Reform the Pensions, But Not for Us

Reform the Pensions, But Not for Us

By: Ryan Young

Is it any wonder there is so much cynicism directed at politicians in this province? While or economy crashes and burns, the big (but short) topic of debate in the House of Assembly this week was pension reform. Last month the Members Compensation Review Committee handed down its recommendations on changes to the provincial MHA pension plan, calling for pensions to no longer be indexed to inflation and that MHA’s not be able to draw from the plan until age 60 instead of the current 55. These recommendations were accepted by the House of Assembly Management Commission, with one very notable change. The review committee also recommended that the new pension rules be retroactive to include MHA’s elected in 2015, but the commission decided not to accept that recommendation, ensuring that all current members would be included in the older, more lucrative plan.

The management commission voted 3-1 to grandfather 2015 MHA’s into what is commonly being referred to in the media and online as “The Gold-Plated Pension Plan.” Liberal Andrew Parsons and PC’s Paul Davis and Keith Hutchings voted in favor while NDP MHA Lorraine Michael was the lone voice of dissent. Siobhan Coady and Mark Browne are also members of the commission but they abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest since they would be directly affected by the vote.

Andrew Parsons defended the decision by saying that it was unfair to MHA’s who have made financial plans based on the previous arrangement. That is looking to be a tough sell for the people of the province who are being taxed to death and cut to bare bones, while our MHA’s will now spend upwards of $3.6 Million to keep their golden trough full. Many might argue that it is unfair that they have to live with a government who abandoned their entire election platform as soon as they were elected in favor of the bad accounting exercise that has come to be known as Budget 2016.

To be fair, there were only a small number of MHA’s that were able to vote on the matter, and I would hope that we would have seen a few more no votes if it had been a full vote of the house. Strangely though the issue seems to have fallen completely off the table in the House of Assembly as nobody in the opposition wants to stand up and make an issue out of something that will take bread off their table.

I don’t blame them. Of course you would want to protect something that you feel you are entitled to after many years of service. I will save the entitlement conversation for another blog, but there is little doubt that such a culture exists within Confederation Building. But it is hard to blame the MHA's for not wanting to speak up against their own retirement plans. They must know how bad it looks though. I think the whole island portion of the province shifted just a bit with the collective eyerolls of 500 000 people when the news broke that the government wanted to exclude themselves from this much-needed pension reform. The old stereotype of politicians only being in it for themselves is certainly hard to break when these types of decisions are made and defended at the same time as we have ministers defending closing libraries or cutting snow clearing for less money than the grandfathered pensions will cost.

It is unfortunate that the commission decided to go this route. Despite our collective anger at government in general, I like to believe that most the people sitting in the people’s house really did get involved because they wanted a to make a difference. They probably had no idea what it meant to be a backbencher who would be forced to watch as cabinet made decisions without their input, that have caused them to be hounded and their faces plastered on poles all over the country and even in the states. The decision to grandfather the pensions may benefit them financially, but it certainly wont earn them any points with the people who must re-elect the 20 rookie MHA’s who will need to win back their seat to be able to qualify for any pension at all.

I don’t begrudge our elected officials their salary or a fair pension. A good MHA works very hard, both in the legislature and in their district. If they do the job well, they deserve to be paid well. If we want to make the job of an MHA a desirable one to attract new blood, it must include a respectful salary. For someone like me, $95 000 a year is much more than a respectful salary, but when you look at the work that a good MHA does, you can make an argument that they deserve it. On the other hand, when you have an MHA who does not do such a good job, or a government that does not respect or respond to the people, it is easy to see why people would think that it is all about the money. The same goes for pensions. Certainly, elected officials should have a good pension plan, but most people would argue that they should pay their fair share.

At the end of the day $3.6 Million is a drop in the bucket and we might very likely a see several rookie MHA’s fail to make the cut next time around, making that number potentially much smaller. But as it so often is when we talk about government, it is all about perception. You can’t ask the people to roll up their sleeves and give you the very sweat off their backs in the name of restoring our fiscal footing, while at the same time voting to exclude yourself from pension recommendations that you all agree are a good idea, but just not for you. I have worked very hard to try to get people to get involved and take notice of what is going on in our political landscape but what am I supposed to say to someone who looks at this story and says; “See, they are all just in it for themselves.” If you don’t want people to think like that, the solution is simple: don’t act like that.

