PDF Version

June 26, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 10

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 5.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

speaking to the motion, and delighted to be standing today to highlight three

individuals who we hope will receive unanimous assent by this Legislature to be

appointed to the IAC. We're also looking to appoint a chair to the IAC. At the

same time, we're thanking three commissioners that are leaving the IAC, who made

the decision to retire. These three commissioners, Mr. Speaker, agreed to stay

on while they looked for replacements; a bit of different situation where they,

themselves, look for their own replacements, but under the IAC Act they set out

to find replacements for themselves and did so.

In 2016,

the Independent Appointments Commission

Act was our inaugural legislation. It now makes this province the most open

and accessible appointments process for agencies, boards and commissions in the

country. The IAC is independent. It's non-partisan. It is a merit-based process.

In 2017,

we made changes to the IAC Act to expand the roster of commissioners from a

maximum of five, to a minimum of five and maximum of seven. This was at the

request of the chair, Mr. Clyde Wells, who said that the amount of time these

volunteers commit to the IAC process was, in fact, very demanding, and he made

the recommendation to expand it to seven so that they would have a quorum with a

minimum of three and be able to conduct searches for qualified individuals with

two committees as opposed to one.

We made

two new appointments: Mr. Earl Ludlow and Ms. Cathy Duke. Mr. Speaker, I had a

discussion with Mr. Clyde Wells who was a former premier, as most people in this

Legislature would know, and the current chair of the IAC, regarding the fact

that the three-year terms of the inaugural group of the commissioners had come

to an end. Mr. Wells advised me that two of the commissioners were open to

continuing on the Commission if we would consider reappointing them, but three

of the commissioners had made the decision to retire.

We want

to thank Mr. Clyde Wells for his dedication and service to the IAC, as well as

Ms. Shannie Duff, former Mayor of the City of St. John's and Ms. Zita Cobb, a

well-known and successful business person who we obviously know owns the Fogo

Island Inn, Mr. Speaker.

These

three individuals have been extremely dedicated. In fact, all five of the

initial appointments were extremely dedicated to the process of looking for

qualified individuals under the merit-based process. I believe their efforts

have been crucial in getting this new Commission off the ground, in determining

how the Commission would work and in providing names to government, as they've

done with the three individuals we're about to appoint or, hopefully, will

appoint today.

Their

dedication to the IAC, Mr. Speaker, is unquestioned as proven by the fact that

Mr. Wells, Ms. Cobb and Ms. Duff all agreed to accept reappointment in March of

this year on an interim basis while they undertook the recruitment for their

replacements.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask all Members here today to thank these outgoing members

for the extremely dedicated work that they've performed.

As I've

indicated at the start of this, there are two orders of business, the

recommendation with Mr. Earl Ludlow, who the House appointed unanimously this

part March to act as chair, the new chair of the IAC.

Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Ludlow recently retired from his role as executive vice-president,

Eastern Canadian and Caribbean Operations and operational advisor to the

president and CEO of Fortis Inc. His career with Fortis spanned nearly 40 years.

Mr. Ludlow has an extensive career as a community volunteer. He served two terms

on Memorial University's Board of Regents and two terms as the honourary

lieutenant colonel of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, First Battalion.

In 2018,

through a recommendation of the IAC, Mr. Ludlow was appointed to The Rooms board

as a director. He is a member of the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists

Newfoundland and Labrador and a member of the Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador. He has been inducted into the Atlantic provinces' CEO Business Hall of

Fame by the Atlantic Business Magazine ,

was designated as Humanitarian of the Year by the Canadian Red Cross in 2010 and

is a fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering. Mr. Ludlow earned a Bachelor

of Engineering, electrical, in 1980, and a Master of Business Administration

from Memorial University in 1994. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ludlow is who we are

recommending as chair of the IAC.

The

second order of business is the recommendation of three candidates for the

Commission. The recruitment of potential new commissioners was done by the IAC

through the merit-based approach, and today we're recommending three of those

candidates to join the ranks of the IAC. I'd like to provide the details on each

of these three to all Members of the House of Assembly, and indeed anybody who

may be watching the broadcast, so that all Members will be clear that we're

recommending very highly qualified individuals.

For

several years, we've received feedback from the public that they'd like to see a

greater Indigenous representation on the province's agencies, boards and

commissions. The IAC worked diligently to recruit individuals from the

Indigenous communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that Mr. Gerald

Anderson will bring significant experience to continuing with these efforts.

Mr.

Anderson has over 30 years of experience working with the Marine Institute, most

recently as director of Development and Engagement. Throughout his career with

the Marine Institute, Mr. Anderson was designated lead for all work with

Indigenous stakeholders in regions across Canada. In his role, he worked with

Indigenous groups in Nunavut, Nunavik, Northern Ontario, British Columbia, Nova

Scotia, PEI and the Northwest Territories.

From

2016 to 2018, Mr. Anderson was appointed as vice-president, Indigenous, with

University of the Arctic, or UArctic, a network of universities with 180 members

worldwide, including Memorial University. In this position, Mr. Anderson was

responsible for ensuring Indigenous inclusion in all activates undertaken by

UArctic.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe that Mr. Anderson is significantly qualified for the role of

commissioner with the IAC and his career experience adds an additional area of

expertise.

Our

second proposed commissioner is Ms. Peggy Bartlett, a candidate from Central

Newfoundland. Ms. Bartlett is a successful entrepreneur, has over 22 years as a

successful owner-operator of five McDonald's restaurants in Central, with stores

in Grand Falls-Windsor, Lewisporte and Gander. Prior to this, she spent 15 years

as a community health nurse with the Janeway hospital.

recent years, Ms. Bartlett has served as town councillor with the Town of Grand

Falls-Windsor. She has significant volunteer and board experience including

current membership on the board of the Gander International Airport Authority,

the Grand Falls-Windsor Heritage Society and the provincial government's

Innovation and Business Investment Corporation, to name a few.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, we are recommending Mr. Ed Roberts to be the third new

commissioner. Mr. Roberts is well-known to most Members of his hon. House. He

has over 25 years of public service experience including 23 years as an elected

member of this House, representing the Districts of White Bay North and Lake

Melville.

During

his time in government, Mr. Roberts held several Cabinet portfolios including

minister of Public Welfare, minister of Health, minister of Justice and Attorney

General.

Mr.

Roberts retired from politics in 1996, and from 2002 to 2008 he served as the

province's Lieutenant-Governor. In 2009, he was made a member of the Order of

Canada. Mr. Roberts is a lawyer by trade. He was called to the bar in

Newfoundland and Labrador in 1965.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe that all Members will agree that these three candidates are

more than qualified for the roles they will undertake.

I look

forward to the continued successes of the Independent Appointments Commission as

they ensure positions that are filled with our agencies, boards and commissions

are filled through the merit-based process by qualified candidates.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to stand here today and talk about the appointments of the new

members of the Independent Appointments Commission, but, particularly, to thank

the outgoing members who have been members from its inception here and who've

done a great job to ensure that the people who are put in positions,

particularly in agencies and boards in Newfoundland and Labrador, are the best

people to be able serve in those particular roles.

I do

want to thank, on behalf of the Official Opposition, Mr. Wells, Ms. Cobb and Ms.

Duff. I've had the opportunity over my career to have worked with all three in

different capacities and found them to be extremely professional, extremely

dedicated, but extremely committed to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know

every time they sat in any meeting and had a discussion about anything relevant

to improving Newfoundland and Labrador their hearts were in it, but no doubt

they wanted to do the best job. I know they did the same when they were looking

at the appointments for the Commission itself; indeed, we've seen the fruits of

their labour. We have some great people who are leading some of our great

organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador doing some very important work to

ensure the quality of life for people here is improved.

I also

want to thank the new members, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Bartlett for

putting their names forward. There's a commitment to make this work. It's a

commitment to be part of any board. It's a commitment to put yourself out there

to assess the value of other individuals when it comes to whether or not they're

the best individual to put forward on a particular board or agency. It's a hard

job because you've got to make some real decisions, but it's a rewarding job

because at the end of the day you know you had an input into doing something

that benefits the general population in a positive way.

So, I

don't want to belabour the whole conversation here, but I do want to emphasize

the fact that we've got a working system here now that if used exactly the way

that it was intended to, we will have the most efficient ability to operate our

boards and agencies and doing appointments in Newfoundland and Labrador to

ensure the best people are at the helms of those organizations or a part of the

decision-making process to ensure the dollars that are spent, the programs that

are implemented and the outcomes are to the best benefit of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll end by congratulating those new members and thanking them for

putting their name forward, but, particularly, a sincere thank you to the

outgoing three members for their dedication, their commitment to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to the motion?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm only

going to take a second just to say that I will support the motion. Certainly, I

know Mr. Roberts and his accomplishments. To be honest with you, I don't know

the other two individuals but I put faith in the members of the IAC who have

gone through the recruiting process and have given it the green light from their

perspective and I will trust their judgment on it. I'm sure these are all

qualified people and so I will be supporting it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

would like to support this bill. I know several of these individuals personally,

and I think they are stellar candidates and they will do an exceptional job.

This is

a very important role. It is a very important thing to be able to have a

non-partisan entity oversee the appointment of individuals who are in our

agencies, boards and commissions. These are non-partisan roles, and it's

absolutely vital to ensure that those roles be kept impeccable.

It would

be wonderful to see the use of the Independent Appointments Commission for all

appointments of senior executives within all agencies, boards and commissions.

In particular, we'd like to see something like that in The Rooms. We'd like to

see the criteria be expanded for the Independent Appointments Commission to

include gender and diversity criteria. These things are very important and we'd

like to see a greater representation of individuals with diverse backgrounds and

positions in these roles. Yes, we would like to support this motion.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to it.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

speakers to the motion?

Is the

House ready for the question?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, ‘nay.'

The

motion is carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this

time, I would call from the Order Paper, Motion 3, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

waiting for the clock so I see how much time I got to speak here.

Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to thank all Members of the Legislature for participating

in the budget debate in the Estimates process in raising points, asking

questions, and on this side in providing answers to those questions through the

Estimates process. I wanted to thank all officials from the departments who

participated in the Estimates process.

I know I

have spoken to a number of Members on the other side about how they intend to

vote on the budget, Mr. Speaker, so I'm looking forward to the vote.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt

the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the

government?

All those in favour of the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Division.

MR. SPEAKER:

Division has been called.

I summon

in all the Members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, Motion 3, that this House

approves in general the budgetary policy of the government?

