PDF Version

May

18, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 30

The

House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today Joan Collins, Kevin Collins and

Betty Collins, who are relatives of former MHA Harold Collins who is the subject

of a Member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As well, I would like to

welcome to our public galleries 45 grade four and five students from Vanier

Elementary, accompanied by their teachers Ashleigh Hudson and Michael Seviour.

They are also the subject of a statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members' statements

we have the Members for the District of Lewisporte Twillingate, Fogo Island

Cape Freels, Conception Bay East Bell Island, Placentia West Bellevue,

Virginia Waters Pleasantville and Topsail Paradise.

understand request for leave was approved by both sides for the Member for

Topsail Paradise for a statement that's a little more lengthy, for the members

in our Speaker's gallery.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to recognize the Calypso Foundation in Lewisporte. The Calypso

Foundation was officially established in 1977 to assist individuals with

disabilities in the transition from their present environment to a more

inclusive social and employment environment, which would assist them to become

more independent.

Almost

40 years later, the foundation is still going strong, providing services to 27

clients. The foundation has two main components: the Work Oriented

Rehabilitation Centre, which is designed to assist individuals with disabilities

to acquire the skills, experience and support necessary to get into the

workforce; secondly, the Living Skills Program which is operated solely on

donations and fundraising efforts provides guidance and instruction to

individuals with severe disabilities, helping them to gain personal and life

skills that creates self-worth and a higher level of independence.

On May

6, I had the privilege of attending the 31st annual auction for their Living

Skills Program. I am pleased to say that the auction raised in excess of $15,000

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

thanks to the generous

support of residents and the business community.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Calypso

Foundation in Lewisporte for all their success and the great service they

provide to Lewisporte area.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fogo Island Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my

pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Central Loopers

under-17 volleyball team on a successful tournament this past weekend in

Saskatoon. After a somewhat rocky start on day one, the team, comprised of

players from New-Wes-Valley, Hare Bay and Gander, went on to win all four of

their last four games, eventually taking home the gold medal in their tier four

division.

The 12

members of the team were accompanied by their head coach Craig Loder, assistant

coach Dean Goulding, as well as many supportive parents who travelled to watch

them play.

However,

Mr. Speaker, the fun didn't end there as during their stopover in Toronto they

had the opportunity to meet and chat with hockey legend, number 99, Wayne

Gretzky. It is events such as these where our young athletes make lasting

memories and life-long friends, in addition to maintaining a healthy and active

lifestyle.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Central Loopers on an amazing

tournament and wishing them the best of luck in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

to congratulate a group of students from St. Michael's High on Bell Island.

Yesterday, I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians had the privilege of

watching students from the school do a great job performing traditional NL music

and dance live on Canada AM.

The

students were invited to perform on the

Canada AM show that was broadcast live from St. John's yesterday.

The students played a number of musical instruments such as the fiddle,

accordion, guitar and performed one of our own traditional dances.

These

talented students enjoy preforming so much that they constantly perform for

fellow students and groups to ensure our traditional music and dance is not

forgotten. Along with the students, teachers of St. Michael's High played an

important role in teaching music and dance to the students.

I would

be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the volunteer contributions to the group by

Order of Canada recipient and Bell Island resident Kelly Russell, who not only

serves as the volunteer co-ordinator for the group, but teaches traditional

music and dance to the students.

congratulate and thank the students, staff and Kelly for being ambassadors for

Bell Island and our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

extend the warmest of wishes to Mrs. Hazel Baker who recently celebrated 100

years.

Just

this past Friday, at the Marystown Retirement Centre, the building filled with

family and friends from near and far to celebrate this milestone. Never had such

a crowd been seen at the retirement centre.

Mrs.

Baker was born in Harbour Buffett, Placentia Bay, but spent most of her time in

Epworth. She's the third youngest of eight children, and has maintained a busy

lifestyle of Newfoundland and Labrador traditions including rug hooking, mat

making, mat poking, in addition to knitting socks and mitts for her many family

and friends.

Throughout her life, she has been a strong volunteer for her church and a

regular in the church choir.

I ask

all hon. Member to join me in wishing Mrs. Hazel Baker a woman whose smile is

never far a happy 100th birthday and best wishes for continued health and

happiness.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate a group of remarkable students and

teachers in my district. Vanier Elementary's grade four and five classes, along

with their teachers, Ashleigh Hudson and Michael Seviour, have worked tirelessly

to get shoppers to kick their bag habit.

Saturday, January 23, the students went to Sobeys, Howley Estates, and were able

to get over 200 people commit to shop with reusable bags, which were provided to

them. The event was a huge success. It was wonderful to see the students get so

involved in bettering our community.

Since

that event, the students have been working hard to educate their peers on

environmental issues by sharing Green News every morning on the school

announcements. The grade four and five students also produce podcasts on many

world issues that include environmentalism. Finally, the class has begun work

composting for Vanier's community garden so that others can plant flowers, herbs

and other plants there.

I ask

all hon. Members in this House to join me in congratulating Vanier Elementary's

grade four and five classes for their commitment to protecting our environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

all hon. Members for leave today to present this Member's statement.

November 10 of last year, we lost a former Member of the House of Assembly, the

former Member for Gander, Mr. Harold Collins. Born almost exactly 91 years ago

it would have been on May 21, 1925 this coming Saturday. He was raised in Indian

Islands in Notre Dame Bay. He later worked and travelled extensively in

Newfoundland and Labrador with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and, after

Confederation, with the Canadian National Communications, which brought him to

Gander in his formative years, where he took a lead role in many aspects of the

town.

Elected

in Gander in a by-election in 1967 and in three subsequent general elections, he

served with Premier Frank Moores in the Cabinet posts of Municipal Affairs and

Housing, Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Health, Rehabilitation and

Recreation, Social Services, and Consumer Affairs and Environment. He later

served as the province's Chief Protocol Officer and as Chair of the Canadian

Fisheries Support Board. An avid hunter, he aptly entitled his 2004

autobiography Always a Straight Shooter ,

which well described his own character.

Among

other things, Minister Collins proposed the groundbreaking Royal Commission on

municipal government. He brought universal suffrage, the right to vote, to the

City of St. John's, where before you had to be a landowner in order to vote. He

established the Fishing Industry Advisory Board and the Marine Service Program.

He expanded the Fisheries Loan Board; prepared for the establishment of the

200-mile limit; opened the Health Sciences Centre.

transitioned the old General Hospital into the Miller Centre. He transitioned

the former US Air Force hospital in Goose Bay into the International Grenfell

Association. He opened the new Waterford and the first Detoxification Centre in

our province; the Twillingate hospital. He enlarged Western Memorial Hospital,

and the first of its kind, the Corner Brook seniors' care centre in the former

hospital.

For more

on his work and his love for outport Newfoundland and Labrador, people should

certainly pick up a copy of his book.

Among

his 10 children, Kevin, who serves with the Information Management Division of

the House of Assembly, is with us today, as well as his sister, Betty, and also

their mom. We express sympathy to Joan and the entire family, and we honour

Harold Collins for a lifetime of service to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the Member

for Honour 100, I was given a note a little earlier as well. We have in our

public galleries the provincial President of the Newfoundland and Labrador 50+

Federation, Robert Rogers along with Regional Director Sam Saunders.

Welcome

to our House.

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 Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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: William Pennell, Alexander Penney, Augustus Penney, Josiah H. Penney,

Sim Penney, Arthur Joseph Penny, Isaac Penny, Robert Penny, Simeon T. Penny,

William Edward Penny, William H. Penny, Ignatius Penton, H. N. Peppas, William

G. Perran, Alfred Perry, Percy Perry, Reuben Oliver Perry, Warrick Perry, Philip

Petite, Joseph Peyton, Stephen Peyton, James Phelan, William A. Phelan, William

Francis Phelan, George Phillips, Robert Phillips, Francis Picco, Martin Picco,

Berkeley Piercey, Charlie A. Piercey, John Charles Piercey, Edward Pieroway,

Francis Pike, George Edward Pike, James Joseph Pike, Manuel Edward Pike, Rendle

Anthony Pike, Stanley Gordon Pike, Richard B. Pilgrim and Stanley Stewart

Pinsent.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader and Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was

an honour for me this morning to have an opportunity to speak at the

International Police and Peace Officer Memorial Service at the Seventh Day

Adventist Church in St. John's. I'd also like to thank my colleagues, the Member

for Baie Verte Green Bay, and the Leader of the Official Opposition, who were

both present for the same service this morning.

For

generations in Newfoundland and Labrador, brave women and men have been eager to

answer the call to serve and protect our communities. Police and peace officers

often work for long hours in dangerous and unpredictable environments, and their

selflessness and courage benefits each and every one of us.

Sometimes, though, answering that call can result in tragedy and while

ceremonies like the one today are important, it is unfortunate that we have to

gather for such an occasion. One life lost is certainly one too many, but when

you consider that there have been 20 police and peace officers who have lost

their lives in the line of duty in our province since 1861, the risks they face

each and every day become all too real.

Fortunately in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a high level of co-operation

and collaboration between our various law enforcement agencies. These close-knit

organizations look out for and support each other. I'd like to let them know

that they have the support of our government as well.

I thank

our police and peace officers for the critical work they do in making our

province one of the greatest places in the world in which to live. I wish each

and every one of them a safe return home at the end of their shift.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Again today, and as he

mentioned, I had the pleasure and honour to attend the service this morning

one that I've attended numerous times over the last number of years. Of course,

being a former police officer, it brings home much of what the minister

referenced to me and people who I've known, and their families, especially, who

have been impacted by the work they do.

I think

it's always important for us to remember those who serve the community,

especially those who lose their life through service to the community, through

their service to others, and they should always be remembered and we should

always reflect upon that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank all the police and peace officers for their dedicated service and

generosity. Their work really is a calling, not simply a job.

