PDF Version

April 25, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 12

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3,

third reading of Bill 4.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Member for Labrador West that Bill 4,

An Act To Amend The Status Of Women

Advisory Council Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Status Of Women Advisory Council Act. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act,” read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the budget motion.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LESTER:

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this House today to speak once again to the budget. I'm the most recent, I

guess, individual to have left the private world and come into public life. I

still have a fair few activities which I conduct. One of them is a collection of

compost from Tim Hortons. Every morning, I go around to the 19 Tim Hortons

stores and collect their coffee grinds. That's provided a great venue for people

to address issues with me. I think it used to take me about an hour and a half

to pick up the coffee grinds and now it's taking almost three hours because,

each store I go to, there is always someone who will get out of their car, or

hold up the drive-through lineup and address some situations with me.

course, one of the biggest things that people are expressing, and one of the

things that I've seen in my own private life, is it is more expensive and more

difficult to live here and to make ends meet. That's going to defy everything

that we need to do in this province, and that is attract young families, keep

people living here even in their retirements, because a lot of the retirements

and pensions that people are now drawing down on are funded by activities within

this province.

As we

all know, it is a huge deficit when it comes to the coverage of these pensions.

We need to keep that money in here to keep our economy going. So we really have

to look at, as a government, we have to find a way to make it more efficient for

people to live here and spend the dollars within our own communities.

I know

in 2015, as I said, I did run but was unsuccessful, so I returned to my private

life. During that time, on our farm we host weddings and weddings are a prime

indicator of the economy. We had 23 weddings booked that summer and, of the 23,

we had nine cancel because they were unsure of the economy or unsure of their

positions. That was really sad.

In 2017,

this past summer, we had a record amount of weddings booked at our farm. We had

over 41 weddings booked at our farm. As I do with all couples, I get to know

them personally and the sad part about this booming business is over half of

those couples were leaving the province. They wanted to get their families

together and get married before they left.

That's a

prime indicator of what we're facing, and I'm sure the government is aware of

it. We've seen the survey come out, the money spent to attract people coming

back to the province, but we have a real big issue with people leaving the

province. Why are they leaving the province? Because they don't see the

financial advantages anymore.

We have

to look at reducing the personal income tax. We have to reduce the cost of

living. It's something that we've brought up – my colleague from Conception Bay

has brought up about the carbon tax. We, as consumers, won't be as fortune as

those in other jurisdictions because we rely on the importation of just about

everything we use for our everyday lives, and food is one of them.

We're

not going to see at the bottom of our grocery bill: carbon tax. The cost of

carbon tax is going to be built into the delivery of our food. Yes, it is going

to encourage a fund to counteract the environmental causes, which I'm very

familiar with. At our farm, we see a huge difference in the weather patterns

from year to year and I think exponentially, in the past 10 years, we've seen

more extreme weather. Our weather has always been variable, but we've seem more

extremes of those variations.

We need

to present a case to the government that Newfoundland needs to be considered,

specifically, and I guess more uniquely than the rest of Canada because we are

on the end of the economic chain. As I said, we rely on everything for

importation. There will be carbon tax assessed on all of those transport

companies, the fuel they burn. That is going to play a big

part in the cost of

everyday living and that again is going to complicate the situation of trying to

keep young families here, trying to keep them investing in our province, trying

to keep seniors in our province.

seniors have the means and ability to leave and go to another economic

jurisdiction within Canada, the country or the continent, they're going to do

that, and that's something that we, as a population, can't afford to do. We need

to keep everybody here, keep that money that we've invested in people's

education and people's pensions. We need to keep that circulating within our

economy.

The

budget itself, I could not find any reference to a big environmental issue

that's looming off our coast, and that is the ecocide disaster that's looming

within our fishery. That specific reference is to the seal population off our

coast. Within less than a week, the harp seal population could consume more fish

than the total allowable catch to all harvesters within Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Seals

are very industrious. They will go from their preferred species of the menu to

keep going down the line, down the line. They're not going to be restricted to

cod or they're not going to be restricted to capelin or crab. They're going to

eat whatever is in front of them.