All

those in favour, please rise.

CLERK (Barnes):

Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons,

Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Dempster, Mr.

Reid, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr.

Bennett, Ms. Pam Parsons, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Loveless, Ms. Coffin, Mr.

James Dinn, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lane.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against the motion,

Motion 3, please rise.

CLERK:

Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Mr.

Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Lester, Mr. Dwyer, Ms. Evans, Ms. Conway

Ottenheimer, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Parrott, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr. Tibbs,

Mr. Forsey.

Mr.

Speaker, the ayes: 23; the nays: 14.

MR. SPEAKER:

I declare the motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this

time, with leave of my colleagues, I would ask that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Estimates of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider the Estimates of the Legislature.

All

those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Reid):

Order, please!

We are

now considering the Estimates of the Legislature.

CLERK:

1.1.01 through 7.1.01

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 through 7.1.01

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01

through 7.1.01

carried.

CLERK:

The totals.

CHAIR:

Shall the totals carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Legislature,

total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Legislature carried without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Legislature carried without amendment.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, I would move that the

Committee rise and report the Estimates of the Legislature.

CHAIR:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Chair of the

Committee of the Whole and the Member for St. George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the

Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

Supply reports that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of the

Legislature.

When

shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this

time, I would ask leave for a motion to be brought forward regarding the Social

Services Concurrence committee.

MR. SPEAKER:

Does the Government House

Leader have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Social Service Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of

the Department of Justice and Public Safety; the Department of Education and

Early Childhood Development; the Department of Municipal Affairs and

Environment; the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development; the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; and the Department of Health and

Community Services.

At this

time, I certainly would like to thank all ministers and their officials and all

Committee Members.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, again, thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

With

leave of my colleagues, I would ask that we call the Concurrence Motion just

entered by my colleague from Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Leave has been granted.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's a

pleasure, again, to stand in this House and to discuss the budget. We have dealt

with a lot of substantive policy issues during the Estimate Committees and it's

always a refreshing exercise, even though it's often later in the evening than I

would have liked some nights. We had a very engaged and engaging discussion at

the Estimates for my own department in Health and Community Services.

I think,

again, for the benefits of the Members of the House, to repeat the main themes

of the budget from the point of view of Health and Community Services, it is one

of the biggest, if not the biggest expense government has. Second only – well,

it's not second only to anything, quite frankly, it's ahead of debt servicing by

about a factor of three. It is in common with a lot of other jurisdictions, the

single largest expenditure that governments of this country incur.

One of

the things I am very pleased with over the course of this tenure and the

previous mandate is that we have managed to increase services and to reboot and

reinvigorate significant portions of the health care delivery system in this

province. We have done it whilst maintaining fiscal responsibility and keeping

our costs constant within the limits of inflation.

We are

only one of three jurisdictions in the last CIHI report to have achieved a rate

of growth of health care expenditure that is less than inflation. Currently, our

is, depending on whether you look at accrual or cash flow, of the order of 0.8

per cent, at a time when inflation is 2.6-plus per cent.

One of

the instructions I was given in my original mandate letter back in 2015 was to

address the issue of our high per capita costs of health care expenditure.

Again, using third party data, not our own, if you look at the CIHI figures, you

can see the trend line is remarkably different now for this province than it was

prior to 2016. Our rate of rise of health care expenditure is minimal, to the

point where, given the rate of rise of other provincial jurisdictions in this

country, our two lines will cross sometime around 2025-26.

For

those who are trying to imagine what that graph might look like in their heads,

essentially, what it will mean is that we will have held expenditure per capita

constant, whilst everywhere else in the country expenditure per capita has risen

and risen to the point where it will now exceed ours in dollar values. I think

that is a tribute to the hard work of the staff within the Department of Health

and Community Services under a series of deputy ministers and a very vigorous

and enthused executive team.

We have

very able staff who have brought forth innovative policies and enabled us to do

what very few jurisdictions have done. I have said in this House on other

occasions that while we compare ourselves with other provinces, once you

actually leave the Avalon Peninsula, our population density is not much

different than that of Nunavut's. We are, in actual fact, essentially a

territory. Were one to use that as a comparator on costs per capita of health

care, we are well below the national average; well below indeed.

I think,

again, we are one of the provinces that are very bad at telling others what we

actually do very well. Within that costing envelope, we have seen huge changes

in, for example, the organization and delivery of mental health and addiction

services following the Action Plan we released from Towards Recovery. That

landmark All-Party Committee, triggered by all the parties of the House of the

day and that was prior to the election in 2015, deserve our recognition for the

amount of effort that they put in in generating that process. The results of

that process, however, have become a beacon on the Atlantic seaboard of what

Canada and what Canadian jurisdictions can actually achieve.

We have

gone from being a passive participant in the provincial and territorial meetings

to, in the realm of mental health and addictions, becoming leaders. There are

two jurisdictions in this country that other provinces and territories come to,

to seek advice on mental health and addictions issues. One is British Columbia

because of the numbers and the significant burden of opioid deaths that have

resulted. The other is Newfoundland and Labrador and that is because of the

thoughtful and constructive policies that we have generated and implemented over

the course of the last 3½ years.

This

budget, to focus on one area, for example, deals specifically in capital with a

replacement for our oldest piece of infrastructure, which is the Waterford

Hospital. In 1855, when it opened its doors first, Queen Victoria sat on the

throne and the Crimean War was the news of the day. The Victoria Cross had not

yet been invented or described as a decoration for valour in the Commonwealth.

It is that old.

We have

now enacted a plan, not just an approach, but there will be site work on the new

site this construction season to put there what will be the final piece, when it

is opened, of the reorganization of mental health and addictions services in

this province. Mental health and addictions, however, will not be delivered

solely through a building on the Health Sciences Centre complex. It is an

approach that takes mental wellness and puts it into people's hands before they

become ill. It is an approach that takes mental health and brings it into the

communities.

Through

programs such as Doorways, you'll see on the Burin Peninsula, you'll see in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, in Labrador in general, we have abolished – abolished

completely – wait times for cancelling services. People who once had barriers

and prolonged waits – and going back two years, I think, the figures for Goose

Bay were people of the number of 250 waiting in excess of 300 days for

cancelling. Within a year, those have completely disappeared.

We have

Doorways in over 52 communities, no barrier. We know from data and from

satisfaction surveys that of the people who go through those doors without an

appointment, 50 per cent of them will have their issues addressed fully and

completely by that one visit. That is a stunning testament to their efficacy.

It is

also a portal of entry which, again, requires no referral. They walk in. If

there are issues that cannot be resolved, we have a suite of things that we can

offer for people with problems and families with difficulties. Because we've

learned that, for example, with childhood anxiety, treating the entire family is

as important as treating the individual child.

Through

that, and through the use of technology where, again, we lead the country in

online support services, online cancelling and we're moving into the virtual

health arena in partnership and in conjunction and at the same time as the

Canadian Medical Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association.

These

are examples of what we have done with the budget. We have spent our money more

wisely. The approach that we adopted in 2015 and we've carried through is the

triple aim of better individual outcomes, better population health and better

value for the health care dollar we have invested.

I would

argue, Mr. Speaker, this budget builds on that success and actually demonstrates

the validity and the utility of that approach. I would encourage all Members of

this House to just sit there and reflect on what we have been able to achieve by

thinking differently and looking at the way we do business rather than simply

throwing money at the problem as had been the remedy for a succession of

previous provincial and federal governments, regardless of the stripe.

With

that acknowledgement of the hard work of, not only staff in my department but

health care providers across the province who daily go above and beyond, I will

take my seat and commend this budget to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Any further speakers to the

motion?

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and address the House of Assembly on behalf

of the people of the District of Harbour Main. Serving the people you represent

comes with many duties, many responsibilities and many expectations, of course.

This I'm quickly discovering during my first two weeks as a newly elected MHA.

Reflecting on the past two weeks, Mr. Speaker, has been a very eye-opening

experience for me.

First of

all, I'd like to say that our PC caucus, Members of the Official Opposition,

have been duly elected by the people from all across this great province. They

represent talented, diverse, experienced and a strong team of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. Together, we represent the interests, Mr. Speaker, of 42 per

cent of the popular vote in our province. The Liberal government itself attained

approximately 44 per cent of the popular vote of the electorate.

Why are

these numbers important, Mr. Speaker? These figures reflect the will of the

people, and I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government can

no longer rule. The government can no longer govern as it pleases. The

government can no longer dismiss the important role of the Official Opposition.

Like one

of the hon. ministers last week, I observed, described us as – quote – that

crowd. Well, Mr. Speaker, that crowd represents a significant proportion of the

electorate and like it or not, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has to accept

that fact. The fact that the people, in their collective wisdom, have spoken.

The people have voted for change, not for the status quo, Mr. Speaker. The

status quo is not okay anymore. In fact, the people have put the government on

notice that if you fail to provide good and responsible government, you will be

held accountable.

What

exactly does it mean to provide good and responsible government? It means

consensus-oriented. It means being equitable, being responsive. It means having

a spirit of participatory involvement. It means accountability. It means

efficiency and effectiveness. They want us to work together.

The

people have spoken, but it also means we have to do things differently. We have

to do things better. It means a new approach. It means the people want us to try

new strategies, new priorities. It means our thinking has to be innovative,

progressive, thinking outside the box, if you will, approaching problems in

novel ways. This is imperative if we are to stop the decline that is happening

in our province.

Although

the past two weeks as a newly elected MHA have been a wonderful experience in

terms of observing the process in the House of Assembly, the past two weeks in

the House of Assembly have also been very disappointing. We, the Official

Opposition, are disappointed. The people of the province are also disappointed.

People,

unequivocally, voted for change. We see the new MHAs who have been elected, who

represent the progressive voices in our province, and with 56 per cent of the

electorate not supporting the government and its approach, we see that the

people have given us the opportunity and the obligation to try new methods, but,

sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government opted – they chose not to try and not

to listen.

brought forward priorities. The Official Opposition presented opportunities and

priorities to the government because we heard these priorities at the doorstep,

but yet the government still ignored these suggestions.

What

priorities did we present? We presented several; for example, immediate end of

the levy. Our people are struggling. I've heard that in my District of Harbour

Main. They are struggling with over taxation. They are taxed to death, Mr.

Speaker.

According to the government's own committee, the levy is a regressive tax as

well, yet there was no leverage, there was no response, there was no

collaboration, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals talk the talk about the collaboration

but when it comes to providing us, for example, with the information we need to

meaningfully collaborate, that's where the talking ends.