One

hundred and twenty RNC officers are able to retire soon, and only 20 new cadets

are graduating this year. Our support must ensure a strong transition of

knowledge and experience from one generation of these most dedicated people to

the next. It ensures their safety and the safety of all our communities.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise in this House today to acknowledge the success of two local artists, writer

Chad Pelley and film marker Mark Hoffe.

Mr.

Speaker, the screen adaptation of Mr. Pelley's first novel,

Away from Everywhere , is being

featured at the Cannes Film Festival this month as part of Telefilm Canada's

Perspective Canada Program. The novel was adapted for the screen by Mr. Hoffe

and shot in St. John's last spring.

Telefilm

Canada's annual program showcases 10 recent Canadian films at the March du

Film, which runs parallel to the famous film festival, giving them exposure to

an international network of buyers, sellers and producers.

Away from Everywhere

tells the story of two brothers brought together by mental illness and tragedy.

Directed by Justin Simms, Jason Priestley stars as the older brother Alex, with

Wabush native Shawn Doyle playing his younger brother, Owen. Bay d'Espoir's

Joanne Kelly, along with two young actors Grace Keeping of Conception Bay

South and Emmajane Donnan from St. John's also had roles in the film.

Producers include Barbara Doran of Morag Loves Company and Brad Gover, a partner

in Mad Mummer Media.

The

novel Away from Everywhere was

published by Breakwater Books in 2009.

Mr.

Speaker, our government is proud to support this project and the film and

television industry in our province through the Newfoundland and Labrador Film

Development Corporation. We are also pleased to provide support to publishing

companies through our Publishers Assistance Program.

I wish

all of those involved with the project continued success.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement this afternoon. Mr. Speaker,

on behalf of the Official Opposition, I'd like to extend congratulations to

writer Mr. Chad Pelley and film maker Mr. Mark Hoffe, on having their film

chosen as one of 10 Canadian films featured at March du Film. This truly is a

remarkable achievement.

I'd also

like to congratulate the director, actors, producers and supporters of this

project: Justin Simms, Jason Priestley, Shawn Doyle, Joanne Kelly, Grace

Keeping, Emmajane Donnan, Barbara Doran and Brad Gover. The dedication that

these individuals have for their craft is clearly evident. It's my hope that

they enjoy immense exposure and success at the Telefilm Canada showcase.

Mr.

Speaker, our province is full of talent. We have talented singers, dancers,

actors, directors, writers and producers. Our province has exported this talent

for years. It's my hope that this continues well into the future.

However,

I'd like to point out that while the minister proclaims the government's support

for the film industry, this year's budget is reducing the programming grant to

the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

by over $1.3 million. I

hope that our industries can continue to thrive despite these government cuts.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time for speaking has expired.

MR. KENT:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement.

What an

incredible success we celebrate here today.

Away from Everywhere is the

culmination of the brilliant work of many of our artists, from Chad Pelley's

brilliant works, to Justin Simms's visionary direction; to musicians, actors,

cinematographers, technicians, producers and more. This is a perfect example of

how investment in the arts creates wonderful economic opportunity and feeds our

souls and imaginations at the same time.

Bravo to

the whole team!

Thank

you very much, 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.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, during the lead up to the election last fall the Premier went on the

record and said they have a plan and the people will like it. Well, the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador clearly are not responding well to the Liberal

plan. In fact, they don't like it.

Students, seniors, hardworking low- and middle-income families, academics,

community leaders, their own MHAs, their own Liberal advisors are saying they

don't like the plan.

I ask

the Premier: Will you listen to all of these people and put a stop to the

Liberal levy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

speaking of plans and going into the last election, we all know what the former

premier ran on. Indeed, that was not a plan at all. It was just actual

information that wasn't even factual. What we put forward to the people of the

province was similar in terms of with an expectation of where this year's

deficit would be was based on financial information that was provided to us by

the former administration. Of course, that changed substantially.

The

temporary levy, as was introduced in Budget 2016-2017, it is just that, a

temporary levy. And 38 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, even under

the current concept, would not pay any of that levy. To help those seniors and

those low-income people in our province we've introduced an Income Supplement in

excess of $76 million to help those people in Newfoundland and Labrador, our

most vulnerable.

So, Mr.

Speaker, these were very difficult and tough choices. It is a temporary levy, I

say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

remind the Premier that it's their budget that the levy was created under, not

our budget. It was their levy that they created, Mr. Speaker. It's a levy that's

smothering the economy. It's driving people into hardship in our province. It's

decisions and choices made by that government that are impacting people today.

Mr.

Speaker, speaking of that government, they have a $30 million slush fund poked

away in the Department of Finance. That's what this government has done.

I ask

the Premier: Will you lead and will you govern, and will you use some of this

$30 million fund to eliminate the Liberal levy which is driving so many people

of our province into hardship?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well

speaking of the plan, as you transition from one government to the next

government, as we did in December of this year, you expect that transition would

be built on factual information that would have been supplied to us. In actual

fact, Mr. Speaker, that was far from the case. I would say the former

administration indeed did not supply the information that was required. As a

matter of fact, on September 28 they refused to even answer a question about the

financial affairs of our province.

Mr.

Speaker, as you transition we were dealt with many challenges, challenges that

we have had to address. We put in place a budget.

When the

former premier talks about a slush fund, it is not a slush fund at all. It is

planning for challenges that we could face this year. It puts us in a position

that we are able to actually leverage more funding, creating jobs for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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 not going to answer the question, but he wants to go back in history.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we laid out the circumstances of the province last year

and we clearly said here are the big factors and here is what the implications

are going to be on the province. If he couldn't follow it, he's either

incompetent or he's playing politics with it, Mr. Speaker. It's as clear as

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, people

throughout the province are outraged by the choices that this Liberal government

has made. The budget is an attack on people and it will cause people hardship.

It's as simple as that.

I ask

the Premier: Will you once and for all listen to what people are saying? You

promised you would, and these are the people who elected you. Will you remove

this Liberal levy from your budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, one thing that we've been very proud of in our

past is our history. I'm surprised today that the former premier, the current

Leader of the Opposition wants to distance himself from his own

part in the

history of Newfoundland and Labrador. He does not want to talk about it because,

do you know what? Like most people in our province, they are ashamed of it just

like we are. They have left us to having to put this province back on track and

we have had to make some tough decisions. These decisions are reflected in

Budget 2016-2017.

I will

tell you one thing that we will not do, is we will not give up on the young

people we see in this House of Assembly today because we believe they are the

future of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are going to do whatever we can to

secure their future with the support of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I can

tell you, I'll stand on my record any day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

I'll stand on my record that

I worked hard for any day, Mr. Speaker. In six months, they've created quite a

record for themselves as well, and the people of the province are very much

tuned in to the record that they are creating for themselves.

Mr.

Speaker, people who earn between $25,000 and $36,000, their net income, will pay

$300 for what the Liberals call a temporary level new words on it in recent

days. In fact, anyone earning over $20,000 will have to pay something towards

the levy.

This is

public money that will pay for the Liberals million-dollar tunnel study. The

public money will pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for the Liberals

external legal and communications counsel as well, Mr. Speaker.

So I ask

the Premier: What's your justification for taxing people to pay for such

unnecessary expenditures, expenditures that are not required at this very time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

former premier mentioned history again and he was saying that he was proud to

stand on his record. So what he's telling us is that he is proud to tell

Newfoundland and Labrador that in the next five years, they will be doubling the

debt under his plan, under his record. That is not a record, not a legacy that I

don't think any former premier should be proud of it, Mr. Speaker. Asking the

next generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay for the things that

they could not properly manage, that's the record that he wants to stand on.

Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I think the former premier needs to understand that it's

taxable income; it's just not income for people in our province. The concept

that he is talking about is around taxable income. So if he wants to talk about

facts, he should make sure that he gets his facts correct.

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.

appreciate the chance to get up again and try and get another answer, because we

haven't been able to get an answer from the Premier. He likes to talk his spin.

He thinks he's still in an election campaign is what's going on over there.

Premier

18,000 people have signed a petition about your levy. You should probably give

that some consideration is what you should do. You should think about the

students, the seniors, low- and middle-income families, the young, the old, the

healthy and the sick, public servants, nurses, teachers who are all impacted by

the decisions that you made in your budget.

So I ask

you Premier: You are the leader of your caucus. You are the leader of the

government. Will you show leadership, reconvene your Cabinet, and reconsider

these regressive tax increases that you've decided on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

already reconsidered it. That's the reason why in terms of the levy it's

called a temporary levy. But based on the record that he would have had as a

matter of fact, if you look back at some leaders that we've seen, the other

Leader of the NDP right now was in the media, just recently, talking about debt

servicing in our province as it would actually shackle the economy in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

former premier of our province wants to ignore the fact that right now in our

province we pay more for debt servicing than we do for education. He wants to

ignore the fact under his plan that would have been nearly $2 billion $2

billion and after 66 years, it would have doubled in just five short years.

Why are

you trying to distance yourself from your own decisions that you made and put

this province in the situation that it's in today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

he's the Premier. This man across the aisle is the Premier. He's the leader of

the province. It's his decisions and his choices that are impacting the people

today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Last year, we laid the facts

out very clearly. What did they do? They criticized us. That's what they did.

They said it was wrong. Every day they came to the House and they asked for more

and more and more.

Premier,

what is your plan? When are you finally going to reveal to the people of the

province what your plan really is? With a $30 million slush fund, will you

revisit education cuts? Will you put students first, instead of last?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the

former premier is failing to recognize is you just don't turn the page and you

have a blank and a clean sheet. What you have to deal with, with the transition

from one government to the next, is what you had left in the bank account. His

legacy was one where the bank accounts were nearly empty, I would say, Mr.

Speaker.

Short-term borrowing, long-term borrowing is difficult in our province right

now. He seems to be very proud of the fact that just a year ago he was

predicting and forecasting a $900 million deficit for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians that turned out to be $2.7 billion.