The bottom line is this: People will always grumble about MHA salaries and pensions, for the most part they will live with it and not cause much fuss. But you can’t tell them that you can’t afford to keep their libraries open, or clear the roads at night, or cover their kid’s medication, if you are going to turn around and vote to skip out on reforms that the province desperately needs to save money. If you want us to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work, then you need to lead by example. Voting to keep your lopsided pension plan after handing down a budget like we had last spring, that might just get you a revolution.

Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

By: Ryan Young

Most people don’t bother to watch the proceedings of the House of Assembly. They get highlights of the best exchanges during question period on the news. I envy these people, as they get to bypass the unavoidable rises in blood pressure and eye rolls that come from watching the spectacle on a daily basis.

It was our second premier, Frank Moores, that brought question period into our House of Assembly after his election in 1972. The idea was to bring more openness and transparency into the legislature. Although it did accomplish that goal to some extent, Moores always considered question period a colossal waste of time and avoided it whenever he could.

The idea behind question period is a good one. Opening the government up to questions about legislative issues seems like a no-brainier. It would be except for one thing, there is nothing in the legislation that requires a member to answer a question directly and/or truthfully. In fact, it is considered un-parliamentary to call another member a liar in the House of Assembly, or to question the truthfulness of their answers. Therefore, we often have opposition parties asking the same questions, over and over, but in a slightly different way.

To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, let me quote a couple of exchanges from the first day of the current sitting of the house. Let’s start with an exchange between Opposition House Leader Keith Hutchings and Finance Minister Cathy Bennett.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is receiving $10 billion in equalization while forecasting a $2 billion surplus. Nova Scotia is getting $1.7 billion; yet, Newfoundland is running a deficit and not seeing a penny in equalization.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Have you made any effort to advocate for equalization from the federal government for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to stand in this House of Assembly and speak to the incredible work that our Premier and our colleagues on this side of the House of Assembly have been doing with our federal counterparts – successfully, I might add – to help lighten the burden of the financial situation that we're faced with in our province. 

Recently, there was an announcement of a $2.9 billion enhanced federal loan guarantee which will help reduce the costs associated with the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, we've seen actions that are very broad, including things like removing the tariffs from the boats that were purchased by the former administration without even considering the tariffs on those boats. 

We have been working very hard with our officials and colleagues in Ottawa and we will continue to do that. We will continue to bring back results. 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't indicate if she was advocating on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador. All that she referenced in regard to funding from the federal government, we certainly applaud that, but there's a federal program under equalization that we should have access to. 

In her fiscal update, the minister talked – it wasn't a supplementary budget, it was an update. The minister herself acknowledged the unfairness of the current equalization program. 

So, I ask her again: Why are you not talking to the federal government about a fair share of equalization for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, not only are we advocating, but we're getting results. I just listed a large number of them, including a $2.9 billion loan guarantee that this government has been able to bring to fruition for the people of the province against the Muskrat Falls Project which is a huge success. 

When it comes to equalization, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Member opposite that the equalization formula as it is implemented today was negotiated and agreed to by the former administration. 

As you can see, Mr. Hutchings asked very direct questions to the minister, but the minister responded in a round-about way that did not even remotely resemble an answer to the questions that he asked. Certainly, the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee is an important issue to discuss in the house, but Mr. Hutchings was asking direct questions about equalization. Unfortunately, this is not a rare incident. In fact, if you look through Hansard for any given day, you will be hard pressed to find an example of a government member directly answering a question from the opposition members.

Another example from question period on the second day of sitting came during an exchange between Opposition critic, David Brazil, and Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Dale Kirby.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I ask the Minister of Education: What did the review of the library system cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Assembly will remember, last January all agencies, boards, commissions and departments of government were requested to try and find a certain amount of savings over a number of years. The provincial libraries board, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, came up with a plan. In fact, they exceeded the goal, some might argue, in terms of finding savings.

