May

10, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 22

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will hear the following members' statements: the

hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the

Member for the District of Ferryland; and the hon. the Member for the District

of Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the members of the

St. Anthony Polars Bantam Hockey Team, which secured an All-Newfoundland and

Labrador provincial title winning the Bantam D' division in the Easter Hockey

Tournament at home at Olympia Stadium.

The team were prolific scorers, having home ice advantage, combined with a

blend of tough physical defense and lightning quick attack, allowing them to

progress through the championship final against the Lewisporte Seahawks with

four victories and an opening game 5-all tie win with the Northeast Eagles.

Their victories against Gros Morne (6-2), Lewisporte (7-2) and Stephenville

(9-0) gave a sense that the Polars would romp away with the final, but it turned

into one of the toughest games.

The Seahawks put the Polars under immense pressure early scoring after just

two-and-a-half minutes. The Polars squared the ledger in the tenth minute, and

with fifty-eight seconds remaining St. Anthony scored their second to establish

a 2-1 lead which remained until the dying seconds of the final period when

Lewisporte pulled their goalie leaving the Polars with a 3-1 victory.

I would like to congratulate the athletes: Joey Earle, Dylan Tucker, Brendan

Burden, Brandon Sexton, Lincoln Hillier, Neil Pittman, Andrew Hicks, Scott

O'Rielly, Josh Hillier, Colin John Baker, Jordan Richards, Zack Blake, Bradley

Warren, Marcus Rose, Brook Noseworthy, Heather Richards, Kerry Patey, and Matt

Carter. I would also like to recognize the coaches Kelsey Rose, Curtis Richards,

Colin Noseworthy, Jason Sexton, and off-ice co-ordinator Chris Baker for

dedicating their time and efforts to the youth and to the game of hockey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating this team and wish them well in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Goulds Lions Club

on the outstanding contribution they are making to their community and to the

lives of the children in the Goulds area. On Saturday, March 7, 2011 I had the

pleasure of attending their thirty-first anniversary Charter Night.

The Goulds Lions Club has been involved in many fundraising initiatives over

the past thirty-one years, including donations to the Goulds Fire Department,

the Goulds Arena, and the three schools in the area, just to name a few. Their

generosity and hard work has been extended to seniors' projects, food banks, and

Christmas hampers throughout the community.

The Lions have also been heavily involved with youth groups, in particular

the Lions Max Simms Memorial Camp that provides a summer camp experience for

kids with physical disability.

Mr. Speaker, it is groups like the Goulds Lions Club who continue to build

and sustain the fabric of our communities through the values of sharing, caring,

and providing a helping hand where required. It is indeed an honour and

privilege to have such an organization as part of the Ferryland District.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in expressing our sincere

appreciation to the members of the Goulds Lions Club for the outstanding

contribution they make in the lives of so many.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

2840 Templeton Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps who celebrated its forty-third

anniversary on May 3.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of attending the annual ceremonial review and

it was indeed an exciting evening for me, as I was one of the first cadets who

joined forty-three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the Corps provided family and friends with a wonderful evening

with drills, rifle, and other demonstrations.

Mr. Speaker, the following awards were presented: Top Green Star, Julia

Brake; Top Red Star, Ashley Locke; Top Silver Star, Connor McNeil; Top Gold,

Tyler Locke; Top Graduating Cadets, Julia Brake, Brittany Marche, and Maria

Tucker; Top Color Member, Garrett Marche; Most Improved Junior Cadets, Zachariah

Barnes, Rebecca Goulding, and Nichole Goulding; Perfect Attendance, Tyler Locke;

Dedication to the Corps, Jacob Payne; Esprit de Corps, Maria Tucker; and the

Cyril Wheeler Friendship Award, Jessica Marsden.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to recognize the volunteer officers

and cadets in this corps, and as Lieutenant Commander Hedley Smith, the

reviewing officer stated, the financial support given by Canada to the cadet

movement is the best dollar ever spent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today, we are especially privileged to have some special guests visiting us

from Greenland. Sitting in the Speaker's Gallery, we would like to welcome nine

Members of Parliament from the Greenland Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The delegation of Members of Parliament from Greenland is

led by their President, Mr. Josef Motzfeldt.

Welcome to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, and welcome to

our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Canada's census is currently taking place throughout the country.

Earlier this month, census packages were delivered to approximately 265,000

households in Newfoundland and Labrador, providing residents with the

information they need to complete the census online or on paper. Completed

questionnaires will provide valuable information that will be used by all levels

of government to make decisions about neighbourhoods and communities.

Mr. Speaker, the census collects information about every man, woman, and

child in Canada. The answers from each census form are combined to create

statistical profiles of age, groups, communities, and other topics of interest.

The completed forms are kept strictly confidential. Only Stats Canada and the

employees who work for them, directly working with the census, ever see the

completed census forms, and only on a need-to-know basis.

Mr. Speaker, census results are important to Canada, and they are

particularly important to this Province. Funding formulas for major federal

transfer payments to provinces are based, in part, on population counts. Every

person not included in the census will be lost dollars to the Province and,

therefore, lower funding for essential programs.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this Province uses census information in planning

and monitoring programs in such areas as health care, education, and social

assistance. Communities depend on census information when planning roads,

waterworks, public transit, police and fire services. Town planners use census

data on households and families to plan current and future housing needs, health

care and day care centres.

Mr. Speaker, the Census of Agriculture is carried out at the same time as the

Census of Population and collects information from agricultural operators who

have sold or intend to sell agricultural products. Results from the Census of

Agriculture will also be used in a variety of federal and provincial crop,

livestock and land management programs.

I want to emphasize the importance of the 2011 Canadian census to the

Province, Mr. Speaker, and I urge every resident of Newfoundland and Labrador to

participate in the May 2011 census.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. He is finally

issuing a statement that I can absolutely agree with, probably because it is a

federal initiative, Statistics Canada and Census Canada, as opposed to anything

that he or his Administration might do. In any case, I thank the minister for

his statement.

It is, of course, important that everybody count themselves in because there

are so many of the provincial programs that are based on per capita funding, and

every person that is left out and does not take the opportunity to count him or

herself in, of course, that means money to this Province. We also would

encourage everybody to make sure that they do complete the necessary census

forms. I, myself, did mine on-line yesterday. So, anybody who has access to a

computer, it is quite simple, it does not take very long at all, a minute or two

and it is done. As we say, it is very productive and necessary when it comes to

planning stages.

Many people feel that it is very unfortunate that the federal government

decided to gut the long form registry because that in and of itself was very

helpful as well, a lot of information was obtained. Albeit it took a bit longer

to do it and some people felt it might have been a bit invasive and got into

their privacy issues, of course, there were a lot of benefits to be gained for

it. For example, even how you provide access, mobility issues to people who

build new homes and so on, all of that information used to come from the long

form registry, but we will not have that any more. Hopefully, there will be some

compromised solution found and we will be able to obtain those necessary results

in the future without compromising the brevity and the privacy issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, it is a red-letter day: the two Opposition parties agreeing with the

government. This is an excellent statement by the minister, and I thank him for

getting the statement in advance.

It is extremely important, and I think it is important for the government to

get the message out to the people in the Province that everybody fills out the

census form, whether it is short or long. As we know now, only the short one is

mandatory, but all of it needs to be done.

I, too, did mine on-line, and I was one of the ones chosen to do the long

form. As I did the long form, I realized, even more than I did before, how

important it is that everybody should be doing the long form.

I encourage the minister, in talks that he has with the federal government,

to try to urge the federal government to change their decision with regard to

the long form because of all the reasons that the minister has outlined. It is

extremely important, for all kinds of reasons, that we have the information that

the census requires.

I thank the minister for taking this initiative today and hope he will go

further with the initiative.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House of Newfoundland and Labrador's

representation at the annual Offshore Technology Conference in Houston from May

2 to May 5.

The conference is one of the largest international offshore oil and gas

shows, attracting close to 75,000 visitors from over 115 countries. It is the

premiere event to showcase Newfoundland and Labrador's tremendous resource

potential, our innovative technologies, and our service and supply capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I accompanied a delegation of approximately 175 people from the

Province including the hon. Premier, officials with Nalcor Energy, and delegates

representing seventy-five local companies and organizations. During the week, we

met with geoscience contractors, technology providers, existing participants in

the Province's offshore, and prospective players interested in the potential

that lies in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore. I am pleased to report that

these meetings proved to be productive and profiled Newfoundland and Labrador as

an attractive exploration and investment destination.

Mr. Speaker, the Offshore Technology Conference is an opportunity for our

experienced service and supply sector to increase their international presence,

and pursue export market opportunities. It provides networking opportunities and

information exchanges on industry trends for the sector, which in the past has

resulted in numerous joint ventures and contracts for many Newfoundland and

Labrador companies.

Participation at the conference is a major part of the Province's promotional

efforts to support the continued growth and development of our thriving oil and

gas sector. Promotion of this sector is a key commitment in the Province's

Energy Plan, and has enabled us to enhance our marketing efforts at large-scale

international trade shows and exhibitions to solidify our reputation on a global

scale.