Other

priorities that we presented to the government: affordable home insurance. The

taxes that we see on home insurance, Mr. Speaker, we suggested and proposed that

we eliminate the sales tax on homeowner insurance. We need to give relief on

these taxes. The people of the District of Harbour Main were very clear about

that.

We also

recognize, Mr. Speaker, that lowering these taxes will drive the local spending

and facilitate job growth, generate revenue, yet they did not listen. Affordable

insulin pumps, another issue that I was presented with at the door by the

constituents of the District of Harbour Main. The removal of the age cap to

ensure Medicare covers the cost of insulin pumps for all persons with Type 1

diabetes. They didn't listen, Mr. Speaker. Their intention was not to

collaborate with us.

If we

endorse their agenda, and that is what we cannot do, they would then have blamed

us for all the things we opposed. Like high taxes and the deprivation of

services and continuing deterioration of our economy. Mr. Speaker, we could not

adopt their agenda. It could have been a collaborative approach to reflect the

people's agenda, an agenda that all of us could have supported. Instead, we get

the same old, stale agenda that cost the Liberals their majority, an agenda the

majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians just voted against.

The

government ignored these suggestions; the government brought back the same

budget. We were not asking for an increase in spending. We were asking, simply,

for a reprioritization of spending. We were calling upon them to find efficiency

but, again, the budget does not reflect that. The government had an opportunity

to line up their priorities with what the people wanted and they didn't do that.

Mr.

Speaker, I would submit that in view of what I've observed in the last two weeks

as Member for the District of Harbour Main, the government remains entrenched in

the blame game. The government had an opportunity to do the right thing but

failed. In the spirit of co-operation we came here and presented these

suggestions for change to the government and they were ignored. The government

is not listening to the people. The government brought back the same budget, Mr.

Speaker. The government had the opportunity to do the right thing in the budget

and did not do so. If the government, Mr. Speaker, could find $40 million for

Canopy Growth, surely they could have found funding in other areas.

Our

people in the District of Harbour Main spoke loudly and clearly. They did not

want any more of the negative blame game, the finger pointing; rather, the

people are tired of that pessimistic, cynical attitude. Certainly there is

nothing wrong with reflecting on history. History is important, history teaches

us lessons and history will allow us to ensure that mistakes don't happen again,

to avoid the repeat of errors.

Mr.

Speaker, we, in the Official Opposition, represents that change. The people

voted for change. The people have put the government on notice that if you fail

to provide good and reasonable government, you will be held accountable. They

want us to work together, Mr. Speaker. They want us to do things differently, a

better approach.

Mr.

Speaker, the budget was delivered but was never voted on prior to the election.

The election was called and the Liberal Party campaigned on their budget. We saw

the numbers that they received in terms of popular vote, their inability to

attain a majority government. So, arguably the people also voted against the

budget, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious the people did not agree. Why, therefore, was

the government not interested in listening and collaborating and working with

us? Why was the government not interested in incorporating any of our proposals

or changes to this budget? This budget lacked legitimacy because of that.

The

government had two options with respect to the budget: one, it could've

reintroduced the budget that was introduced back in April but never debated or

passed; or two, it could've introduced a revised budget to address some of the

concerns and constructive solutions raised during the election campaign. The

government opted for the first of these approaches, sadly, to bring back the

same budget as before without changes. We think they should have chosen the

other option. The result of the election is that the people of this province

mandated a different set of priorities from those embodied in the unpassed

budget.

We urged

the government to reconsider. We presented a reasonable alternative to consider

as outlined in our policy Blue Book .

We cautioned them that if they did not change the budget, the tax burden on the

people will be too high, that the level of the public expenditures will be too

high and that certain vital services that ought to be covered will be neglected.

I stand

here as a disappointed MHA. I presented myself as an MHA with optimism to

support the people of my district and their interests. Instead, we get the same

old agenda. We are siding with the people in voting against this budget, against

it because it is not reflective of the will of the people of our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, I'm

going back to a theme that I started out with, and I'm going to go back to some

of the terms I've heard from both sides of this House with regard to budget

making. Rightsizing, zero-based budgeting, attrition, finding efficiencies and

so on and so forth. I'm going to focus a little bit about education because I

think that, from both sides of the House, we both have to change how we look at

the budget.

I'm

hearing efficiencies, and at the same time I'm saying, well, we need to support

this. We all seem to have our pet project but I'm going to look at education for

a minute from the point of view of budgeting, and the Education Action Plan. Of

course, it's about an investment in education but the devil is in the details.

I always

ask a question about any plan: Is it budget based or needs based? Because as an

educator I believe in needs based, but as an educator I haven't seen needs

based. I've seen more budget based, more finding of efficiencies, more so-called

rightsizing and so on and so forth, and it's always someone else other than the

educator, people in the field who make that decision.

It's

interesting, in 2008 the allocation model there was actually decreasing the

number of students in class size in multigrade classrooms. It actually put a

lower cap on classrooms.

In 2016,

in that budget, we saw the introduction of full-day kindergarten; 142 new

teachers for the position – and I'm going back to this because, again, it's

history repeating itself in many ways. We saw the introduction of full-day

kindergarten, 142 teachers added, but we saw 200 teachers taken out of the

system. Basically, full-day kindergarten was brought in on the back of the rest

of the system.

We had

the introduction of combined grades, which are not multigrade classrooms.

Multigrade classrooms actually increased in size. Combined grades was a creation

to find efficiencies. If it was such an educational novelty and advancement then

we would have been doing combined grades for every school in the province, but

we don't. It was done out of a budgetary need, not an educational need.

We saw

the increase in class size, class caps. So they increased by two – really, they

increased by four from 2008. I'm going to come back to what that class size

means in terms of education, but the soft cap allowed for the addition of

students to a class without really putting any resources in place.

We also

saw the novel educational initiative of the French immersion lottery for

intensive core French, because since the allocations were cut, schools decided

by lottery who got to go into intensive core French. It wasn't merit based. It

was pulling it out of a hat.

I go

back to combining grades. That put an enormous amount of pressure on the school

system because it was up to the school, the administrator, to decide who goes

into that combined grade. That's what a budget does.

Do you

put a group of academically, self-motivated, self-directed students in this

class – there goes the notion of inclusive education right out the door – or do

you combine them? What do you do with – and I coined the term – the leftover

students that Budget 2016 created?

Because it wasn't needs based. It wasn't even zero based, because if I

understand zero-based budgeting you look at what are the needs and you build a

budget to match the needs. It wasn't. It was about finding efficiencies, finding

cuts.

Then, of

course, we had the minister at that time, the novel idea of resourcing

classrooms through scrounging. Now, teachers already did that. God knows, we've

spent enough of our own money, but then to have it come out from the department

at that time to scrounge for supplies, and some of the supplies were quite

significant.

I say

this because it's interesting, how important is education to parties on both

sides of the House? You see, the NLTA had a leader's forum on education during

the election and neither the Leader of the Liberals or the Conservatives showed

up, Mr. Speaker. They showed up to the other major forums but not to education.

That sends a very clear message to teachers, to students, just how important

education is despite the protestations to otherwise.

It's the

second time that the Liberal Leader was not going to show up. The first time was

when I was president of the Teachers' Association. This time, though, both did

not show up. That's a slap in the face. That tells me and teachers, in many

cases, of this province just how important education is when it comes to making

a budget. It wasn't a stunt, as some people on both sides – it's a debate that's

been ongoing, a forum that's there so that teachers and parents and students can

hear what's important.

I go

back to the Education Action Plan, and here's the other thing. It seems that,

depending on what government comes in, one of the ways of getting elected is to

put into the budget that we're going to change education wholesale. We've got to

reform the education system. We've got to make our students better prepared. The

education system is failing our students, failing our societies and so on and so

forth. We've got to change that, and we're going to fix it. How many times in my

career as a teacher have I heard that one?

So you

barely get used to an education initiative before the next government comes in

with a new shiny approach and teachers are put into a tailspin of trying to make

sure that they can get used to a brand new policy. So, I would say this to

whoever forms power: For God's sake, talk to the people who are in the classroom

when you're making a budget, when you're bringing up a plan.

The

Education Action Plan introduces teacher learning assistants. By the way, we

still haven't really come up with a clear definition as to what teacher learning

assistants do and how they're going to fit in. It's sort of an ongoing process.

We have the introduction of reading specialists. We have the introduction of

learning resource teachers and teacher librarians in this budget, and it sounds

great.

There's

a big difference between what the policy is and what reality is. Because, you

see, schools with less than 50 don't get those. What they do get is an increase

in the IRT, or the instructional resource teacher allocations, and a fraction at

that, to make up for that.

That's

the budget. Is it needs based or is it budget based? It's not even zero based.

It's certainly not needs based. I wish I could say that parties on both sides of

the House take a different – they don't.

There's

nothing for the small schools. Student assistant time, needs based, budget

based, zero based; again, if it was zero based you're going to be looking at the

needs of the students in the system and we're going to resource it

appropriately. Yet, in 2018, the NLESD received 418 hours a day less than what

their own program specialists and experts recommended. Think about that.

In the

NLESD we need about 4,002 hours of student assistant time per day to meet the

needs of the students in our system. They didn't pull that number out of the

air. They looked at the needs. They had their specialists look at it and said

here's what we need. Yet, they were budgeted 418 hours less a day. That's not

even zero based. It's not needs based. I don't know what it is, but it's budget

based.

Responsive teaching is the new buzz word, which I consider is good teaching.

Universal design, shiny new words, and one thing I learned in education,

everything old is new again. It's just the same philosophy repackaged in a

different way.

As I've

talked to a few principals, I've said: How's it going with this? It's going well

if the schools make it work. So the schools have to make it work. They have to

find the time for teachers to get together and meet, or the teachers have to do

these meetings after school.

Now,

I'll tell you something, I came into this job and I would say most – I have a

constituency assistant. We have researchers in the office. We have staff. I

would suggest that even that is a little bit less than what we need to meet

needs in the district, but I can tell you a teacher in the school system, they

don't get a constituency assistant. They don't get their own personal secretary.

