PDF Version

May 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 33

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome to the public galleries today Shannon Hickey, who is the subject

of a Member's statement. As well, we welcome to our gallery Mayor Andrew Shea of

Fogo Island; as well as, I believe there are some officials from the council and

some council members as well.

Welcome

to our galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Harbour Main, Cape St. Francis,

Virginia Waters Pleasantville, Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, Conception Bay

South and St. George's Humber.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Today I give rise to share

the success witnessed this weekend in Avondale, at the Eastbound International

Speedway and Concert Park.

Fans

from across our province, Canada and the US witnessed the opening of the fourth

NASCAR Home Track in Canada.

The

excitement and anticipation was electrifying. The roar and applause of the fans

and race car engines echoed in the hillsides. We were spellbound.

I had

the pleasure of speaking with Kevin Nevalainen, event management director, who

was elated with the overall success of the event.

The

owner of Eastbound International Speedway, Paddy Squires, has a remarkable

commitment to our youth, as seen through their schools program and race track

driver training programs. Kudos to Paddy who turned his dream into a reality.

Professionalism reigns supreme in the entire undertaking. Let us be proud of

their achievements, welcome them and their events wholeheartedly and wish them

every success.

Squires

and the entire team never let the fans down with any entertainment provided,

this weekend being no exception.

Mr.

Speaker, collectively, let us send our congratulations to the Squires team and

thank them for their contributions to the community and province.

Let us

all rise to say thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2016 Business Award winners in the

Town of Torbay.

On May

5, I had the pleasure of attending the Torbay Business Awards event held at the

Kinsmen Centre. Most of the nominees for the awards were in attendance.

Economic

Development Officer, Ross Houlihan, spoke on the recent municipal development

projects and activities in Torbay; however, the highlight of the evening was the

awards presentation.

New

Business of the Year was awarded to Edge Beauty Bar co-owners Katie Porter and

Suzette Kelly; two young business ladies were delighted with their award.

Entrepreneur of the Year was a husband and wife team, Glen and Chen Stokes, who

are owner operators of Mrs. Liddy's Bar and Breakout NL.

Business

of the Year award was presented to Brian Eason and Cynthia Littlejohn, owner

operators of Joint Therapy. They became just the second business to ever win two

Torbay Business Awards, winning New Business Award in 2015.

The

Customer Commitment award went to a long time established business in Torbay,

Dr. Mathai Dentistry. I can attest of her commitment first-hand because she is

my dentist and one of the nicest ladies you will ever meet.

I would

like to congratulate all involved.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to recognize Major William G.

Tilley of the Church Lads Brigade on receiving his honourary Doctor of Canon Law

from Queens College.

At the

age of 101, Major Tilley received this honourary degree on May 12 at the Church

of St. Mary the Virgin in St. John's. In addition to family and friends, their

Honours, Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Frank Fagan and the Honourable

Patricia Fagan were in attendance to mark this monumental occasion.

Major

Tilley first joined the CLB in 1926. He has served for 90 consecutive years.

Major Tilley has been a CLB archivist since 1977 and the Drum Major for the CLB

Regimental Band for 63 years.

He is

still a pillar of the brigade and a mentor for many young men and women who

serve in the CLB today. I consider it a great privilege to know Major Tilley and

I am proud to call him a friend.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Major William G. Tilley on

receiving his honourary degree and thank him for over 90 years of service to the

CLB and to the community.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I rise in this hon. House to

congratulate Ms. Shannon Hickey, recipient of one of six HSBC Bank Canada Woman

Leader of Tomorrow Regional Awards in 2015.

As the

leader of Enactus Canada group at the College of the North Atlantic, business

owner and active volunteer, Shannon understands what it means to achieve success

and she has great empathy for others. She recognizes the importance of

collaboration to achieve positive results. Shannon successfully lobbied and

secured funding for her group to attend the global Enactus event in Beijing. She

is actively involved in programs such as Independent You, which teaches

financial literacy and responsibility to high school students; and Total

Exposure, which promotes the artwork of outpatients who deal with mental health

issues.

With a

humorous nature and vivacious spirit, Shannon is always welcome at any event and

readily lends a hand for numerous community projects; she volunteers with

Habitat for Humanity and the Sacred Heart RC Church and actively supports the

St. Lawrence Anglican Church in her hometown of Belleoram.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to

Shannon and encourage her to continue offering her skills to help people and our

communities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on March 11, I had the pleasure of attending the 140th anniversary

dinner at the Prince of Orange Lodge, LOL #23 at the Foxtrap Parish Hall.

The

Loyal Orange Association has made a significant contribution to our community

and the residents of Newfoundland through their commitment to various

fundraising initiatives, including the CBS Monument of Honour, Janeway, Daffodil

Place and many more worthwhile charities.

On March

11, 1876, Most Worshipful Grand Master and Sovereign of the Loyal Orange

Association of Canada, Brother M. Bonnell travelled to Newfoundland from Nova

Scotia by train to Kelligrews. He entered the new building in Middle Bight Road

where he presented the Loyal Orange Warrant and dedicated and named the hall

Prince of Orange #23.

During

the early years the Orange Lodges were the only meeting halls in many towns.

Prince of Orange #23 has served many purposes such as a church, classrooms, a

theatre and a polling station where political rallies and fundraisers were held.

The social life of the Orange Lodge itself was celebrated in the form of dances,

wedding receptions, concerts, birthdays and anniversary parties.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Prince of Orange, LOL #23 on

its 140th Anniversary.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for St. George's

Humber.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, each year the

Canadian national darts competition sees the finest young dart players in Canada

compete. This past weekend nine provinces participated, including a team from

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The age

range of the teams is from 10 to 18 years old, and there are two groups: those

under 16, and those under 19. Each province submits a team and they play

singles, doubles, mixed doubles and team competition.

Awards

are given for each competition and points are awarded for each win and total.

The province with the highest total wins the Canada Cup, which gives the

province the bragging rights as being the best in Canada.

This

year, for only the second time in its history, Newfoundland and Labrador won

that cup. Three members were from the District of St. George's Humber: Kaylee

Barnes, Myaella Stoddard and Darcee Gale. The other members were Amy Spracklin,

Erica Spracklin, Brad Dobbin, Devon Pope, Cody Kerrivan, Hunter Pike and Jayden

Kelly.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating the Newfoundland and Labrador youth

darts team on winning the Canada Cup.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration

of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Honour 100, we have

the Member for the District of Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

I will now read into the

record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First World

War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve or

the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine. This will be followed by a moment of

silence.

Lest we

forget: John Benjamin Ridgley, Garland Ridout, Sydney Ridout, Thomas J. Ring,

Albert Roberts, Cecil Roberts, Francis Roberts, Frank Roberts, Frank Roberts,

John Roberts, Ray Maxwell Roberts, Thomas Stephen Roberts, Edward Joseph

Rodgers, Thomas Rodgers, Thomas Edward Rodgers, Simeon Rogers, Walter Rolls,

Harold Romaine, Thomas Ronan, William Joseph Roost, Frederick Charles Roper,

Cecil Rose, George Rose, George Rose, James Rose, John Rose, John Rose, Peter

Rose, Michael Joseph Ross, R. Wallace Ross, Matthew Rossiter, Charles Rowe,

Frederick Rowe, Henry Rowe, Henry Mott Rowe, Edward Clayton Rowsell, Gordon

Rowsell, H. John R. Rowsell, Reginald S. Rowsell, John Russell.

(Moment of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on Friday I was in Heart's Delights-Islington along with Minister Judy

Foote where we had the pleasure of participating in the announcement of the 2016

recreational cod fishery.

I am

very pleased with the federal government's decision to extend the recreational

fishery by 14 days, which includes all weekends in July and August, as well as

the Canada Day and Labour Day long weekends.

The

recreational fishery presents exciting opportunities for growth, including

marine tourism. With the recreational fishery now extended into weekends,

provincially-licenced tour boat operators will have the opportunity to provide

tourists with a truly unique experience.

This was

a priority area for the Premier when he appointed me as Fisheries Minister and

Minister of Aquaculture, to work with my federal counterparts to expand the

recreational fishery and to look at opportunities to develop marine tourism.

Planning

for the revitalization of groundfish is something that was also outlined in my

mandate letter. We have already taken steps toward achieving this through

funding for the establishment of a Fisheries Advisory Council and the new

Seafood Innovation and Transition Program announced in

Budget 2016 .

Mr.

Speaker, the recreational fishery is something that many people look forward to

every year. As stocks rebound we will continue to support expansion of both the

recreational and commercial cod fisheries.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I, too, am pleased with the

announcement of the recreational cod fishery. Every week since the House opened

I presented a petition emphasizing the problems in the fishery and making sure

it was done in a way that safety was paramount in everything.

Putting

people on the water on the weekends and giving them more opportunity to get out

is a great announcement, but it's unfortunate it isn't a priority of this

government over across the way because our fishery needs a lot more.

We have

a shrimp fishery that's in crisis. We have a crab fishery where the catches are

way down. Our harvesters are wondering where their quotas are. I'd like to see

the government act more and represent the harvesters in this province.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The changes to the

recreational cod fishery will provide new opportunities for marine tourism. Of

course, our tourism industry in coastal communities is inextricably tied to our

inshore fishery. I look forward to seeing the commercial cod management measures

for 2016 and hope they provide commensurate measures for the commercial fishery

as the industry continues to cope with challenging changes.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the provincial

government is committed to ensuring students in Newfoundland and Labrador have

their educational needs met through various resources including distance

education.

Through

the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, we are ensuring that senior

high school students, especially those in rural and remote areas, have access to

the courses they need for a rich and diverse educational experience.

CDLI is

a great learning and teaching resource which supports approximately 950 students

completing over 40 courses in 118 schools. Subject areas for CDLI courses

education, career education, skilled trades, French, music and art.

Mr.