A lot of

arguments are that it's a biological cycle. Well, kind of like the rabbit and

the fox. When we see a spike in rabbit populations, then the fox come up at the

same time to bring that population down. Now that only happens in the course of

maybe two or three years, but an explosion of the harp seal population will

decimate all species in our fishery and it will be decades if not centuries

before it recovers. Yes, eventually the harp seal population will crash but

that's only after it decimates all of our food resource found within the

fishery.

As the

population in our world explodes to double what it is of today, I have a big

concern. Because not only will this harp seal herd decimate a large portion of

the protein which we derive from the ocean but this harp seal population can be

harvested for some of the needs of the people throughout the world.

We see

it in other jurisdictions within Canada and North America, when a feral or a

wild population gets out of control or starts to impact the environment

negatively there is a harvest or a cull. You don't have to go too far. You can

look out West, in the western states, in the mid states or in Canada when the

mustang population explodes and causes damage to the environment or to itself,

those animals are harvested or repurposed. That's just a part of our

responsibility to the environment to manage it.

If you

want to look across the world; in Africa, when we think of population management

and I guess the environment, well you think of the noble elephant. Yes, the

noble elephant needs to be protected and preserved but what damage and

overpopulation of elephants does on an environment is extreme. It basically

converts a savannah into a desert in a very short period of time. That's

basically what's happening off our East Coast. We're having seals depopulate our

ocean of the necessary elements to maintain a balanced ecosystem.

I would

hope that everybody within this House, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, has

had the opportunity to sample the cuisine that is derived from the seal or

products from the seal. It's a very good and underutilized food source. It could

be harvested not only for consumption in our industries like the fur industry,

not for the pelt but for food for the animals that we do raise and sell on the

world market but for human consumption. There's no reason why we couldn't be

harvesting seals, using their biomass as protein to satisfy the world deficiency

of protein.

It's

only going to get worse. The Chinese population and Asian population is

projected to almost triple within the next 25 years. That's going to be a huge

deficiency in food quality for one, but in protein. Protein is one of the most

expensive attributes to the food system that we rely on. Here we are with

approximately six million seals and growing, and at the same time they're

decimating our fishery stocks and very, very little control being put in place

for that.

That's

one thing that I think we should really look at. There should be a proactive

approach in the budget to dealing with our issue with the seals but also

marketing products. We don't need to combat the animal rights individuals. We

need to purport the value of the seal population as a food source for the world.

Again,

I'm going to go back to agriculture for a moment. I'm a big supporter of any

initiatives to expand the agriculture industry but the agriculture industry has

to be expanded in such a manner that it will provide sustainable existence

thereafter and is able to stand on its own two legs.

Back in

pre-Confederation and post-Confederation, there was a huge amount of produce

being produced on the West Coast. Yes, the best land is on the West Coast. Now I

don't want to say that too loud because I'm very proud of a lot of farmland

that's been developed in the East Coast. The reality is the population is on the

East Coast and it makes most economical sense to produce food next to the

populations. We need to have more of a focus on doing that.

We can't

just expand the agriculture industry for the sake of wanting to expand the

agriculture industry. We can't keep throwing money into an industry if it's not

going to be able to support itself. In saying that, I would like to see more

emphasis on diversifying and placing industries where they're most economically

viable. Horticulture is one of those industries that need to be expanded on the

East Coast.

I know

of farms in the area that are actually going to reduce their production this

year because of access to property. Reducing production means reducing buying

inputs in the communities and the reduced need for staffing and employment.

That's something we really have jump on and improve.

Another

thing I'd like to comment on is the most recent changes within the level of

compensation to the workplace health and safety commission. I'm a big proponent

of added compensation and increased levels of support, but right now we're only

able to afford that on the surplus that exists within workers' compensation, and

that surplus has been generated by over contribution by employers.