They have a secretary who is there for the whole school, but if the teacher who

is dealing with something along – I know a teacher in high school, 160 or 140

students that I'm responsible for, the marking, the grading, the meeting with

them and so on and so forth. So you bring in these policies, if you're not

putting the resources there to make it work, it will fail.

allocation review was asked for in 2008 and it still has not been done. So we're

putting in educational reform, we haven't even determined how many teachers do

we really need to carry this out. We're going to do the allocation review after

we've done the reform, after we've made things better. Somewhere along the line,

I think we need to look at what are the needs because an allocation would look

at not only the class size but the composition of that class.

colleague to the left has referred to the size of this House and the space we

have and you put that into a classroom situation. I would go one step further.

Put 30 or 35 kids into a room where 13, 14 or 15 of them have needs, diagnosed

exceptionalities that aren't being met, try teaching that. You have to put the

resources there.

Our

responses to students who can't self-regulate, basically it's social and

emotional learning, that's great, we're going to put it across the curriculum.

It's not going to solve the problem totally until the class size reflects the

needs in that classroom. You know how I would, when I was president, push to get

Education listen?

The

teacher would come in, just been attacked by a student, sometimes violently, you

need to file a right to refuse to work. That's what it took to get the resources

in the classroom. That's what it took to, okay, we'll find someone. In all

cases, the principal, the teachers had already filed request upon request for

the extra resources; it fell on deaf ears. Again, that's not zero-based

budgeting, that's not needs-based budgeting, that's about dollars and cents.

emotional, social learning will help if you're going to put the resources there,

but if this is about a course across the curriculum and say there, that's done,

wash their hands of that, then I'm afraid it's not going to work. The last round

of collective bargaining made it quite clear where we stood because that last

round of the collective bargaining is going to make it very difficult to attract

highly qualified, highly motivated and the best and brightest to the teaching

profession.

I'll

talk briefly about some of the measures around the environment. I still haven't

looked at in the department as to who is totally responsible for monitoring

industries like aquaculture. I still haven't come away from any of the Estimates

meetings feeling confident that these companies will be monitored, will be held

accountable. Again, are we going to be responding to the needs or is this going

to be about budget.

So, for

me, and I will speak for the NDP, as I've heard here about the budget, it's not

about finding efficiencies. This budget was not of our creation, we had no say

in it as individuals here. We're not interested in the blame game, who's

responsible for what. We've heard that going on both sides here. What we are

interested in is looking at the long game, setting new priorities for the next

budget, the budget after that and the budget after that.

I'll be

upfront what we're after. We want to see measures of a budget that actually

reduces poverty. We want to see a budget that actually is going to better help

the people of our province to get better health care. We want to see better

housing opportunities for those who are most vulnerable. We want to see a decent

living wage. There are workers in this building who are making a little over $11

an hour for cleaning. Folks, if you can make a living on that, let me know

because I don't think you can.

We also

want to see labour relations and labour standards set so that people who are

working and exercise their legitimate right for contract negotiations are going

to be respected. We want to see most of all legislation that protects the

environment.

So, as

we go forward, I can tell you when it comes to budgeting, it will not be zero

based for me unless that is actually truly about needs based. It will be about

needs-based budgeting, what we need. Not zero-based budgeting, not finding

efficiencies, not nickel-and-diming.

My late

brother used to say to me: Poor people like us can't afford to buy cheap. In

some cases, I think that's what we're about here and it's got to stop. We're all

inclined to buy cheap and in the long run it's going to cost us. For him it was

always buy good quality gear now, or buy it four or five times over down the

road.

The same

thing here: invest now in our people, eliminate poverty, increase health

outcomes, take care of those with dental health problems and make sure that

those who need housing are looked after. I think it's investing in society. It's

not investing in a multi-national corporation but investing in our society. I

think that's what we'll be pushing for over the next couple of years.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any further speakers to this motion?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Concurrence.

I guess this will be, likely, the last time I'll have an opportunity to speak

before the House closes.

Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to, I guess, have a few more words about Nalcor and the

Muskrat Falls inquiry, but before I do, I just want to have a few words about

the budget because a few things have come to mind and some points I want to

reiterate here.

First of

all, I want to say that while I just voted for the budget, that doesn't mean

that I don't have concerns. It doesn't mean that the eight points that were

raised by the Official Opposition were not legitimate points, that they weren't

things that we'd all like to see.

This

issue on insulin pumps. I met with the university students on their advocacy day

when they were advocating for the insulin pumps just like the other caucuses did

as well, and I absolutely support it. I think we have to recognize that, up

until this budget, there was no coverage; there was zero. Once you reach 25 you

got nothing. At least now we're making a start.

Now,

would I like to be able to say that someone who turned 25 last year or three or

four years ago should be covered? Do I think they should be covered? Absolutely,

I do. Would I like to see it happen right now? Absolutely, I would, and I hope

that it will happen, but I don't think it's a big enough issue to vote down the

entire budget and, potentially, vote down the government and bring us into

another provincial election. Ultimately, if everyone on this side, all

collectively decide to vote against the budget, that is what would happen. So,

we have to ask ourselves: Do the people want another election? Is this a big

enough issue?

Now,

there are other things that have been asked for like the 1.6 kilometre. I have

that issue in my district, absolutely. I've had many discussions with the

Department of Education. They're tired of listening to me. I got their numbers

on speed-dial over issues around the 1.6 and the courtesy stops and so on. I'd

love to see more changes. I've been advocating for a long time that the 1.6 for

elementary-age children, there should be no zone. They should all get a bus if

they need one, if they're elementary-age children.

I can

remember presenting petitions in this House and lobbying. Again, it's not about

dumping on anybody or going and blaming anybody, but I can specifically remember

presenting petitions to two former Members from the PC Party, two ministers.

They were both from the Burin Peninsula and they were both ministers of

Education, they had a switchover at some point in time. I can remember meeting

with them. I can remember presenting numerous petitions on the 1.6. This is an

issue that's been ongoing. Would I like to see it change? Absolutely, I would.

There

are other things that the Official Opposition put forward in their eight

proposals and so on that I'm sure we would all love to see, but the issue that

we have, and I think it kind of ties into as well, my colleague for St. John's

Centre and some of the issues he's been raising as well, I agree a lot with what

he's saying, too, on education and investment in education. I absolutely agree

but, but – and there is a but – we are billions of dollars in the hole –

billions.

We're

going to spend $1.3 billion this year on servicing the debt – $1.3 billion. It's

the second largest expenditure next to health care, more than what we put in

education, in just servicing the debt alone. That's not counting Muskrat Falls,

that's over and above that – $1.3 billion.

Would I

love to see all these things that was asked for by the Official Opposition?

Absolutely. I'm sure that everyone over there would too. Why wouldn't you,

there're all good things. I'd love to see some of the things that the Member for

St. John's Centre is talking about as well. I agree with him. I got plenty of

schools in my district that are overflowing. I know many teachers and

administrators, I've had the conversations. I've had the conversations with

parents. I understand the challenges of jamming children into a classroom with

this cap and this soft cap and the combining of grades. I had the combining of

grades happen in my district.

Everything that the Member talked about and those challenges, I've had all those

conversations in my district, so I know what he's saying. I know what he's

saying is true. I absolutely agree with him that there are things that have to

be addressed, but, by the same token, we have to be cognizant of where we're

financially. We're literally on the edge of a financial cliff.

We're

told, I don't know, I never did see concrete numbers to show that we would have

been $2.7 billion in the hole. No one ever told me up until like a year later, I

think, when it came out that we couldn't meet payroll or that's what the

government said, after the fact. I don't know if it's true or not. I'm taking

the minister's word for it. I'm not saying that he's not telling the truth, I

don't know but I never saw it. No one told me until after the fact. Assuming

what he's saying is right, and I take him on his word for it, b'ys, we're in a

mess, we really are financially in a mess. So, all of these asks, and they're

all important asks, we got to bare it in mind where we're to financially.

support the budget, I do support the budget because, at least, the insurance tax

is going to be rolled back on automobile insurance. That's a good thing. The

levy, which is what landed me on this side of the House, as everybody knows, was

the levy; that was the big one for me. It'll be gone after this year.

Would I

like to see it eliminated right now? Absolutely, I would. Everybody in my

district would love to see the levy gone immediately, but I also understand that

this is tied to the federal government, the income tax system and so on. It's

not just a matter of just picking up the phone and say end the levy right now.

So, even if the government wanted to, there's time associated to making that

happen. After this year it'll be gone.

The gas

tax that we had in 2016, most of that has been rolled back. Albeit we have a

carbon tax, which I personally don't support. I think it's a tax grab. That's

just my opinion, but, nonetheless, 12 cents of the 16½ cents that was put on the

gas tax is gone. Now, the insurance tax on automobiles will be gone and, at the

end of this year, the levy will be gone. Bearing in mind where we're to

financially, I think that's reasonable. Would I like to see more done?

Absolutely, but I think it's reasonable.

support the budget from the perspective of what I feel is reasonable, what I

feel is balanced and also bearing in mind that for everybody on this side – I

say again – to vote this budget down means we're going to the polls again and

the people quite clearly don't want that to happen at this stage of the game,

unless there's something serious.

Now,

this doesn't mean the government does whatever it wants, makes any crazy

decisions and comes out tomorrow and say we're going to introduce the levy for

another five years, because if that were to happen, I would absolutely bring the

government down, my vote would. Absolutely, if it was something that I thought

was totally egregious, irrational and not reasonable at all, I would.

What we

see here now is on the balance of things. Are there things I like? Yes. Are

there things I don't like? Some things I'd like to see improved. Do I agree with

a lot of the things that the Official Opposition has brought forward? Do I agree

with what my colleague for St. John's Centre has said about the education system

and about poverty? Absolutely, I do. Should we be working towards those things?

Absolutely, we should, but we have to live in the reality of where we're to

fiscally, financially, we really do.

understand my colleagues now in the Official Opposition, they can stand and say:

We voted against the budget so we stood up for the 1.6 and we stood up for

insulin pumps and so on, and the other guys didn't.

Well,

I'm just saying for the record, I support the things that they were pushing for,

and I'm sure everybody does, but we can all play this little game of – because

they all know that, ultimately, as long as somebody else on this side supports

the budget, it's going through anyway, so you get the best of both worlds.

They

don't have the election that nobody wants and you get to be able to say,

politically, oh, I stood up for this and that and I voted against this and I

voted against the budget. I understand the politics around that, but at the end

of the day, from the perspective of the budget, it is fair, balanced, reasonable

in my view, based on where we're to financially, and I will support the budget.

Now, I

have lots of time left, but in the interest of time and the agreement that we

had to try to get through this this morning, I'll just take a minute just to

talk about Nalcor, just for a minute. I got to, just got to. I cannot sit down.