Speaker, as the end of another school year quickly approaches, many of our

senior high and intermediate students will be taking public and final exams. The

resources available on the CDLI website are not limited to students in rural or

remote regions. This online resource provides high quality programming to all

students and offers free high school review materials, old exams to review for

practice, and free live online tutoring. Online tutoring is also available in

math and science for students in grades seven to nine.

encourage all students to take advantage of what CDLI has to offer by visiting

www.cdli.ca .

I also invite Members of the House of Assembly to share this information with

students in their districts as they prepare to write exams.

Good

luck to all students with their year-end exams.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minster for the advance copy of his statement. It's great to see the

minister talking about an important program our administration believes so

strongly in. A program we responsibly invested in.

I have

to say, it's beyond ironic that the minister who will be largely responsible for

doing damage to the province's education system is fabricating concerns over

whether students have access to courses and programs. This statement is

extremely disingenuous when at the same time you're closing schools, axing 54

libraries, cancelling school infrastructure projects, taxing books, laying off

teachers, combining grades and gutting the Intensive Core French program.

You want

to brag about what you're doing to improve access to education resources this

minister and this government have lost touch with all reality. Their polling

numbers today show that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for St. John's

East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The CDLI has certainly

been successful in the delivery of high school courses over the years. I'm sure

students are finding the online study resources helpful as well.

However,

the bottom line, and what the minister has not told us, is that some areas still

have slow and intermittent Internet which creates barriers. It would be helpful

if he had told us what is being done to ensure that all students across the

province have equal access.

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

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on April 20 the Premier, flanked by the Minister of Natural Resources,

stood before the media and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and stressed

that the former CEO of Nalcor's resignation was a personal one that was first

discussed at a meeting between the two on Sunday, April 17, and later confirmed

at a meeting on Tuesday evening, April 19.

I ask

the Premier: When you stood before the cameras and the people of the province on

April 20 and announced Mr. Martin's resignation, were you aware that it was

actually a termination and not a resignation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

information, of course, based on the discussion that I had with Mr. Martin was

that he was stepping aside. As a matter of fact, these are not just my words,

but these are the words of the former CEO of Nalcor.

Just

immediately after we addressed the media, Mr. Martin, the outgoing CEO,

addressed the media himself. It was his words that he was stepping aside and

that it was his decision based on where he was in his life.

So the

stepping aside was actually a decision by Mr. Martin. These were his words and

this is what he confirmed at around 11:45 on April 20.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know

government officials and we know lawyers were involved representing all parties

in these discussions.

I ask

the Premier: During the meeting with the former CEO, Mr. Martin, on Sunday,

April 17, did Mr. Martin tell you that he was going to resign?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

meeting on Sunday night was a meeting that Mr. Martin called for. He was the one

who asked for that meeting. A number of issues were discussed around Nalcor and

so on.

It was

then we took some time, and it was in a meeting on Tuesday that he then informed

us that he would be actually making his decision and on Wednesday morning he

would be stepping aside. That's the information that was shared at the meeting

on Tuesday, not the Sunday meeting at all, I say to the former premier. It was

on the Tuesday evening.

Then

that decision led into the events of April 20. So the information that we have

now, that's available to us, is now with the Department of Justice and they will

be reviewing the information that's available. Then we'll be making our

decision, what options we have, as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

were two meetings, one on Sunday, April 17 and one on Wednesday, April 19.

Again, we know officials and lawyers were heavily involved in the discussion and

process.

I ask

the Premier: When was the issue of severance first discussed with Mr. Martin?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

meeting was on Sunday night. There was a meeting requested by Mr. Martin, and

the second meeting actually took place on Tuesday night. The discussion around

severance is a question you would have to ask the board of directors or Mr.

Martin, because at that point anything that was related to his contract was with

the board at directors at Nalcor.

The

contract for the CEO was with the board of directors at Nalcor. So that question

would best be asked of those parties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

say to the Premier there were two meetings, Sunday, April 17 and the next one on

Tuesday, April 19.

I ask

the Premier again: When was the issue of severance first discussed? Was it on

Tuesday night or was it on Sunday night?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the terms of the contract, as I said, that was with the board of directors of

Nalcor, so that any decision around what the severance package could look like

was a decision that was made by the board of directors.

Subsequent to that, I was not part of the discussion around what any severance

package would look like. Did I see any draft of an agreement that was made? No,

I did not, so none of that information was shared with me. The information that

I got came to us on May 5. That information is now with the Department of

Justice for them to review and do their own analysis, to provide analysis and

advice that would come back to us. We will consider what options that we have

available to us based on the information that we will get from the Department of

Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier,

a very simple question: Did you discuss severance with Mr. Martin on Tuesday,

April 19?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

any discussion on severance was with the board of directors. The contract was

with the board of directors. I can't say it any more clearer than that. So any

severance package would have been discussed with the board of directors of

Nalcor. That was their decision. The CEO, it's their employee, the contract that

they had was held with them, Mr. Speaker. So any settlement agreement, any

decision around what the package would look like, was done by the board of

directors of Nalcor. That was not something that I was party to; they did that

themselves. The information that we have now available to us made available to

us on May 5 is now with the Department of Justice for their review, for their

analysis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

not the question I asked. So I'm going to ask the question again, it's very

simple.

On April

19, did you discuss severance with Mr. Martin?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

would with any contract that's in place, I would expect that any agency would

live up to whatever the contracts and conditions are. The contract in this

particular case with the CEO, Mr. Martin, squarely, the responsibility to

deliver on whatever the conditions of the employment for their CEO was with the

board of directors of Nalcor. The decision was made by the board of directors of

Nalcor. That was not something I was party to. The information came to me on May

5. I can't say it any more clearly than that.

I'm not

so sure if the outgoing premier by the way, it was a contract that was

designed by the previous administration and a board appointed by them.

So, with

that said, the information that I received on May 5 is now with the Department

of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

him that the Minister of Finance was on the board at the time, but he hasn't

answered the question. Premier, I don't know why you won't answer the question.

It's a very simple question. The fact you won't answer it is significant.

Did you

discuss severance with Mr. Martin in your discussion with him on April 19? A

simple question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the former premier, of all people in this province, should know that the CEO was

an employee, the CEO of Nalcor. It wasn't my responsibility and my objective

anything at all related to the Office of the Premier. Maybe they are used to

interfering in that office, I can't answer that. Maybe that's something they did

on a regular basis.

But, the

contract with the CEO and the severance package that became public on May 4, the

information I received around that on May 5, is now with the Department of

Justice. We will be exploring what options we have as a government, that we have

available to us, which would include how severance was paid and so on. So, this

will be analyzed and reviewed by the Department of Justice, then the decision on

what options we have available to us on behalf of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. That's when we will make the decision that we have that's

available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we're

going to assume he did discuss it. He won't answer the question. He won't

provide the information, so we're going to assume that he did discuss it.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to ask the Premier: Considering we now know or it's safe to

conclude because you won't say otherwise you had a discussion about severance.

If you had a problem with the severance, the $1.4 million severance, why didn't

you move on it or take action on it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure

the former premier would know just by his own management, his own planning, that

he makes a lot of assumptions. As a matter of fact, they assumed they had a deal

with the fisheries fund. They assumed wrong. They also assumed that this year we

would not have a $2.7 billion deficit. Mr. Speaker, they were wrong. So I was

not about to make any assumptions.

The

contract with the CEO squarely lied with the was with the board of directors

of Nalcor. That information that I became aware of on May 5 is with the

Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, and that's when the decisions will be made

on what options we have available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

It's regrettable that I have

to interrupt question and answer period. I'm asking the Member for Mount Pearl

North to respect the individual that has been recognized to speak.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier won't answer, won't say specifically if he did or did not, won't confirm

or deny that he had discussions on severance with Mr. Martin. He did say on May

5 he became aware. The rest of the province knew on May 4. He became aware on

May 5.

I ask

the Premier: What did you instruct the Department of Justice to do on May 5, and

who in the department was assigned to do whatever it is you wanted done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

said, the details around the severance package which I became aware of on May 5.

Then after review of that, we actually handed that over to the Department of

Justice which is where it is today. Right now, I think the responsibility on all

of us is to let the Department of Justice take the time they need to do a proper

review so that we will know what options we have available to us based on the

decision that was made by the former board of Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Who did you contact in the Department of Justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe

the former premier, what he's asking for is specific names. We have a full group

of people, of course, that are within the Department of Justice. I'm not in that

department on a day-to-day basis but I'm very comfortable and very confident in

the people we have working on that file within the Department of Justice.

Clearly,

I will tell you right now, that whoever it takes, whoever the individuals are

within the Department of Justice, these are maybe there will be multiple

people, but we will do whatever it takes the individuals that we have in the

Department of Justice to make sure that we do a proper review and a proper

analysis of this.

It's not

about the individuals. There will be a number of individuals that will be

involved in this I'm sure, from beginning to end.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Why did you wait until just yesterday to make this public that you

had provided direction to the Department of Justice to review this circumstance?

Why did you wait until yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

I said, I became aware of the conditions around the decision that was made by

the board of Nalcor on May 5. So we handed that over to the Department of

Justice for their review. Once that review is completed, what information that

we can actually legally put forward and make public, I'm hoping that we'll be

able to put all of it out there, Mr. Speaker. That's clearly where I'd like to

be on this.

course, there's a process that we have to go through, so the timing on all of

this is and as the former premier would know, you often go to the Department

of Justice for advice on many issues. If we were to stand up in this particular

House and we were to say, okay, by the way we just called the Department of

Justice, we need an opinion on that, we would probably be doing that every day

as the former premier should know.

Right

now, the Department of Justice is doing a review. Whatever information we can

put out there, once that's completed, we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier is on the record as saying much earlier that he had a legal

opinion on this that guided the decisions that were made.