There were five proposals that were worked on. There was one that was accepted. That was incorporated into the budget. Following that, there was significant amount of public feedback about the need to have further consultation with the public about those decisions and also there was an interest in having a consultant review the system.

So that's what we did. If I have additional time, I'll continue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't answer, so I'll answer it for him. It was $187,000 for the contract, but that didn't include travel, it didn't include taxes, associated fees, stakeholder agreements and third-party surveys.

So can the minister tell me – I'm assuming a quarter of a million dollars to this point – exactly what it cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to have consultations around libraries after you determined that you were going to cut 54 of those in this province? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development. 

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I appreciate the opportunity to continue. I don't know why the Member is asking me questions if he thinks he already knows the answer to them. 

After we listened to what people had to say, the feedback that they had provided, we used the consultant that was basically the agency of record to go out and do some work. It was a major undertaking that was done. There were 10 consultations that were held around the province; two in St. John's. Those concluded on November 8. 

There was a significant amount of opportunity for people to provide feedback. There was also an online form that people could provide feedback through. There was also a survey that people could provide feedback to. All that feedback is now going to be included into a final report, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we see a minister twice asked a direct question, and both times the minister talked around the issue without actually answering the question. Mr. Brazil asked for an exact cost to taxpayers for library consultations and Kirby just plain ignored the question and responded in the usual round-about manner. He didn’t answer the question. How can this be considered to be providing the people with an open and transparent account of governments activities? Is it any wonder that Moores called it a waste of time? Is it any wonder that Opposition Leader, Paul Davis asked almost 40 questions about Labrador hydro  developments in 3 days last week, trying to get a clear answer to his questions? I’m not saying that the opposition does not put forth some dumb questions from time to time, but it seems that you can ask until your face turns blue, but nobody is going to give an answer.

So, what can we do to make it better? We need to find a way to hold members of government accountable to the spirit of openness and transparency that question period was supposed to provide. I am not exactly sure what it would look like, but there must be a way to make our elected officials answer a damn question. It is a sad state of affairs that we even have to consider legislature to force politicians to answer questions, especially when they run their election campaigns on openness and transparency. It should be the foremost thing on the minds of every elected member. Unfortunately, as you can see from the examples above, this is not the case.

If our elected officials are not willing to be open and honest with us, then maybe we do need legislation to force them. People have grown tired of endless government spin and they want real answers for a change. The Liberals are not alone; this has been going on ever since Moores brought in Question Period more than 40 years ago. The difference is that people are more informed nowadays, and they don’t have to rely on the word of the premier or one of his ministers. They can find the information for themselves and bring it to the public eye. This is a very important change that politicians have not seemed to figure out yet, but they will learn the hard way. The people have made it clear that they are tired of business as usual, and as they say; the truth will always come out in the end.

Jerry Dean and the Out of Touch Liberals

Jerry Dean and the Out of Touch Liberals

By: Ryan Young

“Let’s talk about blame.” That’s what Exploits MHA Jerry Dean said during his statement last night at the late sitting of the House of Assembly. After proceeding to blame everyone from Joey Smallwood to Brian Peckford to Clyde Wells to Danny Williams, Dean delivered the jaw dropping bombshell that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are to blame for this budget. To quote Jerry Dean directly: “Everybody here tonight and everybody throughout this province, it’s time for all of us to take the blame.” He went on to say “we collectively, the current population and previous populations are to blame.”

Now granted, politicians say plenty of stupid things, it is kind of their forte, but the level of arrogance and contempt in Mr. Dean’s statement is absolutely unacceptable. How dare an elected member of the people’s house stand up and blame those same people for the mess that has been created. Does he not understand why people are rising up and taking action all around the province? If there is any blame to be taken by the people it is that we did not start standing up against this type of arrogance and contempt sooner. But here we are, better late than never. Mr. Dean can stand up in the house and blame the people all he wants because the tables have turned and the people are no longer willing to be the victims. His time in government will be as short lived as the amount of thought that went into the preparation of his statement. Just as fast as the red tide rose, it is now receding and the Liberals should be reminded that we have long political memories. That is the reason they were stuck in opposition for twelve long years. By the time the dust settles next time, they will be lucky not to be the third party or worse.