Mr. Speaker, part of this includes the sponsoring of a Newfoundland and

Labrador booth. The booth provides a level of exposure and access that many

companies, especially junior companies, would not be able to access

independently. Our companies had the opportunity to promote their expertise, to

explore export opportunities and to meet with other suppliers. Representatives

from the Province's academic and research and development community also

promoted their expertise and gathered valuable information on the latest

technologies and research as well as presenting at the Atlantic Canada session.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador holds tremendous opportunity for the

international oil and gas industry with our undiscovered reserves promising

potential discoveries and development. With 6 billion barrels of oil and 60

trillion cubic feet of natural gas waiting to be discovered, Newfoundland and

Labrador is home to a wealth of opportunities waiting to be explored.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We certainly want to recognize the importance of the annual Offshore

Technology Conference. This gathering has been an important promotional and

networking opportunity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and people in

the Province's oil sector for well over a decade and through a number of

previous government Administrations.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the importance of the oil and gas industry and sector

to our Province cannot be overstated. It accounts for approximately one-third of

our total revenues today. Unless we can achieve diversification and engage in

developing other industry sectors, there will continue to be a tremendous

dependency in this Province on oil in order to fulfill the fortunes of our

people and the fortunes of our communities. It is unfortunate if it has to be

continued to be tied solely to oil prices.

This being said, Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope that the conference was a

success for all the people who attended from Newfoundland and Labrador. We hope

that it was an opportunity for them to be able to capitalize on partnerships and

working with other businesses and entities within the oil industry. As you know,

in Newfoundland and Labrador we have a tremendous wealth of business expertise

and knowledge built up in the oil industry. We can certainly export a lot of

that knowledge and a lot of our services and practices to other jurisdictions,

especially those in the North, in places like Greenland, Mr. Speaker, who could

be looking at the oil industry as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we will be looking with great

optimism to see what kind of businesses can foster from things like the oil and

technology show that the minister just participated in. We will certainly look

forward to seeing the tremendous rewards that the oil industry keeps bringing to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Obviously this annual event is an excellent place for both our elected

members of government as well as members from industry, researchers and

scientists-to-be once a year. It is really important that our junior companies

in particular get an opportunity to get a crack at the international markets.

The networking is extremely important, the sharing of information and even the

learning that goes on, not just information; it is all very important. The more

that we can be connected with the international market the better it is going to

be for what happens here with regard to exploration of oil and gas.

It is why we should also see what kind of events we can further promote here

in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think about the recommendation of Judge Wells

when he recommended in his report that the C-NLOPB initiate high-level safety

conferences with the oil operators, the helicopter operators, worker

representatives and stakeholders at least every two or three years here. It

strikes me with the research that we are doing in the Province and with our

proximity to the water, of course, that we could become a centre of excellence

with regard to conferences dealing with safety when it comes to exploration in

the sea under the water.

Mr. Speaker, I do encourage the government to look at this recommendation, to

speak with the C-NLOPB and promote the idea of really pursuing safety as an

issue that we can promote here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House of Assembly the Premier stated that the only reason

that the costs have risen on Hebron is because oil reserves went up by 11 per

cent. However, we have learned that if you put aside all the cost around

drilling whatsoever and you just focus on the cost of the offshore platform

itself, the cost still comes in at $6.5 billion. That is 30 per cent higher than

the whole project was originally forecasted to be.

It brings me back to my question, Mr. Speaker, from yesterday. I ask the

Premier: What it will mean for the taxpayers of this Province if Muskrat Falls

is to come in at 30 per cent over budget such as the Hebron project has just

been constituted as?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with the same series of questions. We are

into our sixth or seventh week here in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and

we have been dealing with the same five questions. Mr. Speaker, it does not

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I hear the House Leader for the Opposition shouting

across the way. It does not seem to matter

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - what answers are provided, Mr. Speaker. They do not

seem to be able to distill them regardless of the information provided.

Mr. Speaker, when we do the financing and forecasting of the financing

required for projects, we build in contingencies. We build in contingencies for

overruns. We have done that on Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier may not want to answer the questions but when you are talking

about spending taxpayers' money to develop projects that, at the end of the day,

they are going to have to reach further into their pockets to pay for, I think

they have a right to know what the answers are.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier may want to defer the cost because she knows that

the vast majority of any overruns is going to be left to be paid by the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are on the hook for 50 per cent of the

overruns on the Maritime link, a link that will be owned by a private

corporation out of Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair or right for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Premier today: Why would you negotiate a deal that puts the people

of this Province on the hook for the vast majority of the cost overruns while

letting Emera, a private corporation in Nova Scotia, off the hook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I have to say to you is that I am absolutely

delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about overruns. I just

wish she had been so concerned when she was a member of the government that

negotiated the Grimes deal with Hydro Quebec because in that case, Mr. Speaker,

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was responsible for all of the

overruns. All of the overruns, Mr. Speaker, and if we could not finance those

overruns, which was highly likely given the fact that we were $12 billion in

debt, Hydro Quebec would have ended up owning the whole project. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is what they know about overruns.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Maritime link, the cost of overruns is shared

between Emera and Nalcor. Not only are we able to transport our power across

that line, Mr. Speaker, but eventually we will own that line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, it all comes down to what the cost is going to be to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador under your deal, not under previous deals that were

negotiated and scrapped and are no longer in existence. It is what you are

proposing today to charge Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the cost of

energy. What we are saying to you is that almost every mega project in the world

has seen cost overruns.

We want to know what the implication of a cost overrun is going to be on

Muskrat Falls if it is at 30 per cent or 40 per cent, what it is going to mean

to the ratepayer of Newfoundland and Labrador. Surely you must have the answer

to that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Your deal, their pocketbook.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Emera will own the Maritime Link for thirty-five years, no

question about it. They will use over 20 per cent of that for their own power,

Mr. Speaker. Essentially, 67 per cent of the capacity on the Maritime Link for

all of that period of thirty-five years, will be for the use of Nalcor and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: to transfer our excess power through Nova Scotia,

into New Brunswick, and down into the United States, 40 per cent of the power

that we do not have, bargained for, either by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador or by what we have already sold in Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker.

This is a good deal for the people of (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a sweetheart of a deal for Emera, I say to the Premier, which is going

to get power for thirty-five years without paying a dime to the people of the

Province, 20 per cent of the power alone.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Joint Review Panel asked Nalcor to provide

was a detailed year-by-year financial analysis of Muskrat. It wanted a breakdown

of all of the costs, including debt and equity payments, as well as revenues. In

other words, the panel themselves wanted to see how it was possible for Nalcor

to make money on this project. So, it was looking for proof.

I ask the Premier today: Why did Nalcor refuse to provide that information to

the Joint Review Panel?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is the job of the panel. That is why we go to environmental

assessment, a completely open and transparent arm's length process where

questions can be asked and answered. Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to the

report of the environment assessment panel and its recommendations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we have already gone to

two independent audits of the methodology, of the process, and of the whole

gamut of issues that occur in a $6.2 billion project.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the former Administration, which did not share the

details of its deal, not even with the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, let alone with the people of the Province, we are having these

audits done and we are making the information (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor did not provide the information, just like the Premier will not

provide the information, because it is not information they want to have out

there for the public right now.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for a panel to do its job if it does not have the

proper information to do it in the first place. One of the foremost experts on

hydro generation in the country is Philip Raphals of the Helios Centre. Mr.

Raphals told the joint review panel he does not see how Nalcor can meet all of

its costs on Muskrat unless your government defers its return on the money it is

putting up. In other words, in order for Nalcor and Emera to make a profit on

the power sales, which we know they have to make, the government will have to

give up its share of the revenue.

I ask the Premier: How does this make sense?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it might make more sense if the Opposition Party took some of

the generous amount of money they have for research and applied it to this

issue. Mr. Speaker, they are grasping at straws. Every time somebody gets up and

says something negative about this project they take it as gospel and they tout

it.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a great deal of time planning this project. We

tested in two external audits the methodadology and the information that we have

used for our projections. Mr. Speaker, we are engaging in a third audit. The

project has been engaged by their former national leader, by the current Prime

Minister, by the Leader of the Third Party. Mr. Speaker, we have endorsements

from financial institutions and our creditors across this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A great speech Premier, but the question is very simple: Will we have to give

up any of our revenues on this particular project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a crystal ball. I can tell

you in terms of contingencies, in the best advice we have gotten from experts

around the world who are involved in these kinds of projects, we have done the

appropriate planning.

Mr. Speaker, our information, that we have provided a number of times to

members of the Opposition, shows that we have a regulated rate of return and

that that return comes to the people of the Province during the whole life of

the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was recently announced that Quebec and Ottawa had signed an accord

allowing offshore drilling, and that accord, I guess, sets the boundaries

between Quebec and our Province as per a defunct agreement of 1964.

In February, Mr. Speaker, the Premier acknowledged she had a copy of the

accord

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - but she neglected to mention at the time that both Ottawa and

Quebec had already established a boundary. Mr. Speaker, I understand from my

Estimates Committee with the Minister of Natural Resources that this boundary

was the 1964 boundary that was set out on paper.

I ask the government today: What actions has your government taken so far to

initiate negotiations with Quebec, when are you going to start those talks, and

what bargaining position does this now leave us as a Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I can only plead with the Leader of the

Opposition - given the fact that we have dealt with this issue a number of times

on the floor of this House - to please familiarize herself with the process that

is used to settle boundary disputes within this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

boundary between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia was able to be

settled because we had accord acts with Ottawa. That laid down a process by

which we could enter into a negotiation and an arbitration of our boundary.

Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to do that with the Province of Quebec

because they did not have an accord agreement with the federal government. The

first step in the process is for Quebec and Ottawa to develop an accord

agreement. That is what we have been encouraging Quebec to do, that is what we

have been encouraging the federal government to do. They have done that and now

we can get on with the rest of the business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that Ottawa and Quebec has established an agreement, what the Premier

did not tell us is that they also established a boundary. Mr. Speaker, this was

what the Minister of Natural Resources revealed to us in the Estimates Committee

of the Department of Natural Resources that the boundary had indeed been

established.

