June 11, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 2
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Admit strangers, please.
Order,
please!
I'd like
to welcome the Members back. It's good to see you after you've taken your Oath
and it's good that you've come back. We went through a lot of trouble yesterday.
Again, I'd like to thank all of the staff of the House of Assembly. I think you
will agree it was a very fitting ceremony for such an auspicious occasion. So,
welcome to you all again.
We have
a few things I'd like to do today. First of all, I'd like to welcome some new
Pages. To my right is Emma Taylor from St. John's, and Emma is completing a
Bachelor of Science with a major in Applied Mathematics at Memorial University
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Also, I
have to my left, new to us, is Elizabeth Tuck from Mount Pearl. Elizabeth is
studying at St. Thomas University in New Brunswick and she's completing a
Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Human Rights and majors in Political Science
and Comparative Literature. Also, joining us are Katelyn Galway and Alden
Spencer, our returning Pages.
Welcome
to our Pages.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Over in the Speaker's
gallery, to my right, I would like to welcome Ms. Lorraine Michael – certainly
no stranger, former Member of the House of Assembly and past leader of the
Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party. Ms. Michael will be recognized
in a Member's statement this afternoon, and she's accompanied by Laurel
Doucette.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I could almost ask you how
the view is from that chair.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lewisporte -
Twillingate, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Conception Bay East - Bell Island,
Harbour Main and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
Before I
introduce the Members' statements, I would like to recognize Ms. Deirdre Lono is
joining us today for a very special Member's statement.
So let's
start with the hon. Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, Sir.
MR. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
great to be back.
On June
8, I had the distinct honour to attend the Annual Review Ceremony of 83 Briton
Sea Cadet Corps. All cadets did an exceptional job with their marching, band
performances and various displays of the skills they have learned throughout
their training.
Cadets
are encouraged to become active, responsible members of the community while they
learn valuable life and work skills such as teamwork, leadership and
citizenship.
A number
of awards were presented during the ceremony, with Ethan Hodder receiving the
Lord Strathcona Trust Fund Medal, which is the highest award that can be
bestowed upon a cadet in recognition of exemplary performance in physical and
military training.
Jasmine
Blake received the Legion Medal of Excellence. Samuel Anstey was presented with
the Most Proficient Cadet, while Jacob Bennett took Top On-Parade Cadet.
Instructors Lieutenant Navy Monique Wellman and Tara King were presented with
the National Cadet and the Junior Canadian Rangers Support Group Commander's
award.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the cadets and
instructors of 83 Briton Cadet Corps and wish them much success in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, I feel honoured and privileged to rise in this House and tell of
incredible accomplishments by residents of my District of Fogo Island - Cape
Freels.
We all
know how important participation, team work and physical fitness shapes a young
mind. There is no better example of that than Noah Carter.
Noah
will be graduating grade 12 from Pearson Academy in New-Wes-Valley in the coming
weeks. Not only will he be graduating at the top of his class, he will be
graduating with a room full of athletic awards. Noah excelled in all school
sports. At hockey, softball, basketball, track and field, volleyball, badminton,
table tennis and ultimate Frisbee competitions, you would find Noah at the top
of the heap. His parents, Jeffery and Lorna, as you would expect, are very proud
of him.
Recently, at a school sports NL banquet, Noah was awarded the Brother G.I.
Moore, Student Athlete of the Year, in the 3A male category. Pearson Academy
will forever remember Noah for his big smile and ease in which he lit up the
team with his leadership and gracefulness.
Noah,
you are indeed a gentleman, keep up the good work. We wish you well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
past Thursday I had the privilege of attending this year's graduation of the
community adult basic education program on Bell Island. Six diplomas and six
certificates were awarded to those who had completed their high school
equivalency or to those moving on to another level in the program.
For over
a decade, this program has been offering educational supports for more than 100
students and have seen many of those go on to post-secondary institutions to
further their career path. The program had started by offering a level I
educational program, then with its uptake and support quickly moved to also
offering a level II program. It wasn't too long before the Bell Island program
was licensed by government to offer the first level III program outside a
college system, something the instructors, students, organizers and community
should be very proud of.
The
program has attracted participants from all backgrounds, ages and even from
other communities as it offers a very professional, inclusive and supportive
environment. I have to acknowledge that a lot of the credit for the success of
the program has to be given to the two instructors, Paul and Aimee, who go
beyond the call of duty to ensure students success.
I
congratulate and thank the students for their commitment to the program and ask
all Members of this House to wish them every success as they move forward on the
next journey of their career path.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member, I
welcome, for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today and share with all hon. Members and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador a true act of bravery which occurred in my District of
Harbour Main on May 14, 2019.
Mr. Paul
Furey of Chapel's Cove ran to the rescue of a gentleman of the same community,
Mr. Bernard Hawco, who had caught fire while working on his property burning
brush in the early afternoon.
As
Bernard was engulfed in flames, Paul at first tried patting his neighbour down
with gloves, then a jacket and then a seat cushion from Bernard's truck.
Bernard's boots kept reigniting, so Paul quickly got the senior out of his
burning clothing – safe and protected from immediate danger. Paul then
extinguished the brush fire which had been spreading quickly in the area.
Bernard
is recovering in hospital today but is alive due to the fast thinking and heroic
efforts of his valiant neighbour and friend.
I ask
all Members of this House to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Paul Furey, who
demonstrated great courage and sacrifice in saving the life of another human
being.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured and proud to stand today to recognize and celebrate Ms.
Lorraine Michael, former MHA for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and past New
Democratic Party Leader.
Ms.
Michael's contributions to this House of Assembly and our province are
innumerable. Ms. Michael is personally responsible for my being in the House of
Assembly.
Lorraine
taught for 12 years here in our province before committing her life to social
justice and community activism, provincially, nationally and internationally.
Before being elected, she was the Executive Director of Women in Resource
Development.
Ms.
Michael was first elected as MHA for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi in a 2006
by-election, was re-elected in 2007 and 2011, and again in 2015 as the MHA for
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi. Lorraine also served as Leader of the Newfoundland
and Labrador NDP from 2006 to 2015.
Thank
you, Lorraine, for your tireless efforts as a parliamentarian, and your lifelong
commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You are a mentor and a
guide, and I'm eternally grateful for your support.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in thanking and congratulating Ms. Michael.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo - La Poile, who, I understand, has leave for this statement.
Please
proceed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I
thank my colleagues for providing leave.
I invite
all hon. Members to join me today in paying tribute to Simon Lono, a
Newfoundlander dedicated to making our province a better place for us all.
Simon
passed away on May 24, 2019. He spent most of his life working in some aspect of
politics or public service, in either government or Opposition.
Simon
had a deep and abiding love of Parliament and its traditions, generally, and of
this House, in particular. He believed that it's only through informed,
respectful and vigorous debate that those of us fortunate enough to sit in this
House can ensure that whatever decision we reach will be the very best for all
the people of the province. Simon also believed that all citizens should take
part in their communities to make the future better for us all.
He put
these two beliefs into action through his involvement in debating. As a national
debate champion in his youth, he toured the Soviet Union in the late 1980s with
a Canadian and American debate team to build bridges between West and East at
the height of the Cold War.
At home,
Simon coached debate teams and supported the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth
Parliament. He founded the Newfoundland and Labrador Speech and Debate Union in
2000, set up programs to train debaters, judges and coaches; and raised money so
that students could develop their debating skills regardless of personal
finances.
Engagement; activism; informed, respectful, passionate debate; working with
others to make life better for all – surely that is politics at its best.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask that you convey to Simon's family – his wife Deirdre, his
children Simon, Diana, Sarah and Sam and his brothers Norman and Mark – the
deepest and most sincere condolences of this House and the staff of the House.
I ask
you to do this, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that such an expression of sympathy and
respect for our departed friend and colleague would give them some small comfort
in their bereavement.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to
rise in this hon. House today to recognize Public Service Week, which runs June
9 to June15.
The theme,
Proudly Serving Newfoundland and Labrador, speaks to the pride and commitment I
witness every day from our valued public service employees as they work to move
our province forward, making it a better place to live and work.
Mr. Speaker, I
know that every Member here would agree with me when I say that Newfoundland and
Labrador has some of the hardest working public service employees in our
country. Each day, our colleagues develop policy and deliver programs and
services that positively impact families, individuals and businesses throughout
our province.
As a part of this
special week, nominations have been opened for the Public Service Awards of
Excellence, which will be awarded this fall in recognition of exceptional work.
To be recognized by fellow employees is a great accomplishment and I encourage
staff to nominate a colleague that exemplifies a quality and value of work that
is truly outstanding.
Mr.
Speaker, the significant progress that we've made as a government would not have
been achievable without the tremendous support of our public service employees.
I ask
all Members to join me in recognizing Public Service Week and the many valuable
contributions of provincial government employees.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the Official
Opposition, I would like to wish all members of the public service a very happy
Public Service Week, and I would like to thank them for their commitment to this
province.
The
individuals who make up our public service are undoubtedly hard working. Each
and every day they strive to make our province a better place to live, work and
visit. Being employed in the public service isn't always easy, as employees are
faced sometimes with challenging files and have to make hard decisions. However,
our public service does this with skill and dedication. We must always remember
the role of a public servant is to advise fearlessly and implement flawlessly.
As
Members of this House, we can learn a lot from the public service. The members
of the public service are subject matter experts who can help us to make better
decisions for the province as a whole. They can help us to provide better
quality and more efficient services.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and congratulate the
public service on their excellent work.
Our
public service is indeed a dedicated, hard-working group of professionals. They
provide the services that are essential to our lives. Usually they work in the
background, so it is very important to celebrate their contributions this week
and hold the Awards of Excellence every fall. I am sure that public service
employees will have no trouble finding those among them who are deserving of an
award for exceptional work.
Thank
you to all of those who work in the public service, and thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for this opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
World
Oceans Day is recognized globally on June 8, but we've enjoyed a full week of
events in this province. I am really encouraged by the initiatives
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians took last week to celebrate World Oceans Day
and to explore this year's theme, “together we can protect and restore our
ocean.”
The
focus of this year's World Oceans Day celebration was reducing plastic
pollution, and highlighting solutions that inspire leadership and conservation,
both locally and globally.
Mr.
Speaker, last week I attended a World Oceans Day event at Immaculate Heart of
Mary School in Corner Brook, where a student assembly was held and students
shared their ideas about protecting our oceans through video projects and art
work. A family fun day was held at the Marine Institute in St. John's and that
was also a great success, with families coming together to enjoy a wealth of
activities aimed at raising awareness of the importance of our oceans.
Mr.
Speaker, all over this province, schools and organizations hosted beach clean
ups, information sessions and student art challenges – including a poster
context that generated more than 1,500 entries from kindergarten to grade six
students from all over the province. It was fantastic to see so many young
people involved in celebrating the ocean, a most precious resource shared by us
all.
Mr.
Speaker, our province was founded on the ocean as its primary resource, and the
ocean remains an integral economic and cultural force to this day.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians' active engagement in this year's Wold Oceans
Day events demonstrates their devotion to this resource, and our shared
commitment to preserving the ocean's species and ecosystems for generations to
come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we're
all connected by the oceans, but especially in this province where the ocean is
so important to our very being. Our oceans are a tremendous resource and it's
nice to see so many students and organizations participate in World Oceans Day
activities this year.
I'd like
to acknowledge and thank all those who took part in clean ups and other events
across the province. I encourage everyone to do what they can to take care of
our oceans so that they can be protected and preserved for our future.
Every
little bit counts. Together we can make a difference. In that spirit, I
encourage government to move forward on the implementation of the single use
plastic bag in this province as soon as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. And, as a teacher, I am
pleased to hear that the minister took part in World Oceans Day events and heard
from students and families.
I'm also
pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear that the minister believes in protecting and
restoring our oceans. We look forward to working with government to strengthen
environmental legislation and rules around seismic exploration and open sea pen
aquaculture to protect our oceans for our future generations.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
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
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
While
recognizing the paramount need to return to surplus by 2022-23: Does the Premier
accept that the electorate has just instructed their representatives to
collaborate on reorganizing budget priorities? And, if not, what instruction
from the electorate does he think he has?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
on May 16, when I look back at election day and the 28-day campaign that was
ran, I think I made my intentions very clear on election night when I spoke to
the people of our province and put forward a willingness to work together on
behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As a matter of fact, made it
quite clear that I wanted to work with all 40 Members of this House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at the dynamic of the decisions that we have to make, all
of us I believe that sit in this House, that really what we want to do is make
decisions that are in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
In 2016,
we started with a plan to return to balance in 2022-2023. Mr. Speaker, we are
creating jobs in our province, and our province is on track to return to
surplus. I believe that is the budget that we put forward to the people of our
province during this recent election.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the Premier for the
answer.
And he
and I, as he knows, have had an exchange of correspondence on potential
modifications to the unpassed budget.
Is the
Premier willing to collaborate to pass supply and, over coming months, to
negotiate policy preferences expressed by the voting public, like insulin pump
coverage and of killing the levy, while respecting the paramount need to return
to balance?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
In the
letter that was sent to me on June 5, I think it's now publicly shared – at
least I hope it is – from the Leader of the Opposition, there were eight
initiatives or eight things that were discussed. All of these initiatives were
not new, Mr. Speaker, to government. These are all things that we're currently
working on.
As
everyone in this province would know already, the levy was a temporary levy and
it's legislated out. So this is not on the advice or the response or a reaction
to any particular letter that was sent to me on June 5. This was all part of the
plan when the temporary levy was in Budget
2016. There is a legislative
process that will make sure that this levy is gone by 2019. That's about $55
million that will go in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well
as insulin pump coverage that was expanded this year, ArtsNL funding, Mr.
Speaker, all of which are part of Budget 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the Premier for that
somewhat limited amount of encouragement, and would ask the following: Upon
election of the Speaker, the Premier has a 19-Member caucus in a 40-Member
Legislature. Can the Premier explain how this amounts to a mandate to pass his
pre-election budget with no changes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the mandate that
I'm talking about is that we have 20 Liberal seats currently in Newfoundland and
Labrador. When you look at the popular vote within our province, I'm still
Leader of the Liberal Party, which puts me in a position to be Premier of the
province. That is the mandate that was given to me and a mandate to lead this
province in this minority government. And it's one that I embrace, because I see
this as an opportunity to work together with every Member.
These
ideas that have been mentioned, as I said, are not new; there are about eight
initiatives there. What I've done in response to the letter is to ask the Leader
of the Opposition, which is the responsible manner, to actually cost these
initiatives and also speak to, in a very specific way, the cuts or the
expenditure reductions that he refers to in his first letter on June 5. I think
that is what leadership does, to actually work together in the response of that
letter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The government promised to
eliminate the sales tax imposed on auto insurance premiums, but chose not to
give this measure legal effect before the election. People found out about this
while renewing their coverage.
Will
this legislation be brought to the House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Can the Premier or other
minister explain when?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For
Members opposite, given this is their first exposure to Question Period, if you
look at your desk there, there would be an Order Paper there that would explain
when this piece of legislation was coming. I understand this was introduced
yesterday by the Minister of Finance. This is a piece of legislation that we
want to bring forward too. Of course, the House Leader, as everyone would know
right now, will introduce this bill.
We want
to get this done, Mr. Speaker. People in our province are looking forward to
this rebate. This is a commitment that we have made, nearly $60 million to the
people of our province, to remove auto insurance.
If you
remember, Mr. Speaker, this was all part and parcel of the Public Utilities
Board review on auto insurance that we were the first administration of many –
many administrations prior to us have pushed this down the road. This
administration dealt with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Could someone from the
ministry explain whether discussions have taken place with representatives of
the insurance industry on the question of inconvenience and expense arising from
the need to make rebates of auto insurance premiums.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, any time you
make a decision within government that's imposed, there's always a date that
would be imposed. So what we want to do is work with the insurance industry to
make sure that these rebates can be effective, because the objective here is to
put this money back in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, without
delay.
We want
to get this done. People have been asking for this. This was one of the things
that came forward from the Public Utilities review, but it's something that
we've wanted to do for quite some time. The measures that we imposed in 2016,
the decisions that were made, Mr. Speaker, were very obvious, based on the
fiscal challenges that we were left with coming into government in 2015.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we are glad to get this money back in the pockets of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians as quickly as possible.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Finance: The December 2018 report of the government's Independent
Tax Review Committee said the Temporary Deficit Reduction Levy was – quote –
regressive, a head tax, poor tax policy and consideration should be given to
ending the Temporary Deficit Reduction Levy prior to the legislated date. Why
not take your own committee's sound advice and immediately eliminate the levy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The levy
is being eliminated in 2019. What we chose to do, as a government, is to reach
the greatest number of people in the province with a tax break that we could by
eliminating the sales tax on automobile insurance.
The
Independent Tax Review Committee did not recommend the elimination of automobile
tax insurance right away. They did recommend the levy, but the automobile tax
insurance reaches a greater number of people and this way both win because the
levy is gone this year and the automobile tax insurance is gone this year as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister for clarification.
Is the
minister telling the taxpayers of this province that they will have to pay the
full cost of the levy on their 2019 tax returns?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the tax levy is gone as of December 31, 2019. That's been legislated in
this House since 2016. The same people that pay the levy, Mr. Speaker, of all
tax filers in the province, less than 30 per cent actually pay the levy, but of
people filing taxes in the province, almost 100 per cent pay automobile
insurance.
We
wanted to give the widest number of people we could a tax break, and that's what
we did with the automobile insurance. The levy is gone this year as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is obviously, yes, and the minister referred to an
amount of $55 million being the impact of the tax levy, so it isn't
insignificant to the people of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, there's new information that insolvencies are up over 50 per cent in
this province. Businesses are going under because they're prospective customers
have less to spend, thanks to exorbitant taxes.
Is the
minister concerned about this number of insolvencies?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, there are
jurisdictions in Canada with higher rates of growth and insolvency than this
province, but what I will say is that in
Budget 2015, the previous government gave a projection on the amount of
capital investment in this province; we've exceeded that. They gave a projection
on the number of jobs in this province; right now, today, we've exceeded that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind all Members I will
not tolerate interruptions, please.
MR. OSBORNE:
They gave a projection on the
amount of retail sales in this province; we've exceeded that.