The closing of this House of Assembly after today, I cannot give up the

opportunity to have a couple of words about Nalcor.

What we

have seen come out in this inquiry has been absolutely shocking, disturbing,

disgusting –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Shameful.

MR. LANE:

– shameful, I don't know what

else I can put on it. There are so many things.

I say to

the minister, and I mean this figuratively speaking, of course, heads need to

roll, changes are required, and that organization needs to be purged of those

who may have been deliberately involved in lowballing of numbers and withholding

information and reports and so on. That needs to happen.

I would

also say that once the inquiry is over – and I realize the inquiry has a

mandate, and that mandate is just basically to look at what went wrong, what

could we do to improve things in the future and so on. I would certainly hope

and urge the government that as all the information's coming forward, once that

report is out, if there is anything at all that warrants in any way an

investigation by the authorities, I certainly hope that it will be initiated.

If there

is anything at all that warrants civil litigation, I hope it will be initiated.

There has to be accountability for what went on and the information or the

misinformation that went out to the public, that went out to Members of this

House of Assembly, people who voted to sanction this project based on

information they were given that turned out to be erroneous information.

That has

to be addressed, there has to be accountability, and I certainly call upon the

government, before this is all said and done, to hold those responsible

accountable to this House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I

start my remarks, I'm going to say I am a little disappointed with the politics.

Now I enjoy politics as much as anybody else, Mr. Speaker. I'm a career

politician. I've been at this for more than two decades. I enjoy a political

scrap. I enjoy debate.

I'll go

on to my next thought, Mr. Speaker, before I get into some of the comments that

I'm going to make. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands just spoke, and I'm

going to commend him. In addition to commending him, I'm going to commend the

NDP because they put politics aside and looked at a balanced approach. I know

the Member for St. John's Centre just spoke and made some constructive criticism

of government, and I accept that because when you see constructive criticism,

you can work with that.

I've

spoken to Members of the NDP, and they also provide possible solutions. They

look at both sides. I may not always agree with everything they say, Mr.

Speaker, but if it's an approach that's constructive criticism and thoughts

about alternatives or better ways of doing things, that is what this place is

about. That is good debate. So, I commend the Member for St. John's Centre.

The

Leader of his party is an economist and I've had several conversations with her,

and I think she understands how you need to balance both sides and a balanced

approach. I look forward to working with her. I always pay a great deal of

attention when she's on her feet, and I enjoy what she's saying. Again, I may

not always agree with what she's saying, but I enjoy the words she speaks and

the argument she puts forward because I think she understands how the budget

works.

I'll go

back again for a moment to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I may not always agree with what he says, but I think he voted with a

great deal of thought on this budget when he spoke as to why he voted. Yes, I

like the eight ideas that were put forward by the Opposition as well. In fact,

we've talked about them in our caucus long before the election, in fact going

back a couple of years. We talked about these ideas and how we'd like to see

them implemented. They're not new ideas.

Obviously, we'd like to reduce taxes, Mr. Speaker, and we've been doing it with

a balanced approach. Obviously, we'd like to provide more services to the people

of the province and we've been doing that but with a balanced approach. If you

see the reckless spending that took place in 2015 or 2014, 2013, that's what got

the province in the situation that the province is in. That's what created the

fiscal crisis the province was dealing with and that's why taxes had to be

increased.

you're going to talk about a balanced approach, Mr. Speaker, real leadership

means that you just don't toss – we'd like to see taxes reduced because we'd all

like to see taxes reduced. Everybody in the province would like to see taxes

reduced. You don't just toss out we'd like to see taxes reduced, now that's our

idea and shame on government because they didn't reduce them enough. That's not

real leadership. I'll talk about real leadership again in a moment.

Saying

that we'd like to see extra services provided to the people of the province, Mr.

Speaker, we'd all like to see more services provided, but doing it without

giving us ideas as to how you do it is not real leadership. Now, the Leader of

the Official Opposition provided us with eight demands. They voted against the

budget because we didn't implement the eight demands.

The

Member for Harbour Main stood in her place and spoke. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will

say that each Member of this Legislature is here because we deserve to be here

because the people chose us to represent them. But she stood in her place and

said it's a minority government so the people of the province spoke and they

want these eight ideas. Well, I knocked on doors as well, Mr. Speaker, something

I enjoy very much, listening to the people in my district. It's the best way to

represent your people. I'll say to all Members, the new Members elected, no

matter what you say or do in this Legislature, it's how you represent your

constituents that will keep you coming back and keep you getting elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

But I represent every one of

my constituents, Mr. Speaker. Almost 70 per cent of them voted for me but even

the other 30 per cent, I don't say, when somebody calls, which way did you vote.

I represent every one of my constituents. But I'll tell you, it was very

balanced when I went to the doors. Yeah, absolutely, there were people who had

concerns about the taxes that were put in place in 2016, make no mistake about

it. But just as many people – and that's the thing, Mr. Speaker, when you have a

balanced approach, you look at both sides of the ledger.

haven't heard anybody on the other side talk about the fact that people were

concerned about the fiscal crisis that the province faced in 2015 or '16, or why

we got to that position. I didn't hear anybody on the other side, Mr. Speaker,

because I heard just as many people at the door. In fact, the province was

pretty much equally divided in this election if you want to look at how they

voted on party lines. And it's not just party lines. I would say that there are

Members on the other side of the House, just as well as there are Members here,

just as well as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands got elected as an

independent. I would say he could've run for us and got elected, he could've run

for the PCs and got elected, and he got elected as an independent. There are

Members on the other side of the Legislature that because of who they are and

what they've contributed to their communities, and their reputation, they

would've got elected whether they were on this side of the House or that side of

the House. Same for many Members in this Legislature. So just because somebody

got elected for one stripe or another doesn't necessarily mean that they

wouldn't have got elected had they run for a different political party.

People

in the province were equally divided. They were just as concerned about the

taxes that were put in place in 2016 as they were about why those taxes were put

in place. Now let's be honest, because that's the truth. If we implemented the

eight items that were demanded by the other side or they wouldn't vote for the

budget, it would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, those hundreds of

millions of dollars, you got to come up with that somewhere because there's no

magic solution that we want to lower taxes, we want to spend more money, these

are our ideas, now you guys figure out how you're going to come up with the

money. That's not real leadership.

So the

eight items that were put forward by the other side, yeah, I'd like to see those

eight items as well. In fact, there are two or three of those items that we're

currently working with and currently trying to implement. But if you want to

have a truly balanced approach, how do you pay for those eight items? Well,

you've either got to cut services – but hang on now, they want to increase

services, part of the eight items – or you've got to increase taxes – but hang

on now, they want to lower taxes. So you can't have it all ways. Lower taxes,

increase services, and you guys figure out how you're going to implement it.

So, Mr.

Speaker, if you want to talk about being truly honest and a balanced approach –

I've heard the Finance critic and the Member for Harbour Main and the Leader of

the Opposition say, oh, the Independent Tax Review Committee said eliminate the

levy. Well, the levy is going by the end of this calendar year. We've also

eliminated, January 1 of this year, the remaining gas tax. We've also eliminated

in this year's budget sales tax on automobile insurance. But they point to the

one thing in the Independent Tax Review Committee, without pointing to

everything else that's in there.

Because

the Independent Tax Review Committee report, which is 28 pages, in two places I

think it references eliminate the levy; the other 28 pages they ignore, because

they don't talk about the people that they knocked on doors – like I said, I

heard both sides of it, concerned about the taxes, but also concerned about why

we got in the situation and don't let it happen again. If we implemented the

eight items, without a plan on how we're able to afford it, guess what? Three or

four years from now, you're going to have to put taxes back in place, 'cause it

got to be paid for.

Now,

what they ignore in the Independent Tax Review Committee report is, in general,

Newfoundland and Labrador's tax system is in line with other Canadian provinces.

No, they won't say that. They'll say we're taxed to death. They won't talk about

the fact that nothing about our brackets or rates or credits or personal

exemptions stands out good or bad, because we are generally in line. Now, those

words were spoken and they're spoken in many places in the Independent Tax

Review. It's repeated again and again and again that we're not out of whack with

the rest of Canada, but they won't preach that because they want people to think

we're taxed to death.

Well,

why were we taxed to death, Mr. Speaker? I'm going to clue up in the next half a

minute or a minute – but why were we taxed to death? Because the province faced

a fiscal crisis. We couldn't make payroll. They were continuing to tell people

of the province there was a $1.1-billion deficit when it was actually closer to

$2.7 billion.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North, and I'm going to be very quick about this, but

last week he took a crack at I voted for – well, actually I didn't for it. You

can go back and look at the two bills. I didn't vote for them because they were

voted on about 3 o'clock in the morning and I was home asleep. I did speak to

them and said I had concerns about Muskrat Falls, but in general I was voting

with my constituents because the surveys that were done at the time, the vast

majority of people in the province thought it was a good project.

MR. LESTER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Now the Member for Mount

Pearl North is yapping at me. If you want to get into a political scrap again, I

can do it. He actually used the words last week, Mr. Speaker, I was duped. It

wouldn't be the first time that Member duped me. Do you want to get into those

details?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. LESTER:

You're easily duped.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Let's be honest. He's easily

duped, he said. I guess when you're good at duping, people are easily duped.

The

reality of the fact is the vast majority of people in the province supported

Muskrat Falls based on what they were promised. Based on what was delivered, if

you do the numbers at $2.9 billion and 520,000 people in the province, the cost

of Muskrat Falls is about $25,000 per person – man, woman, child, working, not

working, on income support, taxpayer, not taxpayer. So if you've got an average

household of three people, it's about $75,000 per household. That's not what was

promised.

But

anyway, I'm going to clue up now, because I know we've got an arrangement in the

House to limit our time. I just wanted to say, I commend those who put politics

aside and looked at this as a balanced approach –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

– Mr. Speaker, and I'm

disappointed that politics played a role in this budget debate here today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to the motion?

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to get here and to represent the people of

Exploits. I don't need to go any further than my district of the people of

Exploits to make my decision on why I don't agree with the budget.

Mr.

Speaker, while I was going door to door in my district – and I said this in my

previous first speech on the budget, in our area in Exploits the economy has

really dropped. People are really looking for resources. They're looking for

ways that they need employment and need jobs. They need affordable living, and

they have the taxes and the levies. The levy is still there, home insurance is

still there and they can't afford to live.

