented, young Newfoundlander and Labradorian who's
packing up his family and moving to Ontario.
Not that
they have a commitment of a job in the future, they feel there is nothing left
here for them and they need somewhere else to go and has decided to pack up and
go to southern Ontario to make a life for him and his family. They're gone, and
that's another family leaving our province.
Government's own documents indicate and forecast that that's going to happen
over the next number of years, over the next five years. But it's unfortunate
the government is not talking about it. Everyone please hold on. Please stay
here. Please hang tough with us. We're turning it around. We're going to be
better. It's going to be better. Don't leave; stay here with us. Don't leave.
But we don't hear that. There's no encouragement to say there's a better road
ahead or a better day ahead, so people are going to pack up and they're leaving.
One of
the problems, Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, is about the belief in the
future. But we've heard so much where we're going to do one thing and something
else is done. We do one thing but we actually do something else. The government
does something completely different.
We've
had so many experiences with the government over the last 18 months that people
are just shaking their heads. The most recent one on Mr. Coffey – the Premier
stands by it. I'm not blaming Mr. Coffey. Mr. Coffey shouldn't have put himself
in the position, and I'm sure understood a conflict of interest, but the Premier
– as the Premier – allowed it to happen. The buck stops at his door; he allowed
it to happen. He allowed a conflict of interest, stood by it and said no, it's
not a conflict of interest and I'm okay with it.
I asked
him if Mr. Coffey didn't resign, would he still be here today. Of course, the
Premier is not going to answer the question. I know it's would be very
difficult, impossible question to answer and that indicates to me that's a
position that he's created. He understands it's a difficult position.
But
putting a person in that position, such a conflict of interest, and people are
just left shaking their heads – we saw last year upset, people irate, protests,
people angry and so on, and I predicted earlier this year in talking to my own
colleagues, I said we're not going to see that this year because I don't believe
they're going to see much in differences in the budget. People are going to be
relieved it wasn't worse – and we saw that as well – but what we're seeing now
people are kind of going ah, here we go again, what are they doing, you just
can't trust them.
The
Premier stands by it. The Premier could have easily said, in hindsight, I should
not have done this; I should have been more careful. There was so much coming at
me, we were really busy, I should have focused on this more carefully, I should
not have allowed this to happen, and it was wrong for me to do that.
Most
people, I think, would have said good for you. You're accepting the
responsibility of the decision you made, you are reflecting on it and you're
dealing with it. That could have been said but instead you just simply stand by
it.
It came
out on 21 of April, we first knew about it through
www.allNewfoundlandandLabrador.com,
a subscription news service in the province.
The Telegram followed up the following
week in a story. We know there were meetings all through the weekend. The
Premier said there were meetings throughout the weekend and Sunday night, late
Sunday night, the announcement comes that the clerk had resigned; Monday he held
a press conference, said there were seven files, two that had conflict of
interest.
We had
Question Period on Monday, Question Period on Tuesday – the Premier complained
that we were still asking these repeated questions and so on. On Wednesday,
half-way through Question Period on Wednesday, or well into it, anyway, I think
we were 14-15 minutes in, so just about half-way through Question Period on
Wednesday when the Premier blurts out that the clerk had actually settled a
claim with government on behalf of a private client. That he was representing
the private client against government and he had actually settled that claim.
The
Premier wonders, you know, questions and criticizes why we're asking repeated
questions. Of course we're asking repeated questions because, three days later,
we found out something new that had not been disclosed before. Again, people go,
oh, why didn't he say it on Monday when he held his press conference? Why didn't
he disclose it in Question Period on Monday afternoon? Instead of saying there
were seven, only two in a conflict of interest – well, it turns out that wasn't
accurate. We don't know if it was eight and three or if it was seven, or three
of the seven were a conflict. We don't know, and we didn't find out until
Wednesday.
That
causes people to say: How can we trust them when you go in and you ask questions
over and over and over and over – last year after the former CEO, Ed Martin, was
fired from Nalcor, we asked questions day after day after day. As the day after
day after day went by, we slowly found out more. So instead of being open and
transparent and upfront about it first, it takes days and days and days to get
the information. So people learn you can't trust him.
I
remember the first big one that the media spent a lot of time on and people
talked about – which, in the big scope of things, was probably a minor matter
but a lot of people had interest in it. We know there are two big topics in
Newfoundland and Labrador, historically, we want to talk about: politics and
religion. It had to do with the quote, unquote Christian flag in Easter last
year.
The
Premier said: No, there's no policy. He put the Christian flag up, very
controversial flag in Newfoundland and Labrador, very controversial within many
denominations and put the flag up and said there was no policy. I said: Yeah,
there was policy, because I saw the policy when I was there before. We said:
Yeah, there was policy. No, no, no policy. Through ATIPP, we find out the
Premier didn't have the policy.
So
people ask: Why did he stand up and just say it's not so? Why did he just stand
there and say there's no policy when we find out, weeks later, there actually
was a policy? Why did the Premier say, when there were resign posters up on the
parkway, that no one in my office did anything to try and have those signs
removed, had anything to do with having those posters removed? Through ATIPP and
later we find out, well actually they did. One of your staff did make an effort
and make inquiries about having those signs removed with the university. So to
say that was disingenuous, and people shrugged their shoulders in saying why is
this Premier doing this, how do we trust him. How can we trust the Premier and
what the Premier says?