So,
based on their numbers, I would suspect that things would've been worse. We've
got 11 consecutive months of year-over-year job growth in this province, we've
worked hard to overcome the fiscal crisis that was there in 2015-2016 and we're
making progress.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: What is your solution to bring down the number of insolvencies in this
province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, what we're doing
is probably the opposite of what the crowd opposite were doing when they
projected that capital investment would be lower than we've actually delivered,
where retail sales in the province would be lower than what we delivered, where
the number of jobs in the province would be lower than what we delivered.
We've
come off a period where we've had two megaprojects shut down, and something that
this province could not control was the effects of Fort McMurray on the
province, where people had large incomes in Fort McMurray. Literally thousands
of people in this province were affected by that, but we have made huge progress
with 11 consecutive months of year-over-year job growth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, the Dominion
Bond Rating Service has indicated that the deficit for this year is actually
$855 million.
In this
government's pre-election budget, the minister stated that the province would
record a $1.9-billion surplus. I ask the minister: Which number is correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, with the
Atlantic Accord, based on the accounting principles that this province has had
in place for two decades, it does show a surplus, but without the Atlantic
Accord, we'd have a $577-million deficit in this province.
If the
Member wanted to be completely accurate with the people of the province and read
a little bit further into DBRS, the reason they show the figure they do is
because they project all capital costs immediately, as opposed to amortized over
the life of the project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, the people of my
District of Torngat Mountains rely heavily on marine service for food security
and to keep the cost of living down. I repeat, rely heavily on the marine
service to keep food security and to keep the cost of living down.
Now that
the Lewisporte run has been eliminated, all food and materials have to be
trucked to their freight facility in Goose Bay in order to be shipped to
Northern Labrador. It is now June 11, Mr. Speaker, and it has not been made
public when this facility will start accepting freight.
I ask
the Premier: When will this facility start accepting freight, including food and
essential goods, to ship to the Northern Labrador communities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
And I
thank the hon. Member for the question.
Mr.
Speaker, when we made the changes to Lewisporte into Goose Bay as the main hub,
we also took our road database and we adjusted the freight rates to actually
reflect that change, Mr. Speaker. So what the people of the North Coast will see
is adjustments in the freight rates to actually come down to reflect the
difference in the distance.
Mr.
Speaker, as for the information on when the terminal will be starting to accept
freight, I will get that and speak to the Member later with that date.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, I find that
answer unacceptable for the communities in my District of Torngat Mountains. It
is critical for them to have the date that a freight shed will start accepting
freight. Right now, because of the Lewisporte services being cancelled by this
Liberal government, I say, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot plan to truck their
freight into Goose Bay to be shipped to the North Coast. So it is very, very
confusing and very, very stressing for businesses and individuals.
I ask
again, Mr. Speaker, we need the date that freight services will be open in Goose
Bay. It is critical to my communities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again, I
say to the hon. Member, I will provide you with that date. It's not something I
have at hand. Mr. Speaker, what we have been able to do to reflect on the
changes to that service – and, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that the
North Coast of Labrador is going to have a roll-on, roll-off ferry, something
that's very important to the people of the North Coast, and we were able to do
that after many years of a government that wasn't willing to actually make these
changes for the people of the North Coast.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we will see a reflection in the new freight rates of how this service
is going to look. Mr. Speaker, right now, if we were to bring in that service
today we would not even be able to get up the North Coast. Right now, the ice
conditions are such that the ferry would not be able to operate.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we'll make sure that the necessary provisions are made so that the
people of the North Coast can get their necessary freight.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, I find that
answer unacceptable as well. We need the date.
I also
would like to say that the freight has to be shipped, has to be trucked up the
Northern Peninsula, across the Strait of Belle Isle, up the South Coast highway
into Goose Bay, then put on the freight boat. Mr. Speaker, this takes time. The
suppliers need an advance notice. We need to know when that freight shed is
going to be open to accept freight.
I will
also say, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of Torngat Mountains, the cost
incurred for extra trucking is causing a lot of increase. So I disagree with
your statement that it's actually going to reduce cost.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, as we found out
this past winter, there are actually about six tractor-trailer loads of freight
per week that go in to Goose Bay. So, Mr. Speaker, there's already ample freight
going in to Goose Bay that goes up the Northern Peninsula, goes across the
Strait of Belle Isle and up the Trans-Labrador Highway. So freight going in to
Goose Bay is nothing new.
The
reality is, I will get the date for the Member of when we will be opening the
shed. The reality is at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, ice conditions wouldn't
allow us to go north anyway.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Mr. Speaker, the reason why
getting the date that the freight is going to be accepted is because there's a
small, little fright shed – and my constitutions will agree with me – there's a
small, little freight shed in Goose Bay; so, therefore, they will not accept
freight until the shipping season is open. So the thing about it is we cannot
actually ship. We cannot actually truck to Goose Bay right now and it's causing
a lot of hardship.
We need
to know when the suppliers can start trucking their freight up to Goose Bay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the employees at TW for their great work, Mr. Speaker, because I have just been
informed that based on ice and weather conditions, we'll make the decision when
the freight shed is going to open. The ADM responsible for marine will be in
Goose Bay next week to actually have meetings to make sure that this is in place
when we need to be there.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
constituents have been looking for that information and it has been causing a
lot of stress. So if you could get that information out to the public, we'd
greatly appreciate it, Mr. Speaker.
I do
have one more question, which is critical for my constituents. The start date of
the northern ferry service to Labrador communities have not also been made
public; when the ferry service is going to start its run. I realize that right
now with the ice conditions it can't run, but we need to know because residents
are growing more and more concerned because the ferry, the
MV Kamutik W, is still under repair in Norway. She's still in dry
dock in Norway.
I ask
the minister: When will the ferry service to Northern Labrador communities
start, and will the MV Kamutik W be
ready in time to meet the scheduled dates?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
The
Minister of Transportation and Works, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said in my first response to the hon. Member, we will get that
date for her. Our officials are available any time if she would like to sit down
and have a discussion around that service. Our department has been always very
open in that way.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is right now ice conditions will dictate when we get the
service started, but I can assure the Member opposite and the people of the
North Coast of Labrador that we'll make whatever provisions are necessary to
make sure freight is getting to the North Coast.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
aware of the scarce financial resources. Following a report of the Auditor
General in September that outlined widespread fraud and abuse, including $735 to
rent a wheelbarrow for two weeks, the English School District submitted a
proposed action plan and budget request to the department on October 29, 2018.
Can the
minister update this House as to why there has not been any action taken in
Budget 2019 to deal with these serious
issues?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I want to thank the hon. Member for his question, and it's an
opportunity for me to stand as Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development in my first response.
The
school board, Mr. Speaker, continues to implement actions and provide a
full-scale update to the report to the Public Accounts Committee. We continue to
explore cost-effective ways to improve the district's financial processes, such
as integrating them in the government core financial management system under a
shared services model. We will continue to look into the situation there and
certainly I'd be more than happy to bring that report back to the House at my
earliest possible opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
I thank the minister.
Mr.
Speaker, just to add, and if I may add, if the government in the report back can
assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that sound controls are now in
place to prevent a repeat of such an incident?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as
always, everybody's job here is to make improvements. We have engaged a
consultant to work with the district and government officials to do a detailed
analysis of moving forward with the district's financial management system.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, any further information, I'd be glad to share it with the House.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, our office
continues to hear from parents regarding the concerns over the 1.6-kilometre
rule for busing. In particular, parents in the MacLaren-Faulkner Street area of
St. John's have been told they will lose their bus stop in September because
they are 1.56 kilometres from school.
Worse
still, Mr. Speaker, the school board has told the parents they cannot get a
courtesy stop because nearby Thorburn Road is too busy and a dangerous four-lane
road to stop safely.
Will the
minister finally put student safety first and review this situation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd
certainly thank the hon. Member for the question. While we continue to hear
concerns from parents and from our colleagues across the way with regard to the
1.6-busing policy, we've taken action to have a look at the 1.6-busing policy.
I have
to say, if you take a jurisdictional scan, Mr. Speaker, throughout other
provinces across the country – and I have a report that I'd like to table here
today and it outlines the actual busing policies right across this country.
Newfoundland and Labrador certainly stands third across the country.
With
regard to the issue, children safety is always paramount in our view as well,
and, certainly, anything that you (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Mr. Speaker, I strongly
advocate for the Lionel Kelland Hospice in my District of Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans, which was a priority to our party. During the election campaign, the
government announced a commitment to support the proposed hospice.
I ask
the Premier: Will the budget that you are tabling here today include funding for
this project, as we can get started so less people can die in hallways of
hospitals without dignity in death?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you for the question from the new Member opposite. The issue of hospice care is
topical. We have said that we will support the Lionel Kelland Hospice in its
establishment and operation.
We are
arranging to meet, again, with the board of Lionel Kelland Hospice to see what
specific requirements they have, and I will be happy to keep the House informed
of our progress, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Mr. Speaker, this is the same
board that the government has met with many times before. The Premier did not
answer my question, neither did the minister if there is funding in this budget
for the hospice.
Let me
ask again: If there's no funding, where is the money coming from?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
exact flow of money through the system, as it were, is a matter for the
Estimates Committee. I'd be happy to deal with that there. The issue of the
hospice itself, we have said we are committed to the concept of hospice care.
We're committed to the Lionel Kelland Hospice and happy to work through that and
through Central Health probably for the establishment of such a facility there,
just as we would with Eastern Health who have similarly expressed interest, Mr.
Speaker.
The work
is ongoing, happy to chat with the Member opposite and the board of Lionel
Kelland.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, government's own budget data shows, in
The Economy, unemployment is going to rise over the next few years
in 2020, '21, and '22. This ties in with the insolvency rate. Clearly, the
Premier's Way Forward plan is not working.
I ask
the Premier: Will he agree to develop a new jobs plan that will go beyond the
Cabinet committee and actively involve all stakeholders at this time?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand and answer the first question from the Leader of the NDP. Mr.
Speaker, we put in place, back in 2016, a plan that was developed around
partnerships, with industry, with businesses, with communities, associations and
interest groups, including the volunteer sector, by the way, which we don't
often talk about enough and the job creation that they do within our province.
Mr.
Speaker, clearly that plan right now is demonstrated that we've seen 11
consecutive months, as the Minister of Finance has just mentioned, 11
consecutive months – if someone had forecasted that back in 2015, no one would
have said that this province today would see job growth to this degree in our
province.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country in GDP, economic
growth within the country. These are statistics that we're proud of. The plan
that we put in place in 2016 is working and it's attracting investment and
creating jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
addition to that, will the Premier commit to use the carbon tax proceeds to
create a permanent green jobs fund that will help small green businesses to
innovate and create green jobs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We see
significant interest in what a new green economy would look like. That was one
of the reasons why we put in place a hybrid which is part of the Pan-Canadian
framework on climate change. Mr. Speaker, we participated in that. While other
provinces would disagree maybe with the approach that we have taken and other
provinces that have disagreed of what they've seen as their constituents and
their residents opposed to a federal carbon tax, we took the opportunity to put
in place a hybrid model for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, which includes
investment into green initiatives.
We see
so many opportunities for young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in some of the
more traditional companies that we have doing work in our province, to work with
people in this Legislature to make sure that that green economy is something
that we can put a focus on and create even more jobs for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, the Independent
Expert Advisory Committee, or the IEAC, on methylmercury, fourth and last
recommendation says: Nalcor Energy undertake targeted removal of soil and
capping of wetlands in the future reservoir area before impoundment. The CEO of
Nalcor says they will begin to raise water levels in the Muskrat reservoir this
summer.
What is
the Premier's position on this fourth recommendation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If we go
back and look at the history, the development of Muskrat Falls, even go back to
the Joint Review Panel, which was put in place prior to sanction, a number of
the recommendations, including things like how you deal with methylmercury, was
not dealt with prior to sanction, and so it got us in a situation that we're
into today.
Very
pleased to say today that I did have a meeting with Indigenous leaders,
primarily from Labrador – well, all from Labrador – on this very issue. If you
remember that it was an historic event in our province back in October of 2016
when we first met to put an Independent Expert Advisory Committee in place. Of
the four recommendations that are put in place, two of those are things that I
think we can make success with and have success.
What we
need right now, and what we agreed to in this morning's meeting, was to put in
place a committee that would follow the implementation, which is a
recommendation from the Independent Expert Advisory Committee that filed its
report just last year.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The time
for Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Table of
Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial
Administration Act, I am tabling seven orders-in-council relating to funding
pre-commitments for fiscal years 2020-21 and beyond.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I'll move the following motion: That the Striking Committee comprise the
following Members: the Member for Burgeo - LaPoile, the Member for Burin - Grand
Bank, the Member for St. John's West, the Member for St. John's Centre and the
Member for Mount Pearl North.
And I
further give notice that the Committees of the House of Assembly for the 49th
General Assembly be constituted as follows:
The
Public Accounts Committee: the Member for Cape St. Francis; the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; the Member for St. George's - Humber; the Member
for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune; the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels; the
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port; the Member for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi.
The
Privileges and Elections Committee: the Member for St. George's - Humber; the
Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels; the Member for Burin - Grand Bank; the
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, and the Member for St. John's East
- Quidi Vidi.
The
Standing Orders Committee: the Member for Burgeo - La Poile; the Member for St.
John's West; the Member for St. George's - Humber; the Member for Windsor Lake,
and the Member for St. John's Centre.
Finally,
the Miscellaneous and Private Bills Committee: the Member for St. George's -
Humber; the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; the Member for Mount Scio;
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, and the Member for Conception Bay
South.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
I see the gentleman for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term
care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering from
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions
whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,
not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for
extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's
failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows:
To urge
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which
includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff for three
residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities
housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive
debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from
injuries, proper hygiene care and all of the required care. This law would
include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for
monitoring and intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm picking up where I left off at the last sitting on behalf of the
group Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights. They wish to continue with their
campaign to ensure that we have adequate staffing in our long-term care
facilities throughout the province, particularly and specifically as it relates
to patients, as indicated in this petition, patients with dementia and
Alzheimer's disease.
That is
not to say – because every time I raised this in the past, the Minister of
Health would stand and basically say that this is a shot about staff and so on.
This is not about staff. This is not saying that people at these facilities are
not doing the best they can with what they have, but what is being suggested
here is that there's not always adequate staffing at these facilities to care
for our most vulnerable seniors.
They
want assurances through legislation – not through the policy of the health care
authorities, not through regulations that could be changed by the minister of
the day whenever he or she decides, but through legislation to enshrine the fact
that there would be adequate staffing at these facilities to take care of our
seniors.
This is,
as I said, it's something I've presented numerous times and I will continue to
do so as long as this group asks me to do so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout the province who live
inside the English School District's 1.6 kilometre zone, therefore do not
qualify for busing; and
WHEREAS
policy cannot override the safety of our children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6 kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior highs where safety
is a concern.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we've argued this and fought this and we'll continue to fight it. At
the doors we heard this over and over again. Not only just me, but a lot of my
colleagues around.
Now,
it's unfortunate during QP that the new minister referred to an old plan the
former minister was using, the jurisdictional scans and whatnot. That's not what
the people in this province are looking for – not in my district.
This
policy is outdated. It's long overdue to be reviewed and changed. You have
children that are on four lanes of traffic with no sidewalks, are trying to get
to school in the middle of the winter. We've said this in this House over and
over again. It bears repeating. We continue to argue for it.
And it's
not just us, Mr. Speaker. We're representing districts. We have 15 representing
districts here now that we believe this is a huge issue and we're just waiting
for someone to finally – common sense has to prevail. People say this is a
common sense issue, so we're hoping government will finally look and listen and
take this policy, shelve it and review it and put a proper policy in place
that's going to protect our children. Our children are our most valuable
resource, and we need to do that now.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for a response,
please.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I
thank the hon. Member for his petition.
Mr.
Speaker, he's talking about making strides, and we are making strides. I can go
back to a report that was tabled in September of 2018 where, at that time, we
had 72 courtesy stops. Today, we have 649 courtesy stops and that's actually
looking after thousands of children within our province.
The one
thing that I will agree with him, Mr. Speaker, is that safety of our children is
paramount. He is right in saying that. The safety of our children is paramount
and we will do whatever we can to continue to review the policies to make
changes.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
government now requires regional health authorities to strictly enforce a policy
that requires all applicants being assessed to have a physical care need to
qualify for admission to a personal care home.
Seniors
with issues such as anxiety, depression, fear of falling and loneliness are no
longer eligible. Many seniors who would have qualified just months ago are now
being denied access.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to revise the policy on personal care home access.
Mr.
Speaker, we've spoken to this a number of times before the election. It was
relevant then and it was known within the public that families, seniors and the
general population had a real concern about the change in the operations of the
policy that is in play with the regional health authorities.
The real
issue here is that we're separating physical health from mental health. We've
tried to over the last number of years in this House, and we've done it very
eloquently and we've done it very efficiently, about connecting the two, that
it's very important that we make sure good, personal, physical health falls in
line with good mental health.
In this
case, we're separating it. When you're talking about a vulnerable part of our
society, seniors, who now for circumstances that have changed in their living
circumstance, a loved one has passed away, family members have moved away, their
ability to be able to stay in a certain home because of anxiety, because of
fear, because of loneliness, is not taken into account. When they could be put
in an environment which is much more conducive to a quality of life, much more
conducive to their long-term physical health and much more conducive to their
mental health.
So, we
can't separate these two. If it's about money, we have to look at the long-term
benefits by investing upfront, Mr. Speaker. We know the impact it has on
families. We know the impact it's having on communities.
I know
we've talked about it before, the Home First program that nobody denies. We're
all supportive about being able to keep people in their homes with the supports
they need, but we're talking about a vulnerable part of our society, seniors who
want, who no longer feel comfortable living in that environment, who want to go
into a personal care home to have other interactions, to dismiss with any of the
issues, the anxieties, the fear of falling, the loneliness, and be part and
parcel of a community-based support system there that, obviously, enhances their
physical health and their mental health.
Why
would we deny that, and on one side say it's about money, and yet say that we're
going to spend more money in support services that they don't want and don't
need because we have an alternative that works.
There
are a multitude of approaches here. One is the Home First program, another is
being able to get people into personal care homes and then there are other ones
that look at long-term needs here. We need to be able to find the solution that
works for a particular part of our society.
What
we're doing here, we're dismissing a group of our society who has a need, we
have a solution to that need, it's no more costly than any other solution we
would do, but it does affect their mental and physical health, and we have an
obligation and a responsibility to ensure that they have an opportunity to excel
because they can access those services.
