Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 24 May 2016 (48th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVIII No. 32)
2016-05-24
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
May 24,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 32
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
We would
like to welcome to the visitor's gallery today Dina Shehata and her mother,
Samar Ali. Ms. Shehata is the subject of a Member's statement today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the Members for the Districts of Ferryland, Mount Pearl North, Burin
Grand Bank, Torngat Mountains and St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
The
Member for the District of Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to recognize the Goulds 39th Charter
Night. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and recognize all members
of the Goulds Lions Club, past and present, for the outstanding contribution
they make to their community.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are well known for the amount of volunteer work
contributed each year in our province, indeed we lead the country in our hours
of volunteerism. This is exemplified no better than with the Lions Club from the
Goulds. I've had many opportunities to work with the Lions and see their
tremendous efforts in all they do.
I want
to commend the Goulds Lions for all the great work the club has done in the past
40 years and I'm sure this important community role will continue in the future.
The Goulds is a better place because of their tireless efforts.
I would
like to ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating the Goulds
Lions and all the wonderful work they have done in the past 30 years.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize the Members of the Mount
Pearl Senior High Robotics Team, who took first place at the Regional Robotics
Competition recently.
Underwater Robotics is an extracurricular activity for students who are
interested in building remotely operated vehicles that will compete at the
Marine Institute. The group meets regularly from January to May to prepare for
this competition. When competing, the students are also required to prepare a
technical report, a poster display and an engineering presentation as well. All
of that is presented to the judges.
The
Mount Pearl Senior High Robotics Club consists of 19 students and two mentors. I
would like to recognize team members: Alex Hayes, Aloysius Ducey, Andrew Pye,
Brady Chaulk, Carley Froggatt, Connor Hynes, Daniel Drodge, Jessica Hynes, Kevin
Verge, Kyle Curtis, Kyle Edison, Mary Pike, Mitchell Tuck, Randy Russell, Ryan
Hayes, Sean Purchase, Tyler Purchase, Zachary Anstey, Khafra Pike and mentors
Paul King and Cameron Williams.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the Mount
Pearl Senior High Robotics Team and wish them the best of luck as they travel to
Houston Texas for the International Competition in June.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Burin Grand Bank.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 1988,
Newfoundland and Labrador experienced a first when 35-year-old Ellen Mary
Kearney joined the Lawn Volunteer Fire Department, becoming the first female
firefighter in the province.
Sadly,
Mr. Speaker, on Friday of last week, surrounded by her loving family, this
remarkable woman passed away at the age of 63.
Ellen
Mary Kearney's volunteer work extended far beyond her time as a firefighter, Mr.
Speaker; she will also be remembered as a person who was there to help out
whenever needed, whether it was with the Come Home Year Committee, her local
parish, or with any of the other organizations that help keep Lawn a vibrant
town.
Mr.
Speaker, I know all Members join me in sending condolences to Mrs. Kearney's
family her husband Michael, daughter Denise, son Michael, grandchildren John
and Patrick, and siblings Martha, Blanche, Mike and Andy.
Mrs.
Kearney truly made a difference in the lives of others, Mr. Speaker her family
and friends, her town, and indeed to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
as a whole.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize the victims and survivors of residential
schooling.
Hundreds
of individuals from Labrador have been impacted by the forcible removal from
their family life that defined this cruel policy. They were forced to travel
hundreds of miles from home to attend school. They spent months away and were
subjected to degradation, institutionalized racism, and in extreme situations,
even mental, physical and sexual abuse.
In my
own family, Mr. Speaker, most are survivors of residential schooling. My
grandmother is 98-years-old and, if I am correct, is the oldest living survivor
of residential schooling from Nunatsiavut. My older sisters are the last
generation of residential school survivors.
The pain
and suffering that students went through will not go away, but being recognized
and finally included in this recognition, I sincerely hope, will ease the
long-lasting impacts of this dark
chapter in our history.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in officially recognizing the
survivors and the victims of residential schooling.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
today to celebrate the academic accomplishments of Dina Shehata, a Level II
student at Holy Heart High School in St. John's East Quidi Vidi.
Dina is
this year's winner of the provincial $80,000 Lester B. Pearson Scholarship and,
in September, will travel to Victoria to commence two years of pre-university
study at Pearson College.
The
Pearson Scholarship is just the latest academic accomplishment for Dina. In her
two years at Holy Heart, her scientific research has earned her much attention.
With
help from her mentor Dr. Andrew Smith of Memorial University, Dina has created a
more affordable version of a gel mimicking human tissue that health trainees can
use for practising procedures. She won the top prize at the Eastern regionals of
Sanofi Biogenius Canada, and at that competition's national fair in early May,
Dina became the first Atlantic Canadian to earn the competition's Commercialism
prize, recognizing the project with the most commercial potential and viability.
Today,
Dina is freshly back from the Canada Wide Science Fair, where she won the
National Bronze Medal for her project.
I ask
all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the wonderful Dina
Shehata and wishing her all the best in her future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
The Commemoration
of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel
MR. SPEAKER:
For Honour 100 today, we have
the Member for the District of Placentia St. Mary's.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I will now read into the
record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First World
War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment or the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve.
This will be followed by a moment of silence.
Lest we
forget: Loyal Randell, Marcus Randell, Peter Randell, Ralph Randell, Fredrick
Raynes, Alexander A. Read, Charles A. Read, Alexander Reader, John Reader, Edgar
Rees, William E. Rees, Maxwell Reeves, Alfred Reid, Allan R. Reid, Carl Reid ,
Charles Reid, Charles Reid, Ellwood Reid, Joseph H. Reid, Robert Bruce Reid,
Samuel S. Reid, William Frederick Reid, William Joseph Reid, Peter Reilly,
Arthur James Rendell, Clifford Rendell, Ernest John Rendell, Herbert Rendell,
Frederick Bennett Rice, John Joseph Rice, David Richards, Frank Richardson,
Patrick Richardson, George Ricketts, Thomas Ricketts, Simon Ricks, Ford Rideout,
Keywood Rideout, Pierce Rideout, Thomas Rideout.
(Moment of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Please be seated.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge May as Better Hearing and Speech
Month.
Earlier this month, I joined representatives of the
Canadian Hard of Hearing Association Newfoundland and Labrador, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Speech Language Pathologists and
Audiologists and the Hearing Instrument Practitioners Association, to officially
proclaim May as Better Hearing and Speech Month in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Communication disabilities, such as hearing loss and
speech-language disabilities, affect thousands of people in our province. It is
important that we continue to work with community-based organizations to advance
inclusion throughout our province.
The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association Newfoundland and
Labrador is a non-profit, charitable organization which provides a variety of
programs and services to support people who are hard of hearing.
Through Budget 2016
investments, our government will continue to promote inclusion and, as Minister
Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I will continue working
with community stakeholders to promote a more inclusive province and review
existing legislation and regulations with a goal of enacting a new
inclusion-based Disabilities Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in recognizing
May as Better Hearing and Speech Month in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I just received this a couple of seconds ago, so I'd like
to say our party certainly commends the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of
Speech Language Pathologists and Audiologists for the work
they do in trying to ensure their people are well represented in the province,
Mr. Speaker.
The cuts
by the Liberal government to the inclusion grants, the cuts to the age-friendly
transportation grants, cuts to the adult dental, we certainly have a long ways
to go and I doubt there's much confidence that people have in the Liberal
government for things they're going to do to improve things for people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Congratulations to all those associations and organizations who work towards
better hearing and speech for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Many
people cannot afford hearing aids at $5,000, especially our seniors on limited
and fixed incomes. They are so important in order to live independently and out
of isolation.
I also
raise the very serious problem of children waiting way too long to see speech
language pathologists. Early intervention, as we know, is the key to successful
treatment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Liberal backbenchers contend they're lobbying their government
tirelessly to have budget decisions reversed; however, as soon as one speaks out
against the budget, he's kicked out. The Premier takes no responsibility, no
ownership, no leadership for his actions, and again we hear the Premier saying
it wasn't me. Again, it was somebody else. But this time, Mr. Speaker, while
MHAs aren't permitted to speak outside of caucus, he's throwing them under the
bus.
So I ask
the Premier: Any Liberal Members willing to stand up for their districts and
speak out against your budget, will they be banished from your caucus too?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the former premier, when you look at taking responsibility for their actions, he
always reminds us that he was not responsible for anything that we have to deal
with today at least, he does not want to accept responsibility for this.
Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2016-2017, there were certainly lots of tough choices to be
made. People on this side of the House, MHAs that represent the many communities
in our province, they realize the impacts that are there. But they also know
that if we do not take corrective measures, the future of Newfoundland and
Labrador will not be sustainable based on the record that we've seen and that
we've had to inherit.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we have a great discussion within our caucus about where we are in our
province. We've put in many corrective measures, there have been tough decisions
that have been made, but these decisions are made with one reason in mind that
is to protect the future of our province, not to destroy it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That
wasn't the question I asked. The question is about choices and is about choices
that this government has made and choices that MHAs in his own caucus are
saying. So we know Liberal caucus Members are advocating for change to your
budget, Premier. They're presenting petitions; they're speaking publicly against
your budget. We now know there's a $30 million slush fund that's been tucked
away in the Department of Finance.
people's voices to reverse your budget choices are left unanswered, I ask the
Premier: Was your caucus made aware of this $30 million that's quietly poked
away? Did they become aware of it on budget day like the rest of your caucus or
have they only found out about it since then?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
surprise at all that the former premier would want to call it a contingency
fund. A contingency fund is really for things that would happen in the future
that are unforeseen, so you actually prepare for things. It's kind of in some
ways like buying insurance.
If the
former premier had put in place contingencies and put in place economic
diversification plans, we would not be in the position that we're in today. What
he wants to call a slush fund, it is really what it is it's a contingency fund
preparing for things that could happen in our province.