Eighteen
months later, Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in the circumstances where people
are waving the white flag and they're just saying: That's it, I've had enough.
I've had enough. I've had enough of what's going on in our province. I've had
enough of this. I don't know what's in the future for me. I'm concerned about
our future. I'm concerned about there's no future for me personally here. I
can't make a living here anymore and I'm leaving. If housing prices are
continuing in the wrong direction, I'm going to try and sell my house now before
it gets worse, or I'm going to bring the keys back and give them to the bank.
I'm going to do those kinds of things.
We know
bankruptcies are gone through the roof. You expect that sometimes when you have
your projects within economies that drive economy and support economies and so
on, when you have projects where large numbers of skilled tradespeople work and
then that work goes, then a few months later you'll see they've overextended
themselves in many ways. You'll see people that have bought a trailer or a new
truck or a couple of trucks or a new home and they're saying now that I've lost
that high income that I had, I really can't afford it anymore and then they have
to find a way out of it. You see that as well.
We're
seeing it now right through the entire province where people are impacted and
where people are deciding I've had enough – I've just had enough of it. We throw
up our arms over here from time to time with we just can't get an answer. There
you go; we just can't get an answer.
I saw
early this morning a video from the House of Commons yesterday. I thought it's
kind of reflective of some of the experiences that we've had. We know that
there's a polling period started now and we expect to see good-news
announcements over the next couple of weeks. I expect to see that from
government.
We know
the Liberal government in PEI, the minister of the government in PEI
accidentally tabled in their legislature an email from the premier's office
telling them to do their good-news announcements during the polling period. We
know that they have very close relationships, all the Liberal governments and
premiers and leaders and so on.
The
Premier has said how much he loves Justin Trudeau, he has said. He loves the
relationship with him and so on, but the Premier and the provincial government
has to represent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He should represent
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians before all else. They should absolutely do
that.
We had
the announcement of the new Ocean Frontier – is it called frontier? I ask the
Member for Mount Pearl North: Is it frontier? They've gone to Dalhousie.
MR. KENT:
Yeah, something like that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, that's gone to
Dalhousie which the centre for ocean technology. There's been so much investment
over the last, probably, 30 years or 40 years here in Newfoundland and Labrador;
Memorial University, the Marine Institute, marketing our province as a gateway
to the North, being experts in the field and now we see that the federal
government is moving the centre of all of that to Dalhousie in downtown Halifax.
We
wonder what did our provincial government to make efforts to have Newfoundland
and Labrador as the centre instead of Nova Scotia, but we don't know. We don't
know because we just don't have that information. It hasn't been provided to us.
We know
that we worked very hard for the Fisheries Fund. Members opposite like to say oh
yes, you had a big do and you didn't invite – the federal government didn't come
and all the dickens, all the political banter they want. There was an agreement
in place. Everybody who looks at it – even the NDP says there was a deal. Even
today, the Liberal prime minister says there was a deal and that he would honour
the deal.
We've
slowly found out what happened, Madam Speaker, because we know that in Nova
Scotia, the Premier of Nova Scotia went to Ottawa and fought against the
Newfoundland and Labrador fishery fund. Because of the work that he did, the new
Atlantic fund was created. Instead of the $280 million and $120 million
agreement for a $400 million agreement, there's a new $320 million agreement
that allows for all Atlantic Canada.
It was
only Newfoundland and Labrador that had a long-standing policy on processing. It
was only Newfoundland and Labrador had that: MPRs, Minimum Processing
Requirements. We talk about it all the time. MPRs mean fish has landed on the
wharf in Newfoundland and Labrador and is processed in Newfoundland and
Labrador; it can't be taken out. The European Union, through CETA, the
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, didn't want that included anymore.
They wanted that taken out of CETA. We said well, if you want to do that, then
we want a chance to refresh, renew and update the fishery.
There
were five pillars that the fund was built around and now we learn that it was
all coming – the prime minister has committed to it. Now we learn that Nova
Scotia went to Ottawa and fought for the fund to become an Atlantic fund instead
of Newfoundland and Labrador fund.
The
Members opposite are going to say well, look at all that we have for
Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the fishery. Look what we got for the
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard wasn't part of that fund that we negotiated. But
the Coast Guard – I know it's an important part of the fishery, it's important
to fish harvesters while they're on the water, but it's not about the fishery
itself. They're going to talk about other aspects of investments that have been
made here in the province that are separate and would have been separate from
that fund anyway.
If we
have a good relationship with our federal government, that's a good thing. I've
worked hard to grow relations with other provinces. I still have good relations
with other provinces and other premiers. Also, I've worked hard to grow a
relationship with the federal parties as well. It's important to have those
relationships but it shouldn't be to the detriment of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. It shouldn't be to the detriment of our province, our economy and
our rural communities; it should be to the benefit of our communities that that
happens.
I
understand the position the government is in but they've got to be careful. It
has to be Newfoundland and Labrador first. They can't be just silent on some of
these matters that are so important and allow some of those opportunities just
to slip through our fingers. That's what's most important, is to stand up for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Take a
stand to prevent people like my friend who sent me a message today and announced
he was leaving. Take a stand to say to these people: Please don't leave. Give us
a chance to work with you and stay here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's find
a way to keep you here in the province. If you're thinking about going, please
don't. Stay here.