Mr.
Speaker, we'll be presenting this many more times in this House of Assembly.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
the Member opposite is correct when he states that there are a variety of ways
of looking after seniors and vulnerable folk in the community.
With
particular reference to the comments around the petition, there have been no
change in the criteria for admission to personal care homes; it is a personal
care need that has to be identified. This includes mental health and mental
wellness. Indeed, there were personal care home operators on the radio during
the recent election campaign referencing the fact that they were having clients
admitted with these kinds of diagnoses, so I would refute some of the
presumptions underlying the petition.
We are,
in actual fact, doing what the Member opposite asked, which is we are working
with personal care home operators to revise, update and make more nuanced the
admission criteria for physical and mental illness and wellness to personal care
homes, including things like the access to day programming facilities. So we are
actually doing what the petition has asked for, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I call Orders of the
Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, and I would move the
following motion, Mr. Speaker, that Standing Order 74 be amended by adding
immediately after Standing Order 74(2) the following: (3) Notwithstanding
Standing Order 74(2), where a head of expenditure has been referred to a
committee established under Standing Order 72 and the time used in debate of
that head of expenditure exceeds three hours, the additional time shall also be
deducted from the time allocated under Standing Order 71.
Now, I
won't take a significant amount of time to speak to this proposed change, except
to provide, perhaps, some knowledge as to how it came to be here today, and
perhaps more importantly the relevancy of it and what I think is the importance
of it.
So, as
all Members know or are about to find out, one of the big parts of the budget
process is the Estimates, as they're called, which are all handled by Committees
of the House, and actually they will be beginning tonight with Justice
Estimates. And again, to those that might be watching, if I were to try to
explain, it's an opportunity – and I personally feel that Estimates are the best
part of any budget. Whether you're in government or Opposition, it's a great
chance where you're not constrained by time so much as you are in the House,
where you can sit down, ask questions and get answers. I think it works for
everybody to find out a real understanding of the budgetary allocations of any
particular department.
So, for
instance, tonight the Justice department will sit here, staff officials, and on
the other side you'll have Members of the Committee belonging to Social
Services, which there are a number of Members. But primarily, the big reason for
it is that you'll have Members from the Opposition sitting on the other side as
well, whether it's the Official Opposition, the NDP, our independent Members,
and they have an opportunity to sit there, usually for a prescribed amount of
time, which is three hours, and to go back and forth asking questions.
It's not
just sometimes like you see in Question Period where there are the political or
partisan overtones. In many cases, it's about finding that information. This is
what you were budgeted to spend; this is what you actually spent. Can you give
us some background on that? Can you talk about policy? Again, I've seen these be
very useful. I've seen some where ministers would obfuscate and not provide as
much information, but either way I think it's a useful exercise.
Each one
of those is three hours long. Now, we all know that the budget goes up to 75
hours and is made up of Estimates, Interim Supply, budget debate, Concurrence,
you name it. I still think this is the most important and each one is three
hours. Now, I'll say this and I know that the staff at the Table will remind me
if I'm wrong, as they usually do, they'll look up and they'll shake their head,
or they'll nod their head, or they'll let me know when I make a mistake but it's
three hours.
If the
Opposition stops asking questions after two hours, it still counts as three
hours towards the budgetary timeline. So, it still counts as three towards that
75. But, in some cases, as I've seen – for instance, in my first year doing
Estimates we sat for 4½ hours. It was great. I felt that it was productive. I
think the Members of the Opposition that participated felt it was productive and
we went for 4½, but the problem is that the extra hour and a half does not count
towards the budgetary timeline. So, there was actually no benefit to perhaps me
doing it, providing that extra time in terms of going towards the budget. I
think the benefit was to everybody, though.
What
we're saying here with this resolution which I'm hoping will be supported
unanimously – and I'll give the reason for it as well – is that it provides, I
think, an incentive for departments to provide as much time as possible – even
though there is no need to do that. Some departments take longer, some
departments are shorter. Myself, personally, I feel it's better for this process
if we sit there and give as much time, but I can understand why a minister may
also chose not to do that and, in many cases, it's a lot to bring together your
whole department for a night, plus the prep work that goes into it.
This is
something that I think will be beneficial to all. I think it's beneficial to the
people that we represent in that the Opposition having as much time as necessary
to ask these questions and get answers, it guides them and it guides all of us
in terms of Question Period.
I don't
think it helps anybody if these Estimates are constrained by time, which is why
I think ministers and departments need to feel that if they put the extra time
in – for instance, as I said the 4½ hours that I done before, it's not just me
giving my time, it's staff. It's staff giving their time, and many of these
people are giving up a significant amount of time. There's a benefit to this.
This was
brought up – and I'll talk more about Standing Orders tomorrow – by the Members
of the Standing Orders Committee. Ms. Michael, who was here today, was a Member
of that Committee, myself, the Official Opposition House Leader was there and
Members on this side as well. This was one of the issues we brought up and said
we think this would be a positive change. We think it would help the budget
process.
I will
say, and Members will find out, I'm sure, that sometimes the debate on the
budget proper, on the budget motion sometimes, can be a bit repetitive, can
maybe not be as informative, I guess, is just my little opinion, but I think the
Estimates is something that is beneficial, so we're putting this resolution
forward.
It was
agreed to unanimously by the Standing Orders Committee. I think like anything
that we do with a Standing Order, if we chose to do something and it does not
work, we always, as a House, have the right to go back and change that because
Standing Orders govern how this House operates. We all want the best operating
House we can have that benefits us all, benefits the people we represent.
On that
note, I'll take my seat, listen to my colleagues across the way and, hopefully,
we can vote on this resolution and move forward so that we actually can hear the
budget later on.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand here and talk about our Standing Order 74. I'll start by how
we'll end this, that we wholeheartedly support this. The Government House Leader
is exactly right. This has been a discussion that's gone on for well over a year
about how we change the Standing Orders here to make it more efficient and make
it more reflective of the discussion in the House, particularly around what we
consider one of the most important components of what we do in the House of
Assembly is Estimates and the debate we have on the budget that represents the
needs and the programs and services of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
While we
wholeheartedly support the opportunity for having a minister and all the
relevant staff and having a committee made up of all three parties and
independents and any Member of the House of Assembly who can assemble here to
ask questions relevant to that particular department and the headings are very
important.
The only
caveat we've had some discussion around from a caucus point of view and that we
want to put on the table is, at the same point, we want to ensure that while –
where a minister who's open to extend it for the open discussion to ensure all
questions are answered, that that time should count, and we agree with that.
It's
Estimates. It's debate. It shouldn't be extra time put in and not allocated, but
on the same side, there's a fear here – it happens rarely, but it does happen
with certain ministers – that when debate happens, at the three hour time they
cut it off, that it still should be open until the Committee is comfortable
asking all the questions and referring to all the headings, that that also would
be an understanding that would happen.
I know
that's not what's being put forward here, but I do want to have that tabled here
because that's also important. While we support the extra time that is put
forward by a department, it should be allocated and counted. It makes sense
because it's open debate on the budget, an opportunity for everybody to know and
hear, and it's transparent. The questions and answers are for the general public
to be able to review.
It's
great for any party then to have that information so they can avail of the
services and put out the information to their constituents, but also
particularly for critics so they would have an understanding of any other
clarification they may need in the House in Question Period to divulge a little
bit more information to the general public here.
The
concern we had in our caucus was around what happens if we do get a minister who
says they don't like the tone of the questioning, at three hours I'm cutting it
off. That then becomes a concern for us because, at the end of the day, due
diligence is about getting to reveal all the issues and all the programs and all
the nuances that are in a particular budget or budget line, to ensure everybody
understands what they can avail of, everybody understands how this is going to
benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, or would understand exactly
what the restrictions are on the monies that are going to be allocated for that
particular line item.
So,
there's a concern. It's not a burning one at this point because most ministers
have been extremely co-operative in understanding that, but it has happened in
the past.
I had
the privilege of sitting in the Chair, as chairing for nearly three years, a
multitude of Committees on budget lines and there are some times ministers, and
it's happened with all administrations, who are not as co-operative, who are not
quite open to answering all the questions, as to pass it off over a period of
time. So it does become a concern for us to talk about.
I would
hope that we'll bring this up again in Standing Committee meetings down the road
to ensure that doesn't happen. I'm hoping the ministers that are across from us
here now will be very co-operative. If it takes four hours – and I know the
Minister of Justice has no qualms, he's done it in the past, and I would think
other ministers would be open – that if it takes 3½ hours, if it takes three
hours and one minute, if it takes four hours and one minute, that they're open
to do that, particularly now knowing that that time counts towards budget
debate.
To have
a proper budget debate, and we're talking in a unique situation in the House of
Assembly about openness and transparency, what better way to do that by showing
we're open to have a full debate on any particular line item in the budget so
that it's all clarified, and whoever leaves this House on the committee side
understands exactly what was meant and what the intent of the monies being
expended in those particular line items are to benefit the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Then they are more equipped to be able to explain to
their constituents and to the people of this province what it is this money is
going to be used for.
So we
have no qualms and we support the resolution here now, the Standing Orders
amendment, but we do want to have it noted that as we go forward in the Standing
Orders Committee this would be a note there. We do ask the co-operation from the
ministers as we start Estimates tonight, that if it takes a little bit longer
that all are co-operative in being able to do that.
So we do
stand to support it, and we look forward to the Estimates process over the next
two weeks.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will
also support this motion, and as brand new MHAs, I think when you look at the
Estimates committee process it will be extremely valuable to us.
The only
concern we would have, of course – and, again, it comes from our own
inexperience and newness to this – is the amount of time that might be taken
away from the budget debate itself; but, however, we'd see a lot more benefits
to us in the long run.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to take a couple of moments now to make a couple of comments on this.
First of
all, of course, as an independent Member, and myself and my colleague here,
we're not part of the Standing Orders Committee, so when we have this unanimous
concurrence on this, I would just say for the record, it may be unanimous minus
two; unanimous by 38, not unanimous by 40 per se. That's not saying I'm against
it, but I do make the point for a reason.
Mr.
Speaker, I absolutely understand the value of Estimates. I have no issue with
the fact that if there's going to be time beyond the three hours taken for
Estimates, that it should come off the 75 hours. I do question and wonder,
though, that if the opposite were to happen and we only took two hours, for
argument's sake – although, I don't know if I've ever seen that happen; I think
once or twice, depending on the department, but generally speaking you use most
of the three hours.
I do
wonder if there was any consideration that if it was less than three hours,
let's say it took two hours, why we're going to take three hours off, but if we
go four hours we're going to take the four hours off. So you're going to have –
to my mind, why do you have it both ways? If you're going to use the time, use
the time. If you only take two, two should come off; not three if you only use
two. So that would be just one point on that.
The
other thing I'll say again, just for the record here, that we've had practice
here in the House, past practice, that while the independent Members or Member,
depending on what it was at the time, may not have been part of these
Committees. We had the opportunity to sit on Committee, if we wished to, and I
certainly have sat in on the majority of them in my time as being an
independent.
There
was always some time allotted, by leave, I guess, of Committee to allow the
independent Members to ask a few questions if there was something that wasn't
already asked, something that wasn't addressed and so on. While that is
absolutely appreciated, and I would certainly hope the same thing will happen
again this time as in the past, I would like to see somewhere – and I say to the
Committee, I would like to see recognition somewhere in the Standing Orders,
some absolute recognition of that fact for independent Members.
I can
understand in the past it was totally a party system. And, yes, there have been
some independents, primarily because they left or they were booted from a
particular caucus or whatever and they ended up sitting as independents, but in
this particular case we have two independents now who were actually elected by
the people as independents, which makes it, I think, different. I think it's a
reality of how a lot of people are feeling. There were nine people who ran as
independents in the last election. There could be 29 next time, I don't know.
But it is a reality and I think there has to be some recognition for it.
So I
just say, for the purposes of what's being proposed here, I'll support it.
Again, I think if you're going to take away time because you use extra time, I
think by the same token if you use less time, than less time should be taken
off. Again, I would like to see some actual recognition in the Standing Orders
of the role of duly elected independent Members and their right on behalf of the
people they represent to participate in the Estimates process.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to stand just to concur with the colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands
about the changes that should be in the Standing Orders. I'll just give you a
good example. I won't keep you long. I will be supporting the motion.
Mr.
Speaker, just say, for example, a prime example, the hospital in Corner Brook is
a major issue. All during the election, we hear at the hospital in Corner Brook
that workers should be hired as local workers. I'm not making any suggestion
that the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transportation would ever do
this, but if I'm in the Estimates and I'm asking questions about why local
workers are not being hired, they can say no leave and I can't ask a question in
Estimates. That's the number one issue for the West Coast of the province, is
the hospital and local workers that I heard at the doors.
Seventy
per cent of people say go in and find out what's going on. I'm not saying it
would happen, but there is a good possibility, Mr. Speaker, that somebody can
just say no leave, you can't ask questions in Estimates. So we have to make some
changes to the Standing Orders Committee. With independents now in this House –
duly-elected independents in this House, we should have the same rights as
anybody in this House of Assembly and the Standing Orders must reflect that.
On the
issue now, when we discuss the hours, how many hours there should be accounted
for, it should be if you go over three hours, add it. If you go less than three
hours, we should take it back and make sure that there is 75 hours. If there is
75 hours for debate, let's have 75 hours. I have been into discussions in
Estimates on both sides, as on the Opposition and as a minister where it didn't
take three hours to get done. Sometimes you get through a bit quicker; they look
for information. All my dealings, even when I was in the Opposition asking the
government, the PC government at the time, if you got the information, if they
couldn't get it, they would supply it to you later. I know a lot of ministers
opposite would do the same thing. If they haven't got the information, they
would supply it later, so that would speed up the process because you'll say
we'll give you the information later.
Mr.
Speaker, I am in agreement with this here, but I am convinced that we must
change the Standing Orders so the independents – which is a reality in
Newfoundland and Labrador now, if there are independents in this House, we
should have the same rights to ask questions in Estimates as any other Member in
this House and not leave it up to somebody to say no leave or yes, leave.
The
point about leave and no leave in this House, Mr. Speaker, you'll never know who
said it. You don't have to announce which person, which minister, which Member.
It could be PC, it could be NDP, it could be a Liberal Member or could be a
Liberal minister. There's no statutory law or rule in this House to say identify
who did not give you leave and that takes away the rights of independents.
So I
think we should now change the Standing Orders to give all of us the flexibility
because, as elected officials, we have a right to bring up what's very important
to us. What's very important to Western Newfoundland is the hospital, our local
workers. I expect and I hope before Estimates starts that we'll have the changes
in the Standing Orders so that we can have proper leave to ask the questions
that we've been elected to ask in this hon. House.
Thank
you, Minister.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the commentary from my colleagues across the way. I think we all have
our heads facing in the same direction. We all know that when it comes to the
operation of the House that we've had to change how the House operates, and I
don't mind saying, to provide some context on how the Standing Orders have
evolved just over the last few years.
The
Standing Orders have been in place for many, many, many years. Some of them are
quite arcane, antiquated and have not changed. I'm willing to say – and I'm
quite proud of it actually – I'm quite proud of it that over the last three
years, through co-operation of Members, we have made more changes to the
Standing Orders than you saw in the decades before perhaps combined.
I take
pride in that because it was a case of people talk about working together in
committees – well, that's what it was. It was Members of different caucuses
working together to make those changes. So I am proud of that, but the fact is
that there's more change that's required.
So
perhaps the best thing that I can do – because I want to respond to each of the
Member's concerns and to say that, firstly, I appreciate the support for this
and I know there will be a unanimous support for this resolution, but the second
thing is I will provide some assurance that I'm always willing to work together
to make change that's positive to this House.
I say to
my House Leader colleague from across the way, again, thank you. He was a part
of this deliberation and I've appreciated his contributions over the last little
while. I understand he's not on the Standing Orders Committee anymore and he
will be sorely missed from that Committee.
What I
will say is that I appreciate his concern and I have seen that happen in the
past when you talk about, quite frankly, stonewalling by ministers, and I'm not
putting a stripe on that or a colour on that. I think that comes down to perhaps
a willingness to answer questions and, if that comes up, I think we can deal
with that. We can remedy that.
What I
will point out is that we cannot take away the flexibility to not answer the
same question 15 times. And we've seen that in the past where you ask a
question, you get an answer, you might not like it, you ask it again, you get
the same answer and, at some point, you have to have the ability to say okay,
this can go on forever. So, it's like a balancing act, but I do appreciate what
he's saying and I think we should be on guard with that. My personal viewpoint
is that if it takes all night and you get it done, it leaves less for people to
question you about on accountability and transparency later, if you're willing
to answer those questions. So I just put that out there.
I say to
my colleagues from the NDP, thank you for your contributions. The fact is I
don't think – and, again, it is something that I think you'll get the hang of
extremely quickly, I have no doubt about that, but what I will say is I think
you'll definitely share my view that the Estimates, when it's all said and done,
is perhaps the most substantive and best part of the budget in terms of finding
out information. We all know that there's the debate part, but I don't think
that the extra time will take away from the substantive debate that continues
on.
I will
point out – and it's funny because recognizing my colleagues are new to the
House, and I had a conversation with somebody earlier where I talked about
sometimes it doesn't matter how long you're here, the fact is we're all rookies.
I've already made a rookie mistake. I'd like to have this motion seconded by my
colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources. First day in, standing up and
forgetting how the rules work, so that's all part of it, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
my colleagues, the independents in the back, I appreciate your thirst for change
and the fact is that we do have some change. I will point out that you're not
the first independents to sit in the House. I know Yvonne Jones sat here for
three years – three years as an independent in this House and, for whatever
reason, I don't think the changes were made then.
What I'm
willing to point out, though, is that I've shown, along with the work of all
Members of this House, that we are willing to make change when it's warranted,
but it takes time. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands said: I want to see it
happen today. It's not going to happen today. It takes time to figure this out.
It takes deliberation. It takes research by our staff here, because it's very
easy to come in and make a change to a hundred-year-old rule and then you think
about, oh, I didn't realize that was the repercussions or the impact of making
that change, even if it seems right, even if it feels right.
So what
I will say is that we're all quite aware of your position on this. I would
encourage you to reach out to the Standing Orders Committee, as well as all
committees, because we have to continue to work together. I know that you've put
those concerns on the record and, with a new Parliament sitting here, I think
those concerns should be put on record.