So it's
not about a political slush fund at all, it's about preparing Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians so that we do not have to go back and dip into the pockets of
the next generation, Mr. Speaker. It's about being prepared and it's about
better planning. That's the kind of fund that we are talking about. Those are
the measures that we have put in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
both sides of the House again, when a Member is stood and recognized to speak,
I'd ask all Members to respect that Member who's recognized to speak.
The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just for
the record, it's the Premier's words that it's a political slush fund, not mine.
It's him who just said that, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
know if that's very similar to the additional $400 million in program spending
that they have budgeted for this year $400 million over last year, Mr.
Speaker. As libraries are being closed, health care services reduced, cuts in
education that parents are irate about throughout the province, especially rural
parts of our province which is targeted, there's still a $30 million slush fund
which can be used today to reverse some of these terrible decisions.
I ask
the Premier: Your budget is a disaster, it's an attack on people, if this $30
million fund is for a crisis, is your budget not a crisis for people? When will
you put people first and reverse those decisions?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Talking
about a budget of crisis, it was the one that was delivered in this House of
Assembly just a year ago. That was a budget of crisis in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the
former premier mentioned about the extra $400,000 in increased programming
AN HON. MEMBER:
Million.
PREMIER BALL:
$400 million increase in programming in this budget. Do you know what that was
for, Mr. Speaker? That was to secure pensions for the NLTA. It was as a result
of the job evaluation system where people had to based on the system that was
put in place so that we saw some wage increases. We were preparing for them.
Is the
former premier suggesting that we should not have taken care of those pensions?
Is the former premier suggesting that we should not honour the JES system that
they facilitated and helped put in place? Is that the decision that you would
have made?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
the Premier has raised it because we worked very hard to look after the public
servants in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, and I thank him for
raising it because it was good work, it was hard work and it was the right thing
to do, and we do stand by that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Liberal caucus opposite are getting their daily prep
talks. We know they are pep talks. They are being called into meetings with
Cabinet ministers. They're comparing these rough times to back when Wells upset
the public service in '91 and Tobin devastated the nurses in 1999. Remember
those sayings
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
We remember those sayings:
Nurses will never forget.
They are
being told that people will forget. Well, I say to the Premier, instead of pep
talks, why don't you begin listening to your own backbench? Why don't you listen
to what they're saying and make changes to your budget? Will you finally put
people first and revisit these terrible decisions that you made in this budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
assure you that this government does indeed put people first. What we will do,
we're going to help people. We're going to help low-income earners in our
province. We have a $76.4 million low-income supplement. That is to help people.
That is to help seniors. It's to help the most vulnerable in our society right
now, Mr. Speaker.
Right
now, based on the history and the things that we inherited from this past
administration he talks about smothering the economy, Mr. Speaker. The former
premier talks about you're smothering the economy. What he is not talking about
is what debt would do to our province right now. The impact it is having on our
GDP. The impact that debt would have on our economy. The impact that the debt
would have on our health care system.
Is the
former premier suggesting that the $105 million investment that we are making
into education infrastructure, is that a choice that he would not have made? Is
he suggesting now that we should go into his own district, remove and not do the
work that they have committed to do in the past?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
really interesting the Premier brings that up because day after day he stands up
and he criticizes us for making infrastructure spending, yet they're making
infrastructure spending more than we ever made, Mr. Speaker, and they're proud
to stand here and say it. So it's wrong for us but it was good for them.
Mr.
Speaker, very recently in the House the Minister of Justice and Public Safety
indicated that it would cost $300,000 a year to keep the Harbour Grace court
open.
I ask
the minister: Can you explain these numbers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly happy to stand here and speak to the courts in this province. As we
all know, the court in Harbour Grace was actually held in the historic building
out there until it was moved last year due to the fact that the building is
dilapidated, rotten and unsafe to go in, requiring a cost of somewhere in the
range of $5 million to $10 million.
After
that, the department entered into a lease with a new building, private building,
for I think it is $280,000. That is not including the cost to maintain all the
staff and everything that goes with maintaining a court. Again, those are the
costs to provide the court in Harbour Grace.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What
we've learned from the landlord himself in Harbour Grace is that the government
assessment is based on the current short-term lease of 11,600 square feet, when
they only needed 7,000 square feet. It's a short-term lease. The landlord
wouldn't lease 7,000 for a short period of time.
What the
landlord is indicating, Mr. Speaker, is that the government hasn't even asked
for an estimated cost of what it would be for a long-term lease for the 7,000
they need, instead of 11,600.
I ask
the minister: Why haven't you done your due diligence to assess the real cost of
Harbour Grace courthouse over a long period of time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly
happy to stand here and continue to speak to this. The fact is we had all hoped
that the court would remain in the historic courthouse in Harbour Grace where it
served for a number of years, decades; but, the fact is it couldn't because the
previous administration let it rot where it stood to the point where it is
unable to be entered now. It is structurally unsafe for people to go into.
The
department, along with Transportation and Works, were forced to take decisions
to make short-term accommodations in order to have a court. The fact is that
there is a lease right now for $280,000 to accommodate this. But like we're
finding with a number of leases and arrangements across this province, the fact
is that the previous administration made absolutely terrible deals ones that
we're trying to fix so that we can provide the services at the most
cost-efficient manner to the people of this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the minister should check because this lease expired the end of March. There is
no reason why they can't go to the market and seek a long-term lease for 7,000
square feet. They have no idea what the cost may be. This $280,000 is simply
based on a short-term lease of space they are not even using, 11,600 square
feet, much larger than what they need.
I will
ask the minister again: Why have you not done your due diligence? Your own
Member is lobbying to keep the courthouse open. You allege it is $280,000 that
it is going to cost you a year, when you know and I know that is not accurate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The fact
is that the department is forced to make decisions in many cases, decisions
that were made before we ever got here. The fact is that as we continue forward,
we had to sign a short-term arrangement in order to ensure that we could
continue the court.
The
Member opposite should know this. Again, I would question a lot of decisions
that they've had to make, but in this case we were left with a situation where
we had a lease that is costing $280,000 a year, plus the associated cost that go
along.
The fact
is we are looking across this department and every other department to find ways
that we can have more efficiencies, as there are not just courts but there are
services that go with courts, whether it is Victim Services, Legal Aid, Crown
attorneys. The fact is across this department and every other department we're
looking at ways to make sure that we can provide services at the best cost to
the taxpayers of the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
it's becoming quite clear, the minister and department have not done their work.
It's not $280,000 a year. That was based on a short-term lease. They don't know
what it would cost for a long-term lease, Mr. Speaker.
I've
asked the minister in Estimates, and I'll ask again today: What assessment have
you done to determine the additional costs on policing now that police officers
will have to drive from Conception Bay North to court in St. John's on a daily
basis to attend court? What assessment have you done on that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the
Member did ask the question I was sat down for four hours during Estimates and
answered every question the Member put forward, and certainly happy to stand
here and answer him in the House.
The fact
is we had to make some very difficult decisions when it comes to not just
Justice, but a number of departments, all based on the fact that we were left
with a fiscal mess by the previous administration. The fact is that there are
going to be some difficulties that we face nobody's talked about the fact that
doing this makes the system better. The fact is that we had to make very tough
decisions based on the situation that we found ourselves in.
We're
working with the judiciary and we're working with policing services and
everything else to make sure that we can provide the best services going forward
to the people of this province. Just today, I had a meeting with lawyers from
that area; I look forward to more.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, Mr. Speaker, it's become
quite clear. The minister doesn't even know if there's going to be a savings, if
there's going to be a reduction in cost or an increase in costs. The minister
doesn't even know the answer. He's made that quite clear. He likes to talk about
the past and the former administration, but when asked a simple question he
can't answer it. He doesn't know. He made a rash decision without having
evidence to support it.
It's
absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker, at a time when they're making an
evidence-based approach, it is obvious there is no evidence here. Closing the
courthouse in Harbour Grace has brought a scathing response from mayors and
councils and local residents, the legal community even their own backbencher,
their MHA for the area, agrees it's the wrong decision.
Can you
inform the House, Minister: Is this a done deal, or is there a chance to have
this decision reversed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One
thing that I've noticed, actually, going through this process, everybody I talk
to, whether it's mayors, policing, MHAs, is the fact that they were never asked
a question by the previous administration once. They were never asked to
consult; they were never brought in to anything. Again, maybe that's why we're
in the situation we find ourselves in.
In fact,
I commend the MHA for Harbour Grace Port de Grave, because she's standing up
for her constituents, and we encourage that on this side. We encourage them to
speak up.
So I
look forward to continuing to work on the situation. The fact is, we're always
willing to
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, it's hard to hear
through the heckling, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is we're always willing to
listen to constituents. We're always willing to listen to mayors and the
individuals of this province so that we can make the best decisions going
forward. In this case, we made the best decision based on the evidence we had
and the situation we were left in by the Member opposite.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind hon. Members again
that the Member who is identified to speak is the only Member who should be
speaking during Question Period.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope,
as the Minister of Justice indicates, he will listen to his colleagues who are
protesting about some of the cuts.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier, could he clarify: Did the former CEO of Nalcor leave
voluntarily or was he indeed fired?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
former CEO, Mr. Ed Martin, made a decision to step aside from his role as CEO at
Nalcor back in late April, April 20. It was the board that had made the decision
then based on the information they had, they made the decision to dismiss or
to terminate the employment without cause of the former CEO.
It was
Mr. Martin's decision to step aside from his position at Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, just to clarify:
Did he resign or did the board dismiss him without cause?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Martin made a decision to step aside. Then through the
interpretation, it was
the board because the contract of the CEO is with the board. It was the board
then that made a decision to terminate without cause. That is what triggered the
severance.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, if the Premier
could clarify. He's saying terminate without cause, but in the public you had
said that he voluntarily left.