Will you

table that legal opinion here in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any

legal opinions that I would have received so far are still with the Department

of Justice right now for their analysis. I have not received anything at all

from a legal opinion prior to May 5. That work is ongoing now with the

Department of Justice.

information becomes available to them, they will do their analysis. Then we'll

see what information, what options we have available to us once the review is

completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier is on the record as publicly saying he had a legal opinion which led to

the decision of paying the severance. You said we have a legal opinion. It was

your words, Premier.

Where is

that legal opinion? Will you table that here in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

glad, actually, to clarify this and speak to this and answer this question. The

legal opinions, based on the severance that was paid out to the former CEO, are

with Nalcor. That is the legal opinion, the advice that was given to them to

make their decision that they eventually used to create the agreement and the

severance package that was put forward to Mr. Martin.

The

legal opinions that the former premier is talking about are in possession of

Nalcor. It is their opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier is on the record as saying that there was a legal opinion that based the

decision for providing the severance.

Did you

actually see the legal opinion, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I

have not seen any legal opinion or advice that was given to Nalcor. That is not

something that I would be privy to. That was given to Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So the Premier says it was a

legal opinion at Nalcor, which we heard coming into the House today that Nalcor

doesn't have a legal opinion. He says it was part of his decision-making

process.

How

could you say you used a legal opinion as part of your own decision-making

process when you're saying now you never saw a legal opinion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'm going to try and clarify this for the former premier again. The decision

around severance was made with the board of directors of Nalcor. Let's be very

clear. The board of directors made the decision on the severance with the former

CEO.

The

former premier makes reference to an opinion that was given. He's saying there

was no opinion given. Clearly, if he checked for the record, there was an

opinion given. There was a verbal opinion that was given to the board of Nalcor.

That's been clarified, as I understand it to be. That is not an opinion that was

given to me; neither should it be as Premier of the province. The people

responsible for the CEO of Nalcor are indeed the board of directors of Nalcor.

It was there opinion and their decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I will ask Members again for their respect. I'm fully expecting there will be no

heckling during question and answer period.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to ask the Premier again because this is very important. He spoke publicly and

said that the decision on severance, and his position, was related directly to a

legal opinion. Now he is saying today that he never saw the legal opinion. There

wasn't actually a written legal opinion. It was a verbal opinion.

Premier,

can you clarify that? Are you saying decisions were made based on verbal advice,

not an opinion, when you publicly said you had a legal opinion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

clarify. The opinions given based on the severance and the decisions made based

on the severance of the former CEO were given not to me; it was given to the

board of directors of Nalcor. They own the contract. They held the contract with

the former CEO.

clarify this for the former premier, any legal advice, any legal opinions were

given to the board of directors of Nalcor. That was advice and opinion not given

to me, but given to the board of Nalcor. It was based on the advice and the

opinions that they were given, I understand. That is how they made their

decision.

We now

have the Department of Justice involved with government, our own officials in

the Department of Justice to see what options we have. They will review that.

They will do their own analysis of that, then a decision can be made on what

options we have available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

Premier is saying he was informed of a legal opinion. Well, tell us this

Premier: Who provided that opinion directly to you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May

5, there was information that was given to me about how the decision was made.

I've now turned that over to the Department of Justice for their review. Once

their analysis is completed, we will know what options we have available to us.

Then we will be in the position, I am hoping, that all of this information,

based on what transpired between April 20 and May 5, this is information that,

based on the opinions we get from the Department of Justice, we're hoping to get

as much of this out there in the public realm as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll try

this again.

Who

shared the opinion with you, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Who

shared the opinion with me? Mr. Speaker, the opinion was not shared with me.

What has happened here is the board of directors of Nalcor, who hold the

contract, they went out, they got legal advice on the decision they had made. It

was exclusively their decision to actually terminate the former CEO without

cause.

That

decision rests with the board of directors at Nalcor. We now have this

information, which is currently under review with the officials of the

Department of Justice within government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the

Premier never saw a legal opinion. He somehow knows there is one, but no one

told him or shared it with him. It wasn't shared with him at all. He repeated

several times yesterday that there was a legal opinion.

How did

you even know there was a legal opinion if nobody shared it with you, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

think the whole province knows that there was an opinion. If the former premier

just listened to the media outlets, there was an opinion that was just as a

matter of fact, I think it was the officials at Nalcor that just told the people

of the province that there was a verbal opinion they had sought. So it's very

clear this is a decision that was made by Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the Premier of the province addressed the people of the province in the media

and said there was a legal opinion. Repeated it several times, repeated it

yesterday. Now today he's telling us he's not aware of the legal opinion. He's

going by what was in the media, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely shameful, the Premier of

the province stands before the people and shares an opinion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is

actually shameful here is we have the former premier here playing politics with

this. I clearly said yesterday, yes, there was an opinion that was given to the

board of directors at Nalcor. I've always stated that the opinion was given to

the board of directors at Nalcor. It wasn't given to me as Premier. It was

advice that was given to the board of directors the former board of directors

at Nalcor.

So that

opinion, that advice, squarely to them, they made their decisions based on that.

The next review, next legal opinion based on this will be done with the

officials within our own department. Once that analysis, that review is

completed, we will then know what options we have available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

trying to clarify this and make a full understanding. Were you informed what the

legal opinion was? Were you informed of that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as I said

earlier, so many times today, the opinion given legally, the advice was given to

the board of directors, so I was not informed. The legal advice that was given

to the board of directors at Nalcor, that was advice that was given to them.

Based on

that, they made their decision. Based on that decision, now we're going to do

our own review within the Department of Justice here representing the people of

our province. That's the step that we are at today. The opinions given were

given to the board of directors at Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we know there's a resolution of the board regarding the termination of

the former CEO. Will you table that resolution here in the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

information that we have available to us the former premier says he knows it

was a resolution. Maybe he's got a copy of it. But whatever information we have

right now is with the Department of Justice. Once they have done their review

and their analysis, all of this information that we can put out there

publically, legally, we are more than willing to do it.

There is

no reason I would anticipate that a resolution the board of directors is not

something that can be made public, but that is really a decision that I will

take the advice from our own Department of Justice. Clearly, I think this is

something that can be done. I have really no issue with it, but we want to make

sure that we complete the review and the analysis from the Department of Justice

before any of this information is released.

I can

tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, the more information that we can put out there

on this, that is where I want to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So,

Premier, will you table all of that information in the House here this

afternoon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

clearly I have to say, that is one of the worst questions I have ever heard this

former premier say. After all we've been through here right now, what he's

expecting me to do is table information without even going through a process

that we would go through maybe the former premier is used to interfering with

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy. Maybe that's what he's used to

doing when he sat in this chair, but I can tell you right now, I will respect

the process of the individuals that are involved. And it's when we get through

that process, when the analysis is completed, I will be very happy to put to the

people of this province any information that can be made public. I'm hoping that

it can be all made public, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, $1.4 million is

significant dollars to oversee, I'd say to the Premier.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier claims he had no involvement or knowledge of the terms of

Mr. Martin's departure. So I ask the Premier: Did you meet with, or have any

discussions with members of the Nalcor board to discuss his actual departure?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I met a

number of times with the former chair of Nalcor. I never met really with the

board of directors at Nalcor. That meeting never happened, but it was not

related specifically to a contract or a severance agreement. There was no

information that was shared with me about a draft severance or any of the

details. That information, I became aware of on May 5, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: Did you have any discussions with the board on the

future employment of Mr. Martin?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, Mr. Speaker, I never had

any discussions with the board of Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Just to be clear, Premier,

did you have any discussions with the board on the future employment of Mr.

Martin?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the question the Member opposite asked is about discussions with the board of

Nalcor about the future employment of Mr. Martin. No, I did not have any

discussions with the board.

We had

the meeting on Tuesday night with Mr. Martin. There were no members of the board

present at that meeting. The decision was made on the future of Mr. Martin. He

made that decision himself when he made a decision to step aside. The severance

package was then determined by the outgoing the former board of Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What involvement did she have

in this matter, and when did she become aware of the details of the termination

agreement for Mr. Martin?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

pleased to be involved in the meetings with Mr. Martin on April 17 and again on

April 19. I was with the Premier when we were having the discussions with Mr.

Martin when he decided to step down on the 20th of April.

As has

been determined and discussed here this afternoon, the decisions around the

contract of Mr. Martin rest with the board of directors. The board of directors

made the determination.

I think

his final question was on the contract agreement. I did not see anything until I

returned from Houston on May 9.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Premier has told us that he became aware on April 21 of the Nalcor board's

decision to terminate Mr. Martin without cause.

I ask

the Premier: Why did he not immediately inform the public of the discrepancy

between Nalcor's announcement and that of the CEO.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

decision by the board of directors of Nalcor, when I became aware of that, they

had already had their decision made. So that was on April 20, I think it was, I

say to the Member opposite.

The

decision was we had done our press releases and the former CEO had already

spoken to the public as well. It was after that the board had made their

decision. It was really nothing for me to report there. I had not seen any of

the details about the impact that would have on any severance agreement until

May 5.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Why

didn't he immediately get the Department of Justice involved then?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

conditions in the contract with the former CEO of Nalcor squarely, as I said,

rest with the board of directors of Nalcor. They had made their decision. I was

not aware of the terms and the conditions of the agreement that was reached with

the former CEO. Therefore the impact, the details around the nearly $1.4 million

severance was made public around May 4 and the conditions around the agreement,

how that was approached, I became aware of on May 5.

As I

said, Mr. Speaker, so many times today that is now with the officials at the

Department of Justice and they are now doing their analysis and review, and we

look forward to seeing what options we have on behalf of government in the

coming days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier can request through a resolution of the House for the Auditor General to

investigate the matter of the outgoing CEO's severance.