What I
will point out to all Members is that when the Estimates start tonight, every
Member of this House has the ability to sit in here – and I've never seen
questions turned down. In fact, there were times before, depending on the
Estimates, where the Opposition parties, and certainly I was one of them, where
I might not be wanting to give up my time to somebody else to ask questions
because it was stuck at three hours.
Again,
we had minister that would stonewall; they would just take time to put out
information that was not always the most relevant to the debate. Again, I don't
put a stripe on that. That's why, as an Opposition Member, you're afraid to give
up your time because you might have some burning question that you wanted
answered, you wouldn't get the time to do it. With the change that we have put
in here today, I don't think that's going to be an issue. I think there's enough
time – obviously, like anything, we had to put a reasonableness on this, but I
think we've shown over the past few years that that part of the budget debate
seems to have worked.
The last
thing I'll say is there was no discussion even amongst the Opposition Members of
the Standing Orders Committee, that if you use less time, that it should not be
counted. I will point out, from a departmental point of view you put a
ridiculous amount of time into prep for Estimates. Your staff are here, and if
you come in and the Opposition chooses not to ask – I think it's incumbent on
Oppositions to come prepared to ask those questions, and if they choose for
strategic reasons or otherwise not to ask questions, then you've just wasted
time of a bunch of civil servants who've been working on this for weeks and
months.
I still
think when you add it all up – and I'm just speaking of my experience of being
parts of budgets since, basically, 2012. I've never seen anybody walk out and
say we didn't put enough time into debate of that budget. Nobody's walked away
and said I didn't have enough time to get my concerns forward. The fact is – the
reality is that most people are saying: my God, I can't believe that person has
said this X number of times. And I say that from sitting on the Opposition side
and speaking at every possible moment I could.
So this,
I think, is a good step forward, but as a Standing Orders Committee – again, I
know there's a private Member's resolution tomorrow that speaks to Standing
Orders. So this is a topic I think we'll see a lot of in the coming years. And
you know what, I think, like anything, we've indicated we're willing to change.
It takes time, but the willingness is the most important part.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper – I would move the following motion, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, that the composition of the Resource Committee,
the Government Services Committee and the Social Services Committee will be as
follows:
The
Government Services Committee will consist of the Members for the following
districts: the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; Conception Bay South;
Ferryland; Fogo Island - Cape Freels; Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune; Lewisporte -
Twillingate; Mount Scio; and St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
The
Resource Committee will consist of the Members for the following districts: the
Member for St. George's - Humber; Cape St. Francis; Fogo Island - Cape Freels;
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune; Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; Mount Scio; St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi; and Terra Nova.
And
finally, the Social Services Committee will consist of the Members for the
following districts: the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate; Conception Bay
East - Bell Island; Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune; Harbour Grace - Port de Grave;
Mount Scio; St. George's - Humber; St. John's Centre; and Topsail - Paradise.
I'll
take barely any time to talk about this, Mr. Speaker. These are generally
referred to as Estimates Committees. They sit in this House. They are a Select
Committee that are designed to look at the three different areas. And later on
today I'll be speaking very quickly to the different heads of expenditure that
fall under these different Committees.
The
important part to point out, because I had a panicked person say: Oh, my God,
I'm on X number of Committees, am I going to have to do every Estimates everyday
and night? No. The fact is there are substitutions that happen on both sides.
Generally, government Members sit there to ensure there is a majority or that
there is a quorum, and on the Opposition side it's a fact of having the proper,
usually, critic for each department sitting in asking the questions, along with
their researcher. Substitutions happen everyday, something we've dealt with, and
substitutions also happen on the government side. So these names are set in
place, but the fact is they are not carved in stone in terms of actually who
appears.
On that
note, I will take my seat, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I would ask the Government
House Leader, did I get a seconder that time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Thank you, Sir.
Excellent, excellent.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just confer that the Members that are put forward here represent all the Members
of the House of Assembly, particularly the three parties. We do open up,
particularly, debate in any Estimates. All Members of the House of Assembly are
allowed to attend – and the answers to the questions that are being posed here.
Like the
Government House Leader has said, there's a process in play where we'll get to
be more encompassing, a little bit more inclusive to all Members of the House of
Assembly. There's a process that needs to be put in play. Our hope is that we
move that as quickly as possible in the next meetings of the Standing Orders
Committee to make that happen.
We're
looking forward to Estimates as they start tonight and as they roll out over the
next nine nights and days to ensure that the information is out there for the
general public, and all Members of this House of Assembly to be able to share
with their respective districts and the people they represent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the motion?
Seeing
none, is the House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Premier, that the House approves in general the budgetary policy
of the government.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on April 16 of this year we brought forward a budget, and on April 17
we committed to taking this budget to the people of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, we committed at that time that this budget we would bring back to the
House if we were given another mandate, and today that is what we are doing. I
will not rehash the entire speech; that speech was read in this hon. House. It's
on the record in Hansard and it's
published on the Department of Finance website. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to recap just some of the highlights from the budget for the year ahead to
remind those in this House, and those that are watching from home, what we
brought to the table.
Mr.
Speaker, with Budget 2019 consumers
can rest easy. There are no tax or fee increases. In addition, this year we are
eliminating the tax on automobile insurance in its entirety. This change will be
implemented in July and will be retroactive to April 15, 2019.
This
year, we are making changes necessary to put a stop to the unfair practice of
clawing back children's benefits from families on Income Support, which was a
disadvantage to some of our most vulnerable children and families. We will amend
the Income and Employment Support Regulations to exempt payments from child
support of the Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributor's Benefit, and the
Canada Pension Plan Surviving Child Benefit for the purposes of determining
eligibility for Income Support. Further amendments will be made to ensure that
child maintenance payments will not be clawed back from Income Support.
Mr.
Speaker, the cost of delivering health care in this province grew by more than
50 per cent between 2007 and 2015 due to many factors, including the
introduction of new drugs and new technologies. This considerable growth and how
to best manage it is an issue being experienced by all provinces.
Our
government has made great strides to curb that growth rate and make better use
of the roughly $3 billion that we spend on health care annually. In fact, the
Canadian Institute for Health Information has reported that Newfoundland and
Labrador has seen the third lowest growth rate in Canada over the last three
years.
Mr.
Speaker, we have achieved this while making significant – and necessary
improvements – to home and community care supports, mental health and addictions
services, health infrastructure and primary health care.
By
working smarter and being open to partnerships, we are: Well into construction
of a new 145-bed long-term care home in Corner Brook; the building of a new
ambulatory care unit in Carbonear, which is in addition to the 28 long-term care
beds that were opened in that community; we are just weeks away from starting
construction of a new protective care unit in Botwood, long-term care homes in
Gander and in Grand Falls-Windsor, as well as a new mental health care
addictions hospital here in St. John's, as well as a six-bed mental health unit
at the Labrador Health Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; construction of a new
acute care hospital in Corner Brook will start in 2019.
This
year the Minister of Health and Community Services will be launching a new
program that will provide children starting kindergarten with access to free,
comprehensive eye exams from an optometrist. Our government will contribute
$250,000 in coverage for children by supporting the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Optometrists so they can deliver the Eye See Eye Learn Program.
This initiative will allow children to overcome potential barriers to eye exams
and contribute to a more positive learning experience, as well as an overall
improvement to their quality of life.
Mr.
Speaker, our government will increase services and supports for people across
the autism spectrum and their families. This year, we have allocated $2.5
million, growing to $5 million in following years, to implement an Autism Action
Plan. This plan will take a whole of government approach in the provision of
services to people with autism and their families.
Our
government will be expanding the Insulin Pump Program. While we continue to work
with Eastern Health to complete a review of that program, we are immediately
lifting the age cap for those currently enrolled. This means that individuals
currently relying on the program are not at risk of losing their current
coverage or having to take on a new financial burden once they reach the age of
25.
This
year, 15 new drug therapies will be added to the Newfoundland and Labrador
Prescription Drug Program. Eight of those are for oncology.
Mr.
Speaker, building on the additional 1,000 affordable child care spaces created
since last year, Budget 2019 allocates
approximately $60 million for early childhood development, which includes $7.4
million through an agreement with the federal government. These investments will
provide $17 million for the Child Care Services Subsidy Program to reduce costs
for individual families; it will provide $11 million to continue the Operating
Grant Program which improves accessibility of child care for low- and
middle-income families; and provide an income enhancement to qualified early
childhood educators working in regulated child care to help improve the quality
of child care services.
Mr.
Speaker, our government's Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement supports
low-income seniors, individuals and families, and persons with disabilities.
Through the Income Supplement, qualifying families would be eligible to receive
upwards to $650 a year, with an additional $200 for each child.
Through
the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, we are providing up to $1,313
annually to adults age 65 and older. Mr. Speaker, approximately 70 per cent of
those single beneficiaries are women. The total investment this year is $123
million.
Currently, our seniors enjoy a discount when they register their vehicles. Mr.
Speaker, this year, we are increasing that discount. As a result of
Budget 2019 when seniors renew their vehicle at the counter, the
price will fall below $100. For seniors that renew online, the fee will be less
than $90.
As well,
Mr. Speaker, this year we are introducing a discount for our veterans who have
served our country so bravely. We are applying a 10 per cent discount on vehicle
registration for those who have a veteran plate.
Mr.
Speaker, we have prioritized safe and sustainable communities.
Budget 2019 commits $42 million in
provincial funds for projects under the Investing in Canada Plan and a combined
investment of $91 million in the Municipal Operating Grant Program, the gas tax
program, Special Assistance Grants and the Community Employment Enhancement
Program.
In 2019,
we are making our Fire Protection Vehicle Program work better for communities
and fire departments. Budget 2019
introduces $2.88 million for the replacement of fire protection vehicles and
firefighting equipment. This reflects an increase of $1 million, creating more
options for communities to access funding for both used and new vehicles, as
well as $101,000 for grants to the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire
Services to support operations and the Learn Not to Burn Program.
Mr.
Speaker, with an investment of $242,000, offset by federal funding, the Drug
Treatment Court in St. John's addresses the underlying issues that contribute to
crime by offering court-monitored treatment, random and frequent drug testing,
incentives and sanctions, clinical case management and social services support.
It is crucial that people in Newfoundland and Labrador have faith in the
administration of justice.
Our
Serious Incident Response Team will be operational this year, providing an
increased level of transparency for police and helping ensure people have trust
in the system. SIRT will investigate serious incidents involving the police and
it is not intended to replace other mechanisms currently in place. The
establishment of a provincial SIRT was a recommendation from the Inquiry into
the Death of Donald Dunphy.
To
support improved police oversight, we have allocated an annual investment of
$500,000 for a provincial stand-alone team. As outlined by the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety last month,
Budget 2019 includes $354,000 for bail supervision and electronic monitoring
programs to help lower levels of recidivism and improve safety for women.
Budget 2019also
provides, through the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment, in
partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a Heat Pump Rebate Program to
assist homeowners in increasing the energy efficiency of their homes. The
program budget will be $1 million, and homeowners can receive a grant of $1,000
towards the purchase and installation of an eligible heat pump.
Mr.
Speaker, our rolling five-year infrastructure plan from 2019-20 to 2023-24
totals $3 billion. This plan is helping to stimulate economic activity, create
jobs and provide access to modern facilities. This year, our plan includes a
total investment of $594.3 million for new and existing schools, health care
facilities, post-secondary institutions, roads and bridges, justice facilities,
affordable housing and municipal infrastructure. This investment will generate
close to $580 million in economic activity and 5,100 person years of employment.
Our
government is pleased to allocate $600,000 to advance construction of a new
adult correctional facility in St. John's. This is the first step towards
replacing an antiquated facility that no longer meets the needs of those
incarcerated. It will ensure the safety of employees and correctional officers,
providing them with a modern working environment. We are also allocating $1
million to expand the Labrador Correctional Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay,
which will increase capacity and the potential to allow women to be housed at a
facility, closer to children and family members.
This
fiscal year, our government will match the roads budget of $77.2 million for
each of the last two years. This year, we are allocating more than $40 million
for the remaining contracts to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. Mr. Speaker,
with completion in sight, a fully paved Trans-Labrador Highway will open up
opportunities for businesses and residents.
Budget 2019
will allocate approximately $13.6 million, including funding from the federal
government, for local and rural highways. For the first time in our province's
history, centre line rumble strips will be added to the Veterans Memorial
Highway and construction of climbing lanes at four locations of the highway will
be completed to create a safer environment for all motorists.
These
improvements not only mean safer roads and fewer accidents for our residents in
communities such as Bay Roberts, Carbonear and Spaniard's Bay, but they also
support the continued economic growth of the region and efficient transportation
of goods. These investments in the roads program, along with the work on the
Team Gushue Highway and the Trans-Labrador Highway, will be supported by an
investment of $131.4 million this year.
Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2019 allocates $13
million, an increase of $6 million from last year, to continue the
implementation of the Education Action Plan and support better outcomes for
students. Through the plan, we are implementing over 80 actions and hiring 350
teacher resources over a three-year period to ensure students have access to the
supports they need.
In
Budget 2019, a new18-week Aquaculture
Training Program will begin to be piloted this fall at the Burin Campus. This
new program, supported by an investment of more than $236,000, will address
skill shortages in this sector by targeting both basic skills needed to obtain
and maintain employment as well as the technical skills required for employment
in the aquaculture industry, in partnership with the Marine Institute and in
consultation with industry.
This
year, we are also investing more than $858,000 to pilot a new Geological
Technician Certificate Program at the College of the North Atlantic's Grand
Falls-Windsor campus, which is scheduled to begin this fall. This will
strengthen the connection between industry and courses provided by our
post-secondary institutions.
Mr.
Speaker, we are allocating $39.2 million to begin construction of schools in
Gander, Paradise, St. Alban's and Coley's Point in 2019. We are also allocating
$14.5 million for repairs and maintenance of existing schools, including Bishop
Feild, which is expected to reopen in winter of 2020.
Mr.
Speaker, given the remote offshore operating environment for oil producers in
this province, digital innovations could substantially benefit the local
industry and accelerate the pace of innovation already underway. This is why we
are investing $3 million this year to create a Digital Ocean Innovation Centre
of Excellence for this valuable work to occur. The centre will enhance the
province's digital capabilities in emerging technology sectors, as well as
support the goals of Advance 2030 and
the Ocean Supercluster.
In
Budget 2019, we are also contributing
a further $2.5 million to support a Subsea Centre of Excellence for training,
research and product testing.
Through
our Way Forward plan, our government is working with industry, community, other
levels of government, as well as academic and research institutions to support
economic development and job growth. With more than $18 billion attracted in new
investments in such industries as our oil and gas sector and our mining sector,
the message is strong, Mr. Speaker, our approach is working. We have had 11
consecutive months of year over year job growth. Employment in this province is
expected to average 228,100 person-years of employment in 2019, which reflects
continued growth over 2018.
Newfoundland and Labrador is open for business, and companies from around the
world want to do business in our province. Our collaborative approach to working
with businesses – both large and small – are leading to business development,
creating jobs and benefiting communities. We are backing up that support with
more than $100 million in industry development, which will help create even more
jobs.
Our
government has a track record of job creation. Some of those examples, Mr.
Speaker, include S&P Data, a North American contact centre that we supported in
2018, which is on its way to creating more than 500 new jobs, with close to 300
people already employed in this province.
In
Placentia, approximately 1,900 people were working on the West White Rose
Project this year. Vale's construction of its underground mine at Voisey's Bay
will extend the mine's life by at least 15 years. With construction underway,
there are approximately 2,000 people working on the project in Labrador and in
Long Harbour. IOC has started its new open pit in Wabush, which will help
sustain roughly 1,800 jobs and the mine for up to 50 years.
Mr.
Speaker, we have also seen the recent reopening of the Beaver Brook Antimony
Mine in Central Newfoundland and the 100 new jobs that that will create. We have
seen the start of mining of fluorspar at St. Lawrence, which employs more than
250 people.
Additionally, mineral shipment projections for this year are 38 per cent higher
than they were in 2018. It is also an industry that is forecasted to employ
5,100 people directly in operations, as well as an additional 1,200 people from
mining construction. Mr. Speaker, that will bring the total employment forecast
for 2019 to 6,300 people – an 11 per cent increase over 2018.
To
sustain this progress, $4.6 million is available for Investment in Geological
Survey; and $1.7 million through the Mineral Incentive Program, which includes
$100,000 for Junior Exploration Assistance Programs encouraging mineral
exploration.
Mr.
Speaker, we are supporting greater science in geo-science exploration. This
year, we are adding $250,000 to expand the Geo-Science Exploration Program. As
reflected by the benefits of seismic activity in the offshore, with greater
geosciences capacity comes greater exploration and greater investment.
The
Grieg aquaculture project will generate approximately 800 new jobs in and around
Marystown, with approximately 440 direct jobs at Grieg NL and processing
facilities, as well approximately 380 other jobs in affiliated sectors.
Through
Advance 2030, our government is
working with industry to position Newfoundland and Labrador globally as a
preferred location for oil and gas development. We anticipate 100 new
exploration wells being drilled, and that our offshore will be producing more
than 650,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, and direct employment totalling
more than 7,500 people. We have been working with industry, as well as Memorial
University's Marine Institute, which is one of the top maritime universities in
the world, to identify infrastructure needs and expand innovation service
providers to offer dedicated support to businesses in the ocean technology
sector.
In
Budget 2019, $2.5 million is being
contributed towards the construction of a new 36,000-square-foot facility at the
Marine Institute's Holyrood Marine Base. This base is an integral part of the
innovation ecosystem in Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition to supporting
education and research, the new facility will accelerate the growth of ocean
technology firms through the provision of space and the latest technologies to
test products.
This
year we will invest $250,000 to launch an ocean technology competition, focused
on developing solutions that solve Newfoundland and Labrador's unique
challenges. The Newfoundland and Labrador technology sector includes almost 600
businesses, generating approximately 6,500 jobs. Supporting greater research and
development has proven outcomes and will help attract new researchers and
investment to this province, as well as help expand key industries.
As a
government, we view ourselves as a partner in creating a culture where such
innovation and entrepreneurship can flourish. To support access to much-needed
capital investment and support a climate where such innovation can occur, we are
allocating almost $14 million in Budget
2019.
Mr.