Did you
have dialogue with the board leading up from Sunday to Tuesday when the decision
was made?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Martin made the decision
to step aside on April 20. We did the public announcement of that. Mr. Martin
actually then reinforced that with his own announcement.
It was
the board the contract with the CEO is with the board of directors. The board
that just left, actually. So they made a decision then to this is what
triggered the severance in this particular case terminate without cause.
So we've
taken this information that we have right now, that has been made available to
us we were not part of the details around the severance package at all. We
were not part of that. That was left exclusively to the board.
We have
now engaged the Department of Justice to review all the information that we have
become aware of and then that will determine the appropriateness of the
severance.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, that's very
different from what the Premier had indicated in public. If the individual, as
the Premier indicated, voluntarily left and resigned or left his position, the
Premier had no knowledge of this or did he check with the board before he did
this?
Why
would you come out and say that without checking with the board and checking
with Nalcor first?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was
Mr. Martin who stepped aside. We had a meeting the night before this, on Tuesday
night. Coming from that meeting, Mr. Martin made a decision, the former CEO made
a decision to step aside. It was then because that contract was with the board
of directors of Nalcor. It was then that board made that decision to actually
terminate Mr. Martin without cause. That was not something that the office we
did not negotiate any of the details. Those details were exclusively with the
former board of directors of Nalcor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier had stated that his government had no control over the
former CEO's payout due to contractual obligations. The CEO's contract suggests
the financial package would not be necessary if the Nalcor CEO voluntarily
resigns.
I ask
the Premier: Did Mr. Martin resign, or was he fired? Why was the severance
required?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What
happened is the former board of directors of Nalcor made a decision without
cause after he stepped aside. They made this decision. They sought a legal
opinion on this.
We are
now reviewing all the information that was available to us. We became aware of
the details of the severance package early May. May 5, I think, was the date.
These details were put in place; the severance package was determined by the
outgoing board of Nalcor. We are now taking this information and we're reviewing
this to see that the appropriate that this indeed was the appropriate action
that was taken by the former board, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier had
said in public that severance was required as part of the contract. He said that
publicly.
On what
basis did you make that determination?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
severance package or any of the contractual commitments that was in with the
CEO as part of his employment contract; what we said is that we would honour or
we would ask the board of directors of Nalcor. They're responsible to actually
honour the commitments and the details and the conditions that would be part of
that contractual arrangement with the former CEO.
The
former CEO was the employee of the board of directors of Nalcor. They made the
decision to determine the details around the severance pay that was paid to Mr.
Martin. Right now, we have our own Department of Justice that's reviewing this
information, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: Was there a resolution of the board of Nalcor
stating that the former CEO of Nalcor voluntarily left the position? Was there
direction given on what to be paid?
There
seems there's new information here that has come to light that the Premier's
talking now because your story has changed. Was there a resolution from Nalcor
suggesting what you're saying today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
May 5 is
when I became aware of the details around the severance package that the former
board of directors had given to the former CEO. So the resolution at the board
level then becomes part of the decision-making process. They sought legal
opinion about the termination without cause of Mr. Martin. It was then that they
based their decision, as I understand it, to put in place a severance package.
On April
20, Mr. Martin made a decision to step aside from his position as CEO of Nalcor.
Mr. Speaker, it was outgoing board of directors that made the decision they
made the decision to terminate without cause.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
former head of MUN's Grenfell Campus labels the Liberal plan to close over 50
per cent of the province's libraries as disgraceful, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Fowler
goes on to say it's unrealistic to expect municipalities to take over these
libraries.
I ask
the Minister of Education: Is this simply yet another reputable academic who
cannot comprehend the minister's education plan?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, there was no way
we could sustain the previous libraries model based on the amounts of money that
either the previous administration had or the amounts of money we have access
to.
Let's
face it; we're trying to borrow now our bond rating is somewhere a couple of
levels above junk status, more or less; we're a couple of notches above junk in
the bond market. So that's where we are financially. That's the state this crowd
left us in. So I don't know how it is that they expect us to operate when we're
a couple of notches above junk. That's where they left the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the vast majority of our food is shipped into the province through
roadway and ferry, why would the Premier foolishly suggest that the additional
fuel tax and the increase to the HST will not be downloaded to the consumer?
Does he still believe that to be the case?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the difficult choices that had to be made and when we did the Government
Renewal Initiative, many people in this province reached out and told us that in
this particular case, when you look at the price of gas and fuel in our province
right now, when you compare it to where it was last year, that, indeed, many
people told us that they would be prepared to accept an increase in the price of
fuel and gas, as an example, until oil reaches a point where we can actually get
the revenue that is generated from the oil royalties.
This was
something that clearly came up in just about every meeting that we intended.
People understood this, but they also knew that there were tough choices that
had to be made in our province right now. Therefore, they helped us look for
ways to generate revenue in our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier
didn't answer my question .
Does he
believe that this budget will drive food prices up while it drives more people
into poverty, yes or no?
SOME HON.
MEMBERS : Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One
thing that I do know, when you look at driving prices up and when you look at
impacting services that we depend on in Newfoundland and Labrador is that if you
do not get your own fiscal financial house in order, one thing that will drive
prices up in our province and will reduce critical services in our province is
when you go swimming in debt, and when you're relying on the tax revenue, when
you rely on revenue of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay interest.
Mr.
Speaker, we've just heard comments from the Members opposite talk about, oh, you
can't say that. What it is, they do not want to accept the responsibility for
the reality they left this province in. I would be ashamed to hear it too if I
sat in those chairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the chair the
Premier now sits in is the Premier's chair and it's time for him to show some
leadership.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, in budget
documents the Liberal government admits that its budget will be 40 to 50 per
cent responsible for aspects of economic downturn in the next five years.
I ask
the Premier: What are you doing to offset this? You promised in your election
platform to create new revenue streams. Tell us specifically what you've done to
do so in the last six months you've been in office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite, the former deputy premier opposite. Again, it seems to be
that he does not want to live up or take his share of the responsibility for
where we are today.
When you
look at budget 2016 - 2017, there are a
number of initiatives that we have in this budget. There's $570 million in
infrastructure spending, Mr. Speaker. We have well over $100 million when you
look at infrastructure in schools.
Is he
suggesting right now that as a province we should not leverage the
infrastructure spending which we could leverage that with communities, leverage
that with private interest and leverage that with the federal government, Mr.
Speaker? That will create jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Is he
suggesting we should not be doing that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Premier said publicly the payment of approximately $1.3 million in severance
payments to the former Nalcor CEO was dictated by the contractual agreement
between the former CEO and Nalcor. The terms of that agreement are now in the
public domain.
I ask
the Premier: What specific provision of that executive employment agreement can
he point to that led him to the contention that Mr. Martin was entitled to
severance pay in the event of his resignation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's
nothing in the employment contract in terms of a severance package that would
have been paid out under the person just resigning or stepping aside. It was the
board of directors at Nalcor the board of directors at Nalcor that made the
decision to terminate the former CEO, to terminate his employment without cause.
They
then took the employment agreement that was put in place and through their
interpretation I understand they had legal opinion on that too, Mr. Speaker,
but they made the decision. It wasn't the Premier's office; it was the former
board at Nalcor. They made the decision to terminate the former CEO without
cause and it is in their
interpretation that they made the determination to pay
the severance to the former CEO.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Well,
then I want to ask the Premier: Didn't he ever speak to the board of directors
to find out that this was not in the contract? He said publicly it was dictated
by the contract.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I became
aware of the details of the severance package that was given to the former CEO
keep in mind, this board, they resigned. They were the board that resigned en
masse after they made this decision. I became aware of the details of the
severance package early May May 5, I think, the date was. It was then that I
became aware of this. It was the former board of Nalcor that made this decision
to grant and pay severance to the former CEO.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives conducted a gender based analysis of the
impact of NL Budget 2016 on women and
girls and found that it definitely hurts women and girls disproportionately. The
Minister of Finance also said that she did a gender analysis of the budget.
I ask
the minister: Did her gender analysis have the same findings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's
nobody I think, certainly on this side of the House, who would argue that this
budget is a very difficult budget for the people of the province, men and women
included. The analysis that was done for all areas, particularly for women, was
recognized that the budget is very difficult.
Mr.
Speaker, that is one of the reasons why when we looked at implementing the
Newfoundland Income Supplement that would allow us to help offset some of the
costs, particularly for low-income women. Elderly women in our community make up
who are not part of an economic family, have the third-lowest medium after tax
income amongst any provinces and have from 2003 to 2013. That's why we
implemented that program, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, gender analysis
showed disproportionate negative effects on women and girls.
I ask
the minister: As the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and Finance,
why didn't she take corrective measures to address these disproportionate
negative effects on women and girls? Why wouldn't she?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, we did
recognize, and that's one of the reasons why we implemented a Newfoundland
Income Supplement. As I said in a previous answer, this budget has a very it's
very difficult for all people in our province, men and women included.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite certainly knows that our province is faced with
what would have been a fiscal crisis had we not taken action. I don't think
there's any Member of this House, collectively, all 40 of us, that want to be in
the situation that our province is faced, but in the absence of action, losing
control over the critical services of health and education is something that
could happen. I don't believe that any man or woman in this province would want
that to happen to our province.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is about 15 to 20
seconds for a question and 15 to 20 seconds for an answer.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Finance yet again: Why will she not table her gender analysis that
she said she did on the budget, her specific gender analysis report? I have one
here from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, all of the
decisions that were made as part of the budget process, particularly those that
were undertaken under the Government Renewal Initiative, were put through the
gender lens and certainly those were information that we took into Cabinet to
make the decisions that we did, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Question Period has
expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll
take Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63, I move, seconded by the Member for
Stephenville Port au Port, that the private Member's resolution to be debated
on Wednesday is:
BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the government's proposal to provide the
Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit a refundable tax credit for low
income seniors, which this year is providing some 42,000 seniors in our province
with payments of up to $971 the highest amount ever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
to Standing Order 63, the private Member's resolution just entered by the Member
will be the one to be debated tomorrow, Wednesday.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to move the following resolution.