I ask the government today: Why would the federal government and the Province

of Quebec establish a boundary around the Old Harry oilfield in the absence of

Newfoundland and Labrador being present even at the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the most recent attempt to establish a boundary between the

Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was the 1964

effort. Mr. Speaker, that boundary has never been ratified by the parties. It is

not an official boundary, it is not accepted. For the purposes of setting the

accord, that demarcation was put in, acknowledged by all parties that that is

not the official boundary, it is not the accepted boundary. The boundary has yet

to be negotiated, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now we are starting to get somewhere. So, the 1964 boundary has been

established and has been recognized in the agreement between Quebec and Ottawa.

I ask the Premier today: Why was it that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, why is it that you or none of your Cabinet colleagues were invited to

the table, informed or in any way participate in these negotiations, which is

less than favourable to Newfoundland and Labrador, if that is the boundary they

have established as a starting point in negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, she does not know whether it is favourable or not favourable. We

have never said why the 1964 boundary was never accepted, Mr. Speaker, why it

was never ratified. It just did not get done. Certainly, in terms of the

fourteen years that you were in government, you did not try to do anything about

it.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, please, I cannot hear myself speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair has recognized the hon. the

Premier and I ask members to give her the right to provide her answer, as well

as when the Opposition asks a question.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the issue was raised with us, whether or not we would

ratify the 1964 boundary, the answer from this government, rightfully so, I

believe, was no. That boundary was based on fifty-year-old information. We have

not had any discussion of it since. We need to revisit this issue and examine it

thoroughly before we agree on what the boundary is. The boundary could very well

end up being the 1964 boundary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is about what the Premier is doing, and what her government is doing, not

what others have done or failed to do.

I ask her the question again. Why would the Province of Quebec, the

starting point in a negotiation in an oil reserve where we have a vested

interest, Mr. Speaker, without ever consulting us, without ever allowing us to

participate, or without ever asking us, in any way, what our view may be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We will try again, Mr. Speaker.

We have to ratify, Newfoundland and Labrador has to ratify, has to agree to

any boundary demarcation. We have not done that, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my

knowledge, nor has Quebec, nor has the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we have, in fact, in place is a process where this can now

take place. The Leader of the Opposition is making all kinds of assumptions. You

know nothing about the offshore on the East Coast. I can guarantee you, if it is

possible to know less about the West Coast then you know less.

Mr. Speaker, we now have a process where the boundary issue finally, after

fifty years, can be settled once and for all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for the District of The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when questioned yesterday on what solutions were coming forward

from government to deal with the lobster industry crisis, the minister stated

they were considering outside buyers to purchase lobster from our fishermen and

a decision will be made in short order - to use the minister's own words. Given

the urgency of this matter, I suggest to the minister that a decision is needed

now before it is too late, not in short order.

I ask the minister today: What information are he and his department waiting

for to make this decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I heard last night the President of SPNL, Mr.

Joyce, seems to be going for the nomination of the Liberal Party. I do not know

if they are conversing with him, looking for information, and I do not know if

we might be negotiating with a different individual in short order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: I do not know if Mr. Joyce will remove himself from the

situation or not.

Mr. Speaker, since yesterday I have been in meetings, our officials are

checking out further information. I will be contacting the union before the day

is out looking for some additional information. Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking

with the processors in the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is one fellow over there who seems to be

talking a heck of a lot more than the others.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, there are plant workers who are involved in this

particular process, and we will be speaking with the processors and getting

their point of view on it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Fisheries is becoming

known as the minister of procrastination. Unfortunately, that is a term that is

out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Again, the reason he is being evasive about making a decision

here, as he has done on a number of fishing issues, such as the MOU - none more

glaring than that one.

I ask the minister: Can the frustrated lobster fishermen of this Province

expect a decision on outside buying this week?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have to retract some of my statements.

Yesterday - I spoke later in the House on the Budget - I said I thought the

fellow was a nice fellow. I have to retract that, Mr. Speaker, I really have. I

really have to retract that.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a simple issue of just granting outside buying and

at the end of the day everything is happy and rosy. I think the hon. member

might live in a rose-petalled world if he thinks that way.

Mr. Speaker, this can be precedent setting. We are working through the

issues. We will come to a resolution, and we hope that the resolution will see a

resumption of the fishery. We know the challenges that the harvesters face; we

know the challenges that the processors face. We want what is best for the

people in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and we will find that resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, procrastinators are nice people as well at times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: The minister has a responsibility here as well to ensure that

the two parties he has mentioned, the FFAW and SPNL, also come together to work

out a possible solution to this crisis.

I ask the minister again: Can you lay out the time frame that is acceptable

to you that works for this industry as to when we can expect to have an answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give him the exact time. All I will

tell you is that we will find a solution to this as expeditiously as we can.

He is going to have to make up his mind, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, he was up

talking about not shipping shrimp down off the Northern Peninsula or shipping

stuff out of the Province. Today, he is talking about we should be moving to

outside buyers. I assume that is where he is going to. Mr. Speaker, he is going

to have to make up his mind where he wants to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we had as many lobster plants in the Province as we do shrimp, I would be

a little more concerned about outside buying, I tell the minister.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting inside word, we might call it, that there is some

issue developing with respect to the crab industry.

I ask the minister if he can confirm, as we are given to understand, that

crab prices are dropping quickly in the US market and there is a glut that is

causing concern from the processing sector, and does he know if we will be

impacted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we can talk to many of the issues. I can go

back to a comment by Richard Cashin and the issuance of shrimp licensed plants

and when they were being doled out as if there was a free-for-all for

everything, and as a result, we end up in the situations that we are into.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue that he is speaking about right now, I have not

received that information. I will certainly check into it. Although I did speak

to an independent harvester yesterday who told me that he had a call that crab

prices had gone from $2.15 up to $2.35. To what he is specifically speaking

about, I am not aware of, but I certainly will check into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Health about Eastern Health sending

medical examples for testing outside the Province at tremendous cost when there

are already labs in the Province ready, able, and willing to perform the work.

The minister responded with a vague answer about there being operational issues

involved, yet the first clause in the service agreement which NewLab Life

Sciences signed just twelve months ago with Eastern Health states that NewLab

has "the necessary qualifications, experience and abilities" to perform this

work.

I ask the Minister of Health again: Why are hundreds of thousands of dollars

of medical testing going to labs outside this Province when there are fully

accredited labs, staffed by fully qualified technicians, here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, I have checked into this with Eastern

Health, it is an operational issue.

Information provided to me indicates the following: In November 2010, Eastern

Health met with Newfound Genomics to discuss a draft contract. At that time,

Eastern Health had concerns. They were in three different areas. One, is that

Newfound Genomics was asking for an upfront payment, which Eastern Health was

not agreeable to; secondly, they were concerned about the ability of this

company to meet the quality and safety standards as a stand-alone organization

and vendor; and thirdly, that this request for start-up funding was not a

typical relationship with a vendor.

Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health advised us that they are not aware of any testing

having been sent to Newfound Genomics. I would suggest that, Mr. Speaker, if the

member opposite has any questions for Eastern Health, those questions can be put

to them. That is the information I have been provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has invested $17 million into the Centre for Interdisciplinary

Research in Human Genetics in order to conduct research into this field;

however, when it comes time to commercialize these discoveries, there will no

longer be a local company ready to take advantage of that. Instead, the job of

making money from these discoveries, along with the associated jobs and profits,

will go out of this Province.

I ask the minister: Why is government allowing the benefits from research

conducted in this Province to flow outside the Province instead of ensuring the

jobs and the profits stay here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we hired Ms Kaminski as the CEO and President of Eastern

Health she was given a job to do, and that job is to run this organization. Mr.

Speaker, testing is sent outside the Province all of the time in various types

of testing. I will give you one example, of GeneDx.

I am a little bit surprised by the question of the hon. member having regard

to my answer, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated that Eastern Health has concerns

about the ability of this company to provide the quality work necessary. After

the Cameron inquiry there are clear concerns that there have to be criteria, Mr.

Speaker, to ensure top quality in our labs. That is one of the lessons of

Cameron, one of the major lessons.

Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health wanted to be supportive of local work, but more

importantly, Mr. Speaker, wanted to ensure that the highest quality and safety

standards were able to be met. They have not been able to reach that conclusion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Province's offshore regulator, the C-NLOPB, has been plagued

with bad publicity regarding its communication practices. Last month the agency

was criticized for not reporting a major drilling fluid spill in a timely

fashion. This month, Captain Mark Turner in his report on offshore oil spill

prevention and response practices calls for the board to demonstrate more

transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Does government share Captain Turner's

concern and, if so, what is it doing to address the inadequate communication

protocols at the C-NLOPB?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before in this House of Assembly, the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is an independent

regulator. They operate separately from government. They have a mandate that has

been given by the federal and provincial government but they are separate from

us in terms of their operations. We do communicate with them from time to time.

We do receive information from them. We do present information to them but they

determine their own policies and practices. They operate independently, and

Captain Turner indicated in his report that they were world-class and as good as

any other safety regulatory agency in the world in terms of the safety regime

that we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the least I would expect the minister to do then is to inform the

C-NLOPB in a formal way that he supports the recommendations of Captain Turner

and that they should do something about the communication protocols. Then let

them figure out what to do, but let them know how he feels.

Mr. Speaker, an environmental assessment of deepwater drilling released in

2006 included observations by qualified critics who said there was very little

data about the environment 2.6 kilometres under the ocean surface. In fact, it

is referred to as a data gap. Mr. Speaker, Captain Turner, in his report,

indicates there is no plan to deal with a catastrophic event, such as a blowout,

during deepwater exploratory drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can government approve exploratory

drilling in an environment they know little about and for which there are

insufficient blowout plans?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated yesterday in this House that there are plans in place, and I want

to be clear with the people of the Province that there are plans in place.