There's
no one reaching out to people encouraging them not to go. There's no one saying
we've got a bright future ahead. There's no one saying: We're working, here's
our plan. Here's where we're going to be, where we see ourselves in 24 or 36 or
48 months. There's no plan to say this is what the plan of where we're going to
be in that length of time. It's not where we see our circumstances going to be.
So please stay and do that because we're a good place to live and we're a
beautiful province, and we are all that.
I know
they had an announcement this week on a jobs announcement. All the responses
from it were positive to a short degree in that there was very little detail
from the government on how it's going to create a new committee. It's going to
be an effort for government to create new jobs.
We don't
know how it's going to happen, though. We don't know how those jobs are going to
be created; we don't know how it's going to operate. There were a lot of
unknowns again and there are a lot of unknowns in the budget, but a lot of
unknowns. If it's an effort to create jobs and it's successful, well, good for
them.
It's
agriculture and aquaculture. We've invested heavily in aquaculture in this
province during our years in government. I'm glad, Madam Speaker, to see that
the government is going to continue with those investments, going to continue
with the industry because I think there's still potential for the industry. As
technology evolves and understanding evolves, then the industry should evolve
with it, and government should lead and guide and support that evolution of the
aquaculture industry.
The
Minister of Business has talked numerous times about tourism and the great
tourism products we have in our province. No two ways about it, Madam Speaker,
no two ways about it, we have a top-notch tourism opportunity here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We believed as a government that there are big gains
to be made in tourism as well.
We laid
out a plan in 2009 and a commitment to say we're going to continue to work with
tourism to double the tourism dollars that come to our province. I'm glad the
government and the minister are continuing with that, with those efforts. I know
they're going to change programs slightly and put their own look and feel and so
on to the efforts, and I respect that, but we over here are glad to hear that
the government is going to continue with tourism.
When I
travelled around the province over the last number of years, last few years, I
always try to find B&Bs to stay in. I find it the most wonderful opportunity,
the most wonderful experience that you can have, and there are some fabulous B&B
operators. I know an older couple down in – the Member for Bonavista, I'm sure,
will know maybe who I'm talking about when I talk about them, but it was an
older couple who had a B&B down there. They had it for about 16 or 17 years, if
memory serves me correct. They decided to pass it on to their daughter and
partner who have taken it over and completely revitalized the bed and breakfast,
completely.
They
sunk a great investment into it, to renew it and update it and so on. An
absolutely beautiful experience, and they got that real good Newfoundland and
Labrador ability to host, to entertain, to cook and provide for their guests,
and they do a fantastic job. That's only one example. I try to stay there
whenever I go down the Bonavista area because it's such a great business. I know
them personally, and they do such a great business. So I always try to support
their business anytime I go down in that region.
I
mentioned the aquaculture and growth. I want to mention the aquaculture, too,
because I think a little bit further, because I do believe there's huge
potential to grow the industry. Years ago, and my colleague from Ferryland has
talked to me, and Cape St. Francis has talked to me about this in the past,
because years ago – and the Member for Cape St. Francis has worked in the
fishing industry since he was a child and he's talked about that.
He talks
about the frozen block cod they used to sell one time. They used to produce and
sell this frozen block cod because that's what the market was for. Not a lot
different than going to your local grocery store and buying frozen beef or
frozen pork, because that's what the market was and that was the expectation.
Today, we all expect to go to a grocery store – in the urban areas and in remote
locations certainly not the same way, but in urban areas people expect to go to
a grocery store and have fresh meat selections, good grades of beef and pork and
so on that are fresh and available, not frozen on the store shelves.
The
fishing industry has come the same way. People, especially markets outside of
our province, no longer expect that frozen block cod to be the good product.
They want fresh cod. They want fresh fish. They want fresh seafood products.
Then, of course, the logistics of catching, processing and transportation come
into play.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are a very resilient and creative group and
have found some great ways to do that. With investments – and that's part of
what the fishery fund was to be about – and partnership with harvesters, the
fishermen, fisher persons, with processors and fish plant workers to find better
ways to create those new markets, those new opportunities and those new products
is really what should be leading and driving in the fishing industry, but also
in the aquaculture industry.
There's
an aquaculture operation going on right now. I'm not sure if it's Mount Pearl or
if it's St. John's. It's on the border. I think it's actually St. John's but
very close to Mount Pearl. There's actually an aquaculture operation taking
place at Lester's Farm where they're growing tilapia. A long-time project
underway, it's many, many years of work and investments to get the products
underway. They're one of the operations that were very significantly impacted by
the storms a few weeks ago.
They
have tilapia, but they also have an aquaponics operation associated with the
tilapia. They actually have floats. I've been in there a number of times now;
they actually have Styrofoam floats in a pool – it looks like a shallow swimming
pool – in greenhouses where they start to grow produce through aquaponics.
The
water is being circulated. It's being circulated through to tilapia, where the
tilapia eat and produce waste. Water comes through the system to where the fresh
produce is being grown. It acts as a fertilizer to grow the produce. As they
drop these trays in, they move them along and by the time you get down to the
end, it's ready for harvest. At the same time they're starting new ones.
They
have a constant supply of fresh produce that are produced through this
aquaponics project. The growing of the fresh produce cleans the water, uses the
fertilizer contained in the water, circulates the water back to the tilapia who
create more fertilizer, which is circulated back. They sell the fish in tilapia
and they sell the fresh produce. It's a really interesting operation. If anyone
ever has a chance to go to Lester's on Pearltown Road, you should ask to see it.