BE IT
RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follow:
WHEREAS
the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under
Section 20 of the
Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make
recommendations on the salaries and benefits of the judges and chief judge; and
WHEREAS
the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety on December 21, 2015; and
WHEREAS
the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial
Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal Report was tabled in this hon.
House on March 17, 2016, as required by
section 28.2 of the act; and
WHEREAS
the House of Assembly is required to approve, vary or reject the report within
the period of time referred to in that section; and
WHEREAS
government has decided to ask this hon. House to accept all but one of the
recommendations of the tribunal as contained in its report of December 21, 2015;
and
WHEREAS
government has decided to asked this hon. House to reject one of the
recommendations;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of the
2015 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial
Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal set out in
Schedule A; and
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. reject the recommendations set out in
Schedule B for the reasons given; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the recommendations of the tribunal that
this hon. House accepts and rejects as set out in Schedules A and B be
implemented effective April 1, 2013.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing a higher
tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and
WHEREAS
surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as currently
demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other
countries; and
WHEREAS
government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax
schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be
eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation
principles, and that an independent review of Newfoundland and Labrador's
provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I am astounded yet again that the Minister Responsible for the Status
of Women, who is also the minister responsible for Finance, has not answered me
outright, directly about whether or not a very specific, concrete gender
analysis tool was used on the budget. She hints at it, but we don't know for
sure. I have asked her a number of times to table that report. She has not said
yes or no, but we still have not seen it.
Here I
have the report of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives who did a very
specific analysis of the budget using a specific gender analysis tool that
government is supposed to be doing as well on all policy, on all legislation, to
look at what are the negative effects on women who are a disadvantaged group in
our society. I have their report here and we have no idea whatsoever what this
government did, whether the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women
actually had the Women's Policy Office do that very concrete, specific gender
analysis on the budget and also on the Independent Appointments Commission.
Mr.
Speaker, I can only assume it's not been done. I don't know what else to assume
because we haven't seen the report. We've asked for it. I've put in an access to
information request for it. Maybe that's the only way we're going to get it, if
it exists.
It would
be my hope that it does exist. If it does, I'm sure it comes up with the same
kind of analysis that the Centre for Policy Alternatives have come up with. If
that's the case, why did the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, who
is also the Minister of Finance, not take corrective measures?
It's so
clear how disproportionately negatively affected women and girls are by this
very regressive budget that reflects a philosophy of austerity which the Nobel
Peace Prize economist knows economists from all over the globe have said that
austerity budgets don't work.
So how
could the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, who has so much power as
the Minister of Finance, not take any corrective measures to look at how this
budget disproportionately affects women? Mr. Speaker, 67 per cent of women in
Newfoundland and Labrador are working age, between the age of 25 and 54. Yet,
this budget is cutting jobs, predominantly jobs occupied by women.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Fortune Bay Cape Lune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents
humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune need to have access to adequate health
care; and
WHEREAS
the local clinics in rural areas are the main source of medical assistance for
our people; and
WHEREAS
the government has reduced funding and closed the Hermitage clinic and
downgraded services in all of the isolated communities;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the services to health care in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm rising on a regular basis to present this petition in the House
because I am in shock at the complete devastation the Liberal government has
imposed on rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Be it education, be it libraries, be
it health care, the very core principles and fundamentals of a decent quality of
life. And the Liberals are ripping it away from rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
One
thing I'd like to be able to stand here in the House today and assure the people
2019, don't ever forget what has happened with this budget and what has
happened to rural Newfoundland, what has happened to education, health care and
libraries. I have confidence that successive governments will correct it, Mr.
Speaker, if this government doesn't come to its senses and make some corrective
action before the budget passes.
This is
absolutely devastating. To look at a rural, remote area like the Coast of Bays,
which is geographically isolated, where there is no snow clearing after 6
o'clock in the wintertime we have to really get to Grand Falls for any type of
advanced medical care at all. And to save a life, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely
essential that we have front-line services directly in the communities.
In the
absence of that, Mr. Speaker, I dread to think what will happen to our people
unnecessarily. I fear gravely that lives will be lost and whatever we can do to
reverse this decision must be done. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador deserves
better.
One of
the things that I heard over and over and over again in the election: people
matter. Well, it is time to start showing that people matter, Mr. Speaker. And
time for the government to reverse some of these terrible decisions that have
been made in Budget 2016 .
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
government has one again cut the libraries budget, forcing the closure of 54
libraries; and
WHEREAS
libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with
little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and
computer access; and
WHEREAS
libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's
literacy levels, which are among the lowest in Canada; and
WHEREAS
already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the
operations and cost of libraries;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pay and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a
long-term plan to strengthen the library system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
I'm
pleased this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to present this petition which comes mainly
from petitioners from CBS, St. John's, Paradise and Bay Bulls. I think it's
important to point out that people in the greater St. John's area and all of
these people are concerned about what's happening in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador because that is who is being impacted by the closure of the 54
libraries.
Government's contention is that it's okay to close them and get into what
they're doing because people are no more than 30 minutes away from their next
library. Then point out when you say to them, well, some people are a lot
further way, their answer is it's only 15 per cent of those who don't have
access to the library, who are further away. Well, how is that an answer to the
Mayor of Cartwright, for example, who has pointed out that the next library to
them is a five-hour drive away over not a four-lane highway? As he says, it
might as well be in Toronto for people, especially low-income people and seniors
in Cartwright.
The fact
that this government has such lack of concern for what's happening to
individuals that oh, it's only 15 per cent is supposed to make it all right, but
it's not all right. These libraries should not be closing. And more and more I'm
continuing to get emails and Facebook messages about people who, as they learn
about the closures of libraries in this province, are absolutely shocked.
Nothing
seems to shake this government, Mr. Speaker. I know that more petitions are
going to be coming and I will continue standing here to try to get this
government to see some sense. The excuses that are being given by the Minister
of Education and Early Childhood Development do not wash. They just don't. The
need for community libraries is urgent.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
as a result of Budget 2016 X-ray
services at the Bonavista Peninsula Community Health Centre will be closed after
4 p.m. until 8 a.m.; and
WHEREAS
this will mean that anyone needing an X-ray after 4 p.m. will have to travel
elsewhere via ambulance; and
WHEREAS
as a result of Budget 2016 laundry
services will also be cut, resulting in laundry being transferred to St. John's;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately direct Eastern Health to reverse
cuts to X-ray and laundry services at the Bonavista Peninsula Community Health
Centre.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, the petition I'm presenting today, I continue to receive them from the
Bonavista Peninsula. The petition I present today is signed by many residents of
Bonavista and Elliston, as well as Birchy Cove. Residents of the Bonavista
Peninsula are very concerned about how this budget, as the Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune was saying a few minutes ago, is an attack on rural regions
and rural communities.
These
particular cuts to health care services in the Bonavista region will have a real
impact on people. I heard from one parent who is very concerned about the impact
it will have on his own family. He believes there will be no cost savings at
all. He says one certified X-ray technician position, for the sake of lives,
isn't saying money when I'll have to pay for an ambulance which government
subsidizes, a nurse and/or a doctor to travel to Clarenville as well, an hour
and half away from Bonavista, which is time enough to determine whether or not
my son lives or not. He goes on to explain why he believes this move will not,
in fact, save any money.
So we've
asked before and we'll ask again: Is there any proof, is there any evidence to
suggest that reducing these services will actually result in cost savings? Even
if it does, it still may not be the right thing to do. But residents are saying,
show us the proof that these moves will actually result in cost savings.
There's
also a concern being expressed by residents of the Bonavista Peninsula about the
availability of physicians. One resident says physicians will no longer want to
come here to work with no diagnostic testing available on evenings and weekends.
Locum physicians will also be reluctant to come here during physician shortages.
Nurses are already working tremendous amounts of overtime and extra hours. The
lack of X-ray services will result in increased workload with transfers to other
facilities, usually paid at a higher rate for travel, increased stress for
nurses monitoring patients that don't have a diagnosis.
This is
a major patient safety issue, Mr. Speaker. X-ray is used as a diagnostic tool to
rule out many different types of potentially life-threatening conditions. So
this will affect residents all over the Bonavista Peninsula. It's why hundreds
of residents are signing petitions, and it's why we'll continue to raise this
issue in in the House of Assembly, even if their own MHA won't.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the people of Bell Island deserve to have access to services that will assist
them to gain employment; and
WHEREAS
their services have provided proven results to the people of our province; and
WHEREAS
decisions made in this budget by the current government have removed the
Advanced Education and Skills office from Bell Island;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the office of Advanced Education and
Skills on Bell Island.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've presented this a number of times, but last night I had a gathering
to discuss some of the issues on the budget and had a number of citizens who are
only now realizing, as the office closed the beginning of May, that these
services no longer are at their disposal, that they no longer can avail of those
services that they took for granted. They were services that they needed for
everyday life, for enhancing their academics, for enhancing their employability,
for providing for particular services some around health care, some
around mental health, some around some inclusion processes.
What I might note, too, that it's not only Bell Island that
lost its AES office, it is other remote and isolated communities in this
province, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Baie Verte, for
example, again, very reliant, and it's only the
last couple of weeks that I'm getting emails, as the critic, from community
members in those respective communities. They, like the residents of Bell
Island, are realizing the service is gone. We no longer have access to those
types of services that we rely on and we need.
Now
they're sort of saying we're left in limbo. They're saying go to your nearest
service centre which, in some cases, is hundreds of kilometres away. In some
cases, it's so remote when I go through the list, that it's almost impossible,
unless you own your own plane or in the middle of winter you take your Ski-Doo
300 or 400 kilometres.