So when

you talk about being open and transparent, when you talk about leaving a legacy,

please stand on your own legacy and admit that the former premier is responsible

for the mess we're in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier just confirmed he doesn't know the facts because he's way off on the

numbers he's throwing out. Throwing out willy-nilly anyway he wants, just

throwing it out there. The facts are wrong. The information he has provided is

not accurate.

Mr.

Speaker, the cries from the people of our province is loud and clear. Although

the Liberals campaigned on listening to the people, the people's voices are

being ignored. The Minister of Finance has said: We will not make decisions

based on who cries the loudest. So I guess people don't really matter. I guess

they're not really listening to people. At least they won't act on what they're

hearing from us.

I ask

the Premier: Will you use some of the slush fund you stashed away to reverse the

decision on long-term care beds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I take great

exception to the comments in this

preamble from the Member opposite. Our

government cares very deeply about the people of the province and, quite

frankly, faced with a difficult reality of years of overspending and

over-forecasting potential oil royalties and ignoring the facts, the former

administration left the province in a fiscal situation that would have led to a

crisis had we not done something.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite continues to avoid the accountability that the

former administration has. The $30 million contingency fund that is in the

budget is, and has been clearly explained to Members opposite, for contingency.

I'd ask the Members opposite to understand what the contingency fund is, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, again it's about

the choices this government is making. That's what this is about, is about the

choices they're making and the impacts it's having on the people of our

province.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has stated that seniors will be better off with the Liberal

budget. He also stated that their budget contains good supports for low-income

earners. Well, Mr. Speaker, where is the evidence to suggest that? We know the

Newfoundland and Labrador 50+ Federation is on the record as saying their

members will not be better off.

I ask

the Premier: Will you table your evidence to show us how seniors in this

province will be better off, and will you show that really are you out of touch

or are you not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Speaking of out of touch,

it's the former premier, I would say, and suggest that he should go back and

touch some of the decisions and learn more about the impacts and the negative

impacts that it is having on our seniors of today.

Mr.

Speaker, in this budget, in Budget 2016-2017 we have made I know the

federation of 50+ members in our province right now, many of them are retired

public service workers. In this budget right now, there is a commitment of over

$450 million to secure the future of the pensions of those workers, I would say

Mr. Speaker. This is just one example. The Seniors Resource Centre will see some

benefits from this budget as well.

The

low-income support program in our province, $76.4 million will help low-income

and seniors in our province, and there are many other things in our budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So it

sounds like the Premier is saying the Newfoundland and Labrador 50+ Federation

are wrong in their analysis and their statements.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll ask the Premier this. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are

very interested in the process that's taking place surrounding the budget and

they are asking when the budget vote is going to take place.

I ask

the Premier: Will you provide, say, more than 24 hours' notice to the public to

let them know when the budget vote will take place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, of

course, we are going to be supplying more than 24 hours' notice for the budget

vote. There are a number of processes that you know will have to take place.

I'm just

surprised today that the former premier is really just not willing to accept

responsibility for his administration's actions. He has Members that are sitting

there with him today in his Opposition caucus and they are just pretending the

last 12 years just didn't happen and they had nothing to do with the current

situation that we're in today.

Just a

year ago, they were actually bringing in their own budget and we were having a

similar discussion here, when their forecasts were all wrong, I say, Mr.

Speaker. They couldn't get one year right, let alone get seven years right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal's budget will take thousands of dollars out of the pockets

of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Watch out for July 1, when the cost of

gas increases, insurance goes up, HST increases, personal income tax goes up,

and as a result, the cost of food increases.

I ask

the minister: How much are you planning to take out of people's pockets, and is

there any limit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, what our

government is not prepared to do is to see the choices about the future of

services in Newfoundland and Labrador be given over to other entities besides

this government. Quite frankly, the financial situation that we found the

province in, based on the actions of the former administration, put our province

at a very significant risk of being in a situation where we couldn't borrow the

amount of money that would be required to sustain the services that were in

place.

We have

an obligation, and people have, rightly so, an expectation that we provide

critical services. We must take the action to secure our ability to borrow so we

can provide those services, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, there is nobody suggesting that actions weren't required to be taken,

but the issue here is the choices that were made. That's what the hon. Members

on the other side don't seem to understand, that the choices they made were the

wrong choices. The Liberal budget will hit, truly, all people in the wallets on

July 1.

I ask

the minister: What are you doing to help people deal with the harsh budget you

delivered? What is the message to people that won't be able to pay their bills

on July 1 based on the cumulative effect of your taxes, fees and the Liberal

levy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Members

opposite continue to like to pontificate about their message of fear about the

impact of these tax increases. Our personal income tax combined with the deficit

levy brings us back to 2006 levels.

A tax on

insurance is something that the former administration took out in 2008. I would

remind the Members of this House, they took it out after they hit peak oil;

after they hit peak oil production and peak oil price. They dropped personal

income taxes after they hit peak oil and peak production.

Mr.

Speaker, we are still competitive within Atlantic Canada. The people of the

province understand that for us to maintain control and the ability to provide

critical services, we must be able to borrow and that difficult decisions must

be made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll say to the hon. minister, the people I'm talking to, their fear is

real. That's the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So to suggest otherwise is

certainly unfortunate coming from the Minister of Finance for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, on July 1 the province's gas tax is set to double from 16.5 cents to 33

cents per litre. Tomorrow gas goes up another 4 cents a litre. In July, on

average people will pay a minimum additional $10 to $15 every time they fill up

their cars.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Considering gas prices are rising, was there any

consideration given to declaring a cap on the provincial taxes on gas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, we understand

that people in the province have grave concern about the fiscal situation and

the actions of this budget. Quite frankly, the choices were difficult. We made

it clear as part of the budget announcement this year that the increase on

gasoline tax was something that we would be doing on a temporary basis. We also

indicated that we expect to make a further announcement around that by this

coming fall.

I look

forward to providing even more clarity on that as we work through what has been

a very difficult situation. But there's no doubt that there are people in the

province who certainly also fear the fact that we are faced with a fiscal

situation that left unchecked, could be catastrophic, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, clarity would be

good because we've seen very little in the past six months.

Mr.

Speaker, what is the maximum price, I say to the minister, you'll allow

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay on gas through your proposed gas tax

policy, or is it unlimited?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the increase in

gas tax is clearly outlined in the budget. We've been very transparent about

what that increase is and we've also been very transparent, as I was in the

answer a couple of minutes ago, that we intend to come back into the House and

make the announcement about what the tax will be in the fall.

For the

Member opposite to insinuate there is a higher gas tax coming, quite frankly, I

think feeds into the narrative that they continue to want to fear monger with

the people of the province, which I think is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal

budget saw seniors take hit after hit.

With

another $100,000 cut now coming from the Age-Friendly Transportation program,

can the minister responsible for seniors tell this House what seniors' groups

will no longer have access to this once successful program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of for

Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, what I can tell

the House is that particular pilot is being evaluated and it will continue based

on those results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, inclusion is

something that the minister, prior to joining the Liberal team, had always been

an advocate for.

I ask

her: How can she justify cutting funds for inclusion grants by almost $150,000?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, we value

inclusion in this province, whether it's in schools or in communities. Some of

the language that has been used by Members opposite, I won't go back over here

today but it's sort of enraging to hear people differentiate between good

students and students with special needs, because that's the language was used

by the Education critic here in the Chamber.

Luckily

enough this year, despite the fiscal nightmare we have on our hands, we did find

27 new positions for teachers who work with children with special education

needs. There are 115 additional hours per day for student assistants who work

with children with special needs in schools.

We value

inclusion. There is no doubt about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to hear

from the minister responsible and the advocate for persons with disabilities and

seniors.

Can you

tell us specifically, Minister, as a result of your slashing $150,000 from

inclusion grants, what programs and services will no longer be available?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, we are committed

to furthering the status of persons with disabilities. We are committed to

inclusive education. We are committed to inclusive societies. We will work with

the funds that we are left with to ensure our societies are inclusive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

So she's not going to tell

us, Mr. Speaker.

In a

recent press release, the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador 50 +

Federation says the budget will be devastating for seniors and it will reduce

their standard of living.

I ask

the minister responsible for seniors: Is your government saying that the

president of one of the largest seniors' clubs in the province is wrong?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker,

Budget 2016 saw enhancements to the Low Income

Supplement for seniors. By 2025, 25 per cent of the population will be older

adults. We are aware of this as a government and we are preparing for an aging

population.

There

are many things that we are doing. We are putting in place an office of the

seniors' advocate, Mr. Speaker. We are putting in place a director for adult

protection. We have allocated $300,000 to the Seniors Resource Centre.

Mr.

Speaker, we value seniors and we are continuing to support them in society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, the provincial

group with over 8,000 members is very concerned that the Liberal budget will

push thousands of seniors into poverty. Many of them can barely make ends meet

today and, as an MHA, I know that first-hand, and all of you should as well. The

Premier is on record stating that seniors will be better off from our budget.

I ask

the minister: What is your position? Does your budget help seniors or does it

devastate them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, this is the same

Member, the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, that said the seniors'

advocate was a luxury. On the same day, the Member for Cape St. Francis said it

was a good idea. On March 10, the Member for Mount Pearl North said that not

only is the seniors' advocate a great idea, but we also need an advocate for

veterans.

Mr.

Speaker, this government supports seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, either she

doesn't know or she won't tell us, but I can tell you first-hand, seniors would

rather have heat in their homes and they'd rather have food in their mouths.

What are

you going to do to help seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador, given the

devastating cuts you've made to all areas of seniors' living?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

remind the Member opposite that as part of the budget, there was a fairly

significant announcement around the Newfoundland Income Supplement, as well as

the enhancement to the Seniors' Benefit, an increase of some $250 for all the

seniors that are eligible for that benefit. We also, with the Newfoundland

Income Supplement, have provided additional money to the tune over $60 million

in that particular program to help offset some of the increases for low-income

individuals, particularly seniors. Particularly those single widows who we know

have the highest level of poverty in our province, after years of the former

administration not putting effective poverty reduction plans in place.