They're at point now where they are to have heavy regulations for ensuring that
everything is sterile, so I'm not sure if they can continue to do them, but you
certainly should ask about it if you ever go to Lester's Farm Chalet there on
Pearltown Road where the operation is.
But it's
happening right there and it's an opportunity where government partnered with a
private operator who is in the agriculture business – Lester's is well known for
the agriculture business, for generations. Now this particular family of
Lester's have also branched into the aquaculture business, duplicating
aquiculture business, being aquaponics, and doing a great job.
They're
very hopeful and they're very optimistic of the potential success in that
operation. And that's the kind of investment and creativity in government that
people look for and strive for. That's where opportunities can be driven.
We
haven't heard from the announcement this week on how these jobs are going to be
created and building industry. Some believe that government should be the
primary employer in many aspects of the province, but we believe it is
government that should establish an environment whereby business can grow,
flourish, do well, business can work, grow and as they work in a successful
manner then they create jobs. Employment creates the paycheques which drives the
economy.
That's
what we believe. We believe that it's government's responsibility to provide the
environment for those businesses to operate and to grow. That's an example of
it.
So
aquaculture, agriculture and tourism are three of the commitments that I know
government wants to work on. I think they are great opportunities for the future
of our province because natural resources, in many ways, is what keeps us
together if it be in the ocean, or it be on land, or under land, there are
significant natural resource opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Madam
Speaker, as the clock is winding down I'm running out of time and I get the
feeling Members opposite are quite eager to get up. Thursday afternoon we
usually hear some entertainment from Members opposite and I'm sure that they're
looking forward to that opportunity this being Thursday afternoon and the
weekend coming as well.
I'm
finishing up my time this afternoon, but I just want to finish up with this. I
know Members opposite and Cabinet ministers have a lot of responsibilities. They
have a lot on their plates. They have a lot of responsibilities. MHAs have
responsibilities as well that keeps them busy in their own districts. I'm sure
that they talk to people every – we talk to people every day who talk about the
future and opportunities that exist.
I was
told one time that we should always remember that politics in the province is
about people and we should keep people top of mind at all times. That's what I
encourage Members to do. I know one of the ministers got up today and said she
doesn't need to be schooled by me. I'm not here to school anybody, Madam
Speaker. That's not what I'm here to do. We're here as elected Members and
depending on where you sit in the House, you have a role. We all have a role and
we'll do that role.
When
people call us and want us to ask about certain aspects of things that are
happening in the province, we'll ask those questions. We'll ask those questions
and we'll bring those matters forward and allow the government to speak to them
and hopefully answer to them, and explain to people what the realities are of
some of the aspects that people want to know about.
In
governing, you should never forget about people. In order for people to believe
in you, they have to trust you. I encourage all Members of the House to give
people reason to trust them and to believe in them and believe that there's a
chance for the future.
It's a
very sad day when someone else leaves the province. It was a sad day for me when
I got that message earlier in the day about another young Newfoundland family
who is leaving, who is moving away because the future is not bright.
Give
people a reason to stay. Give people a reason to continue to be proud of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Give people a reason to work hard to create and grow
an economy that can benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
The Speaker
recognizes the hon. Member for Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam
Speaker, it's with humility and a sense of optimism that I rise in this hon.
House today to represent the good people of Exploits and to speak on our
Concurrence Motion and Budget 2017.
Previous
to this, I would like to acknowledge last week's celebrating of Volunteer Week
in our nation, in our province and in my district. I often reference our
volunteers as hearts beating for us.
Madam
Speaker, with yesterday Municipal Awareness Day, I wish to acknowledge and
salute the more than 1,700 municipal councillors and hundreds of dedicated staff
workers who make our municipalities more sustainable, prosperous and beautiful
places to live.
With the
upcoming municipal elections in September, now is the time to engage new people
and begin cultivating the next generation of community leaders. The sector needs
an infusion of new energy and ideas from the generation succeeding us. Every
opportunity must be taken to reach out and inform youth in our communities who
would potentially become elected officials of council, municipal administrators
or taxpayers.
Around
the province Municipal Awareness Day festivities included municipal expos,
school visits, open houses and fire truck rides. Many mayors and council members
will also visit schools and hold simulated council meetings with students.
Madam
Speaker, in Budget 2016 we projected a
deficit of $1.83 billion. Over the course of the past 12 months, expenditures
have been reduced and revenues have improved. This has led to a revised deficit
of $1.1 billion. In last year's budget, our government outlined a seven-year
plan to return this province to surplus. We are currently ahead of our
forecasting in terms of deficit projections and are on track to return to
surplus in 2022-23.
Madam
Speaker, since forming government, we have taken steps to improve the governance
of Nalcor Energy. Under new leadership, performance of key projects have
improved, specifically the Muskrat Falls Project. In
Budget 2017 the provincial government is making an equity investment
of $485.4 million in Nalcor Energy, which is a reduction of more than $800
million from last year.
Our
government, in collaboration with Nalcor, committed to controlling costs and
ensuring all necessary steps are taken to identify and mitigate any remaining
engineering and construction risks at Muskrat Falls.