If Jerry and his blame game tirade was an isolated incident, then maybe we could move past it and write it off as the frustrations of one weak MHA who is cracking under the pressure. Sadly, however, this is not the case. Every day the Liberals step up to the microphone and add more ammo to the cause due to their utter inability to connect with the common folk. Take Cathy Bennett and her comments about the junk food tax. Her excuse was that nobody else in Canada was doing it and that it would be too complicated to administer. What happened to all of that outside the box thinking the Liberals promised us during the election campaign? By saying we can’t try it because nobody else has tried it is the ultimate cop out. We need more funding for health care and here is a great idea of how to get it, but Minister Bennett refuses to even entertain the idea. We already have specialized taxation like the deposit we pay on bottles. The implementation of that program went smoothly, and it soon started adding millions of dollars in revenues for the province. Does it have anything to do with the fact that Minister Bennett makes her money from the very products that will be taxed? Some people seem to think so. It is unlikely, however, that people would eat less junk if it was taxed. It would just be a straight up money grab, which is why I find it very hard to understand why we don’t give it a whirl in our time of need.

Oh and then there is Education Minister Dale Kirby telling us that cutting teachers and combining classrooms will have no effect on outcomes or that closing more than half of our libraries will help to improve literacy rates in the province.  His latest attempt at defending Liberal incompetence was shaming parents for setting a bad example to their children by protesting. Yes, we are talking about the same former protester Dale Kirby, who dedicated most of his adult his life to standing up for education and literacy, until he was given the opportunity to actually do something about it and make real change. I guess Mr. Kirby would rather us teach our children that it is better to get through life by living a lie and saying what you need to say to get where you want to be, than to stand up for what is right, even when it means making real tough choices. For a bunch that talk about “tough choices” like it is the ultimate buzzword, they don’t seem to have any real grasp on what the term actually means.

Siobhan Coady says that the people just don’t understand the budget, and Neil King feels that it is not fair that he has to lower himself to listening to the criticism of his constituents. In each and every district, people are asking their MHAs for changes to this budget and they are being treated with pure political platitudes and disdain. They seem to have the idea that the people just don’t know what is good for them. The arrogance they are showing is not just to outsiders though. It is also being directed at the people who supported them and helped them get elected. These are the people who organized events and got people out to them.  These are the ones who made phone calls and drove voters to the polls. These are the people that the Liberals need to keep close and instead they are treating them like lowly peasants and dismissing their concerns out of hand. To see how much tensions are really rising within the party, just look at the dissension in Bay of Islands where the president of the district association resigned in disgust. From everything I have heard from long-time Liberal supporters, they are disappointed and angry with the communication thus far from government. Like the rest of us they want to be taken seriously and have their concerns heard. Instead their MHAs are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear.

The continued lack of communication and outright arrogance on display from this government is adding fuel to the fire and I fear that if we have to hear any other announcements such as wealthy judges getting a pay raise that the anger will boil over into something negative. Just yesterday, in two separate incidents in the House of Assembly, visitors to the gallery were unable to hold back their disgust and spoke out in opposition to the blatant disrespect shown by our government. I was able to speak with one of the visitors, Adam Pitcher, who spoke out and left the gallery yesterday, to try and report the true story of the events as they happened since the mainstream media reports seem to have differed in their versions of what actually happened.

Mr. Pitcher said:

On 10 May, around 2pm in the afternoon session, MHA Lorraine Michael was presenting a petition about library closures, and was talking about how the government is attacking residents of the province with this budget. Members of the Liberal party either walked away or were milling about on their phones and iPads, and having conversations with each other. Cathy Bennett and the Speaker, Tom Osborne, were having their own conversation. Nobody was listening to the speaking MHA at all. This is standard behavior, though it is rarely, if ever, shown on the public television feed. You can hear it though.


One visitor in the gallery, after the MHA finished speaking, spoke up and told the Liberal MHAs that they “should be listening,”, and that they’re being paid over $90,000 and “should be listening to her.”