Baie
Verte is one I've gotten numerous emails from people asking, how do we reinstate
these services? How do we access the services that we're always reliant on and
need? Bonavista, again and we've noticed a number of cuts in the Bonavista
area. This is another obviously devastating issue for people there. How do they
avail of those services? Particularly in communities that are very vulnerable
when it comes to their economy.
One year
it may be up because the fishing industry or mining industry or another
manufacturing industry may be very fluent and working very well. The markets may
change. There may be devastation in those communities and all of a sudden the
one centre they could go to get some supports and some guidance doesn't exist.
Norris Point is another isolated area. Twillingate, another key area that is the
hub for all that area, has lost its office.
Let's
talk about Labrador; Hopedale, Nain and Mary's Harbour. You just can't go down
to the nearest you can't walk down the street, get a ride down, go in and get
your services, explain your situation to the AES worker and then get the service
you need and get guided somewhere else. It doesn't exist that way. Those
services don't exist.
Mr.
Speaker, I will continue to put these petitions, not only from my own community
and my own district, but the other seven offices that have closed in this
province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would move number 10 on
the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House do not adjourn
at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 24, and number 11 on the Order Paper, pursuant
to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10 p.m. today, Tuesday, May
24, 2016.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
haven't traditionally voted on these, but it is my understanding that I've been
overlooking this. There are two motions to the floor; a motion that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
A motion
that the House do not adjourn at 10 o'clock today.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider resolution number six
on the Order Paper, that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider a
resolution respecting the imposition of taxes on gasoline, Bill 20.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole of Ways and Means and that I do now
leave the Chair.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Dempster):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 20,
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.
A bill,
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3.
Resolution
That it
is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on
gasoline.
CHAIR:
Shall the resolution carry?
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Happy
birthday on behalf of all of us in the House. We'd like to wish you a really
lovely birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. C. BENNETT:
Madam Chair, it is a
privilege every day I get the opportunity to stand in this House and today
certainly is no different.
Today
I'm going to speak to an important piece of legislation, Bill 20,
An Act To
Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3.
Our
government has made the first difficult but necessary steps to protect the
future of our province, Madam Chair. Some of those decisions, like this gas tax,
are temporary and will be reviewed as part of the supplemental budget. Others,
like personal income taxes, were necessary to undo some of the revenue
reductions put into motion by the previous administration which lacked
foresight, as they were simply unsustainable.
Through
Budget 2016 , we have identified
savings of $282 million. We will invest $76.4 million for responsible decisions
like our Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement to help our most
vulnerable.
Madam
Chair, we were forced to make these difficult decisions because of the spending
growth allowed by the former administration. They allowed their expenses to grow
some $600 million in one year, including banking on savings that they never
actually had a plan on how they would actually save the money.
As part
of the difficult decisions made in Budget
2016 , an increase in gasoline tax is being introduced. Effective June 2,
2016, the tax on gasoline will move from 16.5 cents per litre to 33 cents per
litre. As we said in the budget, this tax will be reviewed ahead of the fall
2016 supplemental budget. The tax rate on diesel products will increase by 5
cents per litre. The tax rate for aviation fuel will increase by 1.8 cents per
litre.
This is
a measure that was identified during the public Government Renewal Initiative
consultations as a method to address the dire fiscal situation that our province
faces. People suggested they were used to paying a higher rate for a litre of
gas and that as a temporary revenue measure government could increase the gas
tax, while keeping prices in line with recent price highs.
Those
increases in the gasoline tax are estimated to provide $142.8 million annually.
It is important to keep in mind that the gas tax changes of an increase of 16.5
cents per litre will be reviewed every six months. In the event the price of oil
increases and leads to a substantial increase in the price of gas, that amount
will be reduced.
Our
government does recognize that a part of this province requires special
consideration. That is why a separate bill introduces a reduction of gasoline
tax of 10 cents per litre provided for gasoline purchased at retail sales and
used in motor vehicles in the Labrador boarder zones. This applies to Labrador
West, which includes Labrador City and Wabush and the South Coast of Labrador,
from the border of the Province of Quebec to and including the community of Red
Bay.
The
purpose of this program is to ensure that gas prices in Labrador remain
competitive with the prices in Quebec. By partially alleviating the gas tax on
the border zones, the price of gas will be comparable in both jurisdictions.
This would remove any price incentive for cross-border shopping and impact on
local retailers.
Increasing taxes is not something our government wants to do, but it must be
done to address the deficit created by the lack of planning by the former
administration.
Madam
Chair, we made it clear, as part of Budget
2016 , that the increases in gasoline tax will be temporary. We have also
indicated that we expect to make a further announcement this coming fall in our
supplemental budget. As I've said earlier, the increase in gas tax is clearly
outlined in the budget and we have been very transparent about that increase;
the tax will be 33 cents a litre.
I want
to assure the Members of this House, as well as those listening at home, that
there are mechanisms available to the Minister of Finance that would allow me,
if necessary, to remit or rebate a portion of the additional 16 cents per litre
on gas tax, should the price of oil rise and the price of gasoline fall. We will
continue to monitor monthly the price of gasoline and, as noted, we continue to
plan to review this tax as part of the fall supplemental budget.
This was
a measure that was identified during the public Government Renewal Initiative
consultations as a method to address what is a dire fiscal situation for our
province.
Madam
Chair, the increase in gasoline tax is estimated to provide $142.8 million
annually. And as I've said, it is important to keep in mind that this tax
increase will be reviewed every six months in the event the price of oil
increases and leads to a substantial increase in the price of gas so we can make
the adjustments as needed.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is
certainly a pleasure for me to rise in this hon. House today to speak on behalf
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it gives me no pleasure
whatsoever to speak to yet another bill that imposes yet another tax on the fine
folks of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Chair. And I can state unequivocally
that I will not be supporting this bill. I'm going to outline my reasons for
that, Madam Chair, because I am absolutely baffled at the measures this
government has introduced which will leave this province in a far worse state
than it has ever been.
We can
look back to the '90s. Times were rough then. Our GDP-to-debt ratio was much
higher in the '90s than what it is in fact, Madam Chair, today. Yet, no drastic
measures were taken by the Liberal government of that era. What we see today,
people in the province are still in shock and still reeling from the imposition
of tax after tax after tax which, as I said when I got up last week, will kill
job after job after job after job.
The
minister, when she spoke, just said that $142 million will be raised by the
introduction of this tax. I'm left with the question: What are you going to lose
on the other end? How many jobs are going to fall out of the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador because of this tax? What are we going to lose in
tourism revenue?
Your
projections that you have in the budget documents in terms of revenue that will
be earned from the industry, will they be on target when we get to sit in this
House next year in April, or will they be way off, Madam Chair, because the
price of gas was so high that the rubber-tire traffic just didn't bother to come
to Newfoundland and Labrador? That is my great fear.
There's
an expression in Newfoundland and Labrador there's a saying people can cut off
their nose to spite their face. I think there's measure after measure after
measure in this budget that the line of thinking somewhere was that it will
benefit the province when, in actual fact, we are going to see the proof will be
in the pudding. We're going to be far worse off than we ever were before.
Let's
talk about the impact on tourism, Madam Chair. How many people are really going
to jump aboard their mobile homes and come to Newfoundland and Labrador where
they will be paying the highest price in all of Canada for gas? As I was driving
home last Friday, I listened to Open Line .
Right now, we're about sixth place in Canada. Come June 1, the cost of gas in
Newfoundland and Labrador will be the highest for all of Canada. Think about
that. That, in turn, translates to we will have the worst tourism industry in
all of Canada because people will not bother to come.
What are
the impacts going to be on people? When I did my petition a little while ago I
talked about how during the election all we heard was people matter, #people
matter. Every speech in the House, you look in Hansard, people matter.
Well,
how quickly did you forget about people once the election was over on November
30? There is not one iota in this budget that can prove to me or anyone else in
Newfoundland and Labrador that you actually care about people. This is a slap in
the face to the people of this province who had the trust and the confidence in
you for something better. Well, they got change. It was change in the worst kind
of way, Madam Chair.
If all
else fails, in 2019, I will keep saying, people please do not forget how we were
misled and mistreated during this election campaign. What a letdown we have all
been experiencing, Madam Chair.
Let's
talk about the impact on businesses. So you own a transport company, you own an
aquaculture business, you own a grocery store, you own a hardware store. The
increase cost that the business owner incurs is going to be passed on to the
consumer. Now, all of a sudden, we're paying more for gas. We're paying more for
that piece of lumber. We're paying more for that food we want to buy. We're
paying more to go visit our grandchildren. We're paying more for health care.
Let's
talk about health care. Regionalization I'm picking up that this government is
going to move on regionalization in the biggest kind of way, to the detriment
once again of the people of this province and especially to the detriment of
rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
What's
going to happen? These people now you can't get the services in your
community; you have to drive 100 kilometres away. You have to drive for an hour
to get there and an hour to get back, and guess what? You're paying for it out
of your own pocket. Yet again, the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador are
hit because all of these measures have a trickle-down impact.
You shut
down the Hermitage clinic. People in Seal Cove and Hermitage and Gaultois and
McCallum now are all going to have to drive to Harbour Breton. All of a sudden,
it's going to cost them $60 to go see a doctor. It is absolutely outrageous,
Madam Chair, what this budget is doing to the people of the province and, in
particular, the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I just
heard in the opening
preamble, the minister said it's not something this Liberal
government wanted to do. So I ask the question: Why did you do it then, because
you do have other options? You can get up and get on with as much rhetoric as
you like in Question Period, the fact remains there are other options.
There's
a $30 million slush fund. There's a $20 million fund with Fire and Emergency
Services for unforeseen circumstances and unforeseen emergencies. There's a
federal government we can go to if there's an unforeseen emergency, Madam Chair.