Madam
Speaker, our vision for the province does not include the doubling of
electricity rates. It is not acceptable for residents to pay excessive
electricity rates. We are happy to confirm to the people of this province that
there are no new taxes or fee increases in
Budget 2017.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
Our government is responsible
to the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In 2017, residents will
benefit from two reductions to the temporary gas tax. Beginning on June 1, we
will reduce it by 8.5 cents per litre. On December 1, 2017, it will be reduced
further by 4 cents per litre, for a total reduction of 12.5 cents.
We will
review the remaining 4 cents as part of the 2017 fall fiscal and economic
update. The projected annual deficit in
Budget 2017 is $778 million, which is below our targeted deficit of $800
million. For Budget 2017 we reduced
our borrowing by $2 billion down to $400 million. This marks a significant
improvement in stabilizing the province's fiscal situation.
Madam
Speaker, our government has prioritized the education of children and youth and
the creation of a skilled workforce as being essential to the economic growth
and sustainability of our province. We also appreciate that learning is
lifelong, starting in the early years of a child's life. In this year's budget,
we are making smart investments that will bring long-term benefits to all
regions of this province.
As part
of The Way Forward, we are committed
to utilizing all available leverage funding. That is why our government has
committed $43.5 million towards infrastructure to leverage $70.6 million in
federal contributions.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. DEAN:
It's $70.6 million through
the clean water and waste water fund.
Madam
Speaker, we are also committing $22 million to keep municipal operating grants
at their current levels, and increasing the municipal portion of provincial gas
tax revenue. The municipal share of gas tax revenue will increase by one-third,
bringing the total commitment to $7.1 million.
Budget 2017
involves the development of a responsive, integrated and sustainable approach to
complex care management based in the community. We need to provide care in the
home and in the community where possible and appropriate, and in a hospital only
when necessary.
Through
the Canada Health Board, our province will receive $87.7 million over the next
10 years for home and palliative care, including $2.9 million in 2017. We will
invest $2.5 million into a home first program designed to provide the necessary
supports to individuals so they can stay in their homes as long as possible.
Accordingly, our government is proud of our commitment to a five-year, $3
billion infrastructure plan. This will result in the equivalent of 4,900
full-time jobs on an annual basis. It will also allow businesses to better plan,
and most importantly, Madam Speaker, it will allow for cost savings to be passed
on to the government.
Through
Budget 2017, approximately $5 million
is available for investment in the wild fishery and aquaculture industries. This
funding will leverage significant investment from the private sector as well as
the federal government.
Madam
Speaker, in February, our government announced that we will be making more Crown
land available for agricultural development. This is an example of how our
government is creating an environment for entrepreneurs to excel while improving
our province's ability to be more food self-sufficient. To assist these efforts,
we are increasing the available land for agriculture, effectively doubling the
land mass availability for this industry. By giving the land back to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are making a significant investment in our
future.
Budget 2017
is committing $3.25 million to the Provincial Agrifoods Assistance Program so
that we can continue developing agricultural land, growing the industry and
improving our food self-sufficiency. We are also committing $1 million to
continued research into crops such as canola that may now be able to be
successfully grown in our province. Finally, we are committing $500,000 to
continue development of our provincial cranberry industry.
Madam
Speaker, our path is certain with The Way
Forward providing us with the guiding principles of developing a smarter
approach to government and management. We are methodically and responsibly
redesigning government to address our economic, social and fiscal challenges.
Our
focus will be on positioning our province to be an ideal place to raise a family
with a competitive work and business environment. In order to return to fiscal
balance, we must think and act in that way over the long term. We can no longer
afford to be bound by short-term reactionary thinking. The budget reflects our
commitment to a stronger economic foundation, a more efficient public sector,
better services and better outcomes.
Madam
Speaker, if I may, I would like now to reference excerpts from commentary made
by a former premier during a previous trying time for our province, as both a
backdrop to and a reflection of similar actions required and implemented by our
current Premier during our province's most recent trying time in what can be
likened to the worst free fall into the fiscal abyss ever to be shouldered by
this province. The sad reality of this outcome is that the previous
administration, unlike those that preceded them, had the luxury and good fortune
of being the custodians of the biggest by far financial windfall to have shown
up on our doorstep, yet failed to even remotely prepare us for what has always
been and always will be inevitable, unfavourable weather conditions; hence, the
rigours of Budget 2016.
AN HON. MEMBER:
So they didn't learn their
lesson.
MR. DEAN:
No.
Anyway
to the excerpts; this is from a former premier.
“Good
evening.
“Earlier
today, the Minister of Finance released the results of this review and the news
is not good. The report, entitled:
Directions, Choices and Tough Choices, indicates that we have an evolving
fiscal crisis – a situation that if ignored or unresolved will threaten the
future sustainability of the province and seriously compromise our social
programs and way of life….
“The
predictions for future budgets are even more disturbing. Unless we significantly
adjust our course, we are facing total deficits of 1 billion dollars or greater
for the next four years.”
AN HON. MEMBER:
Wow, what year was that, b'y?
MR. DEAN:
I believe it was 2004. I
stand to be corrected.
“This
province should be no different than all of us in running our own households.
But the province's situation is comparable to any of us taking out a second
mortgage just to buy groceries and running up our credit card to pay for
electricity and telephone bills.
“If this
continues, we are in very real danger of drowning in our own debt….