The Speaker of the House advised, “Visitors to the gallery are welcome to observe the proceedings of the House, ah, but they are not to-”


“They should be listening!” called the visitor again.


“Visitors to the gallery are permitted to observe the proceedings of the House, but are not to demonstrate or to participate in the proceedings on the floor,” said the Speaker. “I ask visitors to the gallery to be respectful of the proceedings in the House of Assembly.”


“Do you think their behavior is respectful?” I called out.


“These are petitions that we are signing,” said the first visitor.


“These people are trying to destroy our province and they’re not even listening,” I said.


“Over $90,000 is a waste of our money, for each of you,” the first visitor finally called out.


“I would ask that the visitors in the gallery that are disrupting the proceedings to leave,” replied the Speaker.


At this point the first visitor was on his way out, and I was leaving behind him when a security guard put his hand on my shoulder, when I unexpectedly said more loudly than I wish I had, “This is f***ing bullshit anyway.” I also called out “shame” as I was leaving.


I’m fully aware of the potential negative public reaction to profanity. It was certainly never my intention to say anything at all in the House that day, and I certainly do not condone the use of profanity in protest - however I do not apologize for what was said. Perhaps, as one person said, there has never been a more appropriate use for the word “bullshit.” 

If this government was in tune with the people who elected them, they would realize that the anti-government movement that has been sparked by this budget is growing and not fizzling out as many predicted. With members like Dale Kirby and Jerry Dean continuing to fan the flames with outrageous comments and statements, the mood of the people continues to swing against them. They may feel comfortable in their four year majority mandate, but perhaps while they are ignoring petitions in question period, they can get on the line with Kathy Dunderdale and ask her how quickly things can fall apart. If they continue to treat the people like children acting out of turn, they may quickly find that the will of the people united is stronger than electoral law. If any of these members, especially backbenchers with no pension, want to have some real job security in their future, they might want to think about listening to some of what their constituents have to say. The people have had their fill of arrogance and they are not going to stand idle and watch this new government act exactly like the old government after waiting so long for change. They should open the windows at Confederation Building for the next rally. Not only will they be able to better hear what the people are saying, but they may catch that new smell that is in the air in Newfoundland and Labrador, the smell of change.

Notes from the Throne: Analysis of Day 1 in the House of Assembly

Notes from the Throne: Analysis of Day 1 in the House of Assembly

By: Ryan Young

Amid all of the pompous charm and largesse on display at Confederation building yesterday, a large number of Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans turned out to hear the maiden speech from the throne from our new premier, Dwight Ball. I am sure some of the more hyper-partisan left the house with equally strong feelings of jubilance and despair, but for the few of us in the gallery with an open mind about what we might learn about the direction our province will be taking in the immediate future, we were left with feelings of confusion and lingering uncertainty. I am no stranger to the jedi-like ability of politicians to talk at length without actually saying anything of substance, and Premier Ball’s first real address to the province confirms that he ranks very high up on the list of premiers with that ability.

Flanked by the justices of the Supreme Court, Lieutenant Governor Frank Fagan began the speech prepared by Premier Ball by marking 2016 as the 100^th anniversary of the battle of Beaumont Hamel and acknowledging March 8 as International Women’s Day. The niceties didn’t last long, however, and he quickly got down to business with the promise of a “new approach” promising better management, long-term planning, and an open government. None of this was exactly new information, as Fagan reiterated the common themes we have heard from Mr. Ball, including:

• Restore Openness, Transparency and Accountability;

• Build a Stronger, Smarter Economy;

• Improve Health and Healthcare;

• Support Safe and Sustainable Communities; and

• Invest in Our Future Through Education.
  

As the first testament to the new open and transparent approach, the government will introduce legislation to establish an Independent Appointments Commission and to require a merit-based process for various appointments. The purpose of the act will be to remove politics from government appointments and promises a non-partisan approach to screening and approving appointments.