We can call a special meeting of the people's House to ask for additional monies
if there's an extenuating disaster. So why do we have to park a $30 million
slush fund, lose our health care, lose our libraries, and face increases in
taxes and gasoline to the tune that we're seeing in this budget? It is
absolutely outrageous and unbelievable. There are other options.
Why are
you adding an extra $30 million in line by line expenditures year over year for
all-day kindergarten if we're at such a time of crisis, as you say in your
rhetoric that you get up with as a Liberal government? Why are you adding $30
million to the bottom line for all-day kindergarten? Why now? Yes, we all agree
it's a good idea. Why now? Why not wait until next year?
Why not
let people keep some of this money in their pockets to try to adapt to the
changes you're bringing in? At least give them some time to make some changes to
their spending habits, to their household expenditures, to decide where they
want to live, given that this will be the most expensive place in all of Canada
for anyone to live. Give people time. Phase it in slowly if you absolutely must
do it and I disagree that you must, because as I just outlined, a few of the
options that you have to consider.
Madam
Chair, as I was driving home, another thing I heard on
Open Line . The host of
Backtalk had a little add on, and it referred to the budget as an amateur
hour piece of work. I have to say I agree with it wholeheartedly, because no
seasoned politician would inflict this kind of pain and misery on its people,
the people they say they want to give a better tomorrow to. Well, if we're going
to get to that better tomorrow we have to survive today. How are we going to
survive today with the budget measures that are introduced in
Budget 2016 ? I have no idea.
This
budget is destroying business confidence. It is destroying consumer confidence,
Madam Chair. We're going to be a long time trying to recover from the economic
downturn that will be triggered as a result of the regressive measures
introduced in this budget.
Madam
Chair, if you look at the bills we're bringing in and the bills on the Order
Paper and anyone from the public can go on to the House of Assembly website
and see the Order Paper and what motions are in place you see motion after
motion to increase tax after tax after tax. What are all of these measures? Who
are they impacting the most?
They are
impacting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people this government
tried to say they cared about in their #peoplematter hashtag that we haven't
heard once since they got elected. Not once have we heard them say people
matter, because they can't say it. They can't say it on the one hand and then
act on the other hand the way they have with this budget, which clearly
demonstrates their actions. I've always been a strong believer, Madam Chair,
that actions speak far louder than words. We certainly know that any words that
come out across the way we can't trust these days, and that's a fact.
People
matter. With people matter, we need to eliminate these taxes. We need to get
back to the drawing board with this budget and make some changes. You do have
some room. There are some areas you can manoeuvre. Your backbench does have the
strength and the ability to do it by banding together. You do have much more
strength. I recognize many of you are rookies but the power you have is
unbelievable to effect change, and you can effect that change behind closed
doors but you have the power to do it in your hands. It's right there.
Madam
Chair, when we look at the budget calculator and there have been a number of
versions of the budget calculator. The one from the Department of Finance, in my
opinion, is the weakest one that's out there. It doesn't include what all of
these motions we see on the Order Paper, it doesn't include the impact of them.
Yes, it looks at what the change in your income tax is going to be and it looks
at you're losing the Home Heating Rebate. We've taken that away from you but
we're giving you if you're on the low income end of the scale, we're putting
back $76 million.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I ask
for Members' co-operation to keep the noise levels down a little bit.
MS. PERRY:
Well, that takes care of some
people, Madam Chair. It still doesn't look at the additional monies that are
coming out of the people on all ends of the spectrum, whether you make $15,000
or $150,000. It doesn't count the increase in insurance that you're going to be
paying. It doesn't count the increase in gas tax that you're going to be paying.
doesn't count the increase in expenses you are going to have to incur, because
if you want to borrow a book from a library it's going to cost you $60 to drive
over an hour to get to the library. If you want to go to the doctor it's going
to cost you $60 to fill up your tank to drive over an hour to get to the next
clinic. That's the impact of what these measures in this budget are, Madam
Chair. It doesn't factor in what you're going to pay in the additional cost to
your groceries, because your groceries are going up because the price of gas is
going up.
certainly am delighted to have come to my feet on this speech to raise these
issues and to implore once again with the Liberal caucus: you really do have the
ability to effect change on this budget. You can do it before it's too late,
before this budget comes down, before the draconian measures rip the life out of
rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Another
thing, Madam Chair, we haven't talked about is the mental anguish that this
budget is causing on people and the stress and the anxiety. I do believe that
the Members opposite also campaigned on doing what it can for mental health in
this province. This budget has severely worsened the stress and anxiety levels
of people in this province.
gravely fear we're going to see an increase, Madam Chair we're going to see an
increase in mental health. We're going to see an increase in depression. We're
going to see an increase in people who really can't cope with the pressures of
day-to-day life because this government has made day-to-day life worse for the
vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We talk
about the price of oil. This budget was based on oil at $40 a barrel. Well, oil
has been trading, as we all know, much higher than $40 a barrel for the last few
weeks. I do believe today it's somewhere in the vicinity of $48 a barrel. What's
going to happen with all that additional money?
Is it
really necessary that you tear apart rural Newfoundland and Labrador at this
juncture? Is it really necessary that you impose this kind of additional stress
on families and people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is it really necessary that
you dig into their pockets to pay for your study?
You
criticized our government for doing studies. I agree, there should be a study on
Labrador, no problem with the concept, but now, at this point in time, when
we're in a financial crisis? That $750,000 could keep libraries open. Where are
your priorities?
Madam
Chair, $30 million for all-day kindergarten. What did I hear when I was home
this weekend. We're paying $30 million so we can have two or three additional
hours of play-based learning at a time when we're not going to be able to buy
groceries or heat our homes.
Madam
Chair, there are other decisions that can be made. You, as a Liberal caucus,
have the ability to effect that change. Get together, band together, speak to
your executive and tell them the things that you feel need to be changed. Let's
make change happen.
Thank
you very much, Madam Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's a
pleasure to be on my feet to actually speak in response to the Member opposite.
Certainly, when we look at Newfoundland and Labrador, people do matter. For the
Member opposite to make such comments insinuating otherwise is shameful.
The
budget 2016-2017 had to take some extraordinary measures to raise revenue, and
increasing the gas tax as a temporary measure is one of those, where 16 cents
will be added to the gas tax.
When we
did the Government Renewal Initiative and I held a session in St. Anthony, this
was something that was raised time and time again by a number of residents in
the room. That they did not mind paying more, given the lower price of gas we
were experiencing because it was a means of which more revenue could be raised
to help out with the serious fiscal crisis that was happening because of the
mismanagement of the previous administration.
I do
want to say that for her to put out the commentary that tourism is going to be
destroyed and because of this impact I would say that I would like to see the
facts and the information of where are those cancellations and bookings for
hotels and for accommodations and bus travel. Because all indications point that
2016-2017 will see an increase in visitation in tourism; bookings are up when it
comes to accommodators across this province; interest is higher on our website;
and we have a tremendous amount of motor coach traffic that has booked. There is
no indication in any way, shape or form that we will see such a reduction in
tourism as the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune has prophesied, or
pontificated, or however she's put forward this information.
She's
put forward another thing about the libraries, about having to spend $60 to go
to a library. People won't have to spend $1 to go to a library or to access
books in Newfoundland and Labrador because under the regional model, $652,000
will be reinvested into being able to provide more books, more electronic books
and the ability to enhance books by mail so people can get books delivered right
to their door. It doesn't have to cost one penny one penny to leave your
house. They can be delivered directly to you through the mail system.
And if
we look at the commentary of saying that Fire and Emergency Services has a $20
million slush fund seriously, that's really shameful when you're talking about
emergencies that happen. This fund that she's actually talking about is not
within Fire and Emergency Services. It's a contingency fund of $30 million to
deal with things that are contingent. If there are emergencies like forest
fires, then this money would get utilized and it has to go to the House of
Assembly to get passed. It would be tabled the expense so it would be open
and transparent. This is in no way, shape or form any type of slush fund. This
is about being responsible.
I say to
the Member opposite that we have a $1.8 billion deficit, so if there are no
contingencies of which this fund needs to be used, it will not be spent. This is
not about taking every single dollar, as your administration did, every single
bit and then some and many more, and maxed out credit cards and spent and spent
and spent so that we can't afford the things and that we're in this situation
where we have to put 16 cents temporarily on gas because of your mismanagement.
It's a bit rich for anyone on the other side to make any commentary otherwise.
When you
talk about choosing between groceries and heat what the Member opposite was
talking about that it's going to cost $60 because of this measure. If you have a
small car that burns six litres per 100 kilometres, if you drive 100 kilometres,
return, that's about $1, with 16 cents more. That's what you're paying, about
$1 more to drive 100 kilometres.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Do the math.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
You talk about math. It's
amazing. With that kind of math, it's no wonder we have the deficit that has
ballooned and out of control because this is the type of math and spending that
they do
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
It's absolutely outrageous. I
have to say that when you look at what's coming out of the other side, saying
that they're concerned about money right now. They weren't concerned about money
for the last number of years, and now we're in a position where we have raise
revenues so that we can pay the bills and provide services to people in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want
to make commentary about the Member opposite because there are measures, though,
to help offset when you look at the gas tax for business because she talked
about how this is going to impact business. Gasoline that is consumed by
fishing, farming, logging, manufacturing and processing, transportation by boat,
locomotive, the generation of electricity and household fuels can be exempted
from this complete increase in gas tax through the Department of Finance because
of the measures that exist.
So not
everybody will be paying this gas tax. This will not drive the price of
everything out of control as the Member opposite is saying. There are measures
of which we have taken to look at making sure that those who are vulnerable in
society are protected, that there are mitigating impacts such as having an
enhanced Seniors' Benefit, having the Newfoundland and Labrador Income
Supplement where there is $76.4 million that will go back to people,
individuals, families, people with disabilities, seniors that are earning up to
$45,000 where they will be able to see an offset, where they will be able to
have income for any mitigating impact.