“We must
address this situation now. We are digging ourselves deeper into a hole and
that's been our problem for far too long. We must start turning things around in
Newfoundland and Labrador….
“Clearly, the Government, its employees and everyone in Newfoundland and
Labrador will have to focus on dealing with this situation….
“The
financial health of the Province is not government's problem [alone but] it
should be the concern of every one of its 519,000 residents….
“This
will require hard work and sacrifice by everyone….
“You
elected leaders to make responsible decisions but we must also protect those who
are most vulnerable. Our government may have inherited this serious fiscal
situation but we have absolutely no intention of letting our children and
grandchildren inherit it from us….
“I do
not want to underestimate the impact that some of these decisions will have over
the coming years. We have structural problems with our budget that will require
changes to the structure and function of government. We must focus government's
expenditures on priorities. Not everyone will get what they want from
government. We must accept that government cannot be all things to all people….
“The
ability to invest 100 per cent of our oil revenues in economic infrastructure
would go a long way to helping us stand on our own feet in the long term.”
That's an interesting comment.
Madam
Speaker, Budget 2017 – back to the
current time frame – Budget 2017 sees
us weathering the storm and in sight of more hospitable waters. Madam Speaker,
our Premier, our government, I would like to suggest, have no more of a monopoly
on integrity and sincerity than those that have come to this hon. House before
us but we have no less as well. Each and every one of us in this House are doing
the best with the hand that we were dealt, in particular the sitting government.
Madam
Speaker, Budget 2017 reflects
The Way Forward documented plan and
the recent CDL financial report card in this recent report stated that
Newfoundland and Labrador has improved markedly and particularly with the
quality and –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MADAM SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. DEAN:
– (inaudible) of its budget
and public accounts documents. The report assesses whether individuals can get
valid, timely and readily understood figures for total revenue and spending in
the budget each government presents at the beginning of the year and in the
public accounts at the end of the year.
Madam
Speaker, here's a footnote on the CDL Institute itself. CDL Institute
publications undergo rigorous external review by academics and independent
experts drawn from the public and private sectors. The institution peers review
ensures the quality, integrity and objectivity of its policy research. The
institute will not publish any study that in its view fails to meet these
standards.
In its
mission to educate and foster debate on essential public policy issues, the CDL
Institute provides non-partisan policy advice to interested parties on a
non-exclusive basis. The institute will not endorse any political party, elected
official, candidate for elected office or interest group.
My time
is pretty well run out there, Madam Speaker, and I'm going to draw this to a
conclusion now. I noted Volunteer Week, I noted Municipalities Awareness Day. In
closing, and before I sit down, with Sunday being Mother's Day, I would like to
wish all moms throughout our province a most happy day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
And to my mom at the Hugh
Twomey Centre in Botwood, know that your boy is coming home and looking forward
to your warm embrace on Sunday.
Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. Member for Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to
rise in this hon. House to represent the historic District of Virginia Waters –
Pleasantville. Any time I get the opportunity to stand in this hon. House to do
that I'm very pleased and honoured to do so.
I'd just
like to take some time here to highlight some of the things in the budget that I
think are great for the residents of the City of St. John's, but also for the
residents of the province.
I'm
going to start with one of the things that I think is one of the most
groundbreaking things we did for this budget in the last 18 months we've been
here, and that is asking Nalcor to invest $210 million to help mitigate the
electricity rates. It's going to make a substantial difference to the
individuals in our province, it's going to make a substantial difference to the
individuals in my district personally, but one of the big things is we're
planning to fix a problem that the previous administration put their heads in
the sand and let happen.
We're
also going to continue that same investment through Nalcor for the next three
years, starting with $210 million, moving to $245 million for the next two years
after that in 2018 and 2019. Keeping electricity rates is one of our major
priorities with this government, and I'm happy we invested heavily in trying to
lower these electricity rates and make that a reality.
Our
vision for our province does not include doubling of electricity rates. It's not
acceptable for the residents to have to burden that, or have that fiscal burden
on them. So we're doing everything we can to mitigate those risks.
Future
electricity rate management is a priority for our government. We're going to
continue to find ways to try to alleviate that burden on our taxpayers.
Nalcor,
as I said before, have been directed to find $210 million to place in the fund
to mitigate these rates. We're committed to ensuring these rates stay as low as
possible and be competitive, and undertake the work that's required to mitigate
these actions long term.
Madam
Speaker, I'm very happy we've invested over $5 million in the Home Energy
Savings Program, which the Minister of Service NL and Climate Change would
appreciate for sure, as well as the Minister of Environment; and $4 million over
three years in the new Home Energy Loan Program which offers low-interest
financing, up to $10,000, for energy efficient home upgrades.
Some of
the homes in my district were built well before building codes were as they
stand right now, where insulation didn't have to be as high as it is now. Any
opportunity we can do to increase insulation or make opportunities for residents
to invest in new windows and the like to improve the efficiency of their homes,
we're going to try to do that. Anything we can do to alleviate some of those
costs to allow them the opportunity to spend that more disposable money is what
we need to do.
It's not
just important to make affordable housing in the City of St. John's, which is
always a problem in my district, but making those houses affordable for people
after they buy them. By making an investment into the home energy programs and
the retrofitting of homes programs, we're doing just that. We're giving
residents the opportunity to do home improvements that are going to save them
money in the long run and make their houses much more affordable.