Captain Turner understands that there are plans in place for spills, for spill

prevention, spill containment, spill clean up, et cetera. Those plans are put in

place by the companies, approved by the C-NLOPB, and governmental agencies also

have the capability to respond to those. So, there are plans in place, and it is

important that people of the Province understand that.

Captain Turner also referenced in his report that he would like to see more

done in terms of catastrophic blowouts, which he calls infrequent occurrences.

That will be something that will be undertaken by this government, and I am sure

as well by the C-NLOPB, to try and address the concerns that Captain Turner

raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to be able to stand again this afternoon and present a

petition in the House of Assembly. I will read the petition into the record.

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

Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the shrimp industry is in crisis for both harvesters and processors;

and

WHEREAS previously there was protection for Gulf shrimp plants and plant

workers through a regional processing restriction mechanism ("the cap") which

prevented landed shrimp from being trucked for processing beyond the region

where it was landed;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the regional processing

restriction ("the cap") in order to preserve the principle of adjacency for

shrimp processing and to ensure that employment opportunities are protected for

plant workers and the overall viability of communities in the region.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever humbly pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present this

petition on behalf of the people of the Northern Peninsula, particularly those

who fish from the Gulf shrimp part of that region. Mr. Speaker, as we know, in

the past week there have been protests that have taken place. There have been

interruptions of traffic movement along the Viking Trail. We know there are

others planned, not that we are advocating that, but in frustration it is their

only means of really expressing their concern and so on.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister talked about the shrimp that is shipped

on to the Northern Peninsula. I would suggest the tally would be far more coming

off than what is going on. My concern is not as much about where it is going but

my concern is about the plants that are there and the workers who depend on this

fishery. There is nowhere else for them to look.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not have a viable fishery in the coastal communities of

Newfoundland and Labrador, then certainly the challenge will be tremendous. I

use the example of Black Duck Cove, whose annual production of shrimp has gone

from 16 million, to 12 million, and to 8 million last year. Mr. Speaker, we all

know that in a business at some point or another, it just is not viable to open

your doors anymore. I am sure if you have lost production by upwards of 50 per

cent over a two-year period, at some point or another you must be reaching that

line.

Mr. Speaker, that is the only reason that I stand today, is because it is a

very pressing issue and it is one that people have collected signatures from

along the Northern Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, I would urge this government today to

do whatever is within its power to see that this crisis is somehow settled, that

there is a resolution, and in this particular case, as the petition is asking

for, that this government reinstate the cap that was there. It is a cap that

worked for a number of years. It is one that was removed by this government for

whatever reason, it does not really matter, but it is one that protected the

product that was being landed in a particular region of this Province. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask today that government reinstate the same as requested by

those on the petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador with

regard to the Trans-Labrador Highway. It says:

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the

Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and

allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway

are unpaved, in deplorable condition, and are no longer suitable and safe for

the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and

paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to call upon the

government to provide additional funding for much-needed improvements to Route

510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, people have been petitioning the House of Assembly since we

reopened for the spring session in Labrador. Petitions have come from Lake

Melville area, from Western Labrador, from the coast of Labrador, from the

Labrador Straits. Mr. Speaker, people are concerned because they have no other

choice only to drive over a gravel road that is in deplorable condition.

I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the roads have not been maintained properly.

There has been no crushed stone put on the roads on a regular basis, sections of

the road right now are ten and eleven years old and they need to have that kind

of an investment in order to maintain any standard there. In addition to that,

what we have seen is that traffic volumes have not only doubled and tripled, but

have absolutely quadrupled on most sections of this road. That is the amount of

traffic that has to use the road on a regular basis.

We are not only seeing individuals with their own vehicles, but we are seeing

a lot of tractor trailers, we are seeing a lot of industrial equipment being

taken over that road and it is having an impact. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you go

on Facebook today there is a Web site that was designed by a trucker from Corner

Brook who uses that road on a regular basis. You can see a lot of the footage

that he has put there, the conditions of the road that he is driving over to

deliver goods in and out of Labrador and what his trucking company is doing. I

have talked to trucking companies in my own district and every single time they

send a tractor trailer over that road, they come back and they have extensive

damages that are costing them thousands of dollars.

I have heard from hundreds of people, Mr. Speaker, who are using the road.

Not just from Labrador but from the Island and not just from the Island but from

other parts of Canada who are using that road. They have been calling and

e-mailing. There is no end to the messages that I have received. You can go on

YouTube today and all you can find are videos of that

section of road in

Labrador and the conditions of that particular road.

I think it is unrealistic to expect that people are supposed to tolerate

this, they are supposed to accept it, they are supposed to be quiet and

everything is supposed to be good; it does not work that way. I think what they

are asking is that government work with them; work with them to show some

interest in that

section of the highway in the Province; work with them to lobby

and fight, Mr. Speaker, the federal government to secure money for paving of

those sections of the road which right now are not even on the government's

radar in the Province.

They want you to, in the meantime, do some basic work, to put crush stone on

the road, to grade it. I have talked to grader operators who work on the road,

who have had to go off for medical reasons because they are shook up; they have

physical ailments because of operating equipment on that particular road. The

road is just so bad.

I will keep bringing the petitions to the House of Assembly. This has been

going on since the House of Assembly opened and I think it is time that

government responded favourably to the people in that area so they have a decent

road to drive over.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to enter a petition on behalf of the residents of Cape Ray in

the District of Burgeo & La Poile who are very disturbed and upset about the way

the Department of Transportation and Works has been treating them with respect

to the roads in their community and as well as the road that adjoins J.T.

Cheeseman Park which is used by none other, very often, than officials and

service vehicles of the Department of Transportation and Works. They do not even

maintain their own road that they have consistently used.

Mr. Speaker, the petition says:

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the funding and maintenance of

roads in the community of Cape Ray, in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

WHEREAS the roads at Cape Ray are in a deplorable condition, including the

road leading from the community of Cape Ray to J.T. Cheeseman Provincial Park;

and

WHEREAS the citizens of Cape Ray demand that the roads be upgraded;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to provide sufficient funding to complete

the necessary repairs to the roads at Cape Ray.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about deplorable conditions that might exist on some

roadways. I do not know if I am exaggerating by saying there have been a few

people missing over the years because this road has been so deplorable and so

poorly maintained. I mean actually there is some wonder about what happens here.

This is a case where the provincial government, who through one department,

the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, encourages people to come to

this Province; encourages people who reside in this Province to travel around

this Province and experience what it has to offer. They operate a provincial

park, the J.T. Cheeseman Provincial Park, next door to this community. Yet, they

invite you off the TCH to come into the park, there is another road which takes

you out to the beach and on to Cape Ray which is the intention, according to

Tourism, Culture to experience the place and yet you cannot get over the road.

Who uses this road quite often? The very operators and trucks of the Department

of Transportation and Works and they are not even properly maintaining their own

road that they use themselves. It is not just for the residents.

Yet, if we had a little cooperation, if this community had a little

cooperation from this minister and his department so we could get some roadwork

done. No disrespect to the people who live on the Avalon, but it is not all

about the Outer Ring Roads of the world, it is not all about the TCH down in

this end of the world; it is about looking after everybody in this Province

fairly. I do not care what political stripe you are, whether you are red, you

are blue, or you are orange. It is time that this government started to be fair,

when it comes to the roads in this Province.

There is no reason whatsoever that the people in Cape Ray should have to put

up with a road that is less than somewhere else in this Province. Absolutely

unacceptable. I encourage the government, I encourage the minister here to get

on with what is fair to the residents here in this Province, and in this case in

particular, get something done with the road in Cape Ray so the people have an

opportunity to drive on something that is decent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people in the District

of The Isles of Notre Dame, and it is regarding the Notre Dame Memorial Hospital

Health Centre. It says:

WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial

Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed last summer and did not reopen in

the fall; and

WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of

Twillingate-New World Island; and

WHEREAS the shortage of acute care beds is resulting in people being denied

admittance to the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS the people of Twillingate-New World Island do not want to see their

health care services cut;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the five acute care beds in

the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this area are upset because government closed down

five of the acute care beds for the summer season, which is not unusual. It

happened last year in this particular region. Normally what happens is the beds

are reopened in the fall. They close them down in the summer because it is an

opportunity for them when they have people going on holidays and vacationing and

so on, and they have staff shortages. So, they keep it down to a minimum because

they are not taking in as many patients, they are not doing as many procedures.

However, in the fall, Mr. Speaker, the five beds did not reopen.

In fact, there was an advisory, a media advisory went out in March, and that

media advisory said there was going to be an official opening of a restorative

care pilot program in Twillingate. You would have thought that the people there

would have been very happy about that. In fact, they were happy that they were

getting a restorative care program. What they were not aware of, Mr. Speaker, is

that when their MHA and the minister came out to make the announcement, that

indeed what they were doing was taking five acute care beds out of the hospital

setting altogether, out of the system, and they were actually converting them to

restorative care. That was the pilot project that they were announcing for the

people of the area.

In a letter, Mr. Speaker, that I wrote to the CEO of Central Health, she

wrote back basically saying to me that we have consulted with the people in the

area; however, people who I talked to felt they were not consulted. In fact, I

have a folder full of petitions that are still coming in to me from people out

in this particular area. Mr. Speaker, they feel that they were not consulted;

they had no input into the decision that was being made. They recognize that

there was a need for restorative care beds; however, they felt that they should

not have to compromise their acute care health care system in the

Twillingate-New World Island area in that entire district in order to accomplish

that.

They figured that government and their MHA should have recognized that there

was a need. In recognizing that need, they should have provided for the services

appropriately and not taken beds out of the system, beds that were being used by

other patients, beds that were being used by people who live in these particular

areas. They are asking the government to restore those beds to the acute care

services that they were used for.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will continue the debate on the Budget that we have commenced. With that,

I call Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to be able to stand for the first time and speak to

the Budget and the amendment to the Budget - the Budget that was brought down in

April. I am glad to have the opportunity to bring my thoughts to that Budget and

the impact that Budget is going to have on people, both in the present and in

the future.