I ask

the Premier: Will he bring a resolution to this House of Assembly to ask the

Auditor General to investigate the full circumstances of Mr. Martin's departure

from Nalcor and the board's conduct in approving severance and bonus payments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the prudent thing to do and the responsible thing to do right now is to let the

officials at the Department of Justice do their work. They will do their review.

They will do their analysis of the information that they have access to. And

based on that review and that analysis, then we will see what options that we

have available to us.

The AG

might be one of those options. There might clearly be some other options that

are available to us. But I think the prudent, responsible thing to do, on behalf

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is to let this process unfold. Once

it's completed, then we will know what options we have available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

Premier: On such an important issue, why will he not go directly to the Auditor

General when this is such a crucial issue for the people of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, I think the responsible and the prudent thing to do is to let the

Department of Justice going directly there right now and circumventing a

process that has already been started and already established, it is probably

best in all our interests to let the Department of Justice complete the work and

the task that they've been asked and assigned to do.

I'm not

expecting this to take a long, long time. Then, once that work is completed, we

will know. We will have a good understanding of what options that we have

available to us. One of them might very well be the AG. If that's the best

option that we see available to us, well that's the option that we will take.

But first of all, clearly there is a process started, there's a process that we

will let unfold and when that process is completed, we will then be in the

position to make the best decision based on the options that we have available

to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has

full legislative power to ask the Auditor General to intervene and, according to

the Premier, the Department of Justice has been reviewing the issue of severance

paid to former CEO Martin for three weeks now. Has the Premier received any

report or partial report of their findings?

I ask

the Premier: When does he expect this review to be finished?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A report

is really something that will be finalized at some point, where the Department

of Justice will do the due diligence that they see in a very responsible fashion

and make sure they do the review that's required and that we have asked them to

do. So to put a timeline, a date on that would not be responsible, but I don't

anticipate this to be a long review, Mr. Speaker.

I look

forward to getting this completed as well on behalf of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We need to know what options we have available to us so that we

can then make the informed decision that's required in the best interests of the

people of our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for Question Period has

expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the

following resolution: a resolution respecting the appointment of members of the

Independent Appointments Commission.

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS subsection 6(3) of the

Independent Appointments Commission Act provides that five members

are to be appointed to an Independent Appointments Commission by the Lieutenant

Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly; and

WHEREAS subsection 6(4) of the act provides that the

Lieutenant Governor in Council designate one of the members of the commission to

be chairperson;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the following persons be

appointed members of the Independent Appointments Commission: Mr. Clyde K.

Wells, chairperson; Ms. Zita Cobb; Ms. Shannie Duff; Mr. Philip R. Earle and Mr.

Derek Young.

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice pursuant to Standing

Order 11 that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., tomorrow, Thursday.

Pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this

House do not adjourn at 10 p.m., tomorrow, May 26.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There is

a motion that the House do not adjourn tomorrow at 5:30.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CLERK (Ms. Barnes):

We don't vote

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

We don't vote on sorry

about that.

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

I tried to help you out

there, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An To Amend The

Co-operative Act, Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act, Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

government has once again cut the libraries budget, forcing the closure of 54

libraries; and

WHEREAS

libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with

little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and

computer access; and

WHEREAS

libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's

literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS

already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation

and cost of libraries;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a

long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I stand with this petition which is dealing with one of the

most onerous pieces of the terrible Budget

People

have been protesting, not just the people in the communities where the libraries

are closing but people here on the Avalon Peninsula. Again, the petition I have

today is from people in St. John's, really concerned that we do not have

equality in this province for people in urban centres along with people in rural

centres. They are disturbed that this government is just completely ignoring the

needs of our people both on a community level and as individuals.

We have

said over and over that we have terrible literacy levels in this province. We

used to say it was the older generation only, where they didn't have

opportunities in rural Newfoundland over the years. It was older people, but

that's not the case. We have poor literacy levels in young adults as well. This

government once again continues to ignore.

Now

today they're priding themselves because they were forced to make changes to one

aspect of the budget. We're already getting emails and phone calls, I am, from

people saying, well, if we put enough pressure on will they change something

else? One of the things people want changed is the decision on the libraries.

Maybe they should think about this as well, Mr. Speaker, with the wonderful

pocket of money they say they are getting from the federal government, which I

can't even see is going to cover the change they've made to the levy. I'm dying

to hear how they've done the math on that one.

Mr.

Speaker, I will continue to stand here on this floor and speak for people who do

not want their libraries closed because it's a loss to the community. It's a

loss to people, seniors in particular. They say they're worried about seniors.

Well, seniors need their libraries in order to go and use computers, to gain the

services that they have to gain from government through computers.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Fogo

Island Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the decision has been made to close the Hare Bay/Dover medical clinic; and

WHEREAS

the transfer of medical services will negatively affect our residents; and

WHEREAS

neighbouring medical facilities will be overcrowded; and

WHEREAS

this overcrowding and transferring of medical services will cost government more

money than what keeping the existing clinic open would cost;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge the government to reverse the decision to close the Hare

Bay/Dover medical clinic.

Mr.

Speaker, this is signed by over 1,050 people of the Hare Bay/Dover area

affecting their clinic and they wanted me to make this petition here today.

Hopefully we can work with these to resolve this dilemma.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

libraries promote literacy and provide access to information for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS

communities in our province depend on libraries to increase their knowledge and

further their opportunities; and

WHEREAS

the closures of libraries in the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune,

Newfoundland and Labrador, was a result of the Liberal budget of 2016; and

WHEREAS

the residents of this district will now have to travel over an hour to access a

library;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to immediately reverse the closure of the

libraries in Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, certainly the constituents of my district would support the

reinstatement of libraries all across this province because the only place

they're closing is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, imagine that, a

Liberal government tearing the life out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador yet

again.

Let's

talk about they say it's all about regionalization. Let's talk about we're

using the context of my district and I'm sure if the Members opposite were able

to get up and speak to theirs, they would oppose their decisions. One community

out of 22 will be served by their regionalization plan, Mr. Speaker just one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

It being Private Members'

Day, I call on the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair to bring forward her

motion.

The hon.

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand today. I introduced a motion on Tuesday that would be debated

here this afternoon and I'll take the next 15 minutes to speak to the motion.

BE IT

RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the government's proposal to provide the

Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, a refundable tax credit for

low-income seniors, which this year is providing some 42,000 seniors in our

province with payments of up to $971 the highest amount ever.

district, the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, not unlike the rest of

the province, but perhaps in rural areas, coastal Labrador for sure, we have an

aging population that I think it's more pronounced in rural areas. I believe

we're saying by 2025, one in every four people in the province will be a senior,

and I'm sure where I live that's going to be higher than that one in four. So

anything that we can do to support the seniors in our province who we all know

live on low income, most of them, Old Age Security, maybe a tiny bit of Canada

Pension.

Where I

make my home in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair people who have

historically always earned a living from the fishery, their Canada Pension might

only be $17 or $18 because they didn't work and they didn't pay into that. So

very low income, and we recognize again, in rural parts, the high costs of goods

and services, the high cost of moving about to see a specialist.

anything that we can do, Mr. Speaker, to support these seniors, we're in fact

going to do that. Because who are these seniors? The 30 of us over here on this

side, they're our family, they're our parents, and they're our grandparents.

Anything we can do to support those who blazed a trail for us, we owe such a

great deal of gratitude to our seniors.

grandfather, Ben Powell I was raised by my grandparents, and I say that

proudly again and again in this House, because they instilled values and morals

in me that I would like to think helped guide and influence the decisions I make

every single day. I would listen to stories from them of what life was like back

in the '30s and the '40s and the '50s, and when people say we're going backwards

or we haven't progressed, I think to those stories and I think we have come a

long way, Mr. Speaker.

So those

are just some of the reasons why the well-being of seniors in Newfoundland and

Labrador are paramount in any considerations that our government makes. Mr.

Speaker, we've been hearing a lot about the budget that was brought down on

April 14. Even though we're part of a government that brought down the budget we

haven't been shy in saying it was a terrible budget.

There

were many, many difficult choices that had to be made, Mr. Speaker, with the

budget. Do we like it? Were we happy to make those decisions? Absolutely not,

because the people that are impacted by this, they are also our family, they are

our friends, they are our communities. We are also, all of us here, representing

districts in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, when you're faced with a $2.7 billion debt and I was reflecting on

this a little bit as I thought about the PMR; what would happen to those seniors

had the province, teetering on bankruptcy, gone bankrupt, if another province

Mr.

Speaker, this budget will be infusing $8.48 billion into the provincial economy.

Entwined in that $8.48 billion is a number of very rewarding things for seniors

that once the cheques and the installments start rolling out, some of them

starting with a double payment in October, I know they're going to be well

received.

Mr.

Speaker, there are now more people in Canada over the age of 65 than there are

under the age of 15, so that just reiterates what I've been saying. We certainly

have aging demographics at play here in a very big way. Our province,

Newfoundland and Labrador's population, is rapidly aging. By 2036 that's just

one generation from now our province is expected to have the highest

percentage of seniors in the country at 31 per cent; one in four individuals,

Mr. Speaker, and many that live on a low income.

That's

why special consideration and care was taken. When the budget was coming down,

when some harsh measures, some that are very temporary, had to be made in order

to save Newfoundland and Labrador from this atrocious financial mess that it was

left in, there was special care given for this group, Mr. Speaker.

Our

government, one of the platforms that we ran on was the Office of the Seniors'

Advocate, and that's being carried through because we've long recognized the

importance of taking care of seniors.

Mr.

Speaker, back in 2014, we hosted a number of engagement sessions soliciting

feedback from our province's seniors and other stakeholders. Some of the

decisions that we have made have been based on the information that we got at

those sessions. I, myself, like many of my colleagues, went throughout my

district and I held meetings sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the

evening. The things we heard from seniors, some of the difficult choices they

have to make in the winter when it's more expensive to heat their homes and

things like that, we listened. This feedback has guided some of the choices that

were made in the budget.

Mr.