Now,

what's going to happen when that surplus is used up? Yes, we're at a time right

now where we're decreasing the assessments in industry and employers, but pretty

soon that surplus is going to be gone. Is government willing or planning to make

that additional contribution that's going to cover the increased cost of income

replacement, or is that going to come back to the employers? That's a question

that hasn't been asked and needs to be asked.

Employers are job creators, employers are spenders in the community. We need to

create a more favourable environment to have more employers. We don't need more

employees. In some respects we do. Yes, in some industries we do, but the base

of an employee is employment.

It's

government's responsibility to create conditions for growth in the private

sector. This is where economic planning is indispensable. You can't just throw

money out into the economy and hope it will grow. That's like me as a farmer

throwing seeds onto the parking lot and expecting to reap a crop. We need a

plan. Yes, Growing Forward initiatives

are basically high-level theories but we need strategies when it comes to

developing business and creating an environment for business. As of yet, we

haven't seen that. We need to bring those Growing Forward plans to the ground

and actually get industries growing.

The

poverty rate in this province was once the envy of all Canada. We had the lowest

poverty rate in Canada. We went from having over 20 per cent of our citizens in

poverty in 2003 down to less than 12 per cent in 2015. Again, not all of this

has been the government's fault, but it is the sitting government's

responsibility to change that trend that has been occurring in the poverty rate

growing. We've already documented an increase of 2.5 per cent and true numbers

for this past fiscal year, we probably won't see until 2019.

Members

of the House and Mr. Speaker, I see a big, big shift in the amount of poverty

that's in our communities. It was only as recent as yesterday morning, I was out

in a parking lot in one of the coffee shops and I saw a young family, a mother

and two young children get out of a van and walk into the coffee shop with their

toothbrushes and facecloths. It kind of didn't really click into my head what

they people were doing. So I asked the maintenance: What's on the go here? He

said: That's just one of the many families that are homeless and now living out

of their vehicles. They go into the coffee shops in the morning, they get their

breakfast, they brush their teeth and wash their face and the mom or dad dresses

them in the back of the van and puts them in school.

Yes, I

know there are supports there for people like that but when you have a family

who are in a mid- to upper-class neighbourhood and all of a sudden they have no

home anymore, mom and dad have no job, that's a big shock to people's

confidence, their outlook on themselves and they have no idea where to go to get

help or how to get help.

Every

day as an MHA I deal with constituency issues, people in need of housing, and

people in the need of income support. A lot of these issues are people who are

familiar with the system and they've been there for generations. But what

disturbs me is I'm seeing families that are affected by the economy and all of a

sudden they're thrown into the social system.

We went

from, in 2005, people, generations of being on social assistance leaving that

system and coming into our economy and contributing, as a workforce, to now

we're having new families, new people entering in the social system. It costs

$1.25 billion of investment to reduce the poverty level in our economy prior to

2015. As everybody knows in this House, there's not a whole lot of money right

now going around that we can invest, but we've got to continue that investment

because we need to keep people out of that system. We need to keep people

working. That's something that I don't see happening.

We all

know that there are boundless opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. But do

you know what? They've always been here. The opportunities for business, the

opportunities for resource development have always been here. But what we've

seen in the past two years has been one missing element to capitalize on those

opportunities, and that's optimism.

Optimism

is necessary for any exploitation of opportunity. Optimism is necessary to get

people when they're feeling down, get them back up on their feet and move

forward. We need to continue to push that optimism. As I said before, our

province depends on resource revenues, but do you know what else? Our province

depends on leadership within this House of Assembly to keep going, to keep their

eyes ahead, to keep their eyes on the prize. And be it by purpose or be it by

circumstance, that optimism has been stripped from our people. I see people

every day walking around with their heads down like zombies, just hoping to wake

up tomorrow and it be better.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LESTER:

Hoodwinked is not an excuse

for anything. Hoodwinked is something we have to throw aside because we are all

intelligent individuals. There is no way that we can say that we walked into

this House and knew that we weren't in the position that we're in. We have to

stop using that excuse, and we have to give our people optimism, give them a

concrete plan. Not theory, not high level, it has to be down on their doors.