We had to wait a while for the Budget, longer than usual, but it finally

came. Now, we have the chance to have a number of opportunities to say what we

think and to point out to government how we think they could have done it

better, things that needed to be done that they did not do, and to maybe give

some ideas to the Minister of Finance who did talk about the great difficulty

that he had with regard to trying to meet everybody's needs. There were so many

people coming to him with their different concerns, which is quite

understandable. It is hard to balance how you are going to meet those needs, how

you are going to meet those concerns, and I can appreciate that. Sometimes

people have different priorities, people have different ways of looking at

things, people have different values, and maybe there are things that I would

have done about the Budget that would be different than the way in which the

minister went about it.

I am happy to stand here today and to speak to some of those issues. I know

that the minister would like me maybe a lot of the members of government, all

of them to stand today and rhyme off all of the things that I like in the

Budget. I will have to say there are many things in the Budget that are good,

things that are necessary, that are meeting people's needs, things that we must

have, and people must have for good health, things that they must have in order

to have a sense of well-being as individuals and as families and as communities.

The role of government is to use the resources of the Province, to use those

resources for the good of the people. We should not pat ourselves on the back

when we do what should be done. We should all say together we are very pleased

that we have the resources in the Province right now to be able to take care of

many needs that perhaps we were not able to take care of in the past. I think

that it is good for the government to recognize and good for the government to

say that.

I do not have to stand and rhyme off all the things that the minister rhymed

off when he stood. People know that they are there. It is good now that we have

seniors who are going to be able to have dental work done without having to pay

for it. I think that is absolutely something that is needed. There are all kinds

of things that we see in the Budget that are good, but, as I have said, these

are things that are necessities for people, they are not luxuries.

This is the thing that I would like to say here today, Mr. Speaker, sometimes

when government is making decisions and bringing forth its Budget, it almost

implies to the people of the Province that we are giving this to you, it is

really special, we are giving it to you as a gift, and people almost think that

they have to say: Oh, this is a real luxury that I am getting. These are not

luxuries. Having the tax taken off home heat, being able to have your teeth

taken care of when you are a senior citizen, being able to have drugs that one

needs when you cannot afford it, these are things that are not luxuries. Being

able to have a home care program, these are not luxuries, these are human needs.

Government has a responsibility to try to find the way to make sure that the

needs of people are taken care of, not the wants. Just like in a family, just

like parents with children, parents have to judge between the wants of children

and the needs of children. Well, government has the same responsibility with the

population and with the Province itself. Government has to look at what the

needs are and recognize those needs. When people are going to government, when

people are going talking about things like affordable housing, talking about

things like home care, and talking about things like affordable drugs, when

people are presenting those needs to government, they are not presenting wants

or things that would be nice to have; they are presenting what are needs.

So, that is my attitude. That is my attitude that I present to the minister.

We do not expect people to be going around grateful because the Budget is

meeting their needs. I am grateful that we have enough resources in the Province

now that we can start meeting more of people's needs. Government has a

responsibility to do that. So, I am not going to thank government for its

Budget. It should be what it is, and it should be more.

When I look at the things that are listed, one of the things that bother me

is that in so many areas the government does not have a plan. It does not have a

long-term plan. For example, we are still waiting for the long-term care and

home care plan. Now, today we were in a meeting with the Minister of Health and

his bureaucrats. We did have our Estimates meeting with the Department of Health

and Community Services. I understand from that - shortly we were told -

hopefully not too long into the near future, we are finally going to see a

strategy around long-term care and home care that we have been waiting for now

for two years, a strategy that is essential for us to move into the future, and

a strategy that I hope will then be worked out over the next two or three

Budgets, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing in this Budget presented me with that kind of a plan. This is what is

going to happen this year, this is what is going to happen next year, and this

is what is going to happen the year after. We do not have that kind of a plan

with child care. What did we get? We got a two-year pilot project, Mr. Speaker

a two-year pilot project. Now, we are being told again that inside of Child,

Youth and Family Services they are working on a plan. Once again, we keep

getting promises, Mr. Speaker.

Here we are at the end of a four-year term of this government. We will be

coming to an end. When we close this spring, it will be the last day in the

Legislature for the four years that we have been elected, and we are still

waiting for plans from this government. They know how to talk the talk but they

do not come up with concrete plans, Mr. Speaker, and this is what really bothers

me.

When we do get a plan sometimes, like back in 2007, we had been waiting for

four years then for an Energy Plan, and right on the eve almost of the calling

of the election in 2007, we got a so-called Energy Plan; which was nothing but a

document with all kinds of nice ideas but no timelines, no plan, nothing that

you could say down the road, they did not do this or they did not do that, or

they did do this and they did do that.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I hear from many, many people whenever this

government presents its Budget, whenever it stands up with announcements, I hear

people say: But where is the plan? What is their plan? What is their vision and

what is their plan? What is their plan for the fishery? What is the plan for

affordable housing? What is the plan for standardizing health care all around

this Province? What is the plan? What are the actions that they want to do, what

is the timeline on those actions? That is what is missing, Mr. Speaker, and that

is what was missing once again in the Budget that we are dealing with here in

this House now.

One of the things I would like to talk to, which was one of the things in the

Budget, and which I absolutely am delighted was in the Budget, was the fact that

the provincial part of HST was taken off home heating. Mr. Speaker, I also, I

have to say, have to recognize that I finally got through to the Minister of

Finance. I have spent two years talking to the Minister of Finance from the

floor of this House and presenting to him the ideas around the provincial part

of HST coming off home heating. I have had him say the opposite of everything I

said. Well, Mr. Speaker, on Budget Day, I have to tell you, I felt pretty proud

when the minister stood and spoke and used my language, said everything I had

been saying for two years. He said every single thing that I had been saying.

Mr. Speaker, not only did he announce taking the tax off the HST, he also did

the thing that he said he would never do, and that was to also maintain the

low-income rebate. Now, Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful, and everybody in the

Province knew it. I do not mind government doing it, that is what its job is.

That is why I stand in the House and talk about issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: That is why I stand and talk in this House, so that the ideas

which I know are the things that people want, will be taken by this government

and say: Yes, we will do it. People also remember where the idea came from.

People also remember who pushed the issue, and people remember how the Minister

of Finance stood

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - every single time I questioned him, and pooh-poohed the

idea. I congratulate him that he finally learned, he finally understood.

Mr. Speaker, what really surprised me was to hear the minister on the radio

yesterday, I think it was, saying the light bulb went off when a man spoke to

him in a parking lot after the Budget and said that not only did you take the

provincial part of the HST off, the person was upset because the person thought

it is not going to make a difference. The minister said, but I pointed out that

the low-income rebate is also staying in and that person was happy. My telling

him time after time after time in the House that that was the way to do it, it

did not matter to him. It took this one individual.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when I stand here in the House and speak to something

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Now maybe I will not have to shout.

When I stand here in the House, Mr. Speaker, and bring these issues, it would

be good for this minister and for other ministers to know that I am reflecting

things that people have brought to me. I am not just standing here because of

myself. I am reflecting other people. I am reflecting the needs of people. I am

doing it because people are asking for it, and I am glad the government finally

recognized that. I am glad the minister recognized it and recognized that this

was really going to mean something to the people in this Province, removing the

provincial part of the HST on home heating. Yes, I am delighted that it is

there, but there is so much else that this government needed to do. Mr. Speaker,

there are gaps, there are issues, there are concerns.

MR. DENINE: Are you going to vote for the Budget?

MS MICHAEL: I say to my colleague through you, Mr. Speaker, that he can

wait until the moment we come to vote on this Budget to see what I am going to

do. I would like him to just be patient and wait and let me speak to the Budget

here in this House without him shouting at me the whole time I am on my feet.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we need to be concerned about in this

Budget is where our resources are coming from. We all know in this Province, and

the government knows too, that we are heavily dependent on the income from oil

and gas. It is important that we benefit from that at the moment. It is

important that while those resources are there we benefit from them. We also

have to build another whole infrastructure so that when that money is no longer

there we also have important resources coming in; we have an important base of

money coming in.

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns in the Budget, and this is a serious

concern, is the decrease in income or the decrease in revenues that is happening

in various areas. It is something that I want to point out because it is

extremely serious. For example, Mr. Speaker, the revenues from personal income

tax is decreasing by 3 per cent in this Budget. This is something that needs to

concern us.

I absolutely believe that we have to control the rate of income tax for low

income and low middle-income people. There is absolutely no doubt about that,

Mr. Speaker. What we have been doing is giving income tax cuts to people who do

not need income tax cuts. We have been giving them to the people who do need

them but we have also been giving it to people who do not need them.

Mr. Speaker, income tax is one of the most progressive ways of taxing that

one can use. It is a form of revenue that is extremely important, but we have to

make sure that people, who are at the highest earning end of the scale, give a

greater proportion of their money than people who are on the middle of that

scale. While I absolutely agree, and would do myself, with having income tax

reductions for people in middle income, low income, I do believe that we have to

be taxing people at the high end at a higher rate, Mr. Speaker.

We have to deal with the fact that our revenues from income tax are going

down at a time when we are having more wealth being generated in the Province.

The gap is growing between those at the lower end and those at the upper end in

this Province. It is happening in Canada too, but it is also happening here in

this Province. We have to make sure we are getting a cut of that pie of the

people with income at the higher end, Mr. Speaker. That is one thing this Budget

is weak in.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, is that corporate taxes are also declining by 6

per cent. Mr. Speaker, again, I have no problem with tax breaks and tax concerns

for small business. For small businesses, yes, absolutely, but we have to make

sure that this government does not follow the direction of the Conservative

government in Ottawa which is continuing to bring down the corporate taxation

for large corporations.