If we
look at the situation that we're faced here in the province, this is a measure
that must be taken. The price of fuel is lower now than what it's been in quite
some time. With the addition of the tax, we would be on par with where we were
last year and we've paid more. We've paid more per litre for fuel. That is
something that when fuel was higher it did not, in my view, impact when the
fuel was at 80 cents or 90 cents or a dollar recently, did we see drastic drops
in the price of groceries or other items because fuel was lower? Have we seen
airline tickets drop significantly because jet fuel is lower?
Things
are driven by economics. If we look at the transportation of goods and services,
we're seeing in areas where transportation is increasing. We're finding ways to
be competitive in business where we're looking at new ways to make sure that
we're finding those efficiencies. We work with businesses all the time to make
sure that they are more competitive, that they're looking at opportunities and
that they can find ways to reduce their costs so we can be competitive in
Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that our cost of goods and services that
are produced here.
Another
thing we're working at with the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency is we're
developing a new food security strategy and agricultural growth strategy. We're
seeing where new products are growing here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've
had the ability to plant canola for the very first time. We've been planting
winter wheat, doing soybean. We've been growing grapes here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. So there are a lot of things that we can do as a province if we remain
focused.
We have
to be focused on the renewable sectors that we have such as the agricultural
sector, our fishery, our forestry. Look at where those natural resources we
have tremendous riches here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would say to the
Members opposite that if we could work together on matters rather than make the
commentary and the banter that the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune has put
forward, it's completely inaccurate. The statements and the fear mongering that
she's putting out there around looking at tourism and looking at saying it's
going to cost $60 because of this 16.5 cent increase in the price of gas is
completely wrong. I had to stand up and correct the record.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR (Warr):
I remind all hon. Members
when the Member is making his remarks, I'd ask all hon. Members to respect order
and decorum in the House.
Thank
you.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
definitely need that protection.
Mr.
Chair, I just listened to the minister get up and talk about the 16.5 cents a
litre. He said what the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune had to say was
shameful. I'd say it's shameful if you're not listening to the people in your
district
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
because let me tell you
something, Minister I can state, and I am sure I can say for every one of the
Members over there if you're not listening to the people in your area it is
shameful, because people are talking, people are concerned about this budget.
happened this weekend to be in the district belonging to the Member for
Placentia St. Mary's. I was in her district this weekend. I stopped in talking
to a bunch of gentlemen who were there. They were real good friends of my family
for years. We were talking about the fishery and everything else there. I spoke
to them. It was amazing because you haven't seen them in a while, and the
conversation came up right away about the budget and what effect it's having on
ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
You got
to be listening. That's what people want you to do. People in your districts
want you to listen to them. They've been talking. They've been asking you.
They've been pleading with you to listen to them.
As a
politician I've been here for eight years. I go to different events and I
listen to people. Sometimes I'll agree with them, sometimes I won't agree with
them, but what the minister just got up and said that time was crazy, because
he's not listening to the people. You're not listening to people in your
districts.
There is
not one of you over there who can tell me that you're not getting it from
everyone in your district saying this is a bad budget and telling you the
effects it's having on them. I know it, because everybody out there is talking
about it. They're talking about the effects of this budget. How it's affecting
them. How it's affecting their lives, and it is.
This
16.5 cents a litre has a huge effect on them. It's going to make things more
expensive.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Huge.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Huge. It really is. It's
going to affect the cost of food. It's going to affect what people are going to
be paying in the stores.
Most
people are on a fixed income. Most people have their cheque come in for that
month and they can tell you what they're going to do they can say, listen,
this is X number of dollars I make and here's what I have to do with it. That's
how people live. That's how hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
want to provide for their family, that's how they live. That's how I lived for
years and years. People want to make sure they have a budget put out so they
know exactly where every dollar is going to.
You
charge 16.5 cents a litre and the minister gets up and says it will cost you a
dollar to go somewhere. Well, every time you jump in your car it costs you a
dollar? That adds up over a month that adds up.
Tell
people in rural Newfoundland when they go to the grocery store the extra, extra
expense it's going to cost on their groceries. That adds up, and it's adding up.
All you're doing is adding up.
How
about the impact it has on insurance for their cars.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
You're chirping over there,
you're chirping over there.
I hope
everyone of ye get up and talk about how good this 16.5 cents is then chirp.
You come in this House of Assembly and you talk about things, you get up and
talk about them. Get up and talk and tell the people in your district why 16.5
cents a litre is really good. That's a good thing to do. Tell them why the
expense on their food tell the seniors in your district the extra cost they
have to pay for their food is good. Tell them it's great. You're over there
chirping.
Well, I
tell you, the cost of 16.5 cents, what it has it may be a dollar. It may be a
dollar here or a dollar there on a trip, but that all adds up. It adds up to
people who are working hard; people who are trying to provide for their
families.
You all
just went home for a long weekend. You all went back to your districts and
everything else, just like I did. I listen to the people. I listen to the people
in my district, and this budget is a hard budget.
The
Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune said the backbenchers can make a
difference. You can make a difference. Stand up, stand up. You have to stand up
and say listen, this is hard on the people in my district. This is hard on the
people in Harbour Main. This is hard on the people in Exploits. This is hard on
the people in Stephenville. Talk to them.
There
are changes that can be. There are choices. This budget is all about choices,
and choices you made. The 16.5 cents a litre you're going to charge extra on gas
is all about choices.
Now, the
Minister of Tourism got up that time and talked about, well, I talk to people in
my district. They tell me, listen, this is going to be hard on us, this is going
to be hard. I plan to go myself, I love to visit different parts of
Newfoundland and Labrador. My favourite trip I'll make is to Millertown, up to
my moose hunting trip every year, and that's what people do.
We love
our province. We love Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of people travel all
around the province, but put the extra cost of 16.5 and people will make
decisions. People might make the decision on how far they go, because it is
cost. There are a lot of costs related to it.
You look
at last week when it came out that it's the most expensive place to drive a car.
The most expensive place in all of Canada to drive a car, and it's not only
because of the gas price. It's the extra 15 per cent people are going to pay for
their insurance. It's the extra HST. It's the extra over 300 new fees that were
increased in this budget.
AN HON. MEMBER:
To licence a vehicle.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Licence a vehicle. All that
added up. Nowhere else in Canada and we're telling them that's a good thing.
That's a great thing, yeah. Nowhere else in Canada is it more expensive to
operate a vehicle than here in Newfoundland and Labrador. If the minister wants
to say something that's shameful. Well, that's shameful. That's shameful.
I go
back to the same thing my Members said there. There are choices to be made in
this budget. There are choices we have to make, and the choices you made are
really affecting hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You're not
listening to the people who elected you. You're not listening to what they're
saying.
What
they're telling you is that this budget is too hard. It's too much, too fast.
Most of them realize we're in a financial bind. They realize that. Most of the
people in your districts realize that, but you just can't suck it all out at
once. You just can't take it out all at once on them, and that's what you're
doing.
People
have to look at the expenses they have and look at what it's going to cost them.
After July 1, it's going to be unbelievable. It's a lot of hardship on people
who are working hard, people who want to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Young people who want to build homes, young people who want to stay here, and
they're our future.
The
things we're doing to our seniors. I am going to get up again a couple of times
hopefully and I'll talk about different areas that affect us. You really have to
think about this. You really have to think about what the people in your
districts are saying to you. I ask every one of you to get up over there and
tell us why the people in your district believe that 16.5 cents is a good thing
with no cap on it.
The
minister says it's temporary. Yes, it's temporary. When is it going to be
cancelled? What's the cap? Is there any cap on it? If the price of gas goes up
to a $1.60, is there a cap? Is it $1.30? Is it $1.20? What's the cap?
There is
no plan in place. This was just brought in with absolutely no planning.
Understanding the effect it has on hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
with no plan. You never looked at it and said okay, once the gas gets to $1.20 a
litre then we'll reduce this tax. That's what the plan should have been. There
should have been some kind of a plan put in place. That's what I'd plan.
A lady
asked me what my plan was. I would have planned. If I was going to increase the
gas I would have had a cap on it so that it wouldn't go too high for people.
That would be a plan. That's a plan, but you have no plan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Absolutely no plan in place. That's what we'd plan. That would be a simple thing
to do. That's what your constituents would like you to do. They had hoped that
you'd have a plan so that they wouldn't be with all this extra expense that
you're putting on them, the extra costs.
The
Member says oh, it's only $1 that it's going to cost to go anywhere.
MS. PERRY:
Terrible. It is shameful.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It is shameful because how
about the cost that it is for that business person in small communities that has
to go get all of his fuel, bring it back and run his business. He's got an added
cost. Who do you think is going to pay for the added cost?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Pass it on.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Pass it on is right. Pass it
on to the same person that you're putting 15 per cent on their insurance, 16.5
cents you're doing to the extra gas they're paying. Pass it on to all the
hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because that's exactly what you're
doing. That's what this budget is doing. It's making the hard-working
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for it. They don't mind paying for it. They
don't mind at all. They don't mind.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that his time has expired.
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Chair, I just want to
stand for a few minutes to correct a few things. I know the Member for Fortune
Bay Cape La Hune just made a mistake when she was saying that there was fund
in emergency NL for $20 million. I spoke to her outside after and I explained to
her that there's no such thing as an emergency $20 million fund in emergency NL.
I just wanted to let her know that there's no such fund.
I just
heard the speaker and a few other people speak. There's absolutely no doubt that
this is a budget that no one wishes they had to bring in. Then again, we all
said it and we all said it before that a lot of these measures are temporary,
and a lot of these measures have to be put in place to stabilize the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador, to stabilize the fiscal imbalance in Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Chair.