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.

Members

on the government side of the House have been expressing concerns about

Budget 2016 both inside and out. One

of the most unfair initiatives affecting people in every district is the debt

reduction levy.

I ask

the Premier: If he will allow a free vote of his Members in the House today to

end this unfair surtax?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only

are Members on this side of the House and, of course, the Opposition, but people

across Newfoundland and Labrador in every single community, in every single age

group, are concerned about the situation that this province finds itself in and

the tough decisions that we've had to put in place in Budget 2016-2017.

I remind

the Leader of the Third Party that the levy that she is referring to is indeed a

temporary levy. There are timelines there, but we put in place offset mitigation

programs that will help low-income people in our province, including our

seniors, including the most vulnerable.

So part

of the Budget 2016-2017, Members on the government side will actually have their

opportunity and so will Members of the Opposition have the opportunity to vote

on Budget 2016-2017.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Since the vote on a private Member's motion does not constitute a

confidence vote and they won't be in fear over there, and in light of the

general public outcry about the unfair levy and forget the temporary part

why would he not allow his Members to show their support for their constituents

in a free vote here today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

there are some things that the Member opposite might want to forget, but some

things that I certainly do not want to forget, because it's important for people

in Newfoundland and Labrador she may not want to be the conduit of this kind

of language, she may not want to talk about the low-income support program, she

may not want to talk about a temporary levy, because they doesn't suit where she

is in her politics. It's got nothing to do with being fair and being transparent

and factually representing the facts of this budget. It's all about political

gain, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

temporary levy; that's been said. It's been clearly articulated the plans that

we would have for this very difficult decision at a very difficult time that we

have in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, with all the job

losses, regressive tax measures and social spending cuts, I ask the Premier:

What are his concrete plans to keep young families in the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

one of the most important things that you could do for any young family or any

young Newfoundlander and Labradorian is not burden them with debt. The Members

opposite would prefer now that we take out the credit card for our youth. We

would change the name of the people that are enjoying the benefits today, and

put the next generation put their name on that credit card.

That is

exactly what the Member opposite is suggesting that we should do. It is not

something we are prepared to do. We have a mandate now to get this province back

on track. It is a desperate fiscal situation that we are facing right now. Some

difficult choices, Mr. Speaker, have to be made, and we were going to do the

best job that we can do to get the finances in order, because we are not

interested in passing this on to the next generation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier

tell us details of the diversification strategy he promised during the election?

People want to get back to work.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said too during the election, one of the most important things that you can do

for any Newfoundlander and Labradorian is to make sure that you do your best

that you can do, create an environment where they can be successful. We put in

place an infrastructure program of over $570 million, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

That's important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It can help them find a

job.

It's

important for our communities so that we can put in place good, safe, sound

infrastructure that they can actually make a decision to live right here

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are working now to make sure that we extract the

wealth and the benefits from all our industries, not just the oil industry, as

we seen from the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre, for a very quick question.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: With all the job losses and regressive tax measures and social spending

cuts, again what is his vision for the province for the next three years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

should ask the Member opposite if she should speak to her leader because he was

on record just in recent days as saying that debt will actually shackle and will

actually slow the economy down in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are his

words. These are the comments that he has been making. Making sure that we do

not let debt servicing and interest rates put a stranglehold on the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

These

are very tough decisions that we have had to make, but we need to correct the

path that we were on. This budget in 2016-2017 will help us with that. I can

assure you right now there is no one in Newfoundland and Labrador any more than

me that wants to make sure that can get Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

working, get our fiscal house in order first, and with the necessary investments

that we are currently making in infrastructure, this indeed will mean that the

future of Newfoundland and Labrador will be bright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question Period a couple of days ago, one of the Members from the Third Party

asked for some information that I promised to table in this House, and I have

the document here. I just wanted to provide that to them.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

on Thursday, May 19; and pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this

House do not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Thursday, May 19.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

emergency responders are at greater risk of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder;

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

of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation containing a presumptive

clause with respect to PTSD for people employed in various front-line emergency

response professions including firefighters, emergency medical services

professionals and police officers not already covered under federal legislation.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, it's not my first time getting up in the House on this particular

petition that has been presented and provided to me. It's not, but I think it's

very fitting this week being Police Week. Just today, as we heard about earlier

in today's business, there was a service today to remember and to honour those

police and peace officers who have given their lives in the course of their

duty.

Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you over the last six months to a year, I've learned more

about PTSD than I ever did during 25 years in my policing career. I've also

learned and become better understanding of how significant the impact can be.

I know

there are many, many front-line responders, police officers, emergency medical

technicians and firefighters who suffer from PTSD today, and quite often do it

quietly. They do it quietly because of the stigma quite often associated with

mental health, but they also do it quietly because they are afraid they are

going to lose their ability for income.

Under

today's regulations, under workers' compensation, a first responder or any

person who's diagnosed with PTSD has to provide a particular event that caused

the PTSD. The most recent studies show, that's not usually where PTSD comes

from. It usually comes from many, many years of being exposed to chaotic,

traumatic and difficult circumstances that over several years, many years, it

could be a shorter period of time or a longer period of time, PTSD develops.

Under current rules, those people are not eligible for workers' compensation

under rules that exist today.

What

this petition is about is creating a presumptive clause. If a first responder

gets diagnosed with PTSD, it would be presumed to have been a workplace injury

and they won't have to go through the difficulty of trying to establish it was a

workplace injury when they are not able to do so; when they're in the most

critical and difficult and challenging times in their lives, when the last thing

they want to talk about is the trauma they've been exposed to during their

entire career.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a petition we'll see today. I think it's fitting during Police

Week while we acknowledge the hard work of police officers and first responders.

This is going to be very important. The understanding is growing and the effort

and the desire for better legislation is going to continue.

Thank

you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

It being Private Members'

Day, I call on the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi to present her

resolution.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges the government to ensure that the

Deficit Reduction Levy is immediately eliminated and that any replacement

measure be based on progressive taxation principles and further urges that an

independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial income tax system

begin promptly to make it fairer to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, it's now more than a month since the Liberal budget was dropped like a

ton of bricks on an unsuspecting public and the public backlash is continuing.

The most

reviled feature of the budget is what government has been calling the temporary

Deficit Reduction Levy. They're missing the point, Mr. Speaker, whether

temporary or permanent is not the issue, it is the levy itself that is the

problem and I'd like to point that out to the Members of the House. The levy,

when people are writing to us about it, they are not talking about temporary or

permanent. They are talking about the levy.

This is

an email I received on April 18: The levy tax is an excessive and ethically

questionable tax that is unequally applied to different income earners. For

certain groups it is almost 1 per cent of their gross salary; while for others,

especially those who earn six-figure salaries and higher, it hardly accounts for

0.1 per cent of their salaries or less. The budget is one of austerity measures

that will hurt those with low- and middle-incomes the most.

That's

what is worrying people about the levy, Mr. Speaker. The levy hits low- and

middle-income earners much harder relative to their income than it hits higher

income earners.

The

Liberal platform stated, they will continue to listen to the more than

500,000 advisors we have across our province, because we know building a

stronger tomorrow for Newfoundland and Labrador starts with working together

with you.

I ask

the Premier, where did he hear the word levy when he met with his 500,000

advisors? Yes, they had consultations in the province but there was no report of

anybody asking for a Debt Reduction Levy in any of the reports of any of their

consultations. I'd like to know, who were those 500,000 advisors they are

talking about?

The

Liberals have not been listening to the people of the province. We hope they're

going to listen today. In fact, a former Liberal premier has said, if they

really need the money people will want them to do it in the fairest possible

way. They see the levy as the worst possible way, and they do, Mr. Speaker, like

what I just read a minute ago.

I'm

going to read from another email I received. This one is from a couple. We are

32-years old so each of the couple is 32 living in St. John's East it's

actually in the District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi and are both

extremely hardworking. However, we are middle class and this budget is too much

for us to take on. We understand how difficult it is for anybody making up the

sunshine list to understand or identify with the reality of those who make up

the middle class.

We can't

afford this levy and all the increases in the budget. The Newfoundland economy

will suffer, our young professionals will leave they are two of those young

professionals families will lose their homes and some will have to resort to

bankruptcy. What might have looked good on a black, white and red spreadsheet to

the current government is at an unfathomable cost to the hardworking people of

the province.

The debt

reduction levy is an unfair levy. We're not the only ones saying it. The people

of the province are saying it. It's an unfair levy that the Finance Minister

said was based on the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, but that was a health care

levy, not one to raise money for general revenues and it didn't operate the same

anyway.

Thousands of people have signed their names to an NDP petition protesting the

levy because they recognize, as do the NDP, that we are in a race to the bottom

on the fairness scale. We have signatures from residents in every corner of the

province. We've been presenting them day in and day out here in the House. I

think my colleague, the Member for St. John's Centre, has another load to

present here during this debate.

We've

been looking forward to the opportunity to debate the levy and I know we'll

have a piece of legislation when we'll be able to do it as well but we wanted

to bring it to the House today in a private Member's motion to give some freedom

to everybody in the House to speak to this levy and to give freedom to the

backbenchers of the government to vote against this levy, because we know their

constituents are writing them about it because I'm receiving some of the emails

that are going to them as well. So they're receiving them, whether or not

they're reading them I don't know; and whether or not they're understanding that

people out there are intelligent, know how to do analysis and are telling them

that it is wrong.

The

motion calls for the immediate elimination of the Deficit Reduction Levy and for

any replacement measure to be based on progressive taxation principles. We may

have to have some workshops around progressive taxation principles to explain

what that really means because something that puts a bigger burden on the backs

of lower income than on the backs of the higher income is not progressive.