Mr. Speaker, it is something that you cannot do. You cannot take care of

people's needs and bring down your income at the same time. The income from

large corporate taxes is extremely important. Important in this Province, Mr.

Speaker

MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MR. MARSHALL: I do not want to take away from the time of the Leader of

the NDP or anything, or interrupt her train of thought, but I believe she

mentioned that we had lowered corporate taxes. If that is what she said, that is

not correct. We have not lowered corporate taxes in this Province since we have

been in office. As a matter of fact, corporate income tax revenues were much

higher this particular year and added additional revenue in the year 2010-2011,

which enabled us to have large profit.

So, we have not lowered corporate tax. We have lowered the small business

tax, but not corporate income tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you.

To set the record straight, I did not say the rate was going down. I said the

income from corporate taxes was declining.

Mr. Speaker, another thing that is declining is the payroll taxes, mainly

probably because of the raising of the ceiling for those who have to pay those

payroll taxes. I am pointing out these issues, Mr. Speaker, as a concern that we

are losing money in the whole area of taxation.

Now, it is interesting, though, we are not losing money with regard to

consumer taxes because the income from consumption taxes is increasing by 3 per

cent to 4 per cent. A big part of that - and it is going to be even more - is

because of the consumer tax on gas. We have multiple taxes on gas, as we know.

There are three taxes. Everybody sees those taxes when they fill up their

vehicles. We all see it, the three taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a definitive answer to what we do with regard to

the rising cost of gas. I would like to put out to the Minister of Finance that

there are models that could be looked at. Maybe he has looked at them, I do not

know. When he speaks again to the Budget, he can tell us whether or not he has.

There are ways in which you could have a tax on gas. I think it would be the

provincial tax on the gas that you could do it with, you would not do it with

the HST. You could have a provincial tax on the gas where the amount of taxation

actually can change according to the price of the gas.

There are ways to do that, there are jurisdictions that do that, and it would

be interesting, I think, for the minister to look at those possibilities. It is

fine for government to be making more money because of the consumer tax on gas,

but with the rate at which gas is going up and it is going to get worse.

Everybody who knows this industry is telling us that. For the ordinary person,

this is a high rate of taxation. There is a lot of money coming out of their

pockets. I understand, perhaps, a $70 tank of gas may be $60, about $10 of that

is taxation. So, how can the minister deal with issue and help? The ordinary

consumer in this Province, in particular, has to use private vehicles. We do not

have enough population to have adequate public transportation in this Province;

at least we say we do not. People are forced, not here in St. John's but in most

places are forced to use their own private vehicles. Yet, we are making more and

more money off consumer taxation and less money off corporate taxation. There is

something wrong with all of this, Mr. Speaker. This is something that the

minister does have to look at.

I look forward to being able to speak again as we continue the Budget debate,

Mr. Speaker, and I will continue with some of these ideas.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to stand and have a few comments about this year's

Budget. I just sat, in some amazement, as I listened to the Leader of the NDP

get up and speak to the Budget this year. Because she started her comments - and

this is something really ironic because for those of us who listened to the

commentary that was made in the public domain after the Budget came down, we

would remember that the Leader of the NDP talked about this Budget not being

sustainable, our spending levels not being sustainable. She did not agree with

the amount of money we are investing in this year's Budget and we needed to be

more cautious.

She starts today by saying that everything in the Budget should be there, no

one should be talking about it and be thankful for it. Everybody should be happy

that it is there, but it should all be there and no one should be congratulating

government. In fact, there should be more. How do you get everything is in the

Budget this year to stay there, how do you then spend more money and balance

that with a statement that the current level of spending is not sustainable?

What a contradiction, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say that laughed to myself actually as the member stood and talked

about the lack of planning that has taken place by this government and there are

no strategies, there are no plans. One of the things she mentioned, one of the

examples she used: Where is their plan for the fishery? This is how many weeks,

five, six weeks we have been in this House, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

This is about five or six weeks we have been in this House in this session and

not once has she stood on her feet, not once has she stood in her place in this

House and asked the Minister of Fisheries one single question about the fishery.

She has not had any interest in the fishery at all. She does not understand the

fishery. She has no interest in it. She herself has written off rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. She has written off the fishery. She has not asked

one single question because she genuinely has no interest in the fishery of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Today, she stands in the House and criticizes our government because we do

not have a plan for the fishery. Quickly, Mr. Speaker, people forget. People

forget very quickly, I say. When she talks about the fishery and us not having a

plan, but she does not have enough interest, she does not care enough and has no

interest in the fishery and she never stands in the House of Assembly and asks

one single question about the fishery, Mr. Speaker - not one single question.

I challenge anyone in this House, anyone in the Province to check Hansard and

see where in this session she has stood in the House and asked one single

question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the last.

MR. WISEMAN: Or the last session. Just check the last two sessions, Mr.

Speaker. Not one single question because she has written off the fishery. She

does not care about it. She has no interest in it because she has written off

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, because she is a single-seat party with a seat

in St. John's, and that is the reason why. She does not have an interest in

rural Newfoundland at all, not at all, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when we start talking about the Budget, and

this is one of the things where it is important for people to understand, the

Budget process is one where my colleague, the Minister of Finance, got up and

delivered a Budget. He made a motion that this Assembly pass that Budget that he

just delivered. What we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, the people in the

Opposition do not support this Budget. They are not interested in what is in

that Budget. They do not support the Budget. So, they stood opposite and made an

amendment, normally called a non-confidence motion. They want this Assembly to

defeat the Budget - they want this Assembly to defeat the Budget.

If you defeat this Budget, if we were to stand and listen to the Leader of

the NDP, listen to the Liberal Party and listen to the NDP, we would stand in

this House and we would defeat the Budget motion presented by my colleague. What

does that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we defeat this Budget, what are we actually

saying? The Leader of the NDP, the Leader of the Liberal Party, here is what

they have said: We do not support giving the volunteer fire department a tax

relief. The two parties opposite do not support giving volunteer fire

departments any tax relief, Mr. Speaker. They stood in this House and they said

we do not agree with this Budget. We do not agree with it. We want this Assembly

to defeat it. If we defeat it, here is what we are doing. Let's examine, let's

go down through the long list of things that both the NDP and the Liberal Party

of Newfoundland and Labrador have said that we do not want you to do and we do

not support. In fact, we will stand in this House and we will vote against what

you are proposing. These are some of the things that they are going to vote

against, I will just mention.

They are going to vote against a non-refundable tax credit for volunteer fire

departments in this Province. Some 5,000 volunteer firefighters are out there

risking their lives and donating their time and energy to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

and the NDP of Newfoundland and Labrador do not support that initiative, Mr.

Speaker. That is shameful that is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

Let us examine what else. When we started talking about rural Newfoundland

and Labrador, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, as a piece of this year's

Budget, is asking this Assembly to approve an investment of $5 million of new

money going to a Regional/Sectoral Diversification Fund to help rural

Newfoundland and Labrador communities diversify their economies. We want to

invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to make money available to

organizations throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador to diversify their

local regional economies.

The Leader of the NDP is going to stand in this House, the Leader of the

Liberal Party is going to stand in this House, and they are not going to support

that. They want us to reject that because they do not support our initiatives to

diversify the economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Look what else they are going to turn down, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Party

and the NDP do not want us to invest $9 million to improve wharf infrastructure

in Pool's Cove, Hermitage, Belleoram, or Harbour Breton. Let the leaders of

those two parties go to the Coast of Bays area and let them tell the people.

When they go out campaigning in October, let them go to the doors in those

communities and tell the people that they do not support building wharf

infrastructure in their communities, Mr. Speaker.

They will not do it then, but they will stand in this House of Assembly here

in St. John's, they will not support it, and ask us to withdraw. They will not

go out on the campaign trail and at the doors and tell the people they do not

support their communities, Mr. Speaker. They will not have the face to do that,

I say, Mr. Speaker. What they will do then is they will promise them the sky and

they will promise them the world, knowing that they will never be able to

deliver. They will come back here in St. John's and they will vote against

initiatives like putting wharves in Belleoram, Pool's Cove and Hermitage.

Let us look at what else, Mr. Speaker. Let us examine some of the other

things that they do not want us to do. Again, the fishery is the very thing the

Leader of the NDP said we do not have a strategy and the very thing that the NDP

Leader never asks questions about. She now wants us to discontinue the funding

of some $6.5 million over the next three years for the Fisheries Technology and

New Opportunities Program, Mr. Speaker. We are investing in the future of the

fishery, Mr. Speaker. We see tremendous potential, tremendous opportunity. We

need to invest in new technologies and new ways of doing business. That is our

commitment, Mr. Speaker, one piece one small piece of our commitment to the

fishing industry.

The members opposite are telling us in this House of Assembly: we do not

support that, we do not want you to do it, we are going to vote against your

Budget. In fact, we feel so strongly about it, we are going to stand and make

another motion to amend your Budget, to defeat your Budget. What we are speaking

to today, Mr. Speaker, is really not the main motion at all. We are speaking to

an amendment. The Opposition parties stood up and proposed an amendment to

reject this Budget because they do not like the things that we are spending our

money on.

Let us look at some of the other things that they do not like our spending

money on, Mr. Speaker. They do not want us to be spending money in revamping the

campuses of the College of the North Atlantic. We are proposing to put $3.2

million into funding the campuses of the College of the North Atlantic for

repairs and maintenance in the next three years, Mr. Speaker. We are also

proposing to put some $7 million into redeveloping our laboratories and our

shops.