Speaker, we proposed the enactment of the Office of the Seniors' Advocate when

we were in Opposition, and we carried through on that. We will be carrying

through. We felt very strongly that our province's seniors, a large and dynamic

segment of our population, deserved an independent voice speaking on their

behalf in the Legislature.

Budget 2016 ,

I'm very happy to say, contained the funds necessary to establishing this

office. So we are fully committed to ensuring our seniors have a dedicated

statutory officer, similar to the Auditor General. That office will be listening

to seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador.

recognize, Mr. Speaker, that seniors have diverse care needs. Seniors face many,

many challenges as they get along the road of life. A seniors' advocate is an on

the ground resource for seniors. It would be ideally placed within government

that would help us respond quickly to evolving needs and issues.

Mr.

Speaker, by putting in an office like this, once again we are saying to seniors

there will be no political interference. There are some things where politics

should not play a role. When it comes to caring for our aging population, that's

certainly one place where the health and well-being of seniors need to trump

everything else.

I was

very pleased to see this budget allocate $300,000 for the Seniors' Resource

Centre to enhance its referral and information system. This will allow us to

deliver services to seniors more efficiently and effectively.

Budget 2016 ,

Mr. Speaker, will dedicate $300,000 for the provision of age-friendly

transportation services, which addresses a critical need for seniors with

mobility issues.

Mr.

Speaker, we get up and we run all day long in here, and we run from meeting to

meeting. A lot of times we take our health for granted and we're not grateful

and thankful for it. When you see a senior who's trying to manoeuvre in a

wheelchair or a cane and they're going slow, those are the people who understand

the need for friendly transportation services.

Mr.

Speaker, this $300,000 will address critical needs for seniors with mobility

issues. There is money allocated to support the continued development of

age-friendly communities throughout our province. This is a very important

initiative that is intended to address the demographic shift as more and more of

our citizens leave the workforce and retire. That's what's happening, Mr.

Speaker.

In my

district as I go around and knock on doors, which I've done two or three times

now, you see many, many more people with grey hair or no hair than you do

younger people because of the aging demographics. That's why it's important, Mr.

Speaker, that we focus on

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'm getting a little bit of

heckling here, Mr. Speaker, from my own side because we have a few here with

grey hair and no hair. Fortunately, they are still healthy and well. I don't

think they need age-friendly transportation or they have mobility issues.

That's

why, Mr. Speaker, we need to focus on this group and the special needs here.

This is a very important initiative that is intended to address the demographic

shift as more and more of our citizens leave the workforce and retire. Life can

be difficult for a senior, especially if they don't have a pension from an

employer or retirement savings of their own.

I think

again to my district. For 23 years I worked as a career and employment

counsellor. I was fortunate on the Coast of Labrador to oversee five offices in

that region. Like many of the offices in rural parts, what we did often was we

went beyond our mandate. Many times it was not uncommon to see seniors coming in

with mail or wanting something interpreted, wanting help with forms because they

maybe had no family living around them. It maybe was only the Mr. and Mrs. in

the home or maybe a widowed person living alone. We often heard the stories from

them of the difficulty of balancing the books, juggling on their low income.

Although

Budget 2016 asked many Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians to pay more taxes, Mr. Speaker, we felt it would simply be too

much to ask our low-income seniors who already face many challenges related to

living on a fixed income. We didn't want to do that, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to

find a way to be creative and to help those seniors.

That's

why Budget 2016 allocated an

additional $12.7 million an additional, Mr. Speaker to enhance the existing

seniors' benefit because we recognize that we have an obligation as a government

to protect these individuals. Although things are very tough right now in this

province we had a whole lot of good news today, and I'll speak about that in a

minute. Even in this time of tight fiscal restraint, Mr. Speaker, we recognize

that we have a moral and an ethical obligation to do what we can to support this

important group in our population.

Eligible

seniors; I just think this is a wonderful part of this, Mr. Speaker, in that

eligible seniors don't have to fill out complicated paperwork or navigate

through any additional red tape. Again, going back to my 23 years of working in

a small coastal community, many times, even at my house at 10 or 11 o'clock at

night, somebody would come to my door because they knew they could. I opened my

door and I embraced can you help me with this form? Especially, Mr. Speaker,

if it involved them receiving some kind of financial benefit. They were more

stressed because they were worried they might fill it out incorrectly and they

may not get the full amount of money they were entitled to.

Often,

Mr. Speaker, when I've helped people with federal applications, we found out

that they, in fact, were not getting their right amount of money. I'm thinking

in particular of a senior couple in Cartwright who were struggling financially.

When I sat down with them I saw they were not getting their right amount of

money and I helped them. They think I'm the best thing since sliced bread. When

all I really did, Mr. Speaker, was help them get access to what they were

rightfully entitled to.

I think

any seniors who are watching today, Mr. Speaker, I want them to not be stressed

but to know that they will not have to fill out any paperwork because if they

have filed a tax return for the year of 2015, their income is automatically

assessed for eligibility. If they are determined to be eligible, they will

receive the supplement in quarterly installments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Not only does our budget seek

to take care of our province's vulnerable seniors, but this year's eligible

seniors will receive the highest amounts ever, Mr. Speaker, for the seniors'

benefit. Because we were listening to the seniors when they talked to us about

sometimes the difficult choices they had to make paying bills, feeding

themselves and heating their home on a very limited budget.

This

year, Mr. Speaker, up to 42,000 seniors will receive these benefits. Many of

these seniors will also receive the new Newfoundland and Labrador Income

Supplement. As we've heard today, Mr. Speaker, and I'll get to speak again at

the end when we close debate, but as we've heard today, they will now not have

to pay the levy. Fantastic news, thanks to our federal counterparts working with

our Premier and working with our Finance Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Three out of every four

people in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, now won't have to pay the

levy.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. DEMPSTER:

If your net income is $50,000

or less, you won't have to pay that temporary levy.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm up

today for those people just tuning in, this is a private Member's motion

brought forward today by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. It's a

very interesting private Member's motion.

I can

tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we saw it I, kind of, questioned it. I really wasn't

sure why they would bring forward this motion today. I began to do some research

and it sounded vaguely familiar. It sounded somewhat familiar, almost like a

motion that's been debated here in the House before. When we started to dig into

it and we looked into it we found out that, actually, this motion has been

debated in the House here before, word for word. This motion has been debated in

the House before. I'll just go back to it.

It's on

November 27, 2013, the then Member for Exploits, Mr. Clayton Forsey and I'm

reading from Hansard. His resolution was:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House

supports the government's decision to provide the Newfoundland and Labrador

Seniors' Benefit, a refundable tax credit for low-income seniors which, this

year, is providing some . now, here's what's really important, Mr. Speaker,

this is what the resolution says. Everyone look at the resolution that's there

before the House today, it says: providing some 42,000 seniors the same

number that we're debating today in our Province with payments of up to $971

the highest amount ever.

It's the

same number that we're debating today. The same numbers we're debating today.

The Members opposite stand here and say look at the great increases we're doing

for seniors and it's the same resolution that was debated in the House here in

2013, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KENT:

The same resolution and same

numbers?

MR. P. DAVIS:

The same numbers, the same

resolution, the same number of seniors, the same amount that we debated in this

House in 2013, Mr. Speaker. Now there's more to the story because the trail of

this follows a little bit further.

As part

of Budget 2014 I'll tell you what our

government did. We increased it we did. In

Budget 2014 and I go back again, an excerpt from Hansard on March

27, 2014, when then minister of Finance, Minister Charlene Johnson said and I

quote: With this year's Budget, we are giving the fourth increase since 2003 to

the Seniors' Benefit. As a result, the maximum payment seniors will receive in

October 2014 will be the highest ever at $1,036, up from $971 in 2013.

So, Mr.

Speaker, not only is the $971 in today's resolution last year's numbers, it's

been increased since then. In 2014, the $40.4 million budget for the program is

more than five times higher than it was in 2013. About 42,000 seniors in our

province receive benefits under the program each year.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, for the people tuned in at home who are saying, what is this about? In

this year's budget, in Budget 2016 the

Liberal government opposite increased the Newfoundland and Labrador Low Income

Seniors' Benefit to provide additional support to the province's seniors. The

maximum amount under the Seniors' Benefit and this is from this year's budget

will increase from $1,063 to $1,313, an increase of $250. So that's an

increase from the 2014 numbers that we increased to this year. About 48,000

households is what the budget documents say 48,000 households. The resolution

says 42,000 seniors, but the budget document says 48,000 households will

benefits from these changes, including seniors who receive a higher benefit

amount or receive a partial Seniors' Benefit for the first time.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, this is an important matter. I really can't believe I'm sure the

Premier's office was hands on in this process. I don't lay this on the Member

for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair because I'm sure that it was with guidance from

the Premier's office that she was given this resolution to do today.

sounds to me like from her comments in her 15 minutes when she spoke that

she wasn't aware that this motion was the same resolution brought to the House

previously. It almost sounds like the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair

was maybe set up by her own people. Maybe it was just an error, but why would

they put her on her feet in the House of Assembly and embarrass her like that is

beyond me.

I don't

hold her accountable for this, Mr. Speaker. I don't. I don't. I think it's

shameful what she was put up to do today, to stand here in her place and bring

forward a resolution identical except for one word to what was brought here

in the House in November 27, 2013 by the then private member, Mr. Clayton

Forsey, PC member for Exploits at the time.

Mr.

Speaker, this raises some serious problems because we heard in Question Period

today I asked the Premier questions today. And I'll stay on topic, Mr.

Speaker, but the topic is and the problem with this motion is we asked questions

today and we saw changes in answers as Question Period went on.

We know

yesterday they lost a significant team member in the Premier's office as well.

I'm wondering, I can't help but think to myself, is this reflective of the

turmoil that is happening in government today? Is this because of that? Is this

because of the turmoil that is happening within their own caucus today?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

sure what that was about.