The Lieutenant Governor soon moved on to address the dire fiscal situation of the province, quoting the premier’s insistence that “addressing the serious fiscal reality is my government’s top priority.” Citing the drop in oil prices and a ballooning debt, the speech outlined the major initiatives the government will implement including:

• Identify a combination of measures to increase revenues and reduce expenditures;
• Eliminate waste and identify opportunities to do things better and more efficiently;
• Modernize the role of government in the provision of public services; and
• Establish multi-year fiscal targets.

 Perhaps the most ominous moment of the speech came next with the statement. “The choices ahead of us will not be easy; everyone will have to accept some level of sacrifice in the months and years ahead if we are to provide critical services, while restoring accountability and stability to government finances.” What exactly that means is anybody’s guess. Premier Ball and his team are certainly holding those cards close to their collective chests, despite all of the talk about openness and transparency.

There was mention of infrastructure improvements and innovation development, including investing in our tourism industry and the fishery: “Government will support harvesting, processing, marketing, and aquaculture initiatives in order to diversify and increase the overall viability and competitiveness of the Newfoundland and Labrador seafood industry. We will work closely with the seafood industry to market local seafood internationally, providing market research and intelligence, and contributing to eco-certification initiatives. We have reconvened the All-Party Committee on Northern Shrimp Allocations to present a united provincial voice on this important matter. My Government understands that the continued application of the federal “Last In, First Out” policy, in the face of a declining shrimp resource, will have major negative impacts on people and communities throughout our province. My Government is planning for the return of the cod fishery. We will form a Fisheries Advisory Council that will create a strategic action plan on cod revitalization. In collaboration with communities, industry and the Federal Government, this plan will focus on environmental sustainability, harvesting, processing innovation and marketing.”

It all sounds very good, but again, there is no clear plan to how the premier expects to achieve these goals. In fact it was only a short time ago that premier Ball announced that his government was considering cutting provincial funding for fisheries research after a meeting with federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Hunter Tootoo. It makes us regular joe public types wonder just what vision this government really has for the fishery. Talks about advisory councils are all well and good but what our fishery needs right now is swift and decisive action, not more pandering and empty words.

Fagan continued on with promises of a Serious Incident Response Team in reaction to calls for a civilian-led organization to investigate serious investigations involving police, as well as a full review of the operational and organizational requirements of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. He also read plans for education and early childhood development reviews and more support for LGBTQ community.

A few other social issues such as poverty, mental health and addictions, and housing received basic lip service in the speech, but there were no real commitments given to facilitate change on any of these important issues. As has been so often the case for Premier Ball, the speech language was heavy on words but light on substance.

Mr. Fagan finished the inaugural Throne Speech from Premier Ball by saying; “The choices ahead will not be easy, but we will always make them based on evidence, with a fundamental belief in openness and transparency. All Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans will be a part of the solutions, as we build that stronger tomorrow. The unprecedented fiscal situation we find ourselves in requires an unprecedented response. And Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans will rise to the challenge. Together, we will overcome our immediate challenges, and build a solid foundation for a sustainable future.”

With the speech out of the way, the Supreme Court justices were ushered out of the house and new speaker Tom Osbourne brought to order the first sitting of the House of Assembly under the new Liberal government. Opposition leader Paul Davis wasted no time attacking the new premier, citing Dwight Ball’s lack of a plan as the “biggest issue facing the people of the province.” NDP House Leader Lorraine Michael also gave a fiery and impassioned speech, saying that the “ordinary residents of Newfoundland and Labrador didn’t create the mess we’re in, and they should not be forced to pay for the cleanup.” Both opposition speeches were very good and on-point, but you can bet that it won’t be long before we see them resorting to the familiar he said-she said shouting across the floor of the house.

So what can we lowly peasants take away from the 2016 Throne Speech? The term much ado about nothing comes to mind as we didn’t actually find out any new indications of the methods that Premier Ball and his team will be implementing to steer us back down the right path to future prosperity. The premier promised that a budget will be delivered in a month beginning with the letter “A” or the letter “M”, which I am sure, was his best attempt at a joke. I guess we will have to wait until then to see if this new open and transparent government will finally let us in on the plan or if we will have to wait another anxious year.