The

economy there, again, was one of the big issues in the district. Right now

there's nothing there that's going to increase the economy in the Exploits

District. They did have a pellet plant that was supposed to be there in the past

couple of years. That got taken away from them. It did go to the Northern

Peninsula, it's still in this province, and God love it for that that it's still

in this province. The Northern Peninsula and other areas in this province need

the employment as well.

The

Exploits District – and I spoke to every council in the district from Bishop's

Falls, Grand Falls-Windsor, Leading Tickles, Botwood – all the councillors – and

they were highly disappointed that there was nothing replaced when that was

taken away from the Exploits District. Again, yes, they were disappointed in

losing the pellet plant, but there was nothing there to replace that, nothing to

help them, no agreement there to replace what they lost. And that was upwards of

300 workers in that district.

Also,

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, I was down to the Goodwill centre in Botwood. I

spoke to some of the churches that bring in the clothes and donate the clothes

and that kind of stuff, food banks in Grand Falls-Windsor. When the people in

that district have to start relaying on those resources because the economy is

so poor, it will tell you what's happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The big

one again, Mr. Speaker, that I saw was seniors in the district. They were

looking to get into some of the homes; they can't afford it. They feel neglected

that they can't get into those homes and they really want to avail of it but

they can't afford it. They're living in their own homes and they're depressed.

They just don't want to be there.

regard to the health part of it, Mr. Speaker, again, I spoke on the Botwood

hospital – and I know the Premier stood there yesterday and said we were going

to get 20 beds in 2019, but 20 beds is not what they wanted. They want the

24-hour emergency service put back. They really spoke to me on that and I didn't

see that in this budget. Mr. Speaker, that was closed by the previous

administration. That word keeps coming up, but now I guess they're in the

previous administration.

Mr.

Speaker, those are just some of the issues that I got going to the door, and

those are the people who helped me make up my mind, listening to the people of

my district. They really want that service because the 24-hour service, I can't

preach it enough that in Leading Tickles and Fortune Harbour, when you have to

drive 1½ hours away to get to a hospital and in the wintertime that turns into

two hours, maybe 2½ hours to get there – especially if it's heart trouble, and

that is the big one that everybody is concerned about. They need to be assessed

at the 24-hour emergency service, to be assessed or treated, and that's what

they really want, especially on the health part of it.

Mr.

Speaker, just before that there was work done on that hospital. There was a new

roof put on there. There was some X-ray equipment put in there. There was

state-of-the-art lab and X-ray equipment put there and new beds. There was a lot

of work put in that hospital, but only have the 24-hour emergency service taken

away, it's poor and the people of that district really don't agree with that

service the way it is, Mr. Speaker.

There

hasn't been any change in the budget to alleviate some of those facts, Mr.

Speaker. Cellphone service, that's another big concern I got into. People down

around the outlining area of Fortune Harbour, some part of Point Leamington and

some part of Leading Tickles, they don't have cellphone service done there.

Wooddale, a great farming place in our Exploits District, Mr. Speaker, there's a

lot of farming happening there, but they have no cellphone service. They got no

Internet services.

I was

speaking to one of the businesses that set up there just probably two years ago

and they have no cellphone service. How are they supposed to run a business?

Even though they are growing their crops, they are doing what they're doing, but

they can't relate to other customers. They can't get their produce fast enough

out of there because they have no cellphone services. We all know what it is for

cellphone service today. That's the way we're connected. We all have them right

here. We're even connected here. So, why can't those people be connected for

doing business in those areas?

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, that's what was brought to me at my doors, the ones I visited.

Those are the people who put me here and those are the people that I'll stand

behind. I won't let the issues go, but as for right now, I'll get a chance over

the summer to talk to my constituents, as I go door to door and different

functions and I'll talk to them again to see how they feel, what they want and

I'll bring those issues again back to the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to take a few minutes, and it's a great opportunity, obviously, to speak to

Concurrence. Yesterday, in Estimates, I had the first time of sitting on this

side. Normally, I had the opportunity to Chair the Resources Committee for the

first three years of my time here in the House of Assembly and had the

opportunity as well to listen from the other side.

I had

the opportunity to share a great morning with both my colleagues, the Member for

St. John's Centre and, obviously, the Member for Bonavista. Both very

knowledgeable when it comes to education; both former educators, former

administrators, former leader of the NLTA and two Members I have whole lot of

respect for and their positions.

Like my

colleague had mentioned earlier, there was a tremendous amount of information

that changed sides yesterday. We didn't stick, necessarily, to the script and to

the text. We broke away and had a great conversation, as far as I was concerned.

I was really happy to take it because, Mr. Speaker, I think every time we have

an opportunity to engage in debate here in the House of Assembly is an education

for us all. That's the way that I take this. I take criticism usually

constructively, and as long as it's given in that manner, Mr. Speaker, I have no

problems with it whatsoever.

With

regard to my department, I want to take a few minutes to provide an overview of

the budget for Education and Early Childhood Development and, actually,

highlight some of the activities for this past year.

The

total gross budget for the department, Mr. Speaker, was $836,307,500. That was

comprised of $1,069,800 for Executive Services; $3,487,800 in Corporate

Services; $771,890,000 in kindergarten to grade 12; and just under $60 million

for Early Childhood Development.

Mr.

Speaker, the Education Action Plan has been the primary focus of our work over

this past year and it will continue to be so for kindergarten to grade 12.

Budget 2019 has increased funding to

support the implementation of the plan by just over $6 million, for a total

budget this year of $13.2 million. This includes $9 million in Teaching

Services; $2 million of professional learning for teachers; $975,000 for other

additional human resources; over a half a million dollars in learning resources;

$238,000 for youth apprenticeships and co-operative education; $180,000 for a

new case management system; and $40,000 in bursaries for teachers to upgrade

math.

Just to

provide more detail in terms of what that means directly in our classrooms, Mr.

Speaker. There are 21 new reading specialists this current year, increasing to

104 over the next two years; 54 teaching and learning assistants hired this

school year, increasing to over 200 over the next two years; and 13.5 additional

teacher-librarians this current school year, increasing to over 39 over the next

two years.

mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the budget this year for Early Childhood

Development is just over $59 million. Our work has been guided in recent years

by the Early Learning and Child Care Framework; 22 million was allotted over

three years through this bilateral agreement with the federal government,

middle-income families. More specifically, the funding is supporting and

expanding and enhancing the operating grant programs, changes to the Child Care

Services Subsidy Program and enhancing the Child Care Capacity Initiative.

We're

also improving the quality of Early Learning and Child Care by enhancing grants,

bursaries and professional learning for early childhood educators; establishing

the Capital Renovation Grant and establishing the Quality Improvement Grant

program.

Mr.

Speaker, there's an overall increase in the budget for teaching services for

2019-2020 of just over $1.4 million, and, as noted, we have additional teaching

and learning assistance, reading specialists, learning resource teachers and

Mr.

Speaker, we must all strive to do our best knowing that what we do impacts and

can improve the day-to-day lives of our young people in every corner of our

province.

I look

forward to working with the all the staff in the Department of Education and

Early Childhood Development, with each of my hon. colleagues in this House and

with the people of my district. I certainly welcome – and I mean that, Mr.

Speaker – all input on our important initiatives as we work on the continued

implementation of the Education Action Plan and our early childhood programs and

services.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for the time and, certainly, I appreciate the opportunity,

always, to stand in my place and bring the good news of the department.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

this opportunity to speak to this.

understand the realities of this province, fiscally and such, but also the

realities of the diversity of this province in size and geographics and how we

are all spread out, but what I really want to talk about is Labrador and the

importance of providing services to those communities.

Unlike

the Island, we are very sparsely populated. We don't have our neighbour just

next door. When it comes to between communities, it's over 200 to 300

kilometres. So, improving services to these communities is very important. It's

been a long-standing issue in Labrador about improving services to these small

communities, but we also have to look at community-based solutions that also

take the input of Labradorians themselves because we know our land, we know our

people and we know how we want things done. We also have to look at the ways

that these are all laid out. That's what is really important and I believe it's

a very important issue when it comes to this.

Also, if

you look at addiction services, addictions is a long-standing issue and a

long-standing problem for Labradorians and solutions in the community are ones

that most Labradorians feel is the best approach, to keep people in their

communities when they are dealing with these things. Taking them out of their

communities sometimes causes adverse effects and I think when we have solutions

to addictions, it should be community-based solutions.

We need

to build on communities this way because on top of that, when you look at these

addiction problems, you also look at food security and you also look at mental

health services and all these things. These are all small issues combining into

large issues. It's not just the North Coast or the South Coast, it also includes

East and West, too, when it comes to food security and addiction services. It

all goes hand in hand in the end. When you compile all these issues on top of

each other, it creates a much larger issue and that's where we need to start, we

need to start in the communities.

We also

have to look at unique approaches to these as well. It doesn't all have to be

massive spending and massive costs to the community. It needs to take an

approach that is community based and community driven and community led, and

that's where I stand on that one.

We also

have to look at the affordability of going to Labrador, which also is another

issue that compounds onto other issues. If it takes a lot of money to leave

Labrador and come to Labrador, then sometimes opportunities escape us, and

that's where we need to really look at finding solutions to that problem as

well; affordability of going in and out.

Sometimes an opportunity for a young person to travel and to learn and to

broaden their mind, sometimes gets hampered by the cost of just leaving home.

These are also missed opportunities for our people home because you don't bring

back the expertise and they always want to come home. Labradorians always want

to come home. We have to look at that as a solution, too.

That's

why we have to find ways to work with industry, to work with individuals, to

work with governments and stakeholders to find answers to these solutions.

Sometimes they're not at a massive cost. Sometimes it's just adjustments and

maybe something regulatory, and maybe it also involves bringing competition into

the system to make a more diverse way of travelling.

We have

to keep looking at these opportunities. We have to keep looking at opportunities

for our youth. We need to make sure that they are engaged, make sure that they

are understanding of the issues and we listen to their solutions because

sometimes they're the ones that have the greatest ideas, and I know that for a

fact.

When I

was campaigning, I talked to all three schools in my district, and all three

schools, those students were the brightest minds, they had better questions for

me in debate than I actually had at the chamber of commerce debate. I'll tell

you, they kept me on my toes, those ones did. That's why we have to look at the

youth, too, and listen to what they have to say when it comes to what's going

on.

Do you

know what? They're engaged. They're following all of this. They know what's

going on and we have to listen to them. That's very important. We have to

continue to give opportunities to them so that they can broaden their minds,

especially, home in Labrador. When you give them opportunities, they always come

back.