The

Premier has tried to justify the levy by suggesting that higher income earners

already pay more than their fair share of taxes. But it is actually people of

modest means who shoulder a larger share of the tax burden in Newfoundland and

Labrador than is the case in other provinces.

Take the

case, for example, of a person earning $50,000 compared with someone earning

$200,000. I'm looking at Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. When you

add in the levy, the person earning $200,000 in our province pays virtually the

identical amount as the counterpart in New Brunswick, only about $7 in the

difference.

But the

individual with $50,000 in taxable income in our province pays $4,764 in

personal income tax, plus $600 on the levy, for a total of $5,364. Their

counterpart in New Brunswick pays $4,070; that's $1,300 in the difference, Mr.

Speaker, between the $50,000 earner here and the $50,000 earner in New

Brunswick.

To be

clear, just in case they didn't get it, someone earning $200,000 pays a

virtually identical amount in this province as their counterpart in New

Brunswick, but someone trying to make a go of it on $50,000 pays $1,300 more

than their equivalent in New Brunswick. That is not fair taxation.

Comparisons at most income levels with earners from most other provinces yield

the same results. I would suggest to other Members of the House, especially the

Members of the government side, because I don't think they've done their

homework themselves, that if they take the figures that exist, all those tables

are out there, and do the homework themselves they will see the truth of what I

have just said.

We are

calling for, in this motion, an external review of the income tax regime. By not

implementing an independent external review of the income tax regime in the

province before putting an unfair levy on the people of the province, and by

making small increases in the top brackets of personal income taxes, in fact,

the Liberal government is basically agreeing with the actions of the PC

government under Danny Williams by favouring the wealthy in the province,

because that's what his budgets did. Our lower income earners pay a higher

percentage of their income tax than higher income earners, and that's a fact.

And they can say what they want; they can't disprove that fact.

We know

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the most rural populations in the country

the lowest percentage of its population living in urban areas. We have a

difficult geography, the highest aging demographic in the nation, and higher

cost of living increases than most places in the country. Lower taxes on these

who can pay more means that we will get less service because it costs more per

dollar to deliver them. If we reduce per capita spending to the Canadian

average, we would provide substandard services.

Economists now advise that government spending cuts during a recession will only

drag down the economy and further reduce revenue. So-called austerity cuts will

deepen the recession; they will cause a dangerous double-dip after the first

recession. Economists recommend investing in social and economic infrastructure

projects to weather a recession.

Political economist Diana Gibson said last week during a public presentation,

The wealthy are paying much, much less a portion of their income than lower

income individuals. So what we saw in this budget is the continuation of a

program the government had since before 2007 of letting the wealthy kind off the

hook and having lower and middle income people step up.

Some of

the most controversial measures seem to take dead aim at rural people. One such

Liberal choice that has received less public attention than it deserves is the

doubling of the provincial gas tax; that's about $10 extra on a fill-up of a

small car, $20 or more for a pickup.

People

in smaller communities already had to drive further to get to work and to get

access to doctors, hospitals, grocery stores and other necessary services. The

budget closes many public buildings in smaller communities, forcing people to

drive further for services, at the same time the price of gas is going up

substantially. An increase in the cost of food and other goods will surely

follow right on the heels of the increased gas tax and the insurance fees.

What was

seen yesterday in Bonavista when a woman put her vehicle in front of the AES

offices will continue. People are absolutely feeling frustrated and desperate.

She said she didn't plan it; she just did it because she's so frustrated. Is

this what the Premier and the Minister of Education and the Minister of AES

called progress, closing AES offices and closing down libraries?

Published in The Walrus yesterday,

award-winning writer Lisa Moore said, with regard to the backward way they're

moving: The tax on books and the closure of libraries is an attack on writers,

bookstore owners, publishers and students. That a big statement from Lisa Moore.

Other

budget measures also undermine the quality of life in rural areas. Ferry fees

have been increased. Rural government offices are closed. Valuable health

services in communities like Bonavista and Harbour Breton are eliminated. No

doubt, the Liberal government is facing a challenging situation because of the

reckless financial management of the previous administration, but the

government's standard defence has been they had no choice pity them.

A budget

is all about choices. The Liberal government made some really bad choices.

There's no vision. There's no plan. Mr. Speaker, we ask this government to

eliminate the regressive Deficit Reduction Levy. Listen to the people and

immediately put in place an external independent income tax review that would

show the people of the province that they do care about them and that they

believe in fairness and that they are listening.

I look

forward now to hearing from other Members. I know they, too, will be reflecting

what we are hearing from the people in the province. People in the province all

over are watching this session today. I know across the room they have had the

same emails I've had. I know the people who've been telling me they have been

waiting to see what is going to happen, have been saying it to them as well.

They

keep saying they're listening. They keep saying they're hearing, but they're

showing they're not. One of the simplest things they've done that could be

undone besides opening up the libraries again one of the simplest things

they could do would be to stop the levy. They can use the taxation system in a

fair way to get the money they need, but get rid of this levy.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

(Disturbance in the gallery.)

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind visitors to the

gallery that you're welcome here this is the people's House and we're

absolutely delighted to see you here but we ask that you do not show approval

or disapproval for the debate that's taking place on the floor of the House of

Assembly.

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to have an opportunity to chat about this motion today. It's incredibly

important. I really can't wait, to be honest, for July 2 this year because I

think a lot of the claims about levels of taxation will be laid bare and the

truth about these matters will finally be known to people in the province when

they look at their paystub and they realize that the extent of what has happened

is not as austere as some would have us believe.

I wanted

to just respond quickly to couple of things that the Member opposite had to say.

I really feel like the Third Party and their representatives have been all over

the place in terms of what their expectations are. Mr. McCurdy, who leads the

NDP, was recently in the media saying that basically if it was his choice, he

would have raised taxes in the same way that the government has, but he'd

somehow do it differently. There are no specifics, and I don't hear a lot of

specifics.

I wonder

what the alternatives are. Does the Opposition want to see further borrowing? If

they want to see further borrowing, then how much more borrowing? Do they want

to see further cuts to education? Do they want reductions to classroom spending?

Do they want reductions to health care spending? Do they want cuts to income

support?

We don't

have a whole lot of options. With a lot of the spending reductions in this

year's budget, we don't have a lot of places to go. I certainly can't find a

whole lot of other places to go in the department that I work in.

With

respect to progressivity of taxes, the Member talked about people who make

$50,000 a year and people who make $200,000 a year. Well, somebody who makes

$50,000 a year, with this budget, will pay $4,764 in taxes, and that's lower

than what that person would have paid at that income level in 2006. It's lower.

A person making $200,000 a year would pay $29,688.

So the

person that she's talking about that is making $50,000 is paying $4,764 and the

person making $200,000 is $29,688. So if that's not progressive income tax, then

I'd like to see the definition because that is pretty progressive; that is quite

a steep climb.

The

other thing that the Member said, which I don't agree with because I don't

believe it's factual, is regarding a higher income earner, she says, getting off

the hook. That's not the case here. The taxes all together that have been

introduced in the budget this year, those taxes for highest income earners in

the province are the highest increases on those income brackets since 2003 the

largest increases that we've seen on the highest income earners since 2003, so

that's true.

There

was an interesting and very instructive

article on CBC's website recently,

commentary by probably one of our best journalists in the province David

Cochrane. He talked about basically the structure of our economy in looking at

the tax filers in the province and basically what we looked like. He said you

know: There are just over 50,000 people in this province who earn more than

$80,000. That is about 12 per cent of all the income filers. Those 50,000

people and remember we're a population of over half a million pay 54 per

cent of all the income tax in the province. That's about $829 million a year

paid by just over half of the population.

Twenty

percent of taxpayers pay more than half of all the provincial income tax and 88

per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about 374,000 people, pay the

other 46 per cent. So you can see he's illustrating that higher income earners

are paying their rightly larger share of taxes.

He says:

Only 30,000 people make more than $100,000 in this province. Only 11,000 people

make more than $150,000. Only 4,000 people make more than $250,000. That's

important because there are not a whole bunch of rich Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians out there who we can magically tax and make these austere problems

disappear. There are only 4,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who make

more than $250,000 a year. So that's a fact.

The

other thing he says and this is important whether you want to tax the rich

or the 1 per cent or whatever, consider this, please. The people who make over

$250,000 a year, if you look at the sunshine list that was generated by James

McLeod at The Telegram , the people who

make that are surgeons, they're oncologists, they are people who are the highest

income level in our health care system and they are people we rely on to care

for us when we're sick.

You know

I've had more than one conversation since the budget with people who are in that

area of work who say, if taxes increase any higher on them, they might move to

another province that is more competitive than us. Now, that's the truth. So

it's a delicate balance; taxation is a delicate balance and I don't claim to be

an expert in it, but I would like to know what the alternatives are because I'm

not hearing any.

Further

to that, we have 424,000 or so tax filers in the province. We need to be

competitive. We need to have a tax structure that keeps us competitive across

Atlantic Canada. The temporary Deficit Reduction Levy is just that, it's

temporary. It's not something that's permanent. We've said that and the

government is committed to removing it as soon as is possible, but you have to

understand right now, it pains me to say this, I think it is sorrowful that in

Newfoundland and Labrador today in this budget because of the mess we were left

with, we spend more on debt servicing basically you could take that money and

throw it in a burn barrel. It has the same impact on the lives of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; you could just burn it. Because we're paying

more in debt servicing than we are on all of the education in the province, and

that includes kindergarten to grade twelve, early childhood education, all the

programs we have to support early childhood education in K to 12. We're spending

more on debt servicing than we are on that, and that is a crying shame.

The

other thing that has to be made clear, while the Leader of the Official

Opposition stood up today and he lambasted us that we're all to blame, when they

had an opportunity to reduce taxes in Newfoundland and Labrador, when oil was

trading at its highest and production was at its peak, they gave the largest

income tax breaks to the highest income earners in the province, and those in

the lowest income bracket got zip. They didn't get anything. They were forgotten

about. Now that's their utmost concern.