Speaker, I had the good fortune of joining the Ministers of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation and Advanced Education Skills and Labour to announce a
key step to explore opportunities for additional growth potential for the
aerospace industry through a $200,000 investment.
The
Department of AESL is adding a trade designation for the Air Maintenance
Engineer Program at the College of the North Atlantic campus in Gander. We will
be the second province in Canada to make this designation.
We are
also working with the college and the federal government on further plans to
upgrade and modernize the College of the North Atlantic's Gander campus
aerospace programming. We look forward to working with such companies as EVAS
Air and Provincial Aerospace to identify further opportunities that take full
advantage of the growing market in the maintenance, repair and overhaul
industry.
Our
support for the tourism industry is a catalyst for economic development. The
industry supports 2,600 businesses, nearly 20,000 jobs and generates more than a
billion dollars in spending. To help create awareness of these wonderful
experiences, our government will invest $13 million in tourism marketing again
this year. We will also use funds from the $10 million Regional Development Fund
to work with industry and community partners to support initiatives to advance
economic development infrastructure, marketing, research and capability in areas
such as tourism.
Building
on our Tourism Product Development Plan, we will focus on enhancing tourism
experiences. Further, we are committed to undertaking an action plan on the
maintenance and growth of airline routes and marketing.
Mr.
Speaker, to assist the fishing enterprises in the wild and farmed fisheries
adopt innovative, modern fishing practices in a globally competitive sector, we
are allocating $10 million under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund in
Budget 2019. This fund enhances our
ability to partner with the industry to meet growing market demands for
sustainably sourced, high-quality fish and seafood products.
Mr.
Speaker, last year, we launched Student Mentorship Program. It is a program that
provides up to 140 students with valuable on-the-job experiences. This year, we
are allocating $339,000 to expand the program to include summer career
development opportunities in the aquaculture, agriculture, technology, forestry,
mining, community and oil and gas sectors.
Mr.
Speaker, we believe we have put forward a budget that works for the people of
this province. We are turning the corner towards a brighter future. The stage is
set to continue creating jobs and opportunities for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and improving service delivery.
Mr.
Speaker, we have maintained our commitment to bring this budget back into this
hon. House and I look forward to debating its merits with all Members. The
people of this province want our Legislature to work together to make
Newfoundland and Labrador the best place to live, work and raise a family.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance to move …
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Premier, that we adjourn debate.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
motion is that debate be adjourned.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform
the House that I have received a message from Her Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER:
All rise, please.
I have,
in my hands, a message from the Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. It's dated
June 6, 2019.
As
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit
Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year
ending 31 March 2020, in the aggregate of $7,576,549,700, and in accordance with
the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of
Assembly.
Sgd.: _________________
Lieutenant-Governor
Please
be seated.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Premier, that the message, together with
the Estimates, be referred to a Committee of Supply.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that the message from Her
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, together with the Estimates, be referred to a
Committee of Supply, and that I do now leave the Chair.
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole Supply, the
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Reid):
Order, please!
We
will now take a few moments to distribute the budgetary documents to all hon.
Members.
(Budgetary documents are distributed.)
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of Supply.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report that they have made some progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Supply reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and
have directed him to report that they have made some progress and ask leave to
sit again.
When shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the Committee have leave to sit
again?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted.
Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And as
you note, I already moved Motion 7 earlier to establish the committees. At this
point I would give notice and, by leave, move, firstly, that the following heads
of expenditure be referred to the Government Services Committee: Consolidated
Fund Services; Executive Council; Department of Finance; Public Procurement
Agency; Public Service Commission; Service Newfoundland and Labrador; and the
Department of Transportation and Works.
Number
two, that the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Resource
Committee: the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour; the
Department of Fisheries and Land Resources; the Department of Natural Resources;
and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
And
three, that the following heads of expenditure be referred to the Social
Services Committee: the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development;
the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development; the Department of
Health and Community Services; the Department of Justice and Public Safety; the
Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment; and the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also wish to advise Members that today, June 11, 2019, at 6 p.m.,
the Social Services Committee will meet in the Chamber to review the Estimates
for Justice and Public Safety.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
And the hon. Member has
leave, yes?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, at
this time I would again go back to Orders of the Day and Motion 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to represent the people of Stephenville - Port au Port in the House of
Assembly. I want to thank the people for electing me and entrusting me to serve
on their behalf. Across the great District of Stephenville - Port au Port in the
House of Assembly. I want to thank the people for electing me and entrusting me
to serve on their behalf.
Across
the great District of Stephenville - Port au Port, there are communities rich in
culture with people who work hard and are fiercely proud to live in the region.
Our region holds so much potential but there are important issues that need to
be addressed. Our health care services need to be improved. Our aging
infrastructure must be replaced. We need innovative ways to better utilize our
airport and seaport. We can become a hub where businesses can grow and prosper
with opportunities for year-round tourism.
We must
support our historic Indigenous population and our historic French culture. We
must ensure the sustainability of our farming community. We need joint
management of our fishery and allocation of resources based on principles of
adjacency and fairness. We need to grow our economy so that our young people can
find opportunities at home. And we must always look for ways to support our
seniors.
My focus
is to ensure that the District of Stephenville - Port au Port realizes its full
potential. What's good for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port is good
for the province, and what's good for the province is good for the District of
Stephenville - Port au Port. I look forward to working hard to realize this
vision.
I am
proud to be part of this caucus with so many talented individuals from all
across this great province. As a former coach and player, I know the importance
of teamwork in achieving results. Our caucus team will work hard to ensure that
we get the results that the people of this province deserve.
It's
also an honour to have been appointed Finance critic for the Official
Opposition, and to have the opportunity to begin the response to this year's
budget.
Before I
get into the budget debate, I would like to make a couple of acknowledgements.
First, to the Speaker: Mr. Speaker, you have taken on the role as Chair of the
Speakers of Canada Association. All Speakers in the country are represented,
including the House of Commons and the Senate, the three Territories and 10
provinces.
I would
like for all of us to acknowledge and wish you luck on chairing this Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WAKEHAM:
I would also, as one of the
newbies in the House of Assembly, like to acknowledge the Minister of Finance,
who has the most service of anyone sitting in this House today. The Minister of
Finance was first elected in 1996; and, as I said, is the longest serving MHA in
the House of Assembly today.
Congratulations on the work you do for the people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WAKEHAM:
But, Mr. Speaker, that
doesn't mean I will go easy on him as Finance critic.
For me
and many of my colleagues, the budget debate will be our first opportunity to
speak in the House. It's a big thing for anyone to stand up in the House and
speak. I hope that none of us lose sight of the importance of what we are doing.
We are
the elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland. This is their House.
This is where the people's democratic rights are carried out. They elect us to
stand here on their behalf and speak for them. That's why we never refer to one
another here by our given names – because we are here, not as individuals, but
as the voices of all the people of our respective districts. They speak through
us, and we act for them.
Great
sacrifices were made to establish the democratic rights we enjoy. We just marked
D-Day, when people died to fight a system that threatened to impose tyranny on
democracies like ours.
It's
important to do our jobs well, so people see the value of this House and the
system that supports it. If we are sometimes animated and vigorous in expressing
our views, it's because they matter so much. We look to the Speaker to rein us
in if we become too animated from time to time, but we won't be pulling our
punches on things that really matter to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, the government had two options with respect to the budget. One, they
could reintroduce the budget that was introduced back in April but never debated
or passed. Or two, it could have introduced a revised budget to address some of
the concerns and constructive solutions raised during the election campaign.
The
government opted for the first of these approaches – to bring back the same
budget as before, without changes. We think they should have chosen the other
option. The result of the election is that the people of this province mandated
a different set of priorities from those embodied in the unpassed budget.
This is
not the best budget for 2019.
Last
week, our leader wrote to the Premier to ask for a new approach, and delay the
budget until later in the year to get it right. Here's what he asked for:
Dear
Premier,
In the
spirit of collaboration, I write to urge the government not to reintroduce the
2019 budget that was introduced by the Finance Minister on April 16, but to
introduce a revised budget to address some of the concerns and constructive
solutions raised during the election campaign. In light of all that was said
during the campaign and the plurality the people have delivered, I do not
believe the status quo is an acceptable option.
If the
budget is not changed, the tax burden on people will be too high; the level of
public expenditure will be too high, and certain vital services that ought to be
covered will be neglected.
In our
2019 policy Blue Book, we presented a very reasonable alternative that I urge
you and your colleagues to consider. The document remains available in its
entirety online and bears close scrutiny by your officials.
There
are eight things in particular that I believe you should consider: eliminate the
levy as early as possible. Your government's own independent tax review
committee said the levy is regressive, poor tax policy that should be ended
prior to the legislated date.
Eliminate the sales tax on homeowner insurance, along with the sales tax on auto
insurance. The money people save on insurance tax and the levy will be
reinvested in the local economy, generating economic activity, jobs and revenue.
Introduce an affordable child care program along the lines of the program I
proposed to cap the cost at $25 per child per day for a family with a gross
family income of $150,000 or less; progressively less than that for families
earning less than $65,000; and zero cost for families earning less than $32,500.
The NDP
also proposed a $25-a-day child care program in their policy document. Such a
policy will not only create new jobs in child care while allowing many parents,
particularly moms, to enter the workforce, but also leave money in the people's
pockets that they can spend in the local economy, further driving growth.
Change
the medical transportation system to allow 100 per cent reimbursement of travel
for people who have to travel for medical reasons outside their region, so every
patient, no matter where they live, receives timely and affordable care.
Improved access to care yields long-term benefits.
Remove
the age cap to ensure Medicare covers the cost of insulin pumps for all persons
with Type 1 diabetes, not just current users of insulin pumps. This investment
in access to care will produce a long-term benefit for people and savings for
the province.
Begin to
develop a community residential hospice, end-of-life care model by working with
the proponents of the Lionel Kelland Hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor in their
efforts to establish a hospice, and let this be a model for others throughout
the province. You promised this during the election campaign, and should move on
it in 2019.
Develop
a new policy on school busing within 1.6 kilometres of school. In your policy
document four years ago, you promised to act on this. People are not satisfied
with the changes implemented. You must do better. We heard this at the doorways
across the province. It is a priority that must be addressed in 2019. We cannot
put a price on the safety of children.
Increase
the budget of ArtsNL to $5 million over the next three years. You committed to
an increase of $1 million in the first year, but additional increases are
warranted for the following two years to achieve the $5 million target. I
believe all parties committed to this during the course of the campaign.
If time
is required to act on these suggestions, then let's take the time to get things
right. Our plan was to take the additional time required to produce a revised
budget, and to bring forward an additional Interim Supply bill in the meantime.
I also
urge you to press the Trudeau government even harder to make transfer programs
fairer. Health and social transfers should be based on need, not population, and
the equalization rules must be adjusted to be fair and responsive to our
province. In fact, I call for a joint federal-provincial recovery plan to
address our profound loss of population and the threat it represents to our
survival.
We can
make a concerted case for such a plan under section 36 of the Constitution.
Treated fairly, we would be in the fiscal position that provinces like Quebec
and Nova Scotia are in as they achieve fiscal balances and cut taxes while
improving services, all the while, receiving federal transfers denied to us. I
would be pleased to discuss these suggestions further with you, the Finance
Minister and officials.
The
Premier wrote back to us and here's what he said: Thank you for your letter
dated June 5, 2019, which my office received late yesterday afternoon, and for
stating your priorities. Your letter focuses on three areas: one, level of
taxation; two, level of public expenditure; and three, certain vital services.
The
eight initiatives you mentioned in your letter are all areas that we would like
to or are currently moving forward on. As you know, the levy will be eliminated
this year and we have made commitments to the Lionel Kelland Hospice and
increased ArtsNL funding.
However,
as you have acknowledged in the past, the province is still in a very difficult
fiscal position. Early in our first mandate, our government charted a seven-year
course to return the province to a surplus position and a stronger economic
footing. That plan is working and we continue to be on track to reach this goal
in 2022-23.
None of
the eight initiatives you referenced in your letter address your concern over
the high level of public expenditures in our province. In fact, it appears that
you have proposed cutting revenue while, at the same time, increasing
expenditures, which would increase the deficit and provincial debt.
In the
true spirit of collaboration, and as we move forward while making our province
the best possible place to live and raise a family, I ask that you provide
further details on how much additional public expenditure you believe is
required to address the initiatives you have suggested, as well as where there
additional expenditures will be sourced, given that you have also proposed
immediately reducing revenue the province receives. I also ask that you identify
the areas you propose to cut to address public expenditures that you say are too
high. I look forward to these additional details.
We
replied to the Premier's response by saying the following: Thank you for your
June 6 response to by June 5 letter about the 2019 budget. To be clear, I did
not suggest that you take the budget you presented in April and simply add new
expenditures while reducing certain revenues. The result of the election is that
the electorate mandated a different set of priorities from those embodied in the
unpassed budget. I clearly indicated that time and effort would be required to
incorporate my suggestions in a revised budget, essentially going back to the
drawing board.
You
asked how we would do things differently. We are offering to help you reorganize
priorities to address the issues that people raised during the election campaign
– issues such as the urgency of making life more affordable for people and
employers. That's how it would be done: By reorganizing priorities so they
better reflect the needs of the people and the province. We would be willing to
sit down with the government to do this work.
Obviously, it's not something that could be done in the few hours available
between now and Tuesday. This is why I offered the solution of approving further
Interim Supply now and developing a re-prioritized budget for introduction later
in the year. If you were to choose to take this course of action, we would join
you over the summer months to get the work done, and a better budget ready for
later in the year.
I do
remind you again that our proposal to eliminate the levy right away mirrors the
advice of your own Independent Tax Review Committee; our proposal for school
busing reform mirrors your 2015 commitment; our proposals on the hospice and
ArtsNL funding mirror your own election commitments; our proposal on insulin
pump coverage will actually reduce costs in the long run; our proposal on
medical transportation will improve access and efficiency, reduce missed
appointments and improve people's health; and our proposals for insurance tax
and child care will drive economic growth and revenue growth. Let's take the
time to get the budget priorities right.
Those
were the letters. In terms of the levy, we believe it is doing more harm than
good, and moving early will actually help the province's economy and budgetary
situation. Again, it's not just saying this. The Independent Tax Review
Committee, in a quote from page 13, said: The temporary reduction levy “was
introduced in Budget 2016 as a measure to generate additional revenue to address
the very large deficit. The measure was modelled after the Ontario Health
Premium and can be described better as a 'head tax' than a pure income tax or
surtax. Further, on a proportionate basis the TDRL impacts middle income earners
greater than higher or lower earners—it is generally a regressive tax measure.”
Earlier
today, we were informed that the levy will not come off until December of 2019
which, as I said, means that every taxpayer in this province that paid the levy
last year will pay that levy again in 2019. The minister said that's something
like $55 million that will stay in the pockets of government instead of being
returned to the pockets of the taxpayers.
So, new
approach – we were doing our job of offering concrete solutions for a new
approach, and we were citing experts such as those on the government's own
Independent Tax Review Committee to back up our solutions. The Premier chose not
to take us up on our offer. We believe the people of the province clearly spoke
during the election campaign about their dissatisfaction with the high level of
taxes and the unaffordability of certain services.
We
believe the people voted for change, not the status quo. But what we have before
us now to debate as a budget is a status quo. We offered to collaborate in ways
that are unusual and unprecedented in this province. When the House is divided
such that the government has only a plurality rather than a clear majority,
that's a signal that people in their collective wisdom have asked us to work
together. The government no longer has carte blanche – a blank cheque – to
govern as it pleases. The reigns have been tightened. The proper response to
this new reality is to do things differently.
Our
Leader has made it clear, on behalf of our caucus, that we have no intention
right now of trying to bring down this government on a matter of confidence,
such as the budget, and send the province into political turmoil and perhaps a
new election. The people have spoken their will and given us a mandate to find a
way to make things work. If the government is not prepared to send this budget
back to the drawing board with the Opposition parties around the table, then we
have an alternate suggestion, which I will make right now.
And that
is to begin immediately to consult with us on budget 2020. Don't wait until
early 2020 to ask for our suggestions. Bring us around the table now and let's
take the months between now and March 2020 to bring all the information and
options to the table and hammer out a 2020 budget that works better for our
province. Bring us to the table and let's truly collaborate for once. Let's show
the country a new way of doing things and produce a budget that we all stand and
say it's the best budget for our province in 2020.
Here's
why it's so important to take a new approach and not simply say everything is
hunky-dory on the way forward. We heard during the election campaign that things
are not hunky-dory in our neighbourhoods of our province. But even if we didn't
have the evidence directly from the people, we also have it in the government's
own budgetary documents.
The Economy
document shows that some
things are going well but, by in large, our province is not growing as it
should. Other economies in our country are steaming ahead. Ours is falling
apart. And here's some of the information from the government's own Economy 2019
document. In 2018 – and I quote – real GDP declined by an estimated 2.9 per
cent. Real exports decreased by 2.6 per cent. The population as of July 1, 2018
was down 0.6 per cent compared to the previous year. The value of retail sales
decreased by 2.4 per cent. The number of new vehicles sold was 30,266, down from
33,251 in 2017. Consumer prices rose by 1.6 per cent. There were 1,096 housing
starts in the province, a decline of 21.7 per cent from 2017.
The
number of residential properties sold in the province through MLS declined by
5.1 per cent to 3,730 units, while the average price declined by 1.3 per cent.
Non-resident visitors to the province decreased by 3.5 per cent to 533,500.
Associated expenditures were $569.7 million, down 1 per cent from 2017. Again,
these are not my numbers; these are the numbers in
The Economy book.
Projected for 2019: Consumer prices are forecast to increase by 1.5 per cent.
The province's population is projected to decline 0.2 per cent. Mineral
exploration expenditures are expected to decline to about $39 million from $45.4
million in 2018. The government's long-range projections for 2020 show
additional decline.
Again,
from The Economy 2019: Real household
income is projected to decline by 1.4 per cent. Real disposable income is
projected to decline by 1.3 per cent. Retail sales are projected to decline by
0.2 per cent. Real capital investment is projected to decline by 19.7 per cent.
Housing starts are projected to decline by 5.1 per cent. Employment is projected
to decline by 1.3 per cent.
The size
of the labour force is projected to decline by 0.8 per cent. And the population
is projected to decline by a further 0.1 per cent. In fact, the government's
Economy document projects that the province's population will fall in 2019 and
again in 2020, and again in 2021 and again in 2022.