That is our future, Mr. Speaker, our education system that is our future.

If we do not spend money in investing in infrastructure in our college system

around Newfoundland and Labrador, it is going to collapse, Mr. Speaker. The

members in the Opposition, both the Liberal Party and the NDP do not support us

putting this kind of money into our colleges. Look at where those campuses are,

Mr. Speaker. Look at the network of college campuses throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador; they are in many rural parts of this Province, Mr. Speaker. Members

opposite are asking us to take this out of our Budget, they do not support it,

they do not want it in the Budget, they are not going to vote for it, they are

rejecting it, Mr. Speaker, because they do not support it.

One other thing, Mr. Speaker, that they do not support the members opposite

do not support us putting some $15 million into our apprenticeship program

providing opportunities for employers to get the benefit of the rich, young

talent of these young apprentices going into their respective trades, Mr.

Speaker. We want to support them as they pursue their careers. We want to

support the potential employers as they bring those people into their

organizations and we want to put some money into that, Mr. Speaker. We are

asking this Assembly to approve some I think it is $15.4 million for that

initiative this year, Mr. Speaker, but members opposite are saying: no, no, we

do not want you to do that, we do not support that, we do not think it is a good

idea; we think we should be spending the money on something else.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, I would ask them, when they stand and speak to the

Budget, tell us what they would spend their money on. When they take this $15

million from the apprenticeships program in this Province, where would they

spend it? How would they spend it, Mr. Speaker? Good question.

Some of the other things we talked about, Mr. Speaker, in this Budget.

Embedded in this Budget are some great initiatives, wonderful initiatives

through many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let us just speak to one more.

Members opposite stand in this House repeatedly and ask my colleague, the

Minister of Health and Community Services, questions about the health system,

and they are constantly criticizing us for the lack of investment, the kinds of

things we do not do, the kinds of things that they think we should be doing

differently. Yet, this year, Mr. Speaker, they stand in this House and they do

not support us putting enhanced dialysis services in Burin, and in Stephenville,

and in St. Anthony, and in Lab City, and in Harbour Breton. So, how do you

actually square that hole, Mr. Speaker?

Now, when October comes around, I bet you, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee you,

in fact, I will guarantee you that not one single Liberal candidate, not one

single NDP candidate will go into Burin, or Stephenville, or St. Anthony, or Lab

City, or Harbour Breton and say: you know something, we did not support dialysis

being here. We did not support dialysis. In fact, we voted against the Budget

that was going to put dialysis in your community. They are not going to tell

people that. They are not telling people that, but they will stand in the House

of Assembly here in St. John's, though, and they will vote against the budget

that does just that. Three and a half million dollars, Mr. Speaker, going into

dialysis services that they do not want, they do not support, and they will vote

against, and they are asking us to do the same thing turn our backs on rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what they are asking us to do, Mr. Speaker.

We are not prepared to do that. That is not our style. That is not our way of

doing business. We have never done it, and we are never going to do it, Mr.

Speaker.

Just look at some of the other things that they do not support. They do not

support mental health services, Mr. Speaker. Enhancing mental health services in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador they do not support it. The Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the NDP of Newfoundland and Labrador do not

support enhancing mental health services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Or

at least, their respective leaders are standing in this House of Assembly and

saying we are rejecting the Budget that you are putting money into those

services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, can you actually

believe that those two parties would stand in this House and make those bold

statements? Can you imagine?

Let us look at some of the other things that are happening. The Leader of the

NDP stands day after day, after day in this House and talks about home support

services, Mr. Speaker, needing to put new money into home support services,

needing to enhance home support services. We have been doing that year over year

for the last five or six years. Again, this year, in one small area of home

support we are planning to put in some $2.6 million to increase the hourly

subsidy paid to home support workers. Now, what did the NDP do this time? We do

not support it. We do not want you to do it. We are rejecting your Budget. We

are not going to support that investment. What are they saying?

They get up one day in Question Period saying, what are you doing on home

support services and we think you should be doing more. Then the Minister of

Finance comes into the House and reads out a list of things that our government

is planning to do with home support and investing all kinds of new money and

then the next day stand in the House saying: yes, we heard what you said but we

do not support it, we do not agree with it, and we are voting against your

Budget. How do you reconcile that, Mr. Speaker?

Let's look at what we are doing with making our communities safe. We are

trying this year, Mr. Speaker, to create new initiatives to enhance the

investments we have made in providing safer homes, safer families. We are

increasing the funding that we are providing to transition houses. We are

increasing the capacity of our ten regional co-ordinating committees for

violence prevention throughout the Province. We are looking at making some new

investments in the Status of Women Council. We are looking at making new

investments in the sexual assault and crisis prevention line.

All those new investments, all those investments in ensuring that the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador are safer than they are today, Mr. Speaker, and

what happens? We propose it in a Budget, the Minister of Finance comes in and

reads it into a Budget, says our government is committing to do this, committing

to make new investments, committing to make the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador safer in their homes, safer in their communities, and what happens? The

NDP gets up and the Liberal Party gets up and says: no, no, no, we do not agree

with that. We are going to reject it. We are going to vote against your Budget.

We do not want you to spend the money in those areas because we think there are

other priorities.

A moment ago, the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

gets up and talks about her concern about the revenue stream that we now enjoy

is coming from non-renewable resources. We understand that. We understand that

we need to take the revenues we are generating today from the non-renewable

resources and make strategic investments in our people, in our communities, in

our necessary infrastructure, strategic investments, Mr. Speaker, while at the

same time making very strategic investments in trying to renew our economy, to

move it from a economy based on non-renewable resources to one of a renewable

resource base.

Yet, at the same time, when we come in this House day after day after day and

we listen to the media reports day after day after day, we find the Opposition

Party criticizing the development of Muskrat Falls; a major potential, Mr.

Speaker. The development of Muskrat Falls provides a tremendous opportunity for

Newfoundland and Labrador but at the same time members of the two Opposition

parties day after day are critical of government's consideration of the

development of Muskrat Falls which clearly will help address the very point that

the Leader of the NDP raises, and that is a challenge of changing our economy,

building an economy based on renewable resource development, Mr. Speaker. So, it

is a bit of a contradiction. One day you should not be developing Muskrat Falls,

the next day you should be trying to diversify the economy and moving us from a

non-renewable resource economy to one where we will have renewable resource

development.

Some of the other things members opposite do not support, they do not support

municipalities. We are prepared to work with municipalities and making major

improvements in their operating grants; major improvements in their operating

grants. What happens? We come in here and we say to communities that have less

than 1,000 people, and there are many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador

with less than 1,000 people living in them, we want to give you a 50 per cent

increase in your operating grants.

Our government wants to give every community out there that has less than

1,000 people; we want to increase your operating grant by 50 per cent. What

happens, Mr. Speaker? The NDP and the Liberal Party come in this House of

Assembly and say: no, no, we do not want to do that. We do not support that. In

fact, if you put it in your Budget we are going to defeat it. We are going to

vote against it. We do not want you to do it. What would they have us do, Mr.

Speaker?

We have municipalities out there crying for financial support. They are

crying for a different financial arrangement with the provincial government. In

fact, they have hired an economist to help them do a piece of work, to help work

with government to advance that particular agenda. We are trying to support

municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador and providing the greatest level of

support and enhancing it more than some of the other communities, looking at the

smaller communities, ones that maybe have the most challenge in trying to

generate additional revenues on their own. We want to increase their operating

grants more than some of the other larger communities, but we do not have the

support, Mr. Speaker. We just do not have the support of the two Opposition

parties in this Assembly to help us enhance the role that municipalities play,

to support the role that they play in their regions and the support diversifying

those local economies.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is getting near an end here, but I say, Mr.

Speaker, there is a lot of contradiction taking place in this House of Assembly.

We have leaders of both parties, the Liberal Party and the NDP getting up daily

in this House criticizing government for what they are not doing; not

acknowledging the great work that is done, and that is fine. If they want to

play politics, that is great. That is not a real problem, but when we come to

this House of Assembly and we deliver a Budget that lists off some of the things

that and these are just some of them, Mr. Speaker. I just touched the surface

here; I have just scratched the surface.

I have identified a list of items that are in this year's Budget critical to

the successful development of many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. We feel

these are things that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have said to us

that they genuinely need, it is important for them. That is why we have built it

into the Budget, we have responded to their desire to enhance their communities.

We cannot convince, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

or the NDP of Newfoundland and Labrador to support this year's Budget because

they want to reject all of the things, plus more, that I have just identified in

this House today.

I say there are a lot of contradictions, and as much as I have really

appreciated the time to have these few comments, I am still bewildered by the

notion that those two parties do not support these five initiatives

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - that will enhance the quality of life for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today to speak to the Budget. I am fortunate, Mr.

Speaker, to get up behind the Member for Trinity North because I have never

heard such tripe in all my life as I have just heard come out of the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, to stand in his place today and to say that the

Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador or the NDP of Newfoundland and

Labrador does not support things like tax breaks for volunteer firefighters or

do not support mental health services, or do not support child care services.

Mr. Speaker, the member knows, all members in this House knows, and Hansard will

show that many of us on many days stood in this House and held the government's

feet to the fire to lobby for those very initiatives

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - to be able to represent the people who sent us here, the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, day after day after day the

member knows that we have stood in our place and advocated for those particular

services for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, those benefits, those tax

breaks.