I heard

the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; she's all concerned about seniors

now. They weren't concerned when they were cutting taxes on the highest income

earners. They didn't think about those elderly, widowed women in our society;

elderly women living in very difficult circumstances. They did not think about

that. That was not considered. That's not who shared in our common wealth, and

that's a fact.

That

lost revenue they removed from the tax structure cost us $4 billion $4 billion

handed away mostly to people who could have gotten by without it. So this budget

is intended to bring us back to more sustainable levels. It's important to

remember that even with these increases, people at all levels will pay less tax

than they did in 2006. We're just hitting the reset button. People across all

income levels, and that includes HST, that includes provincial income tax, that

includes the levy less tax across all income levels than they did in 2006.

Was it a

difficult budget? Would I have liked to have done different things? I've been an

education advocate all my life. Would I have liked to have done different

things? Would I have liked to have an early intervention program for children

with low literacy levels? Would I like to have a directed program for children

who are struggling in math? Would I like to have a project-based program for

young people in junior high school to help them work together and learn

together? I'd like to do all those things, but the actions of the previous

administration in racking up a deficit of somewhere in the order of $2.7 billion

that is looking us in the face now, they removed those options. We simply don't

have them.

The

other thing is everybody who's a mom or a dad, has grandchildren, you have to

remember, we can't trade this off to our kids. Their credit card should not

carry the cost of the services that we want. There are services that we

absolutely need, and by and large those were preserved in this budget because we

are still spending over $8 billion on programs and services that are essential

for people in the province. We still have a lot of difficult decisions to make,

but the things that we want and the things that we need are different. We cannot

put the things that we want on the credit card of the next generation any

longer. It is really that simple.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, if I can find my paper here, I'm going to propose an amendment to the

motion.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Placentia West Bellevue, that the

resolution be amended by adding immediately before the word Deficit the word

Temporary and by deleting the words immediately eliminated and substituting

the words eliminated as soon as possible and by deleting the words that any

replacement measure be based on progressive taxation principles and further

urges and by deleting the words begin promptly to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and substituting the words be initiated in

2016-17 to ensure fairness and competitiveness.

The

amended resolution would read:

Be It Resolved that the House of Assembly urges

the Government to ensure that the Temporary Deficit Reduction Levy is eliminated

as soon as possible and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and

Labrador provincial income tax system be initiated in 2016-17 to ensure fairness

and competitiveness.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There's

an amendment proposed to the private Member's motion. The Speaker is going to

take a few moments to review the amendment and I'll report back to the House on

its admissibility.

If we

could stop the clock for the Member's time.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker has reviewed the amendment and has found it to be in order.

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

have a few seconds left to speak. I just want to say that, again, we're in a

tough position and we've made tough decisions. I've gone back and I've reviewed

a lot of stories in the media and both the Leader of the Third Party and the

Leader of the Official Opposition have made similar statements about being in a

tough spot and having to make tough decisions that are not politically popular.

It's really that simple. The right decisions aren't always the easy ones to

make. We could have made easy decisions that were no difficulty, that had no

public scrutiny, but then again we would have been doing what the previous

government was doing for the time they were in power, for most of it at least.

On the

bright side, the budget still spends $8.48 billion, so almost $8.5 billion, on

programs and services we need; $570 million on infrastructure that's going to

create a lot of jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador in many communities. We just

passed the Independent Appointments Commission legislation. We're making

investments in full-day kindergarten. We're going to have the Premier's Task

Force on Improving Educational Outcomes before long. The Premier's Forum on

municipal issues is going to be a venue for raising municipal matters.

We're

investing in tourism marketing. We'll have an Office of the Seniors' Advocate

now to advocate for seniors. We're going to have in-home healthy living

assessments that we committed to in the election. We're going to make

improvements to the Public Tender Act

so that we can get a better price for

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

Member's time for speaking has expired.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to rise today and speak to the private Member's motion from

the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, as well as the amendment that was

put forward.

This

motion obviously is reflective of where we see us today in regard to the budget

that was brought down in April, and one of the components to it was the

implementation of a levy. Over the past number of weeks since that time, across

the province and here in the Legislature, we have had a lot of discussion about

that levy and, more broadly, about the choices that the current government had

to make. I think everybody is respectful to the fact that some decisions had to

be made, some significant decisions.

Like any

government that comes to power and is elected, it is about the choices you make

and what you make those choices to be. What are your priorities? How do you

balance that out? There are two sides to that ledger; there is certainly the

revenue side and the expenditure side. How do you, as I said, balance that out

and what approach do you take?

From

what I've heard in my own District of Ferryland and throughout the province, in

emails and everything we have seen, there is certainly confusion. People feel

that this is too harsh. It's gone too far. It's not, as I said, a balanced

approach. Reflective of what we need to do and make some decisions, it's for the

short term but the decisions we make today and the choices we make today have

implications for years to come.

We know

we had to be very careful of our economy when we're budgeting and those choices

we make. Something like this levy and all the other broader taxes and fees that

have been part of this Budget 2016 ,

cumulatively, has a negative effect and will have a negative effect, we believe,

on the economy as we move forward, which is so important. We've known over the

past number of months maybe the last year or two we've seen a slowing,

certainly, of the economy and some industries.

Others

are doing fine, but that's that balance we need to strike and be very careful of

what that threshold is and how much we can take out of the economy, and what we

leave in, because we know an economy is driven by business much of it small

business by those employers and businesses that employ individuals,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to allow them to earn a living, provide for

their families, provide the things they need, to allow them to live right here

in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether that's in our largest cities, in our

towns, or in the smallest communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

So the

choices we make and the decisions we make certainly ripple through Newfoundland

and Labrador. A decision like this levy and the other actions taken in regard to

how we'd raise revenue, through the other means, in terms of taxation, and the

other ones that have been suggested, certainly have, as I said, an extreme

cumulative effect in our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to every

demographic in Newfoundland and Labrador from our very youngest, to our newborn,

to our seniors. It's important that when we make choices, we certainly make the

right choices.

So this

private Member's motion from the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi

specifically states to ensure the Deficit Reduction Levy is immediately

eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation and

further urges that a review take place of the provincial income tax system.

Now,

we've heard that it's temporary. Well, when it's implemented and comes into

effect, the reality is there are dollars coming out of people's pockets. Whether

it's temporary or not, or when we have a sunset date, or whether it's gone, the

reality is there's money coming out of people's pockets. A nd that's

everybody from $20,000 right through, depending on what your earnings are. So

that's significant. That's one component of it, so that's the tip of the

iceberg.

Then

when all those others that we talk about, which is in the budget, fees, other

costs that have to come out of people's pockets. At the time when I mentioned

it's needed in the economy and needed to allow the economy to continue to move

along, for people to have hope, for people to want to stay in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The

holistic approach of what the policies are, from a financial perspective, needs

to be inviting enough that people want to stay and live in Newfoundland and

Labrador, wherever they are, and they can be assured they have a future. They

have a future recognizing the situation the province is in, in regard to some of

the financial challenges. As last year we had said, there was need for serious

decisions to be made. We laid out some options for that, recognizing everybody

would have to give a little in regard to that.

Again, I

get back to the earlier comments. It's all about choices. Governance is all

about those choices and how you make them and that you are in touch with people,

and what you're hearing from people. We heard about the consultations that were

taken over the past number of months 500,000 were consulted. Well, I don't

know how many came up with a levy and said they wanted a levy. I don't know, I'd

like to see that. I know people in my district, people I've talked to around the

province, they haven't suggested that. They did not suggest that.

Then it

gets to the issue of listening to people. The Premier has indicated if you can't

listen, you can't govern. I know full well. I had the privilege of serving in

government in previous years in Cabinet, and there are tough decisions to make,

but along that way you listen to people, you understand where they are coming

from. All demographics, no matter where you live, you have different

perspectives, and with that knowledge you bring all that together and you try

and come to a consensus of how you're going to move forward.

This

levy; how it was implemented, what it represents. I know the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi earlier suggested, I think it was Ontario in regard to

what they had done, and referenced the fact that it was directed particularly to

a service delivery model. Even this levy today, it is just taking revenues and

saying we're going to put it into general revenue. There's nothing specific, as

was indicated by the hon. Member that's done in other jurisdictions.

Even

with that, as I get back to my point in terms of the implications it has on

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and what that means for them in terms of

wanting us to continue to maintain our population in Newfoundland and Labrador,

wanting to maintain our economy, wanting to maintain growth and continue to grow

as we have over the past 10 years.

We've

heard a variety of various views in terms of what we've done over the past 10

years, but we'll take responsibility for what we did over the past 10 years and

the decisions we've made, and we'll have to speak to them. The Premier and his

Cabinet have to speak to decisions they've made. They will speak to them, or

they should speak to them. One of them being this levy and a whole other range

of financial directions they've taken, and they should speak to them.

I'll

speak to my responsibility of what I did when I was minister and I was part of a

government. I have no problem with that. Was everything done to 100 per cent the

way it should have been? No, it wasn't. No, but I'll take responsibly. I'll

stand and I won't back away from it. I say on the other side, you shouldn't

either.

If you

make a decision, get up and tell us why you made the decision, why you believe

it's the right decision and what the result is going to be at the end of the

day, whether it's a month away, whether it's 12 months away, or whether its five

years' time or four years' time. That's what you need to do. You just need to

speak to it.

The

other interesting thing with this motion here today is that it's not a budgetary

motion. It's not a non-confidence motion as would be seen with enabling

legislation of the budget, or with the actual budget motion itself. It's a

private Member's motion. So it's 40 MHAs sitting here representing 40 districts

in this wonderful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Each person here today

can make a conscious decision, can think about the levy, can think about the

taxation scheme that's in place for this budget and think about whether this is

the best choice. As I said, it was all about choices.