Let's
look at the latest employment numbers. The most recent Labour Force Survey was
published by Statistics Canada on Friday, June 7. Here's what they reported:
Employment in Newfoundland and Labrador was down 2,700, driven by losses in
part-time work. The unemployment rate rose by 0.7 percentage points to 12.4 per
cent. After trending downward in the second half of 2018, the unemployment rate
in this province has been relatively flat since the beginning of 2019. Year over
year, employment saw little change.
For a
province that needs jobs and growth, that's not good news. That's not an
indication that we are on the right track and everything is going well. It's
another wake-up call. Compare that to the performance of the country as a whole.
The rest of the country is growing, with an unemployment rate that is less than
half our rate. Employment rose in Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick. At the same time, it fell in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince
Edward Island, while it was little changed in the remaining provinces.
When
they are growing, why are we in a tailspin of decline? Is it because we lack
opportunities, resources or skilled people who want to work? No. Could our
relative decline be the result of this government's policies in favour of high
taxes?
The
government has been saying for years that it is on the right track. It continues
to say this, even after the election. This message stands in stark contrast with
the messages that all of us heard on the doorsteps of the province during the
election campaign. Everything is not okay. The status quo is not okay. The same
old approach is not okay. There's a desperate need for jobs and hope, and a new
approach that produces them.
Let's
look at the bankruptcy statistics. In February 2019 there were 119 consumer
bankruptcies, compared to 83 in February 2018. There were five businesses
bankrupt in February 2019 compared to one in February 2018. In just the first
quarter of 2019, 10 businesses went bankrupt, compared to 20 in the whole of
2018.
There is
new information this week on insolvencies; I mentioned it earlier. Here's a
story VOCM reported. Consumer insolvencies in Newfoundland and Labrador have
jumped dramatically in the last year. That's according to Credit Canada, a
not-for-profit group which recently released a new poll showing almost four in
10 Atlantic Canadians feel the topic of personal debt and bankruptcy is taboo.
Credit
Canada's CEO Laurie Campbell says insolvencies in this province are up 52 per
cent over the same period last year. She says that tells them that people are
struggling and, with interest rates rising, the highest numbers are in this
province. Something is very wrong with this picture. It's not the way forward.
It's the way downward.
The loss
of people is a critical problem. By 2025, with current trends, 27 per cent of
Newfoundland and Labrador's population will be over the age 65. And while the
baby boomers will be living longer, they will retire. Retirements will increase,
and the workforce will shrink. The unemployment rate will continue to fall, but
the tax base will also shrink.
The
province's economic health will be influenced by the fact that fewer of our
citizens will be paying taxes, but they will be drawing more and more on our
health care services. Less tax dollars, less services, greater debt and
increasing difficulty funding services all mean that there will not be enough
new workers to replace those about to leave the workforce in greater numbers.
How
serious is this challenge? There will be 58,900 more 65-year-olds living in the
province in 2030 than there were in 2015. That's a 61 per cent increase. And by
2036, if we do nothing, the Population Project at Memorial University forecasts
that our population could fall to under 470,000 people, which will not be enough
of a workforce to sustain services at current levels.
Simply
put, our province must replace and expand our taxpaying workforce. We need more
people paying less tax. Our province needs more people if we want our economy to
grow and not stagnate. This can only happen in two ways: Either more people can
be born here – which, given our aging population, is increasingly unlikely – or,
as a province, we can take aggressive steps to encourage the return migration of
provincial expatriates and we can work to stimulate and facilitate the arrival
of new people to the province.
How many
do we need? Recently, we were told that the province welcomed 1,170 newcomers
and that in 2018, the province welcomed 1,525 newcomers. But these efforts fall
short of the government's target of 1,700 newcomers annually, and they fall well
short of the 3,800 newcomers needed annually to stop the decline and ensure
growth. Unless our province's population growth targets are doubled, the
province's population and economic decline will accelerate.
In order
to take advantage of the benefits to our economy and communities of an increased
population, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to increase its population to the
average of 1 per cent each year, or more than 5,000 people per year.
At
present, our province has the lowest percentage of population foreign born, only
2.4 per cent, compared to the Canadian average of 24 per cent. This needs to
change.
Depopulation affects every aspect of our social, fiscal and economic well-being.
Because federal health and social transfer programs are now based on an equal
per capita cash basis, the annual financial loss from this decrease in
population is in the order of $80 million. This financial loss of $80 million
annually does not include the impact on federal equalization payments.
Section
36(1) of the Constitution commits the Government of Canada to furthering
economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities. Ottawa is neglecting
this obligation. Disparity is widening as our population declines. Federal
policies are making the problem worse. Federal transfers are being awarded on a
per capita basis rather than a needs basis.
Ironically, Newfoundland and Labrador's declining population makes its per
capita situation look healthier than it is. Under a per capita formula, the more
people we lose, the wealthier we seem to be. The weaker we get, the stronger we
appear. This is ridiculous.
We can
yet address our population, debt and fiscal unfairness challenges through
committed government action; however, committed government action will require
champions both at home and elsewhere in the country. The development of
champions requires leaders to share their vision with opinion leaders elsewhere
in Canada and with the public at home, and explain why the cause is not only
just, but in the national best interest.
What is
the purpose of a budget? What is the purpose of a government? It's not just to
nickel-and-dime our way to a paper surplus. This year's budget has a monstrous
paper surplus, but it's not real. It's not tangible. It hides a monstrous
deficit. The purpose of a government and its budget should be to maximize
opportunities for people so we will all grow, because growth is required to
finance the social programs that our most vulnerable people – and, indeed, all
of us one day – will rely on.
We've
got to get this province's population growing, and that means getting our
economy and business opportunities and employment opportunities growing. That's
why we're here. Anything else is just fiddling with numbers. Unless we get a
passion in our hearts and a clear plan in our heads to grow our economy, then
the decline that our own documents project will come to pass. And that decline
is not just statistics. It's young people leaving. It's families leaving. It's
communities dying. It's the future slipping away, and that's not okay.
The
irony in all of this is that we're a province rich in opportunities to build on.
We ought to be one of the leaders in population growth and job growth in our
country. The $1 million McKinsey report that the government released at budget
time highlighted many of these opportunities; but, sadly, the McKinsey report
was an indictment of everything this government has been doing wrong.
McKinsey
said we should be seizing opportunities in ocean technology. The government let
our ocean technology leadership slip away to Halifax. McKinsey said we should be
seizing opportunities in aviation. This government let our edge in aviation slip
away to Halifax. You cannot read the McKinsey report without thinking what we
are capable of being as a province. You cannot help but wonder what things would
be like here if we were firing on all cylinders.
Let's
talk about other squandered opportunities. The Atlantic Accord agreement in 2005
gave us the opportunity in 2019 to get additional offsets and to negotiate
equalization reform and transfer reform with the Government of Canada, one on
one. We know we didn't get it.
Instead,
we got locked into a 38-year contract without an escalator clause that gives us
a paper surplus this year, but will force future generations of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians to pay enormous sums of money back to Ottawa. This is not a
good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a missed opportunity. Meanwhile,
over that same time period, how much will other provinces receive in
equalization that is denied to us?
The
Premier promised to fight for equalization reform in 2018 and 2019. The Finance
Minister did the same, but the Trudeau Liberals rolled over this province by
renewing the same old formula that leaves us high and dry while other provinces
get billions of dollars a year to run surpluses, cut taxes and improve services
like subsidized child care that we can only dream of. That's not fair. That's
what happens when you fail to fight, you get shortchanged. Our people get
shortchanged.
Instead
of getting fairness through transfer reform, our people are coping with
excessive taxation, inferior services, growing debt and so-called Accord money
that our children are going to have to pay back. We might fight harder. Fight
harder, Premier. Fight harder, Finance Minister. Tell the Trudeau Liberals that
Newfoundland and Labrador is in decline when we have everything we need to be
growing – everything except a fair opportunity to put our strengths to work for
us.
This
failure to fight makes us wonder how the province is expecting to get the $200
million in federal funding it announced for rate mitigation before it had an
agreement with Ottawa to provide that funding. So far, the administration has
had a terrible record of delivering what it's led people to believe it was going
to get from Ottawa.
While
Newfoundland and Labrador is considered to be a have province under the current
rules, getting zero equalization or offset payments, Quebec is considered to be
a have-not province, getting approximately $13 billion in equalization this
year, while running a surplus, cutting taxes and subsidizing daycare.
This
imbalance is on track to widen. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's Fiscal
Sustainability Report 2017 stated: “In our projections, Quebec's share of the
total federal Equalization envelope increases from 60 per cent in 2017 to 75 per
cent in 2091.”
That
report also stated: Equalization payments help explain part of these long-term
trends in transfer revenue, because equalization is determined according to each
province's fiscal capacity relative to the Canadian average. Widening fiscal
disparities across provinces necessitate larger transfers to provinces with
lower-than-average per capita incomes, such as Quebec, New Brunswick and British
Columbia.
Consequently, these provinces will see increases in equalization payments
relative to their GDP over the long term. In contract, provinces with relatively
higher per capita income growth will see decreases in equalization payments
relative to their GDP.
The
Parliamentary Budget Officer published another report on March 20, 2018,
examining some scenarios for reforming equalization. Under two of those
scenarios Newfoundland and Labrador would have benefited significantly to the
tune of 1.7 per cent of GDP – some-$500 million or more a year.
One
professor was quoted in a Telegram
story on April 26 stating that, if we were to exclude offshore resource revenues
and recalculate equalization based on non-resource revenues, then we would be
receiving about $316 million in 2019.
Imagine
what we could do with that. Imagine if Canada Health Transfers and Canada Social
Transfers were allocations on a needs basis rather than on the basis of
population while ours is falling. Imagine if we didn't have to bear a carbon
tax.
Our
province is tiny and growing tinier in terms of population, so we have to punch
above our weight to get what we need. No other province is going to do that
punching for us; and, obviously, we can't count on the Government of Canada to
do the right thing. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with an obligation
to fight harder and forge alliances, and get creative in trying to get our
economy growing. In this new term, we have the opportunity to start doing that.
Let's
try new things. Our plan includes such things as demanding Ottawa work with us
on a joint federal/provincial recovery plan pursuant to Section 36 of the
Constitution and conducting a referendum on fairness of equalization to spur
Ottawa to come to the table to talk reform. These ideas are outside the box, but
that's where our thinking has to be, if we're going to arrest the decline we see
around us.
The
Premier wants to tell us the only pieces of the puzzle are expenditures,
revenues and debt and that if we raise spending and cut taxes, then we'll have
to borrow. He's forgetting the other pieces of the puzzle. We need to get a fair
share of transfers and get our economy growing if we are to address our fiscal
situation with more than the pieces of the puzzle that are currently on the
table.
Those
pieces are fundamental. To be honest, we are not calling for growth in spending,
we are calling for reprioritization. It is the government opposite that has
failed to get spending properly under control. That's not my conclusion. That's
the conclusion of successive Auditors General, economic leaders in the board of
trade and our bond-rating agencies such as Moody's.
As I
mentioned earlier, one of the province's bond-rating agencies, DBRS, published a
post-budget analysis saying the Liberals did not actually achieve the $1.9
billion surplus they announced in their 2019 budget. DBRS stated: After
excluding the impact of the one-time revenue and incorporating capital spending
as incurred rather than as amortized, this translates into a DBRS-adjusted
deficit of $855 million, or 2.4 per cent of GDP.
The
Liberals have talked of eventually getting back to balance, but the Auditor
General expressed skepticism about that in her 2018 report, saying: “The
Province's fiscal outlook for 2019 to 2023 is subject to considerable risks ….”
Expenses
for 2017-18 totalled $8.2 billion – a $74.4 million increase over the original
budget. The audited financial statements also show that the Liberals did not
achieve the deficit reduction targets they set for themselves in 2016. In
2017-18, they failed to reach their deficit reduction target, missing the mark
by $110 million.
Let's
listen to quotes from our Auditors General. Former Auditor General Terry Paddon
– quote – “While, on a per capita basis, Newfoundland and Labrador generates
more revenue than every other province, per capita spending in this Province is
substantially higher than per capita revenues and we spend more than every other
province by a considerable margin.”
“Newfoundland and Labrador spends in excess of 21% more per capita than the next
highest province - Saskatchewan.”
From the
current Auditor General, Julia Mullaley: “Newfoundland and Labrador's deficit as
a percentage of GDP for 2017-18 is 2.8%, the highest in Canada.”
“The
Province's Net Debt as a percentage of GDP has fluctuated over the last ten
years - from a low of 23.4% in 2012 to a high of 44.5% at March 31, 2018 and is
now significantly higher than the average of 30.0% of all other provinces.”
“Between
2018-19 to 2022-23, the Province expects, on average, to allocate 13.8% of every
dollar of revenue generated to debt expenses. Money allocated to servicing debt
is money that is not available to fund programs and services.”
“The
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador generates more revenue, on a per capita
basis, than every other province. Newfoundland and Labrador also has one of the
highest tax burdens on a per capita basis in the country. However, per capita
spending in this Province is substantially higher than per capita spending in
every other province and is also higher than the Province's per capita revenues.
This suggests that revenue is not the primary issue creating the deficits but
the level of spending. Continued emphasis on sustainably reducing the Province's
per capita spending will remain important.”
Let me
be clear that the public service of our province didn't create the fiscal
challenge the government is facing. They didn't create the problem, and the
problem should not be solved on their backs. Massive layoffs in the public
service would devastate our province and make things far worse. Instead of
frightening the people on the front lines, start listening to them. They have
plenty of ideas for doing things differently. They would like to be consulted
long before the usual pre-budget consultation sessions get underway in this
spring. Let's start the consulting right now and really start listening to those
who know.
Let me
conclude by stating that we think government has to do better. People are
demanding a new approach. We believe it will make a big difference. The call to
collaborate is not coming from us alone; it is coming from the people. A
plurality is a public demand for collaboration. We will support the government
for as long as they provide good government, and no longer. If the people do not
like the way this government is heading, they can call on Opposition Members to
pull the plug on their behalf.
We have
no interest in orchestrating a non-confidence vote for political expediency. We
are under the same expectation as the government opposite to collaborate and to
make things work. But the people have put you on notice that if you fail to
deliver what the people expect of you, then the people will call on us to pull
the plug. The people have put you on notice, and they're watching.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to speak to Budget 2019 here
today. This is a prime opportunity to talk about, I think, in my opinion, one of
the things that was referenced in one of the earlier Ministerial Statements is
Public Service Week.
So,
tonight, I get to kick off the Estimates of this year's budget by doing the
Justice Estimates. It's a chance for me, I guess, in roughly an hour and a half,
the Justice Department and myself will be sitting down in this House answering
questions from my colleagues across the way.
I want
to give them a shout-out because, in many cases, when you think about this, it's
almost like the iceberg. There's what you see, which is the budget document that
we all get to debate here and go through, but when you look at the work that
goes into these documents – and I just speak from my own departmental point of
view. I know about the hours and days and weeks that people of the Justice
Department have put into that particular component of this budget.
I want
to thank them for the time they have put into it, and I look forward to doing
the Estimates tonight where we get a chance to speak to the Justice Department's
planning and priorities going forward.
Any
chance I get to stand up in this House and speak about the Justice Department is
certainly a pleasurable and a favourable opportunity for me. This year, Justice,
I think, was very well represented in Budget 2019. Perhaps the biggest component of this budget that
people will notice is our announcement – and I want to thank my colleague in
Transportation and Works for being with me down in Quidi Vidi, not too many
weeks back, where we announced the upcoming replacement of Her Majesty's
Penitentiary.
That was
certainly a big day. It's something that's been talked about now – and it's no
exaggeration to say that it's been talked about for decades. Certainly, it has,
but I think this is the first real concrete step in moving forward and replacing
the ancient facility down there, and it's one that needs to be done.
It will
take some time. We're looking at a five-year plan. But I look at the progress
that's been made when I look at construction of capital infrastructure,
especially when we look at long-term care units and schools and looking at the
plan that the department and their team has used in building those pieces of
infrastructure, I have every confidence that this piece will work as well.
I think
we managed to keep that something that was relatively quiet, and I know that
there was certainly a significant amount of, not only optimistic and positive
surprise, but it was very favourable received because – again, I would put this
out there and I would pass that on to my colleagues on the other side, and
certainly my colleagues on this side as well, I've had the experience and the
benefit of being in Her Majesty's Penitentiary on a number of occasions, even
before I was an elected official.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah. And it's funny, because
I'm getting heckled from both sides, Mr. Speaker, on that comment.
The fact
is, before I ever got into a position where we're making policy, I had an
opportunity to go and visit the institution and talk to clients of mine that
were there. So I've always had the background experience, and I know individuals
in this room right now have had a chance to do that, but there are many who have
never.
One of
the issues we've had – when we talk about justice as a whole, one of the issues
I think we have – and it's not a Newfoundland and Labrador issue. To me it's a
Canadian issue, it's an American issue. This is an issue that's plagued much of
the world, and it's a very – I like to call it, it's just a crime and punishment
mentality, which is if you do the crime you simply should be locked up, serve it
out and in the worst possible conditions ever. The fact is there are many times
when we see that we've all, at some point, shared that. When you hear particular
stories, incidents or crimes, we've all shared that.
What
we've realized – and I think we've grown as a province a lot, especially in the
past few years when we talk about, there are so many people inside that the fact
is it really could happen to anybody. Crime doesn't look at demographic. Crime
doesn't look at rural versus urban. It doesn't look at age. It doesn't look at
whether you come from a high-earning family or a low-earning family.
In many
cases, we're realizing some of the factors that are causing people to be there
are things that could affect any single person in this House, any single person
in our family, any single person in this province. I'm talking about mental
health and addictions, when we talk about people with severe mental disease,
when we talk about people that are facing just horrible addiction problems.
I talked
to a Crown prosecutor once, and she's now a judge up in Labrador, Judge Kari Ann
Pike. She was a Crown prosecutor for 20 years. So this is a person whose job is
to go in, lay out the facts of the case, and in many cases the result is
incarceration.
She's
talking about a young person in an area once whose crime that day was they stole
six cans from a dollar store of the spray that you use to clean the computer.
They weren't stealing it to use on a computer, they were stealing it to get
high. You can't tell me somebody that's stealing six cans of that is someone
that wants to be there, that wants to be doing that. That's someone that can't
help it. That's someone that is dragged down into that terrible cycle that is
drug addiction. And we've seen it.