You look

at down home now, there are a group of tech people who went away to school and

now they're back in Labrador offering technology services in Labrador West. So

this is a whole new industry that can happen at home. That's why we need to keep

encouraging people that do leave to come back with their expertise, because once

we've got that expertise home, it stays home, and that's the most important

thing.

We also

have to look at more affordable ways to look at senior care. If we look at my

district right now, there is no seniors' home. There's not really much for home

care, and long-term care is very small. We need to find solutions to help these

seniors in my community, because it's a new thing.

community has only been there since '59. So we never had seniors sticking

around, but now we do. We're at the third, fourth, fifth generation of people in

Labrador West. These people don't want to leave, but there are no options for

them other than to leave; especially when the cost of iron ore goes through the

roof, the cost of housing goes through the roof, and these people can't afford

to stay in very expensive housing that doesn't even meet the needs of their

advanced age.

So we

need to look at ways to accommodate more seniors housing on a level that is

appropriate for seniors. We also need to look at the next stage of it when it

comes to care homes, but also ways to keep them in their home at an affordable

level that they don't have to worry about maintenance and repairs and stuff like

that, that they physically can't do anymore. So we need to find solutions for

that.

believe in community-based solutions, where the community is very involved from

start to finish on the solutions, because once you do that, you know what that

community needs. We're a very diverse people. We're spread out over a huge

territory.

The

Minister of Health said it himself, and I agree with him a hundred per cent on

this one. We're a province but we're also a territory. We're actually spread out

like a territory. We have to take solutions from the North to apply here, too,

because they're the ones who are doing it now and we probably have to adapt to

that.

Like I

said, for me to come here, I'm 5,000 kilometres away from home. I live in a

community that is literally by itself, in the woods, next to a mountain. For me

to drive to another community, the next community is Nalcor, which really is a

town, Little Churchill Falls, but it's owned by Nalcor. So it's not really a

community.

The next

one is yours, Mr. Speaker, Lake Melville. Like I said, that's a five- or

six-hour drive. So we're a very diverse, spread out population. So where our

solutions need to come in place is community-based solutions.

I'd also

like to take this opportunity to thank all the Members of the House for a warm

welcome yesterday, and thank you very much for welcoming me here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I've

been sitting here this morning, we had our budget debate and we had our budget

vote. I listened to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, I listened to some

Liberals across the way there, and what I heard this morning was – I've heard it

a couple of times now – playing politics. If playing politics is representing

the 16,000 bosses I got from Grand Falls-Windsor to Buchans, then so be it.

That's exactly what I'm going to do, because that's exactly what I was voted to

do.

In my

opinion, we were given an excellent opportunity. You can spend millions of

dollars on a study to go through the province and find out exactly what the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador want or need. Arguably, every household,

just about every household in Newfoundland and Labrador was knocked on and

almost everybody was talked to.

Instead

of having a million-dollar study, we got to do this study for free – six weeks

ago, eight weeks ago, 10 weeks ago – when we talked to the constituents, when we

went door to door. And what did the study come up with, the free study that we

saved millions on? They gave us hundreds of ideas. We didn't put hundreds of

ideas across the floor that we wanted for the budget, we put across eight.

We were

told, you know what? Even the staunchest Liberals in my district said if the

Liberals get in, we'd like a minority government. This gives all 40 Members the

opportunity to work together.

This

budget was brought down before the election. The same budget was put to us after

the election, and there are reasons why we didn't vote for it and there are

reasons – those reasons are there was no collaboration, and that's what we felt.

As far as we were concerned, we didn't need those eight items implemented today.

It wasn't said, okay, let's implement those eight items; let's spend more money.

You look

at $40 million spent on Canopy Growth. Arguably, three of the four items

could've been covered in that $40 million. The hospice was $3 million, insulin

pumps, and 1.6 kilometre busing. These are items that could've been covered. We

were looking to get all of it. Yes, we were looking to get all eight items

covered, but if there was a teamwork or collaboration to cover two items, this

would've shown the province that yes, we are here to work together for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, that's passed now and we

didn't get a chance to do it. But make no mistake, our voices were heard today

and we are speaking for our constituents.

Is the

budget bad? Of course not. There are things in the budget that we are thankful

for. I know in Grand Falls-Windsor we're getting a new long-term care facility,

and I couldn't be happier. I'm just as happy as anybody else. So, yes. So we're

not saying that the whole budget is bad by no means.

Our vote

today, in my opinion, was a reflection of the lack of team work, collaboration

and things that could've been done. Like I say, it was an opportunity that was

missed and, unfortunately, it was missed today.

For

anybody talking about we're playing politics, we're not playing politics. We're

speaking for our constituents, and make no mistake, taking down a government,

that's the furthest thing from our mind right now. If the government is to fall,

it's going to be the government's fault, make no mistake about that, because

they refuse to give the proper dedication to working with us and finding better

solutions for what we're looking for.

Just

some of these things out of our eight that we were looking for, for instance.

The hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor, it's something, once again, that's been

years and years of people working towards it. I know that the government also

said that they are going to be committed to it, which is great, but we still

don't know where that money is coming from.

All the

Estimates are done now, all the information is brought forth, so we're still

looking for an answer of where that money is coming from. It wasn't implemented

into the budget, so that's something small that could've been implemented into

the budget one time.

The

1.6-kilometre busing, over and over and over again – why? Because it's so

important. It's very important. Like anything else, Mr. Speaker, sometimes

action isn't required until an accident or a death occurs. Unfortunately, that's

the way things happen sometimes. I guarantee you, if somebody in one of the

Member's districts every get hurt, God forbid, or a child gets hurt, I guarantee

you action will be taken then, but, unfortunately, it's too late at that point.

That's how things work is that no action seems to be taken sometimes until you

get a result like that and that's very, very unfortunate.

The

insulin pumps: Again, there are people, young people with Type 1 diabetes and

these people have to suffer now and dish out $7,000 or whatever it is for an

insulin pump after the age of 25 if they don't meet that deadline. Of course, we

made some progress, which is great. I'm not going to stand here and say that

there was no progress made because there was some progress made, but we wanted

more. We wanted things that we heard at the doorsteps, that we heard from our

constituents and it's not something that we're going to let go.

Child

care is the other one. Child care is huge and, unfortunately, it's the

determining factor for young families if they're going to have a child or not.

Can you imagine? There are people out there that make a decision, a newly

married couple at 25 or 26 years old, they sit down and they say let's discuss

having a child sort of thing. We can't because we can't afford it. I make a good

living. I can take $2,500 or $3,000 a month, which can be a good living. Well,

now, we have to pay out $1,400 a month in child care. That can be a deciding

factor whether to have a first child, second child. Our population is going to

continue to decline because of this, and it's decisions like this that we got to

look at down the road.

Again,

the decision made from this side, and it was an individual decision, this is

something that we all agreed upon, was not to vote for this budget, not because

we hated everything inside the budget but because there was no work. The people

of my district were so elated when they found out that it was minority

government, that we were going to work together. We're going to be forced to

work together. There was no working together whatsoever. That's the reason why

we voted this way today.

Again,

I'm happy that there are certain things in it, but the eight things that we put

forth, the fact that not one of those things – not one of them – were looked at

and said, you know what, guys, we can do this. The people of Newfoundland and

Labrador deserve this. We can find a way of getting this done without an

over-expenditure. Not one item was done, not one, and that is a blatant

disregard, not for us, it's not for us, but a blatant disregard for the people

that we represent, and that's not something that we're going to stand for.

That's

why we stood, voted no on this budget, and let's just say that this is the way

it's going to be. If they choose not to collaborate, if they choose not to work

with us for the people we represent, that's what you're going to get in the

future, and we won't stand for it.

I want

to thank the beautiful people of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans for voting me in,

you voted me in for a reason, and you are all my bosses, I got 16,000 bosses out

there and that's who I'm going to answer to.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this

time, I would move that we adjourn debate on the Concurrence Motion, and I would

suggest that we recess the House until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

This House stands in recess

until 2 p.m., consistent with Standing Order 9(1)(b).

Thank

you.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

I'd like

to welcome the Members back for the afternoon part of this day.

We have

no guests that have been identified, so we'll get right into Members'

statements.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we'll hear from the

hon. Members for the Districts of Ferryland, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Torngat

Mountains, Placentia West - Bellevue, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Virginia

Waters - Pleasantville, and Corner Brook. The last two of which we'll need to

confirm they have leave.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate a constituent of mine,

Tracy Aspell Coady.

Tracy

was awarded the Hockey NL Executive of the Year Award on Saturday June 8, 2019.

Tracy is a mother of three children who are all very involved in sports. In

2010, she became a member of the Southern Shore Minor Hockey Association. Tracy

has held different positions over the past nine years on the Southern Shore

Minor Hockey Association and currently holds the position of president since

Tracy is

involved in other organizations such as the Don Johnson Hockey League, the

Interlocking House League, the female under 12 Metro League and NL Triple A

Hockey League.

Based on

Tracy's contribution and dedication to hockey, I could not think of someone more

deserving of this award. Tracy has dedicated so many volunteer hours to the

sport of hockey in the region and is a great asset to the success of hockey in

the District of Ferryland.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members in the House to join me in congratulating Tracy on

the Hockey NL Executive of the Year Award.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, the 2019 Mount

Pearl Focus on Youth Awards was a tremendous success and highlighted the great

talent, athleticism and intellectual ability possessed by some very amazing

youth in my community.

These

individuals included: Mount Pearl Female Youth of Year and S. T. E. M. Award

winner, Sarah Kennedy; Male Youth of the Year, Cameron Kinsella; Youth Volunteer

of the Year, Claire Osmond; Male Youth Athlete of the Year, Max Tavenor; Female

Youth Athlete of Year, Kate Sullivan; Youth Team of the Year, St. Peter's Junior

High grade nine boys volleyball team; RNC Youth In Service Award winner, Michael

Chislet; Youth Group of the Year, Mount Pearl Senior High 2017-2018 student

council; Performing Arts Award winner, Grace Nolan; Visual Arts Award winner,

Megan Fitzgerald; Literary Arts Award winner, Lily Perchard; Official of the

Year, Renee Quick; Adult Volunteer Working with Youth Award winner, May Ann

Hounsell; and Adult Volunteer Working with Youth in Sport Award winner, Trevor

Budgell.