Do you

believe this is the best choice? If you don't, you can stand in this hon. House

on this private Member's motion. We can look to you, Mr. Speaker, and say yes or

no. I do concur with the levy, or look and say I don't concur with the levy.

That's what being elected is all about. That's what democracy is all about.

That's

why it's a privilege to stand here in this House because there are only 40 of

us. People may say, well, it's politics and people get elected, but I firmly

believe, and most do, it's a noble profession. You get elected to serve and you

come in here. You get elected to represent the people who brought you here, and

today every Member is going to have a chance to stand, look to the Chair, and

say whether you're going to support this motion or not. I certainly look forward

to that.

Mr.

Speaker, in regard to the levy, I've talked about choices. We've gone through

Estimates and parts of the budget. We've come in here and ministers have shown

up with their officials and we've gone through various components and taxation

the levy has been one of those and have a general discussion about what are

the options, what are the choices. You've got a levy; you've got other areas

where you can raise taxation.

We've

had discussion about a $30 million contingency fund. There was some discussion,

well, maybe we could use that to offset the levy and some of the choices that

have been made. There are other areas we've seen cuts in; maybe we could use

that, like eliminating the levy so we can make that possible. Whether it's in

areas of class cap size in our education system, whether it's with regard to

libraries closing, whether it's regard to over-the-counter medications and so

forth that's available to people in our society.

All that

is part of the overall discussion and decisions we make when we stand today,

conscious decisions, on do we believe in the levy, do we not? As I said, each

Member will have an opportunity to stand up and speak to that, which is so

important.

Now when

you talk about public policy and issues that you deal with in your district as

an elected official, the true test of that is when you're in your district,

you're in a community, you're at a town hall, after church getting a bite to eat

somewhere, someone comes up to you. They are not really political. They just

respect the fact that you're elected and they want to share their thoughts with

you.

I can

honestly say, I've been in politics since 2007, I've not seen an issue or an

item that people are more engaged in and want to express their concern about or

express their ideas than this levy and many of the measures that have been taken

in this budget. I've had numerous conversations, numerous emails, phone calls

from people who tell me their situation.

A single

mom, a young boy that's eight years old, has a job about $30,000. She does well

now, works hard. It's a challenge at times. Some of the things that's involved

with this budget, including the levy, she does the calculations up and looks at

what's coming out on a monthly basis of her net income to try and live; whether

that's her house, whether that's her vehicle that she has to put gas in to go to

work every day or to drive her son to softball or to drive her son to hockey in

the wintertime, because she wants to make sure he's active and give him that

fulsome approach if she can to his lifestyle, which is so important at an early

age.

That's

the basics of what we do as elected representatives in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We talk to the people and we hear from the people we represent. They

tell us those real life experiences, just like we have, but they look to us

because we are the elected officials. When they see things like this coming out,

they have concern. Oftentimes they have fear, and they have a desire to be

listened to.

I've

certainly tried to do that, listen to many in my district, certainly around the

province who have emailed and tried to express concern in regard to this levy.

From my perspective as Finance critic here in this House and as the Member for

Ferryland, I've tried to express and acknowledge there were challenges and

decisions needed to be made.

Once

again, I get back to the point of it's about choices and the choices you make

and they're balanced. Today, the choice but it's how do you roll it out?

What's going to happen over the next number of months to get you the results you

want? As far as I'm concerned, much of what we've heard over the past number of

weeks and months is very vague on that. There doesn't appear to be any plan.

There's no vision. We've lost, I think, in the province the whole issue of hope.

We're a

proud province. We've done well over the past number of years. We've got great

resources. We've got great people. We've got great opportunities. We've got

great industry and there's more to come, but we do have some difficult times.

There is

hope. But we need to instill in our very youngest and everybody else in our

society in Newfoundland and Labrador that this is the place to be, we need you

here and there's sound management and there's a vision here in the province of

why you need to stay. A levy like this and the budget and some of the components

of it, as I said when I started, are not balanced, are not visionary and are set

up to hurt the economy and hurt Newfoundland and Labrador.

My time

is winding down, Mr. Speaker, but, as I said when I started, this is an

opportunity for 40 MHAs here today to stand, and maybe if this gets passed, the

motion put forward, at least it will start a discussion about this wasn't done

right, maybe we can start over and work collectively together to get where we

need to go in this great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm

looking forward to seeing everybody stand here later and see how they're going

to vote on this motion.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

A point of order, Mr.

Speaker, referring to Standing Order 43(1).

I wonder

if you could clarify with a ruling as to whether we are discussing the previous

question, the amendment, or whether we're discussing the main motion because the

Member opposite has used 15 minutes to discuss the main motion. It wasn't clear

that we were discussing the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Private Members' Day, we don't vote on the amendment until the end of the day.

So Members are discussing both the amendment and the motion at the same time.

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

great to have an opportunity to stand in the House to discuss this private

Member's motion, Mr. Speaker. We understand, all across the province, the

emotions that are attached to this budget. Mr. Speaker, there are a few things

we must do as a government and I'm proud to be part of to say this: You can't

put your head in the sand.

People

know me. People know that I have been dealing with the Corner Brook, Bay of

Islands area for a number of years. I was one of the most outspoken people of

government, but I always gave a solution. I always said here's an option when

you give a solution, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

standing here in my place and I'm saying: We have to take a stand. We cannot

pass this on to our kids and grandkids. I said it before and I'll say it again.

I said it to the rally that I attended with the Member for Corner Brook out in

Corner Brook: If you expect to do what's popular, this is not the right place to

be right now. But if you expect to do what's right, what's needed for the

future, we stand in our place here today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, emotions are running high and I know the Member for St. John's East

Quidi Vidi, the statement that she made is that the Premier said that the higher

wage earners are paying enough taxes already. Adds fuel to the fire, but it's

just not true, simply not true. It's great for rhetoric. It's great when you

stand up now, you go on and you make these statements, but we had to deal with

the facts that were in front of us. We had to deal with the facts.

In the

budget itself, there are a lot of issues in the budget, a lot of positive

things. The Member for St. John's Centre, in Hansard, said that there's $20

million slush fund. The slush fund it is great rhetoric. People around can

hear it, great, my God; the Liberals got a $20 million slush fund. The $20

million is help to leverage federal finances for a capital work projects in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It sounds great. People jump on it, but

it's not factually true.

Just a

prime example, there's already $24.9 million, I think, or $24.7 million

federal/provincial/municipal money approved. Mr. Speaker, when we leverage

federal money, provincial funds and municipal funds, there's over $354 million

available in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the facts of what is in the

budget.

We hear

the Third Party speaking about, well, what are you doing for rural Newfoundland

and Labrador? What are we going to do to sustain it? What better way to sustain

rural Newfoundland and Labrador than to help build infrastructure so they can

create industries, so they can create tourism? What better way? These are the

facts that are in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

I know

the Minister of Transportation and Works, there's $575 million in

infrastructure; that's for our schools and hospitals. That's the road in

Labrador, to widen the road in Labrador. So when you stand up and say, well,

what are you doing to sustain rural Newfoundland and Labrador; $63 million spent

to widen the road so they could expand the Labrador tourism and industry, that

is what is in the budget. That is what is in this budget, Mr. Speaker.

I just

heard the Opposition House Leader make statements that it's not popular. Mr.

Speaker, if this government didn't make the right decision we probably could

have done things that were pushed off another four or five years down the road,

sure; but is it the right thing to do? It may be the popular thing to do, but is

it the right thing to do? That's the question we've got to ask ourselves.

I heard

the House Leader I'm not getting into a debate, because I respect the Member.

He was saying, well, he never heard any other issue about this. Well, I won't go

back to Bill 29, but I will say that when you've got to make the tough

decisions, people in Newfoundland and Labrador are engaged. I expect them to be

engaged. I respect their opinions. I respect every commentary that comes our way

about it. But what I ask every person in Newfoundland and Labrador, understand

the decisions that we were faced when we walked in and took over government.

That's what I ask people to understand and look in, dig into when you walk in

one day and you've been told that here's the deficit, two days later you say,

oh, by the way, it's gone up another $700 million or $800 million. That's what

we were faced with.

The

government itself and they know; the decisions that you have to make, if you

keep pushing them down the road, you're going to make some popular decisions;

but once you make the tough decisions, once you make that stand and say, we

can't do this anymore, there are going to be decisions that are going to be

unpopular, but they have to be right decisions. When the House Leader for the

Opposition stands up and says, well, they weren't that popular. We knew they

weren't going to be that popular, but we knew they were correct. We knew we had

to correct the train the train was off the tracks. We had to make the tough

decisions. I stand by the decisions that we made, and we understand it, Mr.

Speaker.

I hear

the Member again, the House Leader, talking about the $30 million contingency

fund. I have no problem it sounds good. Why don't you take that $30 million

because you don't need it it sounds good. Put more fuel on the fire but that

same Member when he was the minister of Municipal Affairs, he had a contingency

fund in his department. Now, we passed the budget with a contingency fund. Do

you know why? Because we don't know what catastrophes are going to happen during

the year that we're going to need it. The same thing with the Minister of

Finance if we have some major forest fire like we had years ago, where are the

funds going to come from?

That

same Member had a contingency fund in his department that he asked us to vote on

which I voted on, because I agree, you need a certain amount of funds for

municipalities if a water pump breaks or if there's a major catastrophe in the

town, you need it. You've got to have it, Mr. Speaker. If it's not there, what's

going to happen is you're going deeper and deeper into debt. It's called

planning.

The

Government House Leader had that in his own department. He used that fund and

I'm not criticizing him for using it. I agree. He should have used it, but he

could not stand in this House before we voted for the budget and say: what are

you going to use it for? He couldn't do it, and the same thing that's planning

for the Minister of Finance.

I'm just

going to speak a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, on what I'm hearing across the

province. I go in my district also, in the District of Humber Bay of Islands.