I'm sure
everybody in this House could share those stories, but when we – the fact that
we seem to forget sometimes is a vast majority of our populations in prisons
across this country are people of similar circumstances. So we can take the
approach that was thought of centuries and centuries ago when we talk about the
punishment aspect. When you look at the term Her Majesty's Penitentiary, where
does penitentiary come from? It comes from the word penitent. We have to be
penitent. We have to serve that time to be forgiven. That's another thing we'll
get into some other day when we talk about the naming of this new facility.
Maybe penitentiary is not the best term, but I digress.
When we
look at these individuals, where we put them into a system where they may
already facing mental health issues, they may already be facing drug addiction
issues, and the fact is when you have a facility that was built before Canada
was a nation, you are not going to have somebody come out on the other end of
that any better than they were. They're going to come out, in many cases, worse.
What happens then? They're released back into our communities. They're released
back as our neighbours, and in many cases they end up back doing the same things
that caused them to go there in the first place. It's a cycle that can't be
broken.
You only
have to talk to one inmate that talk about getting out, going out into the
street. It's like you're the deer in the headlights, you're out there all of a
sudden. You've been living this structured lifestyle; getting up, being allowed
to do this, being told when to do that, and all of a sudden you're on your own.
In many cases you have no money. In many cases you have no family to go to. In
many cases you have no place to lay your head.
I say to
anyone of us, try taking away our car keys and our house keys and a bank card,
and see how you fair out. See how you make out. Then throw in the fact that this
person is already stigmatized by being incarcerated, and throw in the fact that
they're facing mental health issues. It's a tough challenge, and we have to find
a way to fix that.
We have
done numerous things within the Department of Justice to fix that. When we talk
about the concept of restorative justice, when we talk about the work we're
doing with the Department of Health, when we're trying to cut down the wait-list
for people that are serving time to have access to mental health treatment, we
have made numerous steps; but, it's hard when you still have that facility. That
when you go in there, it doesn't matter if you're a guest or if you're an
employee, it's hard to think about rehabilitation when you're in a facility like
that.
That's
why I was so excited for us, as a part of this budget – and you know what, I
have to thank my colleagues all around, all on this side. This was something
that was a long time coming, but we had that support. The support of the
Premier, the support of the Minister of Finance, Health and all my colleagues. I
can tell you it was interesting, because somebody actually said to me: well,
this was announced before our budget, do you think this was an election ploy? I
say, have you ever tried to get elected on the penitentiary? Because that's the
reality, you don't.
I got
more emails saying lock them up than I got saying: great move. But do you know
what? Those mindsets change, they change over time. The fact is we know what
we're doing is right. We have the experts, we have the professionals. The
workers in that system are telling us we have to do better. And by allowing this
facility, I think we have done better.
Again,
right now when we talk about the services that we provide in the institution,
when we talk about the treatment that we want to provide, when we talk about
people going in to that facility, whether it is Spirit Horse or the – I'm trying
to remember now – Canadian Mental Health Services. There are so many that go in
there. There's a shortage of space. There's simply a shortage of space. You
cannot bring any more in.
This new
facility, this Budget 2019 will allow
for a facility that will allow us for greater access to health care services,
for mental health treatment and for drug addiction treatment for those people
that are spending time at that institution. And that's why I was so proud to be
a part of the team that can make this happen.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, there were other justice issues within this budget that I was very
proud to be a part of the team that worked on those. When we look at the money
that's being expended at the Labrador Correctional Centre. We face significant
challenges when we talk about, I won't say the justice system, but when we talk
about the facets of the system and how we treat people; when we look at how we
used to do segregation back in the past.
The
reality is you cannot do these things today that we did, even just a decade ago.
When we look at the Decades of Darkness review, let's put a person in a cell by
themselves for 23 hours a day suffering from a mental health issue, suffering
from an addictions issue and hope that they come out feeling better. You can't
do that.
One of
the issues we faced up in Labrador is we had people – because of just not enough
capacity at the Labrador Correctional Centre. We have now announced a plan to
fix that, and it will reduce the number of people that ended up serving
significant periods of time being held in RCMP holding cells. RCMP holding cells
are not meant for long-term storage of offenders. It's not. It's meant to hold
somebody before they end up going to the next place, and we had that issue in
Labrador.
In many
cases, because of the lack of capacity at the Labrador Correctional Centre, we
had many people having to be flown down here going to HMP, and that presented
pretty significant challenges when we talk about our offenders from Labrador.
Throw in the fact that we're already facing these challenges, and then throw in
the fact that you're coming out away from your support base, away from your
family that are visiting, away from people giving you those cultural supports.
If you want to look at it just from the financial point of view, look at the
significant cost by not having that capacity, by having to fly people down here
with guards back and forth. That's a huge cost.
One of
the things that we've had to talk to people about is people want to have a crime
and punishment mentality. I say, well, that's fine. If you want to have that
crime-and-punishment mentality, it's going to cost you. It costs about $110,000
per year to house one inmate. So if you want to lock them up, that's fine but
somebody has to pay for that. When you talk about having to lock somebody up far
away from their base, and then provide those services and supports elsewhere,
that makes it even more difficult.
So I was
very proud of the move that's been made there. Again, with the support – the
officials at Transportation and Works says that department handles all the
infrastructure. When it comes to any infrastructure build or renovation that
happens in this province, it falls under the leadership of the Minister of
Transportation and Works. And, before his head gets too big, his deputy
minister, who's also doing a wonderful job as well.
Mr.
Speaker, we've made other announcements when it comes to the work that we've
been doing in Justice and Public Safety. When we talk about bail supervision,
when we talk about electronic monitoring, there's been significant steps taken
that I think is in the upstream direction and the right direction when it comes
to that.
Now, my
time is running out. The reality is who knows if I get another opportunity to
speak to this budget, so I want to speak to the main reason I'm here and the
main reason that we're all here, and that's because of the constituents in the
district that we live. But for the support of these constituents, we wouldn't
get to talk about the departments that we're involved in. I want to talk about
Burgeo - La Poile and talk about the support that they provided me, and talk
about, again, why I think this budget will be helpful to the residents of Burgeo
- La Poile.
I
listened to the speech from the Finance critic, from the Member for Stephenville
- Port au Port, and one point I took here – and I know his background – he
talked about teamwork. That's something I think we all sort of recognize, when
we talk about teamwork. The fact is that I get to stand up and talk about the
good things happening in the district, but it's only because of the teamwork.
It's because of the teamwork that exists within departments, it's because of the
teamwork that exists within our caucus and it's the teamwork that exists around
whether it's the Cabinet table or the department tables.
One of
the big things – I'm like many MHAs; I have a district that has housing issues.
I got to tell you, I appreciate the work that's been done by the Minister
Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We're going to see an
eight-unit affordable housing project being constructed in my hometown of Port
aux Basques. That's something we haven't seen for a long time. The demand there
is growing. We're like many we have an aging population. The fact that there's
going to be an increase to affordable housing available to them, that's an
extremely, extremely positive thing.
When we
look at the different changes we've made – and again, I throw the bouquet to the
Minister of Health. When we talk about the things that have been done in health
care, when faced with significant challenges within that department, the fact is
that I think the people are better off now than they had been.
Now, are
we where we want to be? No, my God, we are not where we want to be, but I think
that we are on the path to where we need to be. Are there things that can
change? I certainly believe that, but I'd like to think that some of the steps
we've taken have led us into a direction that I think will put us into a
prosperous place down the road.
The
thing that I think about most, and I'm sure again I come back to every Member of
this House, I'm not so worried about my parents, because they're starting to get
towards that end, I'm not worried about myself, but I'm worried about the
five-year-old and the eight-year-old that are back in Port aux Basques right
now. That's who I'm worried. Those are the people that are relying on the school
that they're going to, they're relying on the services at different facilities,
they're relying on the health care system and if we didn't take the steps we
had, their future is not going to be as bright as the future that I had.
I got to
tell you, some of this is tough. You sit here and it's been extremely tough. But
I tell you what, because of some of the changes that we've made, we have made
that future brighter.
I do
agree when I listen to our leader, when I listen to the Premier, when I listen
to the Members on the other side, I know that going forward we all have that
same vision. We may have times, in the cut and thrust of debate, where we have
that partisan nature. We all have different opinions on things. Tomorrow we
might have a difference of opinion on how Question Period should run, but I
don't think there's a single difference between us in the fact that we all want
a better future for every single person that lives in our district. I share
that; I know all these Members do.
I know
that this is going to be an opportunity – again, to paraphrase or to echo what
our leader has said: We're going to have to work together, to be collaborative,
to change how we've done things. That will take time, but we all know that it's
necessary. At the same time I don't want to look at the work that has been done
so tirelessly by my colleagues and friends and by people with departments and
the work that was set out before. There's been good work done to put us on a
path. I think that the path is right.
Can we
work together on establishing where that path goes in the future? We have no
choice but to. I will say that that doesn't discount the path that we have moved
from, because I tell you what, it's a path that has been fought with hard work,
it's a been a path that's been fought at times with struggle and hard choices,
but one that leads to a path that will lead to that better future for that
five-year-old and that eight-year-old that are home right now.
They
don't know what their father does. They think I just get on a plane and go. But
the fact is that I know that if we didn't do some of things here, and if we
don't continue to make some of the tough choices that we have to make – the fact
is every single one of us would love to go to our districts and say we'd like to
do this, we'd like to do that. We all share that – neither one of us doesn't.
Very few of us, philosophically, may disagree with wanting to provide and to
give everything we can, but there are some stark realities that we face and that
we're all aware of.
So, on
that note, before I sit down and allow one of my colleagues on the other side an
opportunity to speak to this budget I will say that, given it's my first chance,
I welcome every single one of you, as well as our colleagues here. The fact is
that we are part of a group now of 40 people that have been blessed with the
pleasure and the privilege of serving our constituents. There's no doubt we're
going to have fights along the way. There's no doubt that we're going to have
disagreements, but I'd like to think that we're going to have more in terms of
collegiality and allegiance because we all know that when – it's like the old
cartoon where, morning, Ralph, and you clock in, and you go in and you really do
the job on each other and, at the end of the day, you clock out and you go on.
Every one of us walks out here, we all know the responsibility that we share and
the work that we do and we're going to try to do that together.
On that
note a lot of work, a lot of effort, a lot of sweat – I don't know if any blood
– definitely some tears went into the product that's been put here by the
Minister of Finance. I was proud to be a part of that. I will be proud to
support that and I'll be proud to work with the Members of this side and that
side of the House to work together for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and I'll be certainly supporting this budget.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again,
it's indeed a pleasure to stand here today and represent the beautiful District
of Cape St. Francis and also the beautiful people in the District of Cape St.
Francis. I had the opportunity to visit a lot of people in the District of Cape
St. Francis over our last election period, as did many of my colleagues on both
sides of the House and all over the place. I have to say that the reception was
great. The reception was unbelievable. People in Newfoundland and Labrador are
concerned at what's happening in our province. They want to see our province
come and be the best that it possibly can be for everybody – for their children,
for my grandchildren, for everybody that's around.
We're
all hear – and I agree with when he's leaving, when he goes, I think he called
himself Fred when he walks out the door. I can say that the Minister of Justice,
over the last four years, I've applauded many of the initiatives that he's
brought to this House, and some great initiatives.
We look
in this province with the issue that we have with mental health. I'd say that in
this House of Assembly that nobody is – one in every five people in this
province is affected by mental health issues, either themselves or in their
families. So, we've come a long way and I applaud government for it. It's a good
thing that government has been doing over the last number of years for
initiatives that we have, to make sure that people who have issues that we
address them.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, again, I'd like to welcome back all of my colleagues. We have some new
colleagues here on both sides of the House, and in the Third Party here. I
welcome you all back. Some interesting times will be ahead of us. It's a great
place to get up and be able to express yourself.
I was
moved today by the Member for Torngat, and that's what we're here for. The lady
got up today and she expressed her opinion on what was needed in her district.
Now, the Minister of Transportation and Works did answer some questions there,
but you could see the passion; the passion that we all have for our people and
the passion that we need to have for our people. That's why we're here. We're
here to represent our districts.
Like I
said, this is going to be an interesting time. I note that there are two
brothers here in two opposite parties. I don't know how that's going to work out
when they have probably Sunday dinner with their mother and stuff like that.
We'll see how that goes.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I just want to thank – I was going to do it at the end
but I'll do it at the beginning. I really do have to thank the people of Cape
St. Francis who put me here for my fourth term. When I stand here in this
province and stand in this House of Assembly, I tell all my new colleagues here,
that it's such a privilege.
This is
a privilege. It's a privilege we've been given by the people in our district.
When you go and knock on doors, they can make choices of whatever it is, but
when you go back and you get re-elected – hopefully, you all do get re-elected
again – you'll hear it. You'll know you've made the right choices and you've
done the right things.
So,
listen, as much as we want to say who's our boss and everything else, our
constituents are always our boss. Always remember who put you here and why
you're here. You're here to represent the people in your district. You're here
to represent people that need your help. You're here to represent people that
are vulnerable in society, and they do need our help.
I always
say that you can build schools, you can build roads, you can do massive things
in your district, but it's those little things you do for individual people that
will make you feel so good. I could tell stories over the last number of years
where they're small, they may be grants of $1,000. They may be fixing a roof for
somebody. They may be getting a window in a person's house. They may be helping
a person – and not that you can do anything – to get in a personal care home, or
even sometimes when people are in dire straights, sometimes it even just the
point of listening to them.
MR. PETTEN:
Fix the potholes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
You can fix the potholes.
Those are the things – now, the Minister of Transportation and Works, I'd have a
hard job with him getting to fix all the potholes, but he's not bad. I have to
say, he's pretty good.
My point
is to the new people and my point is to people in this House of Assembly, we're
here to represent our constituents. So make sure that we do it and make sure
that we all do it for the right reasons. I believe we're here for the right
reasons.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, this is going to be a different Assembly. Like I said, I've been on
both sides of the House. I've been here with four different leaders. Every time
my signs had to be changed all the time because there was somebody else
underneath them. So it was always a different name on my sign. I've seen four
different leaders here with four different elections, but we're all here for the
one reason.
I
believe we can work together. I want to see, and I think everybody in this House
of Assembly wants to see, and I believe the people in Newfoundland and Labrador
want to see us work together. They want to see us work, collaborate, have ideas.
There's nothing wrong with being around a table and listening to somebody else's
opinion. There's nothing wrong with being around a table and having an opinion
yourself and letting people listen to it.
We all
come from different constituencies. We all got rural – we got the St. John's
area, we got the Corner Brook area. My area, even when I went to school, it was
only at Gonzaga 16 kilometres away, but we were always considered baymen – and
we were that close to St. John's. So I still consider myself a bayman really.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yeah, you are.
MR. K. PARSONS:
And so I am. I am, but that's
not a bad thing now. That's not a bad thing either.
I think
that we – this session of the House of Assembly, Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are going to look at us and want us to perform and act the way we
should. So I really want to see – I'm going to make a few points now on the
budget and I got to say, the Finance critic today for us did a fantastic job. He
did a great job on the budget today.
The
budget has to work for everybody, and going around – I'm going to just bring up
a couple of little topics of what I heard at the doors, while I was knocking on
doors. I, myself, am a type 2 diabetic; not type 1 but a type 2. So I don't
require an insulin pump or anything else, but I met a lot of people that do, and
I met a lot of young people that do.
I met
this young gentleman who told me he's 32 years old and in a couple of years he's
going to have to pay $7,000 for an insulin pump, but the coverage right now
under this budget will not cover him because it's for people that are coming in.
He's already pass the age where he can do – so the new person coming in will be
covered but he won't be covered.
Then we
talked about people with type 2 diabetes, that sometimes for some reasons, other
than – might have an insulin pump but have needles and they don't take them on a
regular basis. We had I think in our – was it three or four young doctors come
to our caucus and talk to us about the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Four.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Four young doctors come to
our – these are students. They were in their second or third year. I believe
they met with all caucuses, actually. They came to our caucus and explained to
us the importance for everybody to have that coverage.
The
Minister of Finance, I know we're always looking for savings, and when they did
their presentation to us, the presentation was simple. This is going to cost – I
don't know, I'm just going to give a figure, probably $1.3 or $1.4 million to
get the – I'm not sure what it is, it could be a little bit higher. But what
they explained to us was the savings down the road are going be five or six, or
even 10 times that.
Those
are the things we have to look at when we're doing our budget. If we can put in
insulin pumps and everybody can be regulated on a regular basis, there would be
less amputations, less strokes, less things that are major causes with blindness
and stuff like that. That cost to our health care system is unbelievable. So
preventative maintenance is what I call it.
If we
can do something that can prevent the cost of these major – which will be, like,
unbelievable costs down the road. If we can do anything to make sure we have
those costs reduced in the future, that's a savings. That's a savings to our
budget. It's a savings for future generations, and that's something we should be
looking at.
I really
believe, and I applaud our Leader for putting it in, that's something we'd like
to see. We want to see the coverage. I think that's something the majority of
people in Newfoundland and Labrador, when you look at it, will look at it and
say, yes, that's something that should be in the budget.
Now, I
congratulate the new Minister of Education, a good friend. I have to
congratulate him in his new – but today when we talked about the 1.6 kilometres,
it's something else that I heard at the doors while I was knocking on doors in
my district. Mr. Speaker, you've heard me get up many times and do many
petitions on the 1.6 kilometres.
I live
in a district where there's a lot of traffic. It's a small district. It's only
25 kilometres from one end to the other. There are people here who probably have
500 kilometres from one end to the other in their district, but there's a lot of
traffic that travel along these roads.
Torbay,
in particular, is where my major concern is. There are 17,000 cars a day that
travel along Torbay Road. I knocked on all the doors on Torbay Road. Every young
family that I spoke to on Torbay Road, next to the beautiful new school that we
built, beautiful school, Juniper Ridge. Our education system down my way –
listen, through this government, that government and governments past, we have a
great education system with great schools that are built, but safety of those
children was paramount among all the people who have children alone those roads.
We have
no sidewalks. I said to the minister, and I will say to the minister again when
I get another chance to do a petition on the 1.6, it's something that we need to
look at. I know there's a cost. I don't think the cost will be that high. I'm
willing to say – just my own perspective – that perhaps we can do it from K to
six. Maybe we can do it where safety is an issue. I look at places on the
Northeast Avalon that I know have huge growth and other places around the
province in rural Newfoundland where the bus may go by and there's no cost to
picking up the extra few kids along the way. Down my way, I assume that it would
cost probably three more additional buses. But I believe that, through budget,
safety is an issue, and that's something we should be looking at. So, Mr.