Mr.

Speaker, what we see here today now is turmoil that is happening and it is now

impacting the work of government. It is now impacting the work and emotion that

has come before the House here today. It draws the concern and I draw the

concern because if this is an error this is obviously an error that has taken

place.

If this

is an error that has taken place here today on a private Member's resolution,

then should we as people of the province also be concerned about other decisions

being made by government? If they put one of their own Members on her feet here

in the House of Assembly to bring forward a resolution that was a duplicate of

what was delivered here in the House in 2013 new government, brand new

government over there, been in less than six months with all these new ideas and

they brought back the identical resolution from 2013.

They

never had another private Member's resolution more important, more creative,

more unique, more pressing, part of their promises that they made during the

election campaign. They couldn't bring forward something new and different. They

brought a copy of a resolution from 2013, Mr. Speaker. That's what they did, and

they put the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair to deliver it on their

behalf.

MR. KENT:

They didn't update the

numbers?

MR. P. DAVIS:

That's what happened. They

didn't update the numbers. They didn't update the numbers from 2014. They didn't

update the numbers from 2013. So 2013, there was a resolution brought here to

the House; the same resolution, 2014 which was an update by the way, Mr.

Speaker. It was an update in 2013. There was an update again in 2014 by the

minister of Finance of the day, Minister Johnson and brought an increase then

even higher. Then as a result, there was the fourth increase in 2014 since 2003.

Granted,

credit to them, they did increase it again in 2016. Good for them, but they

couldn't even bring the right motion to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker,

something that should be vetted and carefully thought out and carefully planned

and reviewed and so on. As soon as we looked at it, we said there's a problem

with this.

With all

the staff that the Premier's office has, with all the staff the government

caucus has, with all the officials in government in the Department of Finance,

with all the people who work in government and work with them as a government,

Mr. Speaker, nobody picked this up; or, if they did, they neglected to tell the

Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

Now, I

expect the seconder on this was the Member for Stephenville Port au Port. I

believe it was, and I'm sure he'll speak on it this afternoon. I hope now that

while I'm speaking on my time, because he got about six minutes left, that he'll

have an opportunity to review this and maybe say to his caucus or to the

Premier's office, who no doubt, at the very least would have approved and vetted

this particular motion that this was the right thing.

They're

going to have a few minutes, but I'm going to help them out, Mr. Speaker. I'm

going to help them out.

MR. KENT:

They're working fast, though.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, they're working hard,

and we'll give them time. I'll use my time. I'm not going to sit down short and

abruptly so that they're not ready. I'll continue to speak. I'll use my time so

they have time to prepare on what they're going to do here.

MR. KENT:

Write an amendment.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, they're probably writing

an amendment, because it's wrong, it's simply wrong. There's no way we can

support a resolution here in the House Members opposite can't support a

resolution in the House when they know the information is wrong. You can't do

it.

You

can't support your own resolution when you know the information is incorrect and

inaccurate, because it goes from $971 is what's on the resolution, when we know

today as a result of the budget documents unless the budget documents are

wrong it's increasing from $1,063 to $1,313, an increase of $250. That's what

the budget documents say, and the budget documents say 48,000 households instead

of 42,000.

So, Mr.

Speaker, that's the problem with this resolution. That's the problem with this.

There's no way people in the House can support it. It's really unfortunate that

we have a Private Members' Day utilized on a regurgitation of a motion that we

brought forward, the Member for Exploits brought forward November 27, 2013, and

now they've put up their own Member.

Now, we

know they have a lot of pressure over there, Mr. Speaker, we know that. There's

a tremendous amount of pressure on government today. We're quite aware of that.

We're copied on much of the information and emails and messages that are being

communicated with the Members opposite.

We know

they've gotten up, we saw today, on a petition. Their own Members are

petitioning against their own government openly here in the House of Assembly.

We know Members opposite are speaking privately, or speaking publicly and

privately about changes that should be made. They're lobbying for changes to the

budget, but to actually come in here in the House and present a motion that is

essentially a duplicate, except for one word, a duplicate of what was brought by

the PC Member in 2013.

I think

it's shameful and embarrassing for the Members opposite. An apology should go to

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair by whoever is responsible to put her

up on this, set her up on this, or make her stand and talk on this. I think

she's owed an apology. I anticipate the Member for Stephenville Port au Port

is going to speak to it as well. I believe that he is owed an apology as well.

Mr.

Speaker, we're going to do him a favour today. We're going to propose an

amendment to correct their information. We're going to do an amendment to

correct their information. What I'm going to propose I believe is going to

correct this.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North, that the resolution be amended by

deleting the number 42,000 that's in the current resolution and be substituted

with the number 48,000.

We'll

make this simple for them, Mr. Speaker, so that it matches with what should have

been brought to the House here today.

Further,

by deleting the figure $971 and substitute a figure of $1,313, which would

reflect a $250 increase. And by adding after the word ever a comma and the

following words so this would be an addition at the end of the resolution.

I'll

read it all, Mr. Speaker, momentarily so we're all clear on what the amendment

actually is, but condemns the government's proposal to remove the home heating

rebate and the HST rebate while imposing tax and fee increases that will leave

seniors worse off.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll read the resolution as amended.

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon.

House supports the government's proposal to provide the Newfoundland and

Labrador Seniors' Benefit a refundable tax credit for low income seniors, which

this year is providing some 48,000 seniors in our province with payments of up

to $1,313, the highest amount ever, but condemns the government's proposal to

remove the home heating rebate and the HST rebate while imposing tax and fee

increases that will leave seniors worse off.

I can

table that for Members here in the House, Mr. Speaker. I would anticipate that

you may want to take a recess, but if I can add just before I finish up, Mr.

Speaker. If I may, with your indulgence, just make a couple of comments.

We know

Members are rising on their feet bringing petitions. They're speaking publicly

and asking for changes. We know when it comes to seniors and this particular

resolution, that one of the problems facing seniors is the home heating rebate

and also the HST rebate which has been removed by the government opposite, which

really puts seniors in a less of a position or a worse position. Therefore,

we're adding that extra segment and part of the resolution saying that we

condemn the government's proposal to remove the home heating rebate and HST

rebate while imposing tax fees and increases. We all know about the tax and fee

increases leaving seniors worse off.

I table

that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker will take a short recess to review the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Two

issues I wish to deal with. First of all, there was an interruption from a

Member on the government side while the Opposition Leader was speaking. I've

mentioned on several occasions in this House that the Member identified to speak

should be respected uninterrupted. So I remind the Member that it's not going to

be tolerated that Members identified to speak be interrupted.

The

amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is out of order as it

contains a provision that is beyond the scope of the clause that it is intended

to amend. As well, O'Brien and Bosc goes on to say that an amendment must be

relevant to the clause that it proposes to amend.

There

are several instances within O'Brien and Bosc that would cause this amendment to

be out of order. On page 533 is another. An amendment is out of order if it

deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope or introduces

a new proposition.

So the

amendment, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, is out of order.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When you

rose and ruled, I still had some time on the clock but I know the clock

MR. SPEAKER:

I believe there are 23

seconds.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, Sir.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Twenty-eight seconds.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Twenty-eight seconds.

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry, 28 seconds.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Am I entitled to that?

MR. SPEAKER:

You are indeed.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, what we have here before the House today, I want to reiterate was most

unfortunate for the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus to put one of their one

Members up. I think it speaks to the turmoil that is underway in the government

with their own caucus to have such a motion come forward, that is a duplicate of

what was brought forward in 2013. They didn't even change the numbers from the

budget numbers in 2013 to reflect their own.

According to the motion today, they are reducing the benefit to seniors, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

certainly an honour for me to stand in this House of Assembly again today, as it

is every time that I stand, to represent the people who elected me last year and

to speak on their behalf.

Certainly the intent of what we came here was to discuss the impacts and the

benefits that seniors will accrue through

Budget 2016 . I'm going to do something today, Mr. Speaker, that the Members

opposite continuously refuse to do day in and day out, and that's accept

responsibility, that this was based on a human error of transmission. The Member

opposite is completely right that we did not intend for this version to be

tabled yesterday and I'm going to say to the Members opposite that we will be

proposing an amendment to reflect the new numbers.

It is

interesting, Mr. Speaker, we saw the righteous indignation of the Leader of the

Official Opposition who claimed that we didn't know what we were doing and this

side was in disarray, yet their own motions are never in order, Mr. Speaker.

We saw

last week with Bill 1, they were up to seven or eight proposed amendments that

they couldn't even get in order, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Members opposite it

is time to accept responsibility for what they've done, but today

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BROWNE:

it is squarely in my lap,

Mr. Speaker, and I say the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair does bear no

responsibility for this and we will be tabling a proposed motion as follows:

I move,

seconded by the hon. Member for St. George's Humber, that the resolution be

amended by deleting the number 42,000 seniors and replacing it with the words

45,000 senior households, and further deleting the number $971 and replacing

it with the number $1,313.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker will take a few moments to review this amendment to determine whether or

not it's in order.

MS. MICHAEL:

A point of order, Mr. Speaker

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS. MICHAEL:

Yes, it's been our

understanding in our caucus that a private Member's motion may only have one

amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

No, that's not correct, I say

to the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi. We can only deal with one

amendment at a time, but this previous amendment was ruled out of order, so we

are able to accept the second amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

The Speaker has reviewed the

proposed amendment by the Member for Placentia West Bellevue and the amendment

is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me pleasure to rise again and speak to the amended motion now that we will

debate. I'd just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that as I said before, there

was a fair degree and amount of righteous indignation thrown across the way

towards the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. I want to say, the Member

for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair is one of the hardest working Members of this

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWNE:

She advocates veraciously for

her constituents and for the people of Labrador. Certainly, I don't think any of

this should be put on her.