Little
changes like placing more insulation, windows, doors, insulating a basement, are
important things that we can invest in that's going to pay dividends to us and
to the residents of our province. Energy efficiency and eco-friendly homes are
the way of the future and something we should have been moved on well before we
moved into the debacle called Muskrat Falls.
A senior
couple living in my district given an opportunity to invest in the retrofitting
of their homes or getting insulation in their homes, any time we can invest a
little bit of money to help them do those activities, it's going to free up more
money for them to give to their grandkids or spend in the marketplace any time.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What a Member.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I'm glad
you agree. Hopefully you'll be voting for the budget this time.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. B. DAVIS:
I can always hope I guess.
AN HON. MEMBER:
It seems like you're in
Question Period (inaudible).
MR. B. DAVIS:
Oh, thank you. We can talk
later.
Thank
you. I'm in the middle of something here.
Our
government investment will pay dividends to the people of our province long
term. It allows freeing up money, which is an important thing for them. These
investments were made by this administration in reaction to trying to fix a
problem that was created by the previous one with respect to the sanctioning of
Muskrat Falls.
I agree
with my colleague for Mount Pearl – Southlands who felt he was hoodwinked into
the process, not given all the information. I think the word “hoodwinked”
answers the question right across the board for the province. Not only was the
Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands hoodwinked, 520,000 Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians felt hoodwinked when they were brought into this project without
having all the information put in place.
All
we're asking for was to provide the information to the people. The Opposition of
the day happened to be the Liberals and the NDP. They asked those questions; the
government of the day decided not to give the answers.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Now they got the nerve to get
up and ask about oversight.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Right. Hear, hear!
I'm glad
our government committed to helping those people with these initiatives because
that's what we need to do to try to mitigate some of the problems that were
created over the 12 years of PC rule.
One of
the other things that I'm very happy about that our government embarked on was
reducing the temporary gas tax; 75 per cent reduction in the gas tax for the
residents is going to help them an awful lot. We've heard the negative comments
regarding the gas tax, but it's something we had to do as a government to try to
get our fiscal house in order.
Beginning on June 1, we will reduce the gas tax by 8.5 cents per litre and on
December 1, 2017 we'll reduce it by a further 4 cents per litre, for a total
reduction of 12.5 cents. We will review the remaining 4-cent tax as part of the
2017 fall fiscal and economic update.
As
committed in last year's budget, tax increases must be balanced with tax
competitiveness. We will initiate a comprehensive, independent review of our tax
system, as the Finance Minister has mentioned on numerous occasions, which will
be completed within our current mandate, which is important. It hasn't been done
in a number of years, a number of decades actually, and it's important that we
do that to make sure we find the competitive nature that we have in this
province.
Our
province leads the country in terms of revenue generation on a per capita basis.
We have done that for a while. We have reduced the deficit from $1.83 billion to
$1.1 billion, and we're committed to returning to surplus and on track to do so,
I might add, by 2022-2023, undoing the years of overspending and awful fiscal
management by the PCs. We can't reverse what they took 12 years to do in only 18
months.
As a
result of the expense reductions primarily in 2017-18, the deficit projection of
$778 million is lower than what we even projected for ourselves, our target of
$800 million. That's why we focused on trying to do things right. We have a
plan. For any Member on the opposite side to say there is no plan, just read the
book.
This
includes an additional $283 million reduction in spending this year. We are on
pace to meet the deficit reduction targets this year as well. Madam Speaker,
there are no new taxes or no new fee increases in
Budget 2017. In
Budget 2017 the borrowing requirement
– this is important to note– has been reduced from $2 billion to $400 million,
which is a huge reduction.
We are
currently ahead of our own target forecasting in terms of deficit projection and
on track to return to surplus, as I mentioned, in 2022 and 2023. All of this
points to sound fiscal management, exactly what a province needs to return to
prosperity.
I am
pleased that we will be maintaining the Newfoundland and Labrador Income
Supplement and Seniors' Benefit with an investment of $120 million. These
programs benefit approximately 155,000 residents and families annually, and will
help to protect those most vulnerable in our current economic climate.
These
are initiatives that I hear about every day in my district. Is it enough?
Absolutely not, we have to do more. We're trying to do more, but given the
fiscal situation that we were left in, that's what we can accomplish right now.
In St.
John's alone, our government has put $21.3 million in investment into health
care facilities, including $7.5 million towards the replacement of the Waterford
Hospital. We have also invested $1.2 million from Justice and Public Safety. One
of the things that I really like from Justice and Public Safety is a $250,000
investment for the Sexual Assault Response Pilot Program to provide legal
support to sexual assault victims.
We also
have $1.6 million in upgrades to the Arts and Culture Centre here in the city,
an institution. Many people in the City of St. John's and all across our
province come to the Arts and Culture Centre here. Any investment we can make to
upgrade that area is very, very important.
Some of
the community investments that are made in this
Budget 2017 are $142 million on our
municipal infrastructure programs. I'm a former municipal councillor and I
understand an investment in the municipality pays off dividends in helping
alleviate some of the tax base. We have to remember there's only one taxpayer in
this province. They pay federal, municipal and provincial taxes. It's only one
taxpayer, so any alleviation we can give would be great.
There's
$16.6 million in improving social and affordable housing. We all understand the
importance of affordable housing. It's a major issue. Many of my colleagues that
sat on the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions would know
travelling across the province that's one of the major issues that you face each
and every day when you're dealing with a mental illness or addictions issue.