Speaker, that's one thing that I know that our leader asked for.
I go
back to the 2016 budget. Everybody knows and everybody's after hearing about the
situation we were in – financial straits were really, really bad at the time.
But even back then I didn't believe in taxing individuals. I believed that the
levy was the wrong thing to do at that time, and I still believe today that it's
the wrong thing to do. I believe that people, once they have more money to spend
– and I'm going to give you a good example now in a minute. I think that when
there's more money in people's pockets, they'll spend the money and the economy
will grow. I think it's the best thing – we take money away from people and the
snowball effect is that there are so many businesses that will hurt.
I had a
really good friend of mine that's into a hardware store. This year, he has
decided not to sell any lumber because his business, basically, is for
renovations. He does a lot of renovations, whether it's shingles, windows, doors
and stuff like this. He's not into major construction like your Kent or your
Home Depot or those places. It is a lot smaller than those. But his thing to me
was – and this is what he told me: Kevin, listen, people are not spending their
money anymore because they can't afford it. They're taxed too much. They have no
money in their pocket to repair that roof, to put in those windows.
That
again has an effect not only on that guy who owns the Home Hardware or the
hardware store, but it has an effect on the guy who's doing the roofing, who
employs – like in my community of Flatrock, I think there are three different
roofing companies. I think we're the capital of the roofers on the east end. We
do more roofing – anybody needs a roof done, they can call me and I'll give you
a couple of names. Anyway, that's what they do. But I spoke to those guys and
usually they'll have work.
I spoke
to a real good friend of mine the other day. Usually, this time of year, he's
telling me that he doesn't have – he can go right to August now before he can
probably do a roof. Every week now he's looking to pick up work, because people
are not spending their money. You know what that generates. That generates
probably four or five other people that are working with him and it also
generates an amount of money they spend, whether they buy gas, whether they go
to a convenience store. When people got money and spend money – and I'm
convinced of it – is that people will generate revenue and they end up paying
taxes and it's confidence – that's true, there's a lot of confidence. When
people think that they don't have any work, they haul back. They haul back and
they'll say, listen, I can't afford to do that this year. I can't afford to put
that window in this year. I can't afford to do my roof this year.
We need
to make sure – and that's the reason why we'd like to see that levy eliminated
right away. Let's get away so people have some money. And not only the levy, we
have to go back to what happened with taxes. And I'll say it to my colleagues
all the time. I'll say it to my colleagues here, if we meet or anything at all,
the most important issue in this province right now is our economy. We need to
do something to kick-start our economy and make sure that people are spending a
few dollars and generating a bit of revenue. We got to have it.
Listen,
it was the number one issue when I knocked on people's doors: My son and my
daughter are moving away. I can't afford to do this. I can't afford to do that.
We can't afford this. We're in the smallest province in Atlantic Canada here
now, other than PEI, but we live in a small province. When you see families
moving away, the effect that that will have on our economy is unbelievable,
because that's less taxes that we're collecting. We don't have 4 or 5 million
people to draw from, we have 500,000 and that has a huge effect.
One of
the things that we did mention in our letter also was child care. I know from my
own family's perspective, I have two little grandchildren, as you all know – I
always mention them here in the House of Assembly. I'd like to see myself have a
couple of more grandchildren, but the cost of having children today is
unbelievable. You can talk to any young family. You talk to a young family and
the biggest cost to families in this province who have young children is daycare
and the cost of daycare. Most families – just look how we grew up. I grew up in
Flatrock where families had 18, 17 – I know one family had 21 children. I bet
you can go back to all your communities or know people that can say the same
thing. But let me tell you something today, if somebody has three children,
that's a big family and, the reason being, is because people can't afford it –
can't afford it.
Mr.
Speaker, that's another way we can look at our economy. I know it's a cost, but
we got to grow our economy. The critic for Finance today gave great examples of
how our population is getting reduced year after year after year.
But if
we had affordable child care in this province – and I know there is a cost to
it, but we got to look at that budget, and this is what we want, want to be able
to look at the budget and say, okay, maybe we can do a little different here, do
a little different there, and then we can do something with child care, but we
got to learn.
I know
the Minister of Justice just spoke about all of us working together and
collaboration, stuff like that, that's what we want, too. Our party, we want the
same thing.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm only down to the last little bit, but I do want to talk a little
bit about the fishery. That's what I'm the critic for, and I thank our Leader
for putting me there because it's something that's very passionate to me. I
always tell the story that I always grew up on the wharf in Flatrock and I could
cut tongues, but I don't know, there's a fella from Bay Bulls here now that he
says he can cut a whole lot more tongues than I could cut, but we're going to
have a contest one of these days and just see who can do it.
MS. P. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) in Harbour Grace
- Port de Grave.
MR. K. PARSONS:
And Harbour Grace - Port de
Grave, too, another area.
Our
fishery is in a time where we need to step up to the plate. We need to step up
and we need to tell Ottawa, listen, enough is enough. Now, we need strong
leadership. We need to be able to tell our seven MPs in Ottawa, listen here,
enough is enough. When we see what we see in our fishery this day the adjacency
– and I mean the new Fisheries Act
came in, only last year, with not the mention of adjacency in it. That's
unbelievable. Those are our resources; they're the same thing as our oil
resources.
It was
in our Blue Book; our response to the fishermen's union, same thing. We should
be treating our fishery the same way we treat our oil industry, no different,
and we do it with joint management. We're not asking for us to have full, 100
per cent control; we're asking to have a say at the table. And we brought in a
private Member's motion two years ago in this House of Assembly that everybody
in this House stood up and agreed to, that we were going to tell Ottawa that
listen here, enough is enough, we want joint management of our fishery.
Since
then, what have we done? Nothing. And we have issues – every time you look,
there's a quota cut. There's a cut to our mackerel, there's a cut to our crab,
there's a cut to our shrimp, our cod isn't growing back, but we have absolutely
no say about it, and that's what's wrong. And that's what I'd like to see this
government do, is stand up for the fishery in our province. Stand up for the
harvesters, stand up for the plant workers and stand up for the people. We'd
never be here only for our fishery. We'd never be here in this province enjoying
beautiful districts and a beautiful country like we have in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I hope
we all can work together and do this budget and do it right. It's just not the
point of saying here it is, we did it before. Let's do it right. Let's do it
right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the opportunity today to speak to Budget
2019.
I really
believe that Budget 2019 is strategic
in how we are continuing to deal with our province's economic, social and fiscal
challenges. Our government's financial plan is one of balance, Mr. Speaker,
where we focus on reducing spending within government while maintaining spending
on services and programs outside of government. Whenever possible, we are
looking to spend more on our citizens.
Over the
last couple of years we have come a long way, and I can say without a doubt that
we have made this province a better place for us, our children and their
children. We know that our fiscal problems did not arise overnight. We also know
that we are facing challenges delivering services to dispersed and aging
population, but our role as a government is to ensure that all residents in this
province have equal access and a comparable level of service to other
jurisdictions in this country.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the Autism Action Plan. The Autism
Action Plan is one of the reasons why we need
Budget 2019. Most of my colleagues know that I am the mother of
23-year-old son who has autism spectrum disorder. He's non-verbal, with a number
of other diagnoses.
On
February 24, 1999, I was immersed into the world of autism. I knew nothing about
autism, even as a registered nurse. At that time, the statistics were one in
10,000. Today, the statistics in Newfoundland and Labrador are one in 57. In
Canada, they are one in 66; one in 10,000, to one in 57 in 20 years, Mr.
Speaker.
Our
government has identified and recognized the need, Mr. Speaker, through the
Department of Health and Community Services, Education and Early Childhood,
CSSD, Justice and Public Safety. Numerous departments have worked in a
collaborative way to come together to put forward the Autism Action Plan. We
need Budget 2019 for the Autism Action
Plan, Mr. Speaker. This is a three-year plan. It is holistic, it is
person-centred.
When I
was introduced to the world of autism, I was a registered nurse. I worked in
neonatology. I had one older daughter, she was two years older than my son. She,
in fact, is gifted, she's advanced. So here I was immersed in a world with a
child who is gifted and a child who has autism spectrum disorder. We lived in
rural Newfoundland where there were zero resources.
The only
space that existed here in the City of St. John's was a little office on Torbay
Road that the Autism Society had set up at that time. The Elaine Dobbin Centre
did not exist when he was diagnosed. I remember my first day going into this
office, and it was piled high with boxes of plants. They were selling bulbs to
try to fundraise money so they could start the autism centre, the Elaine Dobbin
Centre as it exists today. I remember knocking on the door and trying to look in
around the boxes to get the support of one, lone employee who was working part
time.
Autism
was unknown. We had a concept, an idea. I had prayed that my son had Asperger's
when we were going to the doctor. I had done a bit of research, and I had come
to the conclusion that perhaps a life with Asperger's would be easier than a
life with autism; but, in actual fact, autism is autism, and every child that is
diagnosed with autism is different. No two children are alike. There are some
similarities in their social interaction, their taste, how they relate to
society and space as a whole, how they communicate, but no two children are
alike.
My son
is severely autistic, but because of this province and because of government, he
was one of the children that was selected for the Applied Behavioural Analysis
pilot project. I gave up work and I became his full home therapist in North
Harbour, in rural Newfoundland. We hired a lady who lived in the community and
she was trained to do ABA one-on-one with him, and it helped us keep our child
at home.
He was
severely autistic. I remember one day that he temper-tantrumed up to 10 hours.
We used to have to take the phone off the hook to do ABA, but because of Applied
Behavioural Analysis, because of therapy, because government invested in the
children with autism, my son still lives in our house here. He is supported by
three home care workers, two part-time and one full time at the present moment,
and we still do aspects of ABA with him because that's how he adapted to
society.
This
Autism Action Plan is based on the best evidence that's currently available. The
Department of Health and Community Services will lead the implementation of the
plan in collaboration with other government departments, Indigenous governments
and organizations, regional health authorities, school districts and community
groups.
In an
effort to deliver on a sound Autism Action Plan for the province, the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador has also partnered with world leaders. Mr. Speaker,
we're investing into the program called JASPER, Joint Attention, Symbolic Play,
Engagement & Regulation. I have very limited experience personally with JASPER
because we invested all our time and a lot of our own private money into ABA;
however, I do have friends and family members who are using JASPER quite
successfully in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today.
Mr.
Speaker, this is going to be a whole of government approach. It's a holistic
approach. The implementation of this plan will see us with short-term goals and
objectives; 19 actions to be substantially completed in year one. So the
objective is to have this completed by March 2020.
This
Autism Action Plan is in the 2019 budget. The medium, 22 actions to be
substantially completed by year two, which will be March 2021, and the long-term
will be completed by March 2022.
This
Autism Action Plan focuses on awareness, acceptance, diagnosis and assessment of
ASD. Now, no doubt, we have been doing this for 20 years, but with one in 56
children being diagnosed with autism in accordance with the Diagnostic
Statistical Manual, we still need awareness, acceptance, diagnosis and
assessment of ASD. I would say probably everyone in this House of Assembly today
either is related to or knows someone, or knows a friend who has a child with
ASD. That is how prevalent ASD is, Mr. Speaker.
Support
for individuals, families and caregivers living with ASD. As I alluded to a few
minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, the support we had was a little office on Torbay Road
after we were diagnosed at the Janeway. It was the old Janeway at that time down
in Pleasantville. I was involved with the Elaine Dobbin Centre and the building
of the Elaine Dobbin Centre. I sat on the board of directors as the chair for a
short period of time but, primarily, as a board member. I saw the Elaine Dobbin
Centre grow and flourish, and I saw the demand. Even as we grew and we expanded,
we thought we would be able to meet the needs of the children that were being
diagnosed and the adults who had received no services.
So,
again, my child was the oldest child in Newfoundland and Labrador to be on the
provincial pilot. He did both the Zelazo, which is the behavioural type, and the
Carl Navalto, which was the more structured ABA. He did both because I stayed
with the Zelazo model, which was strictly behavioural. I believe there were 10
of us that started it and only four of us ended it. Six just couldn't – they
didn't have capacity in rural Newfoundland to do it. And because I stayed to the
end, they offered me also to do the Carl Navalto, and I did meet with Dr.
Navalto. We were one of the last families to meet with him, and that's how we
started the structure at ABA, but my son wasn't even able to do structured ABA
when he was diagnosed. My son, where he wasn't able to do structured ABA, I know
that there are many families in this province today, as I stand here in this
House of Assembly and talk about autism, that are in the same place today as I
was 20 years ago, Mr. Speaker.
That is,
when a child is diagnosed you go to the hospital, you get your diagnosis, you go
home and you say what now – what now. But the government of the day put ABA in
place and, today, we want to put JASPER in place and we want to support it
through the Autism Action Plan.
Mr.
Speaker, timely information is required, assessments are required, support plans
are required, individualized education plans are required and resources are
required. To have a child with autism is a very expensive endeavour, Mr.
Speaker. When we had our son, you could barely purchase – let alone find –
services. So we tried to purchase speech language pathology, which we managed
to, and then we had to commute back and forth. We purchased occupational therapy
services for him because he wouldn't eat. He only ate 10 items. We had to
purchase the services of Shirley Sutton.
Shirley
Sutton lived in Ontario. So myself and three or four more families got together,
we flew Shirley in to the Autism Society, she did the therapy and treatment
there, taught all these families how to do it and then she flew back. We
couldn't even purchase it here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, parent support groups are a very important part of raising a child with
autism. I have to give credit to the Elaine Dobbin Centre and its capacity to
bring parents together all across Newfoundland and Labrador so that we could
support each other in the different areas of the province.
The
implementation of the focus area number three is going to result in
evidence-based interventions at home, in the community, in regulated child care
and in school, through the Provincial Autism Services Program. These
interventions include, and are not limited to, as I said, the JASPER program for
children up to age eight, and supporting children beyond grade three through the
ABA program for children and youth up to age 21. This will be the first time
that children and young adults in Newfoundland and Labrador will be supported
through ABA up to age 21.
Mr.
Speaker, that's key because a child with autism is a child with autism but
there's also an adult with autism. Just this weekend, on Sunday, even though my
son has been really good and ABA has really worked for him, we had a situation
on Sunday when we were leaving my parents' house, we were taking some of my
election signs back that were there and the signs just didn't go in the car the
way he wanted them to go in and he had a total meltdown.
So he's
23 years old, in the parking lot at my parents, having a total meltdown, but I
know how to deal with it because I, too, as a parent have been trained in ABA.
So I knew how to bring him back so he could calm down to get him back to St.
John's.
Education for Children and Youth Living with ASD – so there are a number of
individuals, and I have a couple of friends who are diagnosed with ASD, who can
work very successfully in society. Actually, some of them are extremely bright
and very smart and some of the best employees you can have, especially when it
relates to computer analysis and data entry and different jobs of such. So all
children and adults – but all children have a right to a quality education
within a safe, caring and inclusive learning environment, and that is a part of
enhancing this autism plan.
Children
living with ASD enter early-years programs and the K-12 system with a variety of
strengths and learning needs. These factors must be considered when making
decisions regarding approaches to teaching and learning.
I was
lucky, Mr. Speaker, we lived in rural Newfoundland and my son went to a rural
school and I had a good relationship with the teachers and the principal and
with the families. When he went to school, I remember at the time he was a
wicked runner – wicked. I was really nervous, so I'd come and I'd park in front
of the school and I'd stay there while he was in school in case they needed me.
And they didn't have a fence in front of the school. So I lobbied and got the
fence there. But society and community were upset with me because I had changed
the view and the scenery was gone now, because here was this fence in front of
the school. But year's later, parents came to me and said, thank God you lobbied
for that fence.
So
education and living with autism and the awareness component is key, Mr.
Speaker. And there is funding allocated in this action plan to enable that to
happen.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to say, the Geneva Centre, I have some experience going to
the Geneva Centre and the accountability and the professional learning and the
development component, that's all engaged here. I can say that I definitely was
after the Minister of Health and Community Services constantly as this plan was
being developed, and it's probably a good thing I was a little bit apart from
it, being in Service NL. But I was constantly, constantly saying do you have
this, do you have that, do you remember this, do you have that. And I was trying
to, in my mind, just take the whole span of life from the time you were
diagnosed with autism until the time you actually pass away with a diagnosis of
autism.
As the
executive director for the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community
Living, I had some experience with Brighter Futures. It was a program that was
done long before my time. But it was when the Association for Community Living
was moving some individuals with intellectual disabilities from the Waterford
Hospital into community. As the executive director, we were doing some success
stories and I went out and I had the opportunity to meet some individuals who
were diagnosed with autism many years ago when people didn't even know what the
diagnosis was or how to deal with it and they were placed in the Waterford
Hospital in isolation.
Then
they were allowed to come back out into community through the Brighter Futures
program. They were embraced by loving people who really helped individuals go
back into community. They had birthday parties for the first time. They attended
community events for their first time. They attended family events for their
first time.
Mr.
Speaker, this Autism Action Plan is the way forward. It started years ago,
20-odd years ago, but it is the way forward and our government has reached out
to community, they have reached out to the Elaine Dobbin Centre, we have reached
out to individuals themselves who are living with ASD, and family members who
are living with ASD, and we've developed the Autism Action Plan. I have to also
say the staff at Health and Community Services and staff throughout government
departments had a huge part to play in this.
In this
document, you'll note it in appendix A the implementation timelines and the
short-term actions and who's responsible for each action. So it's clearly laid
out here: regional health authorities, Health and Community Services, Justice
and Public Safety, Education and Early Childhood Development, Children, Seniors
and Social Development, AESL, so it is an all-of-government approach.
I
strongly believe that we need Budget 2019
because I strongly believe, as a mother of a son with autism spectrum disorder,
as an advocate for autism, as the Minister of Service NL and as the MHA for the
District of Placentia - St. Mary's, that this plan is needed, this plan is in
Budget 2019, and I strongly support
Budget 2019.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board, that the House do now adjourn. I would also, prior to doing
that, just remind Members of Justice Estimates at 6 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
Carried.
Consistent with Standing Order 9(2), this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
morning at 10 o'clock.
Thank
you.
On motion, the House at its rising
adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.