I hear
the Members opposite saying: Why didn't you do this? I ask the Members opposite:
Why didn't you make decisions five, six or seven years ago that would have
improved the fiscal situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
They
stand up here on a regular basis and say, here is what you should have done. Why
did you spend $30 million down on Parsons Pond to do some drilling, $30 million?
There's a lot of the levy gone there. Why didn't you do your homework on the
$200 million out in Abitibi? There's a lot of your funds there, Mr. Chair. How
about the $11 million down in Roddickton, where they gave $11 million for a
project and they wouldn't even put a wharf there? They had no market and they
spent $11 million. So we're up to $240 million now.
understand it's a tough budget I understand but don't go standing over there
preaching when you're on that side and you spent like drunken sailors. I
apologize to drunken sailors because there's no way in the world they could
spend that much money in that quick a time. At least they spend their own.
understand it's a tough budget, but I can tell you one thing, when we went up in
the district there last Friday and we announced $24 million, I didn't hear
anybody say you shouldn't be spending that. I didn't hear anybody say the
Members opposite, the Member up there for CBS, I didn't see him up there saying,
b'y, you shouldn't have spent any money up there. You shouldn't be spending the
money up there.
I heard
the mayor standing up and saying, yes b'y, this is great. It's a great
improvement. There are going to be great improvements. So you get this
impression that everything is being done. We had a meeting I think it was the
Conception Bay North town council last Wednesday night, myself and the Minister
of Transportation and Works. Do you know what they said? The Northeast Avalon
AN HON. MEMBER:
Joint Council.
MR. JOYCE:
Joint Council. Do you know
what they said? Finally we had a minister to sit down and discuss this. Not only
did we have one, we had two. We have other meetings arranged around that, Mr.
Chair. That's what they said.
Just the
other day, we announced $24 million spread all around the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you hear any complaints and say, oh b'y, that's a
waste of money? Of course you never. Is everything in this budget good? Of
course not, I'll be the first one to say it's not. It's actually not.
The
other thing about it, Mr. Chair, there's a lot more money coming in
infrastructure a lot more money coming. That's how we're going to improve our
towns. When you stand up and you say, oh well, this is bad increasing the gas
tax, yes, it's bad. Can we do anything about it right now? No, we're hoping that
once we get the revenues, we're going to eliminate that. That is part of what
you call a budget.
I hear
the Members opposite and I know the Member was just up saying you hear it in
your district, you hear it, putting us on the spot. How about Bill 29 when you
rammed it through? How about Bill 29 when you all stood up proudly and said you
have to stand up on Bill 29. How many of you over there I will even give up my
time. Tell me how many of ye stood up over there then and listened to your
constituents. Go ahead.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Chair, I'd like to inform
the hon. Member that I had no constituents of mine call me on Bill 29.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Service NL.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Chair, I can tell you one
thing, if he had no constituents calling him on Bill 29, I don't know why they
put closure on it, if it was such a great bill. I don't know why they put
closure on such a great bill. Muskrat Falls was another one. Muskrat Falls
pushed through the House of Assembly. Here we are now putting everything here on
through the House of Assembly, laying it on the table, letting everybody speak.
Any time they had a contentious bill, they rammed in on through.
The
former transportation and works minister I can't get over this one, when he's
talking about Coley's Point school. I just can't get over that one. The Member
I don't even know the name of his district, Mr. Chair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Conception Bay East Bell
Island.
MR. JOYCE:
Conception Bay East Bell
Island.
Mr.
Speaker, there's something I have to tell the residents out in Coley's Point and
out in the surrounding area for the school. There's something I have to tell
them. Before you can start your school and put it out, you have to do a design.
The
Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island was the minister of Transportation
and Works who refused to do the design of the building that was in there for
four years announced for four years. Four years that school was announced. We
stood up in this House and he read it out, for four years. He stands up now and
tries to put the Member here on the spot, when that Member sitting right there
you can stand up now. If I'm saying anything wrong, stand up and say I'm saying
something wrong. That Member didn't even do the design of the building. He
wouldn't do the design and he got the audacity to stand up here now and say:
Where's Coley's Point school?
If he
really feels that it is strong, walk out and tell the residents in the area: I
didn't do the design. We announced it but the Member
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nothing to tender.
MR. JOYCE:
Nothing to tender. So that's
the kind of stuff we are listening to here. We understand it's a bad budget. We
understand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
If they Member for Conception
Bay East Bell Island wants to be the hero and if he wants to turn around and
say to everybody here we were so good and you're so bad, walk out and have a
public meeting. Let him stand up if I'm saying anything wrong, Mr. Chair. Let
him stand.
Let him
go out and explain why they announced it for four years. Glenn Littlejohn stood
up there and he voted for every budget the Coley's Point school wasn't in
every budget, Glenn Littlejohn voted for. Did you hear any of those Members say:
You can't vote for the budget because the Coley's Point school is not there? Did
you hear him? He never did it. Do you know why, Mr. Chair? He didn't have the
guts to do it. Now the Members opposite are saying if you vote against the
budget, you vote against Coley's Point school.
Let me
tell you something. Let the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island go out
and have a public meeting. Let them explain why for four years it was announced
and why, as the minister, he didn't do the design work to get it to tender.
Here's an opportunity here's a great opportunity.
I have
no problem with the budget that we had, Mr. Chair I have no problem standing
up and saying, yeah, there are difficult decisions. I will be the first to admit
it. I have absolutely no problem standing up and saying we had to make difficult
decisions. We had lots of opportunities to do it.
I can
tell you one thing here is the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island
over there laughing now. Why don't you go out and laugh at the people in Coley's
Point. Why don't you go out and tell them how much you're laughing? Why don't
you go out and tell he is over there laughing
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
He is over there laughing at
the people. You know what he's laughing for? Because he knows, Mr. Chair, that
he had the opportunity to do the design.
I can
tell you something else. If you want to talk about wasting money, let's just
talk about some waste of money. There's an extra ferry that they got built down
in Romania an extra ferry down in Romania. Do you know why it's in Romania? Do
you know why they are down there trying to charge us docking fees? Because this
Member, Transportation and Works, ordered a new ferry, got a new ferry built but
didn't build the dock enough so he could dock the boat.
They are
down there now trying to charge us $50,000 a month for docking fees because this
Member, the same one who wouldn't do Coley Point school, the same one who wanted
the ferry for Bell Island, the same one who didn't have the foresight to go and
say we have to put a dock in here so this ferry can dock it's down in Romania.
They are trying to charge the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador $50,000 a
month for docking fees because that government never had things prepared.
Now if
we had $50,000 a month, Mr. Chair, every month, three or four libraries open.
Thirty million dollars for Parsons Pond when you wanted to be in the oil
business, you wanted to become Jed Clampett, $30 million; you just think about
how many infrastructure projects we could have had here, how many things that we
didn't have to do.
Talk
about the $200 million for Abitibi, just think about that. Just think about the
funds we could have had, Mr. Chair, yet now we are being vilified because we
have a correct the mistakes of the past. We are being vilified.
Mr.
Chair, when you want to look at some of the things of the past, they say oh, we
can't talk about the past. Let's not talk about the past. Mr. Chair, let's talk
about the future. Let's talk about $50,000 a month of ferries being docked in
Romania because they didn't do their work.
They
have the audacity that same minister is over there laughing at the people from
Coley's Point about not doing the design. Let him go over and meet the people in
Coley's Point. See if he has the guts to go over and say I was the minister of
Transportation and Works and I wouldn't do the design work. We announced it, but
I wouldn't do the design work. Let's just see it. I'll even arrange the meeting.
Mr. Chair. Guess what? We know it's a bad budget. We know it's a tough budget.
We wish we did not have to make
CHAIR:
I would remind the hon.
Member
MR. JOYCE:
By leave?
CHAIR:
his time is expired.
MR. JOYCE:
Time's up, okay.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
I'm very happy to stand and
to speak to this bill.
The
previous speaker before me, the Member for Humber Bay of Islands, said that
really what we need to do is stabilize the economy. What I would say, Mr. Chair,
in fact what that this budget does is destabilize the economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
We do not just have a revenue
problem, which was started by the former administration, by the tax cuts we saw
over the years, but we also have an employment crisis. What this government has
done is this government is cutting jobs. They know for sure that they are
cutting 650 jobs in the public service, and we know that for every job cut in
the public service that has an unintended consequence but very concrete
consequence of loss of jobs in the private sector as well.
But
there are also jobs being lost through attrition. We're going to see the
roll-out of a number of other job cuts, and then this government again it's
doing their one-two punch and we know that they are looking at job cuts come
September. So the effect that has had is further destabilizing the economy.
People are sitting on their wallets, understandably so. People are probably
cancelling summer vacations because they don't know if they will have a job
after the next mini-budget. These are the realities. I would think that the
Government Renewal Initiative has measures that they are employing, and I would
call them grim. This is the grim news of a Government Renewal Initiative in
terms of the effects on the province.
So I
again posit that the minister is wrong. This is not stabilizing the economy, but
in fact this budget is destabilizing the economy. The effect of job losses is
unemployment. The effect of job losses is not stabilization; it's further
unemployment. Already we have the highest unemployment in the country, and we
are looking at further increases in unemployment again, total destabilization
of the economy. Trying to balance the books is not about stabilizing the
economy.
I would
like to say, also, Mr. Chair, that perhaps those most affected by these job
losses, which will destabilize our economy, are the last ones in. It's our
youth, our young people, many of them who are well educated, many of them who
got their education with in mind serving the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We lost
a number of them when the Conservatives were in power, when they had their steep
job cuts in 2013. We lost people with Ph.Ds. who specifically went to school so
that they could work in a public service to serve the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. What a noble thing. They could have gone off to other provinces and
made more money, but no, they wanted to be here to work in the public service
here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again,
as we know, the Status of Women Councils, women centres all over the province
have a day of action today, and there will be more activities in the next few
days following. They are looking at what would happen if women centres close
down, what would happen if women went on a general strike. Be