Do I hear about the budget? Yes. I'm not going to stand here and say I don't. I

can tell you what I also hear. I hear more people telling me I'm glad you took

the stand you took, instead of just letting the train keep on derailing on the

tracks. That's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing yes.

I know a

lot of people, Mr. Speaker. I know a lot of people wouldn't mind if I even used

their names, but I wouldn't because I never asked them. They said: B'y, there

are a lot of good things in the budget. A lot of things we disagree with, but

you're making the right stand for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You're making a stand for our children in the future. That's what I'm hearing

around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you

look into the budget I offer the Third Party to give us some suggestions. It's

easy to stand here in this House to say we want this, this, this, this and this,

just keep naming it off. How are we going to pay for it? That's the question we

have to ask. That's the question everybody has to ask.

We all

want better for our kids. We all want better for our grandkids. Everybody in

this province wants better. I ask one question and I use it for anybody in this

House: How are you going to have a better life for your kids if you're sinking

in debt yourself? If you don't make a plan yourself to say, okay, I have to

provide for the future for my kids, for his education, for our health, for our

retirement, how can you do it? That's the question I have to ask.

I ask

the Members opposite; you are criticizing us for $344 million for Municipal

Affairs for capital works. I think it's a lot of money to help out rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Corner Brook and some of the major

centres. It's a lot of money. It is. Are there some things in the budget we

don't agree with? Yes, there are some things in the budget. There is not one

person on this side of this House there are things in the budget that we wish

we didn't have to put in.

I've

said it before and I'll say it again, when you're faced with a decision, you

have to make that decision. I'm just glad I'm part of a group, Mr. Speaker, who

said we're going to make tough decisions. Some of these decisions are hard, but

we have to make them.

I spoke

to a group just this Saturday. It was at a function. I spoke to three or four

people at the function. It got bigger and bigger, just five or six people in the

group. They said what do you really think? What I said was judge me on three

years, not four months in government. That's what it said. Judge us then, Mr.

Speaker, because the budget we put forward here, there are a lot of good things

in that budget. There are some things we wish we never had to put forth but we

did. We laid it on the table.

Mr.

Speaker, we did not walk in and try to gloss it. We did not walk in and say

let's push it down the road. What we're saying is we tried to put the best

budget forth to balance out the needs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who

are saying we need water and sewer, we need improvements to our roads. That's

what you're facing when you're faced with a budget.

I know

the Members opposite are always saying to you what are your constituents saying?

Mr. Speaker, I speak to a lot of people. Most people that called me, I tried to

call them back or I did speak to them, as all Members on this side of the House

do. Sure, I can tell you one thing, when they speak about the budget and you

say, yes, we're going to get a bit of work done this year in water so you can

have proper drinking water oh, I didn't know that.

Mr.

Speaker, some of the things in the budget that's put out there saying this is

going to cut, that's going to be cut. You sit down and say, no, that's not true.

That's absolutely not true. Oh, we heard this is going to be cut. There are

people in this hon. House who are making those statements, who never even came

to Estimates to find out what's being cut or not being cut. Yet, they're out

there saying here's what's going to be cut.

When you

actually sit down, which I have done on many occasions myself and the Member

for Corner Brook attended a rally. We heard first hand, no problem. When we

stayed around for an hour after and started talking to people Mr. Speaker,

some of the information that's being put out there from people who never even

attended the Estimates, who never even attended the briefings we had on certain

issues they find out, oh, that's not what we were told.

Mr.

Speaker, there are some issues in the budget that I can understand people but

there are a lot of good things in that budget, a lot of good things. I'll give

you a good example. If the programs go ahead and if some of the recommendations

that we make with our friends and Judy Foote came through in spades with

capital works for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you

walk into some of the communities around Newfoundland and Labrador the Members

opposite also are pushing for their communities. I agree. You should. I would

never, ever deny a Member the opportunity to sit down and say here are the needs

of our district. That's what you should be doing. We have to work together to do

it.

I'll

tell you one that's going to be a proud, Mr. Speaker people think there's no

money for water and sewer, there's no money for capital works. When you walk in

the communities come the fall and they can turn on their taps and have clean

drinking water, which this government made a priority, people are going to say:

We didn't expect that. We thought the budget was so bad there would be no money

for capital works. We didn't think we were going to get clean drinking water. We

didn't think we were going to get some safety put on our roads because of the

information put out there. If people had attended the Estimates they would have

heard it out there oh, there's no money for this, there's no money for capital

works, there's no money for roads, there's no money for safe drinking water

that there is money.

With

partnership, with the work of the Premier, the federal department and Judy

Foote, we've come up with a program. The federal government and the

municipalities municipalities are also involved with this because they came

through in spades. They understand when you invest in your community, when you

invest in infrastructure in the community you're investing in the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. You're investing in our youth in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

There is

going to be no happier day for me, come the fall, when there are towns around

and if the programs, which are recommended and some may get approved. When

they get approved and people turn on the water and they have clean drinking

water and they can bathe their kids in drinking water, Mr. Speaker, that's what

I call investments in your community. That's what I call a government who is

listening to its people

We have

a little hurdle here, Mr. Speaker, but I can guarantee you one thing, the people

and I know the Member for Cape St. Francis said: What are your people saying?

I'll tell you what the people of Humber Bay of Islands are saying: We have a

hurdle but we faced them before. When we faced them before we took them head-on

and we're going to survive. We'll be stronger when we get over this hurdle.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

going to use just a few minutes this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the

time lost during the deliberation on the proposed amendment. I also want to give

an opportunity for the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, the Member of

the NDP who brought forward this resolution, to use some time this afternoon as

well. So I'm only going use a few minutes of my time to speak to this.

Mr.

Speaker, there are two aspects of this, and the amendment, that's causing

concern for me. I think I share this feeling with Members opposite in my caucus.

We'll see as the vote takes place, but I'm fairly certain that I think we

agree on this because we agreed and believe the levy should be immediately

eliminated. We fully supported that. We didn't agree with the levy from the time

it was instituted. We believe for many reasons that it's wrong.

What

this proposed amendment does is it changes the wording to eliminated as soon as

possible. We don't know according to who, or who determines when as soon as

possible is. We don't what parameters as soon as possible is. We don't know what

considerations would be given to as soon as possible, only that it's not

immediately.

That's

what the original motion was. It was to immediately eliminate that levy and also

then to replace it based on a progressive tax principle. That's also not

included in the amended wording.

It also

goes on to say, more specifically any replacement measure be based on

progressive taxation principles and further urges .... So the idea of having

progressive taxation principles is changed in this amendment. The government

does not agree on the principle of progressive taxation. It doesn't agree with

that because it has deleted those words.

What

they also don't agree with is the words begin promptly to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Fairer to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is

also removed as a result of this amendment.

Mr.

Speaker, that is substantially different from what the original motion has said

to the point that we can no longer I can no longer, our caucus will no longer

be able to support this resolution. It significantly changes the purpose of the

motion and the meaning of it when you say you're not going to be fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, you're not interested in progressive taxation

principles. That speaks volumes about the problem with this levy and the problem

with the budget and the problem with the approach taken by Members opposite,

whose decisions are smothering the economy.

They are

causing a significant hardship to low- and middle-income families. They are

causing a significant hardship to seniors and students. This levy is part of

that and needs to be eliminated immediately, without delay. This amendment

changes those principles, when you add the levy to taxes on your home, on your

vehicle, doubling of gas tax, on personal income tax increases, on the HST

principles that were brought forward, when you put all of them together.

I know

the Minister of Finance is on the record as saying that our taxation is fair and

comparable to other provinces. Well, I argue that. I will debate that, Mr.

Speaker, because I don't believe it's right. If you look at gas tax in Nova

Scotia, 15.5; New Brunswick, 15.5; PEI, 13.1; Ontario, 14.3. In Newfoundland and

Labrador is will become 33 cents as a result of the decisions of this

government. It is relevant to the levy because it adds another level of taxation

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

change this motion, for Members opposite to stand in their place and to say they

don't agree with progressive taxation principles. That's what they'll be doing

if they stand in their place. They'll be telling people of the province they

don't agree with progressive taxation principles. They will also be saying they

don't agree in making taxation fairer for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

someone stands in this House and votes for the amendment, votes for the amended

motion, that's what they're saying. That they don't agree with a fairer tax,

they don't agree with progressive taxation principles.

Mr.

Speaker, I think anyone you talk to who understands progressive taxation

principles, anyone who understands the principle of fairness will say that would

simply be wrong. We won't be supporting the motion as amended.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

like to thank the Member for Topsail Paradise for his very thoughtful, very

thorough analysis of the amendment that was put forth in relation to the main

motion.

On April

14, I was shocked. Late that night I sat down at my kitchen table and wrote a

piece I posted on my Facebook page. I am heartbroken, absolutely heartbroken. We

all knew how tough our fiscal situation was in Newfoundland and Labrador, how

the past government squandered our prosperity by not investing long term and by

shackling us with the enormous cost of a huge megaproject.

Now this

government has squandered the opportunity to start to turn things around. This

budget is without vision. Rather than work towards real diversification using

our incredible hardworking, innovative people and creating jobs, no, instead

they have chosen to choke out every bit of life out of our own people.

They had

the opportunity to be bold and instead they nickeled and dimed departments and

are squeezing every possible penny they can with fees and inequitable taxes. To

what end? A job loss is not a move forward. Real strategies for diversification

and job creation, now that's moving forward. I thought perhaps, in spite of all

the posturing and doom and gloom, they'd come up with something, anything that

would compel us forward.

November, so many people had put their trust in this government to help steer us

through these tough times. Instead, they have stalled in their tracks unable to

lead us one step forward. This was an opportunity. I am heartbroken; I am

heartbroken for our beautiful Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, much has happened since that day that the Premier and his Finance

Minister presented their first budget to the people of the province, a budget

that was to be the blueprint to begin the promises they had made to the people

only three months previously; no job cuts, no increase in the HST and a real

plan for diversification. We were all waiting, holding our collective breath,

hoping