That's something that I think is lacking in this budget. It's just a carbon

copy, a few little tweaks, and it's something that needs to change.

We have

to reinvest in our people and we have to make it more cost efficient to live

here.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a pleasure to stand in the House this morning and speak to

Budget 2018. Like most Members now, I

guess I'll get a chance at least today and maybe a couple of more times to speak

to the things that are in this year's budget.

But

before I do, Mr. Speaker, last week I did not have the opportunity to stand and

to recognize the many great volunteers in my district. Last week was National

Volunteer Week and because of my responsibilities here in the House, I wasn't

able to attend to any of the events that had happened in my district

I did

attend one on Saturday evening at the Royal Canadian Legion in Clarenville. I

certainly want to send my congratulations to everybody that was recognized at

the Royal Canadian Legion: Volunteer of the Year Curtis Skiffington, but also

all the other members, comrades of the Royal Canadian Legion that were

recognized for their long-time service and their dedication to the community.

National

Volunteer Week's theme was: Celebration the Value of Volunteering – building

confidence, competence, connections and community. I think that's really what

goes on in the great Terra Nova District that I represent.

Last

week, there were events that happened in Glovertown. There were events that

happened in my hometown of Port Blandford, as there were events that happened in

the Southwest Arm area. I wasn't able to attend any of those wonderful

celebrations, but I just want to echo the sentiments that were given to those

volunteers at those events and send my heartfelt thank you to all those

volunteers for everything they do to make our communities great places to live,

to work and to raise our families.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to get into the budget a little bit and just talk about some

of the things that are in this year's budget. I may reflect a little bit about

some of the other initiatives that have happened in the Terra Nova District in

the last year that are continuing forward into this year.

The

first thing I'd like to talk about is around the Premier's Task Force on

Improving Educational Outcomes. Of course, that report came due – and I see

Members opposite giving me a thumbs-up, so that's wonderful. I think they

recognize there are some great things that have come in that report that came

out last summer.

There

were 82 recommendations in that report. Some of them are very dear to things

that I've certainly worked very hard for prior to coming into this House, in my

previous capacity, working in the community and working in the public service.

The recommendations focus on nine areas. They focus on inclusive education. They

focus on student mental health and wellness, mathematics and reading, indigenous

education, multicultural education and the early years.

People

will have seen that I have stood in this House many times and I've talked about

my long experience working with children with disabilities and also working in a

family resource centre or being on a board of directors for a family resource

centre. So seeing that theme come forward in the set of recommendations is

extremely important.

Career

and co-op education, Mr. Speaker, is number eight, and professional development.

People would also realize, or remember that I sat on a school board. I was a

member of a school board. I was trustee and a chair of the former Vista School

Board. In that capacity, I was always keenly interested in providing

professional development opportunities for teachers and staff.

So to

see that all these themes have come forward in a set of recommendations I think

is a great report. I'm really encouraged now this year, and through this budget,

that we are seeing phase one of the recommendations will be implemented, and to

see that some-40 schools will be a part of the first round of schools that will

get some additional resources to help them deal with many of the challenges that

are going on in our schools.

Many

people would remember that last year we were dealing with a tremendous amount of

concern at Riverside Elementary in Clarenville. It was because of overcapacity

issues, it was around lunch hour space, it was around children having enough

room to be supervised and also to be in class sizes that they were able to – to

be in a conducive learning environment. It's great to see now that through phase

one we'll see some extra resources that will go into schools that will help

address some of those issues.

I'm

confident that as we move forward with the Premier's task force and these

recommendations that our schools and this whole issue of what was perceived to

be the right approach to inclusive education, that we will make some steps now.