This

mistake here, Mr. Speaker, it cost 10 cents to run a photocopy, which is more

than I can say for the mistakes of the previous government which cost hundreds

of millions of dollars, not the least of which would be Humber Valley Paving.

They went right on through that. They had ferries over in Romania that cost all

kinds of money in tariffs that could have been built down in Marystown, Mr.

Speaker.

So there

are all kinds of mistakes that people make, but I think the measure of any

Member and the measure of any man or woman is admitting to them when you make

one. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this was pure human error. I think it's

absolutely atrocious that the Members opposite chose to take their time today on

the intent of this motion, which was to promote the well-being of seniors, to

take it, to politicize it to the point where they did today.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to spend any more time debating the politics of the

situation. I want to talk about the measures that seniors will benefit from in

this budget. Since the budget as I've said many times in this House, Mr.

Speaker, I've been out in my district at events and in meetings with my

constituents and talking to them, and there is a certain degree of people out

there who are asking questions about, how will this impact me.

I think

if anyone can look at this budget in its entirety, and I think looking at it in

its entirety is important. I think it's important and noteworthy to reference

that this is probably the first Question Period today where we didn't hear a

question on the levy.

We know

the Members opposite don't want to talk about the good relationship we have with

our federal partners. They delivered, in terms of bringing enhanced aid to

Newfoundland and Labrador, so that this government could hold true to its

commitment to ensure the levy was temporary. We know they don't want to talk

about that, Mr. Speaker, and they obviously don't want to talk about the

measures that seniors will have in this budget.

If you

look at the different measures we're bringing forward, the Enhanced Seniors'

Benefit will give over $250 a year to seniors. I take an example, Mr. Speaker,

of a senior couple. This would apply to many seniors living in my district. I

have a rural district of some 45 communities. A senior couple making $26,000

would avail of the Enhanced Seniors' Benefit by $250, and the Income Supplement

of $510. These certainly are net benefits to what they would be receiving now,

because we believe it's important that seniors have the respect and the supports

they need.

The

well-being of seniors for us is not a token thing. It's very important, which is

why there's money in this budget for a seniors' advocate, which is something the

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune calls a luxury. She can call it a luxury,

but Members on this side of the House consider it something that's important and

vital. That's why the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development has

been such a strong advocate for seniors in this province, and that's why we're

moving forward with plans for the seniors' advocate.

There

are other measures in this budget, Mr. Speaker, on top of the Enhanced Seniors'

Benefit. We have approximately $3.5 million to support the placement of select

individuals with enhanced care needs in a personal care home. As I've said, we

have the $250,000 investment for a new seniors' advocate office. We have

$300,000 for the Seniors' Resource Centre to enhance its information and

referral system. We have $300,000 for age-friendly transportation services. We

have a new director of Adult Protection to reduce risk to adults in need of

protection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BROWNE:

We have $100,000 to support

continued development of age-friendly

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I would

ask the Member to try to keep his comments relevant to the motion put forward.

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

motion put forward today is for us as a House to resolve ourselves to support

the Seniors' Benefit. I'll go back to that, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's

truly important. I encourage anyone with questions in my district to contact my

office and ask any questions that they so desire. It's really important that the

information gets out there.

A single

senior, Mr. Speaker, with an income of $16,000 would get the Enhanced Seniors'

Benefit by $250, as well as the Income Supplement. They would also benefit from

not only these changes but the federal changes as well.

There

are now more people in Canada over the age of 65 than there are under the age of

15. Our population in this province is rapidly aging. Newfoundland and Labrador

by 2036, just one generation from now, Mr. Speaker, our province is expected to

have the highest percentage of seniors in the country, at 31 per cent. That's

more than one in four individuals.

When we

talk about seniors, Mr. Speaker, I guess for me I'm certainly not within the

senior's age bracket, but I think of them as the people who helped build this

society to where we are today, the people who built communities and built

families. My grandmother alone had 13 children, my other one had six. Many

stories in this House can be shared of how many families were born in this

province as a result of the seniors who are currently living today.

In fact,

I was just in Monkstown this weekend, Mr. Speaker, and there was a man who

turned 105. They deserve our support. They deserve the recognition of the

importance of taking care of our seniors.

As a

government, we hosted a number of engagement sessions, including back in 2014

soliciting feedback from our province's seniors and other stakeholder groups.

The feedback we got in those Let's Connect sessions went on to form our

platform.

We are

still guided, Mr. Speaker, by that feedback today.

Budget 2016 contains a number of items that were created on the

basis of this grassroots engagement. As I said, we proposed the enactment of the

seniors' advocate and we are also bringing forward the Seniors' Benefit, which I

believe is a very positive step, Mr. Speaker. The enhancement of the Seniors'

Benefit, seniors will benefit. They will have more money in their pockets to

help them with the expenses they have. I think that is a tremendously good thing

that we can all be proud of.

This

motion today, the intent was not to divide the House, Mr. Speaker. It was that

we could all speak to the benefit of bringing forth measures to enhance the

lives of seniors and we could all speak collectively in support of them.

We are

truly committed to ensuring that our seniors have the supports they need.

Seniors have diverse care needs and face many challenges that can be enhanced by

the Seniors' Benefit. A seniors' advocate as an on-the-ground resource for

seniors is a good example of how that is a good resource for seniors.

We know

that life can be very difficult for a senior, Mr. Speaker. The example I just

gave of a single senior with $16,000 of income. When you look at that there are

12 months in a year. That's just a little over $1,000 a month. That's not a lot.

We have seniors out there trying to maintain their homes. Trying to make sure

they live comfortably at home in their communities for as long as they can. The

objective of the enhanced Seniors' Benefit is to ensure they can do that for as

long as they can.

I can

remember standing on a doorstep in Arnold's Cove actually during the election,

Mr. Speaker, and an elderly women saying to me: I want to be able to stay at

home as long as I can, independently, as much as I can. Those words stuck with

me because I had such a great admiration and a love of my own grandparents who

were people who had worked hard in their lives and who had come to a place in

their life where they needed as much help as they could get. I looked at that

senior and I said: Anything I can do, any help that I can provide, I certainly

will.

I think

of all the measures in this budget yes, there were very tough decisions, Mr.

Speaker, some of which can be debated, but I think the enhanced Seniors'

Benefit, in my mind, is something we can all agree on. It's a good thing for the

seniors in our province. It's certainly a good thing for many of our rural areas

that are populated with higher numbers of seniors than perhaps urban areas.

I think

it's really important, as Members of this Chamber, Members of this House, the

representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we take the time to

acknowledge the fact that this particular measure contained within in our budget

is positive. It's going to help a great number of people, Mr. Speaker.

That's

why in Budget 2016 we have allocated

the additional $12.7 million to enhance the existing Seniors' Benefit because we

recognize, as a government, not only as a government but all Members of this

House, we have an obligation to those who came before us to try our very hardest

to ensure they are protected, to ensure they have the services they need.

Indeed, it is a tough challenge sometimes, particularly in rural areas, to

provide those services and to ensure there is a quality of service everywhere in

the province.

That's

why it is, I believe, a very good thing that we are going to be enhancing the

Seniors' Benefit to the point that not only will they get the one payment in the

fall, it will be spread over quarterly payments now. If you look at it on its

whole, eligible seniors no longer have to fill out complicated paperwork that

was the case in the past. We're reinvesting dollars into seniors, and as long as

they file their tax return for the year 2015, under the Seniors' Benefit, their

income is automatically assessed for eligibility. As I've said, if they are

determined to be eligible, then they will receive that in quarterly

installments.

As I

said, Mr. Speaker, I'm in full support of the amended resolution. As I've said

again, I believe the mover of this motion, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au

Clair, has done an outstanding job and outstanding work, not only in this

session of the House but in the last one, standing up for her constituents,

especially seniors. I support the motion 100 per cent. I believe it's important

that seniors are given the due they are owed by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We will

be there. I told the seniors in my district that we will be there to help them

whenever we have to. As I've said, Mr. Speaker, those are the people that built

up Newfoundland and Labrador. They built our communities, our families. Those

are the people and the reasons why we can stand here today and enjoy the promise

that we do today.

I will

take my seat now, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What an

interesting day in the House of Assembly. It's never dull that's for sure, but

very interesting today.

The

previous speaker said that this was simply an error in transmission and that one

should admit when they make mistakes. Well, I'm glad that government is

acknowledging that they made a mistake today. Even in doing so, they can't help

but continue to play the blame game.

Mr.

Speaker, none of us are perfect and mistakes happen. It is important to

acknowledge them. A mistake was definitely made here today because we find

ourselves debating the original motion that we're debating this afternoon was

presented by Clayton Forsey in November 2013 with the exception of one word, as

the Leader of the Opposition pointed out earlier today.

attempted to amend the motion, albeit unsuccessfully. Government has now

proposed an amendment that's in order and we will vote both on the amendment but

also on the original motion, whether it's amended or not amended. I suspect with

the government majority that the amendment will pass and we'll vote on the

amended resolution.

The

problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the numbers in the amended resolution still don't

match the numbers that were presented in the budget documents a number of weeks

ago. The $1,313 comes right out of the budget documents, even though it wasn't

in the original motion today. Let me quote one of the budget documents here:

About 48,000 households will benefit from these changes, including seniors who

receive a higher benefit amount or receive a partial Seniors' Benefit for the

first time.

So this

is right in the

section of the budget documents entitled Seniors' Benefit, yet

in this motion today the amended resolution that was brought in by the Liberal

Member who just spoke talks about some 45,000 households. So the numbers still

aren't right. One of the numbers is wrong. Is it the number in this amended

resolution, or is the number in the budget document?

Mr.

Speaker, it should be possible to pull the numbers straight out of the budget

documents, and one would trust that the numbers in the budget documents were

well researched and are accurate. It may seem like a minor point, but we're

talking about 3,000 households. So is the number in the budget document

incorrect, or is the number in this amended resolution incorrect? Did government

overestimate the number of seniors that would benefit from this Seniors'

Benefit?