Finding affordable housing, finding adequate housing is a challenge in the St.
John's region, but it's a challenge across our province in some other regions.
So any investment we can make would be a great step in the right direction – and
$1.2 million in Justice facilities, as I mentioned earlier.
Seventy
million dollars for the municipal waste water project funding under Clean Water
and Wastewater Fund. That's important because everyone deserves to have clean
drinking water, whether you're on Bell Island or whether you're in Conception
Bay South or whether you're in St. John's. Newfoundland and Labrador has the
ability to have the cleanest water in our country so, therefore, any investments
we can make in the municipalities to do that is paramount. I thank the Minister
of Municipal Affairs for doing that and bringing that forward and understanding
the concerns that municipalities have. Any funding that we can give to that
would be cooperative funding with the municipality and it's going to get a lot
more work done and that's a great investment in the people of our province.
An
additional $38.1 million for municipal fundings under municipal capital works
and multi-year funding programs – it's important for municipalities to
understand where the money is coming from and having long-term planning is an
important piece – $15 million in municipal projects funded under the national
project component for the Building fund; $10.2 million in maintenance and
repairs for the upkeep of public housing properties; $500,000 for planned
construction of a new court complex in St. John's. All of these are massive
investments in the people of our province.
I'd like
to take some time to talk about the All-party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions. I'm very excited that our government committed to $5 million initial
funding to try to start the process towards recovery, a vision for a renewed
mental health and addiction system in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know my
colleagues from both sides of the House that sat on that committee understand
the importance of doing these recommendations and implementing these
recommendations as quickly as we possibly can.
The
implementation plan will be released in June and we're quite happy that we're on
schedule for that. It's going to, hopefully, fundamentally change the way we
look at mental health services and addiction services in our province. I know my
colleagues on both sides of the House can attest to how challenging it was to
hear the heart-wrenching stories of those individuals that told those
first-person stories about what they're facing with addictions or what they're
facing with mental health and addictions right across the province and in their
families and the impact that is having on their families. I'm very happy that
we're making that investment with that.
We also
have a great investment here in St. John's, provincial money, for the
establishment of the new Waterford Hospital. We understand that when we release
the report for implementation for the all-party committee, it's going to be
important because it's going to lay out plans on how we're going to move forward
on these initiatives and what community outreach processes will be there.
Because the Waterford, as it stands today, shouldn't be the way we build the
Waterford. There's community outreach that we need to do. It doesn't necessarily
need to be a 140-bed or a 500-bed complex. It's very important we get the
services out to the community where they can be dealt with better than we can do
here in government.
I'd like
to touch on a little bit of investment within health care. In
Budget 2017, we provided $88.2 million for health care
infrastructure to support efficiency, delivery, quality care and access to
treatment in this budget; $43 million for repairs and renovations in health care
facilities and replacements and upgrades to medical equipment province-wide;
$13.2 million to advance the replacement of Western Memorial Regional Hospital.
As I mentioned, the Waterford investment; $4.6 million to increase long-term
care capacity in Corner Brook; $4.6 million as well to develop a endoscopy suite
in Central Newfoundland Health Centre in Grand Falls as well.
So it's
important that we invest all across our province. One of the things with
long-term care, we've addressed some of the problems – well, we're beginning to
address some of the problems in Western Newfoundland. In Central Newfoundland we
have problems with long-term care. So we're very much interested in trying to
announce that. An announcement on long-term care in Central Newfoundland is
going to be eminently happening. It's an important investment that we need to
make, and I'm very happy we're part of that investment.
One of
the other community investments we made was the $3.6 million investment in
modernizing and renovating public rental housing. As I mentioned before, mental
health and physical health is tied directly to housing and the ability to
receive affordable housing and good quality housing. So one of the things I'm
very happy that we did, we put investments in that area. I could go on and on
about that.
The last
thing I want to touch on is an investment in agriculture. You're probably going
to ask: Why would a Member from Virginia Waters – Pleasantville talk about
investments in agriculture?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Tell us.
MR. B. DAVIS:
I'll tell you. Thank you very
much.
I'll
tell you. I'm glad someone played along with that one.
MR. LETTO:
Because you're a team player,
that's why.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Excellent.
I'm not
going to talk about just the investments across the Island, which is very
important, but one of the first files I received when I was lucky enough to be
elected in November of 2015 was a file from a farmer who wants to set up an
agricultural hydroponics system within my own district, which will eventually
employ 50 people, which is a great agricultural district.
The
agricultural hub of our province is Virginia Water – Pleasantville. No, in all
fairness, it's a small investment that they're willing to make themselves and
it's going to –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. B. DAVIS:
That's right, yeah.
It's an
important investment that I think will pay off dividends in these areas. In
Virginia Waters – Pleasantville, if we can make advances in agriculture and
maybe employ 50 people over a five- or six-year period, that's a great step
forward. The $3.9 million to continue Growing Forward 2, a five-year, $37
million cost-sharing project with the federal government, is an important
investment for our province.
I could
go on and on. My time is getting short.
I'd just
like to say thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day, I would move, seconded by the Member for Harbour Grace –
Port de Grave, that the House do now adjourn.
MADAM SPEAKER:
This House now stands
adjourned until 1:30 on Monday.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.