There

were also performing arts recognition awards presented to the cast of

Footloose : The Musical from O'Donel

High, the O'Donel High School Jazz Band, and the cast, crew and band of

Happy Days – the Musical.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these amazing

individuals.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

I rise today to pay tribute

to the Makkovik volunteer ground search and rescue team.

On May

1, an aircraft crashed in bad weather approximately 75 kilometres Southeast of

Makkovik. There were two military aircraft in the area but blizzard-like

conditions prevented the rescue crews from accessing the crash site.

A team

of nine rescuers on snowmobile conducted the search. As the team approached the

site, they left their snowmobiles and climbed. Nearing the plane, they actually

had to crawl the steep slope, protecting themselves from the wind and blowing

snow.

Sam

Rutherford was seriously injured with six broken ribs and a shattered and

compressed sternum. Unfortunately, the second person, Alan Simpson, had

succumbed to his injuries.

I talked

with a rescuer who told me that they took great comfort in being able to rescue

Rutherford, and bringing back Mr. Simpson was good to allow the family closure

in his passing.

Please

applaud the heroic efforts of Henry Broomfield, Errol Andersen, Perry Dyson, Rex

Voisey, Andy Guy Voisey, Perry Voisey, Robert Gear, Roy Martin, Marv Clark and

also a long time ground search and rescue team member and rescue coordinator,

Barry Andersen.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

here today among such wonderful colleagues to speak of a great woman. She has

been among us for the past year or so, and I feel it's a great honour to tell

you of her most recent accomplishments.

Ms.

Alden Spencer is from the great District of Placentia West - Bellevue and she is

one of the House's Pages. Ms. Spencer is a well-rounded individual as her

four-page resume will tell you. Her community involvements are vast and range

from being a sea cadet, to a dancer, to a brand ambassador, to a blood donor.

Most

recently, Mr. Speaker, she has just convocated from Memorial University with

honours and Bachelor of Arts, majoring in political science and minoring in

history.

She has

been awarded the highest award offered by the University of New Brunswick school

of law, the Lord Beaverbrook Scholarship. It is the faculty's most prestigious

award and recipients are chosen from those with qualities suggesting attainment

of distinction in the legal profession. They are at the top of their

undergraduate program with solid LSAT scores.

Mr.

Speaker, Ms. Alden Spencer is an extraordinary woman. I ask that the Members of

this great House rise to join me in wishing Ms. Spencer congratulations on her

achievements and wish her much success in her future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Well done.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, there is rarely a dull moment for volunteer firefighters and first

responders throughout the District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

waterfalls swimming hole in Spaniard's Bay, known as the Gorge, was the location

of some intense moments yesterday evening. A group of young teenagers hiked to

the falls but, before long, a 13-year-old boy fell and sustained significant

damage to his leg. The kids knew they would need help in getting their friend

out of the woods in order to receive medical attention.

A call

was made to the ambulance, the RCMP and to the volunteer fire department of

Spaniard's Bay-Tilton. Before the firefighters could reach the boy, they also

had to hike through the steep, wooded area. First aid was needed and it was

determined that even more assistance would be required.

The

Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue were also on hand but, given the

steep, wooded terrain, it took a search and rescue helicopter stationed out of

Gander to maneuver above the Gorge and to repel the young man up. He was then

airlifted to the Janeway hospital where he received treatment.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the volunteer firefighters of Spaniard's

Bay-Tilton and all first responders for their outstanding dedication and

professional service.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, who needs to seek leave first.

MR. DAVIS:

I'd like to seek leave to

make a Member's statement.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Please proceed.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I 'm

very excited to stand in this hon. House to recognize the fantastic

accomplishment of one of my constituents, Mr. Alex Newhook.

An alumnus of Vanier Elementary, Alex left home at 14

to attend boarding school to develop his hockey skills against higher levels of

competition. The dedication and commitment to his craft allowed him to be named

the MVP for the Canadian Junior Hockey League. Being named the best player out

of some 2,000 players from 10 different junior leagues is quite an

accomplishment.

This season, Alex led the BC Hockey League with 102

points . He has also

represented Canada at the world junior under-18 hockey championships and was

their leading point-getter. This past Friday, Alex was selected 16th overall in

the first round of the 2019 NHL Entry Draft by the Colorado Avalanche, the first

Newfoundlander and Labradorian to be drafted in the first round since the great

Danny Cleary in 1997.

I know

all of my constituents in Virginia Waters - Pleasantville will join me in

congratulating the Newhook family, Shawn, Paula, Abby and Alex. This is a

testament to the passion and commitment that the entire family has made to help

Alex achieve this significant accomplishment.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Alex and his entire family, and

wish him the best in all his future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Corner Brook, who also needs to seek leave.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, under two very

different circumstances, today I recognize two incredible individuals. First,

and with great regret, I must inform the House of the passing of a member of the

Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, musician, musical educator, community leader

and treasured adopted son of Corner Brook. On Monday, Gary Graham succumbed to

cancer.

Recognition of his accomplishments ranged from an Honorary Doctorate from

Memorial University, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the personal

satisfaction of a message inscribed on a handwritten thank-you card from one of

his students who went on to perform with one of the continent's most prestigious

symphonies and attend one of the continent's most prestigious music schools.

Doctor G's blindingly beautiful legacy will shine as brightly as his musical

talent.

On a

happier occasion, this Saturday family and friends gathered for the 100th

birthday celebration of World War II veteran, community pioneer and a great man,

Robert Grant of Corner Brook.

Mr.

Grant served in the 166 Newfoundland Field Regiment, taking him into active duty

in North Africa and in Italy. Today, an active member of Branch 13 of the Royal

Canadian Legion, he resides at the Veterans Pavilion of Western Memorial

Regional Hospital, pleasantly keeping the nurses and attendants on top of their

game. With the energy of a 22-year-old still, and still sharply dressed and with

full medal decorations on display, he represents Corner Brook's wonderful past,

present and future.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to rise and join with me in celebrating one life

cut too short, and another who thankfully continues to bless us. Happy 100th

birthday to Robert Grant of Corner Brook.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

truly an honor to rise today in this House of Assembly to congratulate students

from this province whose group, Paradigm Hyperloop, will soon be competing at

the SpaceX Hyperloop Competition in California.

With the

support of the provincial and federal governments, the students from Paradigm

Hyperloop are working on a ground mode of transportation with speeds of over 450

kilometres per hour.

This

will be an incredible experience and opportunity for these students. Past

student participants have leveraged this experience to give them employment

opportunities at such firms as Tesla and Google, while others have created firms

right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I invite

all hon. Members in this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the

students from Paradigm Hyperloop and wish them the best of luck in this

competition.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. minister across for an advance copy of your statement. Myself, along

with my colleagues on this side of the House, are certainly in the same loop as

the minister in congratulating the Paradigm Hyperloop team.

Over the

past number of years, our post-secondary students have achieved national and

international success in many technical and academic competitions. This has

caught the attention of the world as leading employers have come to the province

looking for first-class talent for their respective organizations.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me again in congratulating the Paradigm Hyperloop team

and to wish them the very best of luck at the SpaceX Hyperloop Competition in

California.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to the

students of the Paradigm Hyperloop team on their successes to date, and I wish

them the best of luck as they head to this year's SpaceX Hyperloop Competition

in California.

I've

seen the pod from the last competition in the faculty entrance and I recommend

everyone go, and I know that we have world-class educators and researchers who

are preparing these students for their competition. I'm proud to see them return

to the global stage so they can once again showcase to the world what our

province and our students are made of.

commend the team on their innovation and perseverance, and I wish them continued

success in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the

last day of school in our province and I am honoured to rise in this hon. House

to congratulate more than 66,000 students on a successful school year. I also

extend my gratitude to the teachers, administrators and staff who work hard

every day to provide safe, productive and inclusive learning environments for

our children and youth.

This has

been a productive year for our students, educators, the department and the

implementation of the Education Action Plan. In less than a year, close to 40

per cent of the actions have been completed or are substantially under way. The

plan, which guides actions to implement the recommendations from the Premier's

Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes, will result in a strengthened

education system that is more responsive to the needs of students.

This

year, 40 schools participated in the Phase 1 implementation of a new student

services model to improve the education experience for students throughout the

province. An additional 40 schools have been selected for the 2019-2020 school

year.

Budget 2019

has increased funding to support the implementation of the plan by just over $6

million, for a total budget this year of $13.2 million. That includes $9 million

in teaching services and $2 million in professional learning for teachers.

Mr.

Speaker, through the Education Action Plan, we are providing an educational

environment that prepares students for lifelong learning and future academic and

career opportunities.

I invite

my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in congratulating students,

educators, staff and administrators who have worked diligently throughout the

school year and in wishing them a safe and enjoyable summer break.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, join the government in

congratulating the more than 66,000 students on another successful school year.

We hope that their hard work will result in good marks that they can enjoy all

summer long.

We hope

that the many teachers, assistants, substitutes and school staff will also enjoy

their summer after another year of doing one of the most important things we do

as a society, ensuring the education of our next generation, developing lifelong

learners.

Mr.

Speaker, we continue our call on the government to do all that it can to

continue to improve our education system. Our graduation rate is still too low.

Our math, science and literacy scores still fall below the national average. Too

many recommendations from the Premier's task force report – some-60 per cent –

are still unfulfilled, and teaching staff are left concerned that they may lack

the necessary resources to fulfill them.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Action plans

work because teachers work hard to make them work for their students.

The most

valuable resource any action plan can give a teacher is time. Time to work with

students individually; time to plan; time to meet with teachers and parents;

time to respond to the needs of students, and that means a needs-based

allocation model.

I join

with the minister and Members in thanking students, parents, teachers, staff and

administrators who worked hard throughout the year and in wishing them a safe,

enjoyable and relaxing summer holiday.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the government

ran on this election budget on which the House voted today, but the electorate

gave the budget a vote of non-confidence by returning a government with a

minority.

Why did

the Premier refuse to make adjustments to the budget to reflect the priorities

he heard from the electorate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I

want to remind everyone once again that the budget we introduced to the House of

Assembly, and, indeed, to Newfoundland and Labrador an April 16, was the exact

budget that we put in place.

I just

want to remind people who are watching today that it was the Leader of the

Opposition who said that this would not be the budget that we introduced, and we

consistently said that we did.

There

are a lot of good things in this budget. Mr. Speaker, it's balanced. It puts us

on a track to a balanced budget in '22-'23, Mr. Speaker. The initiatives, that

I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition has a letter that he wrote to me, some of

those – many of those initiatives, I would say, almost all eight of them,