Mr. Speaker, when the member was talking he liked to say: well, let's see if

they will show up at the doors and say this and show up at the doors and say

something else. Well, I will let the hon. member know that we will not show up

at the doors like your government did in the last two elections promising people

on the doorstep that they were going to bring in legislation around things like

whistle-blower that never, ever materialized, Mr. Speaker. Showing up and saying

that we are going to be an open and accountable government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: We are going to be open and accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: We are going to make sure that people in Newfoundland and

Labrador have full transparency once we become the government. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, do you know what they did? They have become the most tight-lipped

government in history. They have nailed shut the doors, Mr. Speaker, on the

people of the public in Newfoundland and Labrador. They set up a corporation

called Nalcor and they nailed the doors shut at Nalcor. They are taking money

out of people's pockets today in Newfoundland and Labrador and they are sending

it down the Parkway, Prince Philip Drive, into Nalcor where it is being locked

away and no one ever knows where that money is being spent. That is what this

government is doing with the hard-earned tax dollars of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, we are voting against this Budget. We are

voting against this Budget because you

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: are putting more money into Nalcor as a corporation than you

are actually putting into people of the Province, in programs like the child

care program, programs like the break on home heating costs, programs like the

tax break for firefighters, and programs like housing. You add them all

together, roadwork and ferries, you add it all together and it is still less

money being spent on people in the Province, added together, than is being

transferred down the Parkway to Nalcor, where the people have no say, where

there is no accountability, and where there is no transparency.

Mr. Speaker, we will not support the secrecy of government. We will not vote

to support the secrecy of government because we believe that people have a right

to know. We believe that people have a right to full transparency in where their

money is going.

They get out of bed every day. People in this Province get out of bed every

day, Mr. Speaker, at the crack of dawn. They dress and they drive, some of them,

many kilometres to get to their jobs. They get there and they work an honest

day. They work eight, ten, or twelve hours a day. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, they

are working shift work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, then they leave, they drive home at the end of

that day, and they have to dig deep into their pockets and give part of that

hard-earned income to the government members opposite to spend.

Is it right, Mr. Speaker, that money is being spent into a corporation that

they have created? Is it right that money is being spent with no one having a

say and no one being aware of where it is going?

You cannot get a document out of Nalcor on where they are spending money if

your life depended upon it, because it is shrouded in secrecy. The doors are

nailed shut. Every man and woman in this Province who are going to work every

day, earning hard-earned money, punching a hard day's work, trying to keep up

with the growing expenses of the cost of living in our society, the price of gas

going up, the price of electricity going up, the price of child care going up,

while they are doing all of that, they are also sending a cheque every day to

the government opposite.

That government, let's look at what they have been doing with it. Well, they

spent over $100,000 of it trying to plan a party that they did not have. They

spent over $100,000 of that money planning a party that no one ever got to go

to, no one ever was invited to, because it never happened. It never happened,

Mr. Speaker. Is that legitimate spending of the taxpayers' money?

Let's talk about the money that went into Parsons Pond to drill two holes in

the ground. They built roads, Mr. Speaker, inside of the community where today

the barricades are up. The barricades are up today and no one can even drive in

the road to what? drill two holes in the ground. Because Nalcor decided to buy

equity once again in another oil company; $25 million of taxpayers' money was

spent. Is that fiscal responsibility? Mr. Speaker, are those the kind of

requests that they have been hearing in their Budget consultations from people

around the Province? That we want you to go out and spend money on trying to

have parties that you are not going to have, we want you to go out and spend

money on drilling holes in the ground for private companies that are going to

materialize into nothing?

I read a lot of Budget consultations briefings because a lot of them come to

my office. Even when I am not at the consultations, people send them into us, as

an Opposition. I have read a lot of them, and I can tell you that there was

nothing in any of the ones that I read that was calling on the government to do

that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I never read in not one Budget consultation document

ever submitted to the government in the time they have been going around holding

those hearings that said: We want our government to invest hundreds of millions

of dollars every year into Nalcor. I have never seen it. I have never seen it,

Mr. Speaker. That is what the government themselves decided, on their own whim,

to transfer all of that money on behalf of the taxpayers in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, like every Budget, in all the years I have been here, I have

never seen a Budget that did not have some good things in it. Realistically, Mr.

Speaker, -

MR. CORNECT: Are you going to support it?

MS JONES: I say to the Member for Port au Port, I will not be supporting

the Budget. I will tell you the reasons why I will not be supporting the Budget,

but I doubt it if the Member for Port au Port will stand in his place and say

anything about this Budget, because he has not stood in his place to speak on

anything pertaining to his constituents since I have been in the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, let me go on before I was rudely interrupted. What I am saying

is that the people in the Province should have a say and they should have full

transparency in where their money is being spent and where it is going to go.

Like all Budgets I have ever seen presented in the House of Assembly, there are

good things in Budgets. How can you not go out and spend over $7 billion in a

Budget in a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador and not see some benefits to

the people? Come on, of course you are going to see benefits. Mr. Speaker, when

we were bringing in Budgets in this House of Assembly that were only $3 billion

on an annual basis, there were benefits for the people of the Province. That is

the way Budgets are designed, but it is all about fiscal priorities. It is all

about priorities of spending and it is all about where government decides the

money should go, as opposed to where the people say it should go, two very

different scenarios.

Mr. Speaker, while the Member for Trinity North likes to stand up and say we

are against this, this, this and this and something else in the Budget, that is

truly false. It is truly false and there are a lot of things in this Budget that

we have advocated for, we have fought for, we have come to the House of Assembly

and held government's feet to the fire on, we have held government accountable

in the public for, and we will continue to do that. When they do those kinds of

initiatives and make those investments, we have always been very complimentary

to them as well. Does it mean we are going to support this Budget in its

entirety? Of course it is not, but it certainly does not mean that we are

against some of those very fundamental initiatives that will help benefit some

people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is thanks to the oil revenues in the offshore and the

mining deals in this Province that we are enjoying the wealth that we have

today. We know, Mr. Speaker, that it is those two industries, in particular,

that have allowed for the strongest growth in Newfoundland and Labrador over the

last number of years. We also know that these revenues come from deals that were

done by previous governments.

I know the members opposite do not like to hear those stories, but it is

true. It comes from oil deals that they inherited, oil deals that were

negotiated long before most of them ever had a seat in the House of Assembly. It

was like winning the lottery when they came into power because they came into

power at a time when the oil started to be produced in this Province. All of the

oilfields went into production, they were pumping every day and therefore they

were pumping money into the provincial Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, it was like winning the lottery for the Conservative government

when they came in, in 2003 and 2004. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have

seen mining revenues continue to soar. Mostly because of one particular mining

operation in this Province and that is the Voisey's Bay Nickel operation. A

deal, again, that was done by previous Liberal governments.

The mine went into production, Mr. Speaker, shortly after the government came

into power. Not only did we see the spinoffs of hundreds of jobs being created

in the Province directly and a lot more indirectly, but we also saw hundreds of

millions of dollars going into the provincial Treasury in mining revenues. Those

revenues have continued to climb. They have continued to climb, Mr. Speaker, for

a couple of reasons; because we have seen other mining expansions; we have seen

a lot more mining exploration being done especially in Labrador; and we have

seen new mines that are being developed and coming on stream. I will talk about

that a little later on as we get into my comments.

Mr. Speaker, as a government instead of using the windfall revenues of the

past seven years to diversify the economy

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: and to reinvest in the fishery and other renewable industries

to make it sustainable, the government has gone on a spending binge, and

everyone out there is recognizing that. They went on a spending binge, Mr.

Speaker, to prop themselves up in the polls and there is no doubt about that.

Who would not love someone coming bearing gifts every day? That is the reality

of what this government has been doing. In doing so, they have neglected the

debt, they have not provided for a sustainable future and forecast for the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, even the Auditor General has termed the level of spending inside

of the government opposite over the last number of years as being unsustainable.

Mr. Speaker, this has to be a serious concern. People will say you are talking

about sustainable spending but every day you are asking for something. That is

what the Minister of Finance said on Budget Day about me as the Leader of the

Opposition.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is about spending priorities, and we are not just

talking about one budget this year's Budget we are talking about

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at a time when we have reached have' status as

a Province; at a time when we are at the peak of our oil revenues flowing, and

our mining revenues coming into the Province; at a time when we know, Mr.

Speaker we do not need a crystal ball we can all look out and see that the

barrels of oil that we are pumping in the Province today are going to continue

to drop off over the next ten, twelve, and fifteen years. We know, Mr. Speaker,

what that means to the revenues that come into the provincial treasury.

So, based on all of that, we need to be very wise and very prudent in what we

are doing. We cannot be spending money unnecessarily, and we have seen this

government choosing priorities and spending monies in areas that have been

unnecessary; fundamentally unnecessary, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: That is the concern that has been expressed. Not just by

myself, Mr. Speaker, not just by myself. I am not a right-wing activist, as the

Minister of Finance knows; I might be a little centre-right on days, and a

little centre-left on days, but I am not a right-wing activist. I am not a

Progressive Conservative-Reform activist. So, I am not coming from that

perspective. I am coming from the perspective that is shared by a lot of people

in this Province, and that is a very legitimate concern. The concern is, how do

we plan for the future? How do we get our debt under control? How do we put

money away for future generations? How do we ensure that we protect ourselves,

protect our people, protect our communities when the royalties on oil begin to

drop off, and there is not a plan B to replace it?

When you look at the fact that 30 per cent of our revenues today, on a $7

billion budget, or a little over $7 billion, is coming from one industry, the

oil industry, that is the reason for concern. That is the reason you have groups

like the Board of Trade out there today, that is why you have groups like the

small business corporation

AN HON. MEMBER: Federation of Independent Business.

MS JONES: Federation of Independent Business, and all of these groups

that are expressing concerns. Not only that, it is legitimate. So is the Auditor

General of this Province. He is supposed to be our financial conscience for all

government, not just for the government opposite. When we were the government,

it was the same thing. The next government that comes in, it w