One of

the things I find really challenging in this House is that when they're not on

camera, government Members will often shout across the House about Opposition

research staff, questioning our approach or our tactics or the issues that we're

raising in the House, but they're rather quiet today.

The fact

that they copied and pasted a resolution that we presented back in November 2013

suggests that they don't have any new ideas, they don't have any plan, they're

not presenting anything original to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Beyond

the issues with the motion today and the parliamentary procedure that we're

discussing here, I think we've really got to highlight that while the Seniors'

Benefit is a good initiative that we brought in several years ago, and it has

benefited thousands of seniors in our province, you have to consider all of the

additional costs, all of the additional burden that's being placed on seniors as

a result of this budget: gas taxes increasing dramatically, as we debated in

this House yesterday; insurance costs are going up considerably, which will

impact all seniors who pay insurance as well; the cost of food is going to rise

as a result of this budget, and more families, and in particular, more seniors

are going to be driven into poverty as a result of this budget.

Mr.

Speaker, I could also talk about long-term care and the impact of this budget on

seniors. So we're talking about how today in this resolution how the budget is

good for seniors, yet this government is reducing the number of long-term care

beds for seniors while hundreds of people in our province wait for long-term

care today. It just doesn't make any sense.

I've had complaints and concerns from various residents

of my own district and from around the province who are also concerned that

private pay rates in these long-term care facilities are going up as well. There

have been many cuts that will negatively impact seniors, so to celebrate the

Seniors' Benefit without acknowledging how devastating this budget is overall

for seniors is just irresponsible and we can't do that. Even if the original

motion is one that we voted on 2 years ago, we can't celebrate this budget

today. We just can't.

Beyond cuts to long-term care, I'm getting bombarded

with communication from citizens who are concerned about cuts to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. There are now drugs that

are not going to be covered as a result of this budget. Cuts to the adult dental

plan, seniors are not going to be able to get the dental care they need.

So it's great that a number of seniors will now have an

additional $250 in their pockets as a result of this benefit, but that happens

to be almost the exact amount that used to be in the Home Heating Rebate which

has been eliminated in this budget.

What the government has done here this afternoon or

what they've done in their budget is simply moved money around. There is no new

investment for seniors. There is no new dollars in the pockets of seniors. In

fact, seniors are going to be worse off as a result of this budget, and that has

to be acknowledged, Mr. Speaker.

The increase of $250 has been wiped out just with the

elimination of the Home Heating Rebate alone. So while the Finance Minister

would like to tell you that this is new money, it isn't new money. Most

households would have received approximately $250 from the Home Heating Rebate.

That was a valuable program and it has been eliminated in this budget. Now, I

guess those dollars have been rolled into the Seniors' Benefit.

So while the Finance Minister likes to trump enhanced

new funding, many seniors will not receive any more than they did previously.

And I would argue that all seniors who live on fixed incomes will be worse off

as a result of this budget. There are new fees, new taxes, an increase in

insurance tax, an increase in gas tax, so many seniors will be worse off under

this budget.

The Seniors' Benefit is one of the few things that the

Finance Minister repeatedly points to in defending the budget, which just amazes

me. They're cancelling the HST credit and they're cancelling the Home Heating

Rebate. These two programs that were key features of our plan would have

assisted seniors and, in fact, they would have assisted all low-income

individuals.

The HST credit that's being cut was $300 per eligible

individual, $60 per qualifying relation, $60 per qualifying dependant and the

net family income had to be less than $30,000. That's been eliminated.

The Home Heating Rebate has been eliminated. It was a

maximum $250 rebate for families with an income less than $35,000. There was a

$500 maximum rebate for coastal Labrador which made sense. There was a smaller

rebate for families between $35,000 and $40,000 in household income.

So my point, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to this motion

today is that the extra $250 that the minister likes to trump is not new money

at all. This is money that the Liberals rolled into the program from other

programs that they cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, seniors are not better off; they're worse

off. That's why we can't support this charade today. It's bad enough they

couldn't get the motion right. It's bad enough they copied and pasted a motion

from 2013 and didn't even update the numbers. Now in the revised motion, one of

the numbers is still incorrect or the number in the budget is wrong.

Beyond the Home Heating Rebate and the HST credit being

eliminated, you have to factor in some of the extra fees that seniors will now

have to pay: increases to personal income tax, tax on insurance, gasoline tax

and more. Many seniors are now wondering can they afford to live as a result of

this budget. So the Seniors' Benefit that we're talking about today

unfortunately is cold comfort to them.

Members opposite will say we're just playing politics.

We're not the only ones saying that this budget is bad for seniors. Dan Meades,

the provincial coordinator for the Transition House Association in our province,

who's also an anti-poverty advocate, has said that he says, My math says that

this budget sure does hurt people in poverty. He called the budget regressive

and said that it disproportionately charged low-income workers more. We have

many seniors in our province that would be in that low-income category.

These regressive increases in this budget aren't offset

by the Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement or the Seniors' Benefit. They

don't offset the budget impacts to low-income residents.

Now, let's talk about what the Finance Minister said.

As I said, one of her only defences of the budget is the point of the Seniors'

Benefit and the Income Supplement. She said, We believe that the supplement is

providing relief for those individuals who are at the lowest income levels in

our province. However, she failed to recognize all the fees and taxes and

increases that these people now will have to pay.

She forgot the services that have been cut for seniors

in this province, cuts to libraries a lot of people who use libraries in this

province are seniors. Cuts to the Adult Dental Program, cuts to the Prescription

Drug Program just to give a few examples that we're hearing about at our offices

every day and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that government Members are receiving

those kinds of calls, emails and letters as well.

Most of the calls that I've been receiving about the

budget are from seniors who have been impacted by cuts to the Adult Dental

Program or the drug program. They are also library users; they've lost many

valuable services. And this Seniors' Benefit that we're talking about today,

this increase doesn't offset those losses.

So back to the Finance Minister, she actually said, We

believe we've done a good job to mitigate most of the impact and make sure those

people are held whole. She actually said that, but it's factually incorrect,

Mr. Speaker. She believes they've done a good job to ensure the budget doesn't

negatively impact them, but I have to argue that point, Mr. Speaker. Seniors

don't agree with that statement. The seniors I talk to certainly don't agree

with that statement. Mr. Meades, the anti-poverty advocate, doesn't agree with

that statement, and I don't agree with that statement.

Both the Premier and the Finance Minister have stood in

this House and have said that there are people who will be better off under this

budget, but they haven't given us any examples. And for Members to stand and say

that seniors are going to be better off, I challenge that, Mr. Speaker. It's

factually incorrect. It's false information.

When reporters scrummed the Finance Minister in early

May they asked her that exact question. She couldn't answer at the time. She

couldn't give examples of which people will be better off because of this

budget. So while the Income Supplement and the Seniors' Benefit allocate money

to those who need it most and those are good things, a Seniors' Benefit is a

good thing, the Income Supplement is a good thing, but it doesn't offset the

budget increases. So when you look at the overall impact of what's happened to

seniors through this budget, it's bad.

So I would challenge the minister and there'll still

be opportunity in debate today to tell us how many people will be better off

under this budget and who are they because they're not seniors in our province.

Are there seniors in our province who are better off because of this budget? I

don't think so.

I only have a couple of minutes left but the

Newfoundland and Labrador 50+ Federation is also speaking out against this

budget and its impact on low-income individuals, especially seniors. Mr. Rogers,

the president of the Federation wrote: Seniors are among our most vulnerable and

are the heart of our province it is shameful that the Premier and Finance

Minister and the Minister Responsible for Seniors have shown no concern for

people and have made budget decisions which will be harmful to seniors. We are

dismayed and concerned about the impacts that the Liberals budget choices will

mean to many of our seniors. We are receiving calls from seniors every day

worried about they will pay their bills.

So the 50+ Federation understands the impact that this

budget will have on seniors and that's why this increase to the Seniors' Benefit

doesn't offset all those other hits it just doesn't. The negative budget

impacts are not offset

by the $250 increase. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the home heat rebate going

away alone, offsets any increase to this Seniors' Benefit. Fee increases, tax

increases, it's all disastrous to seniors and the 50+ Federation has

acknowledged that. They're receiving all kinds of calls as well.

We did

present an alternative to this. In Budget

2015 we presented the increased HST credit. We increased the funding from

$40 to $300 per person. That's now been wiped out. Amounts were also increased

for spouses and dependants. The Liberals would have been wise to keep this, but

they didn't.

We were

strong advocated of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program and

the adult dental plan. We know how much these programs were used. We committed

to keeping them in place. We knew how important those programs were for seniors

in our province. Each one of us has helped seniors access those programs, but

the Liberals have taken another approach.

Mr.

Speaker, their budget was lazy. They didn't consider the impact it would have on

seniors. They didn't consider the impact it would have on real people.

It's

outrageous that we're debating a motion that was first presented in November

2013. It shows how reckless and how much in turmoil this Liberal government is.

I think it's shameful what's happening in this Legislature today.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise here today and speak to the private Member's resolution as

presented by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. Yes, there was some

confusion. I believe that was certainly acknowledged by the Member for Placentia

West Bellevue. Just to clarify, and for those who maybe tuning in now, I'll

read the amended resolution to this private Member's resolution here today.

BE IT RESOLVED

that this hon. House supports the government's decision to provide

the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, a refundable tax credit for

low-income seniors, which this province is providing some 45,000 senior

households in our province with payments of up to $1,313 the highest amount

ever.

Now, we

did acknowledge there was some confusion around the motion earlier and that was

amended. I would actually like to thank the Member for Topsail Paradise, the

Official Leader of the Opposition, for bringing that up. That's what the

Opposition's job is to do, to hold us accountable and make corrections and

suggestions when necessary.

I'm not

so s