We've listened to parents. We've listened to teachers. We've listened to the

school community and now we're going to take steps to put in better approaches,

better strategies so that students have better learning outcomes.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd also like to talk about mental health and addictions. I've stood in

this House and talked about mental health issues in my district, and I've talked

about my dear friend, Victoria Best. Just this past week, there was another

story about Victoria that came out. As we know, Victoria was a New England

Patriots fan. There were some of her friends and supporters who had written the

New England Patriots and talked about who Victoria was and what a great fan she

was.

The

story this week talked about how they finally heard back from the New England

Patriots and they sent up some memorabilia. Victoria, in her house, had a sports

room. She had it decorated in honour of the New England Patriots.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, we see that organization sent along some memorabilia. They

understood what a tireless advocate she was for mental health. It's unfortunate

that she's no longer with us. I talk to her family all the time. I talked to her

dad yesterday actually, and we were chatting about mental health and addictions

and the need to do something in Clarenville. We need to do something to help our

young people.

I just

reflect back; one of the recommendations or the theme of the recommendations was

student mental health and wellness. I think that's so critically important in

this province and in my district.

Budget 2018 , we'll see there's more

than $10 million, Mr. Speaker, that's being invested to support the delivery of

home and community care and enhancements of primary health care services. I've

been working with a group in Clarenville who are putting together a

community-based outreach program.

If you

look at the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, in that report

one of the things it talks about is we have to have better connections at the

grassroots. It has to be grassroots driven. Yes, we have professionals. We have

institutions that can help. We're paving the way to build a new Waterford

Hospital but we also need to bring the community into the solutions that we

identify to help people who are struggling with mental health and addictions.

So to

see there is a group that's come together in Clarenville that are looking to

provide additional support to those in need, whether it's our young people,

whether it's adults or seniors who are just struggling with their own mental

wellness – and I'm hoping, I've talked to the Minister of Health and Community

Services, as well as the Eastern Health authority about: How do we find a way to

make the work that this community group is doing, that they propose to do, how

do we make that a reality? We're doing some stuff now as a government down on

the Burin Peninsula and I'd like to see that replicated in my district, in the

Clarenville area.

Mr.

Speaker, as I move on talking about some of the things that are in the budget, I

wanted to talk about – we are keenly interested in building safe and sustainable

communities. It's certainly a priority for us. We'll see an investment of over

$75 million to provide local services and support to local communities.

I'll

reference specifically what we're doing around Municipal Capital Works; $10.6

million, and that announcement was made just previous to the budget. I actually

had some folks come in from my district because contained in the $10.6 million

under Municipal Capital Works was money to help build a new fire hall on Random

Island. It's near the community of Elliott's Cove. There are about six

communities that are part of a local service district.

remember, Mr. Speaker, when I first was approached by the deputy fire chief. He

came into my constituency office in Clarenville. He said: you know I'd really

like for you to come down to our fire department. We have an aging truck,

firefighting equipment. We have an old building that was an old school, and we

have mould in the building. It's inadequate. We can't continue to be operating

out of that building.

So I

went there, and eventually I had the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Environment come and meet with them as well. I was pleased to see that this year

we were able to identify money to help them construct a new fire hall.

Last

year, we were able to identify money to provide a new fire truck for them.

That's so keenly important when we think about our volunteers, our firefighters,

our first responders who are the ones who answer that call to keep our

communities safe. Providing that necessary infrastructure to them so that they

can do their jobs, I think is critically important for us, no matter what side

of the House we're on. I was glad to see that we're making that investment this

year.

Mr.

Speaker, under the Municipal Capital Works program waste water and drinking

water – good drinking water is also critically important to our communities when

we think about that infrastructure. I can recall and met with the town council

in Traytown, they didn't have their own source of water. They were relying on

private wells but they wanted to be more sustainable as a community.

So over

the last two years, Mr. Speaker, we provided funds to help them identify a

stable, sustainable water source. This year, we're also providing some

additional monies that will help them conduct well drilling and water testing so

that, hopefully, they will have a system that provides good, clean drinking

water for their community and for the residents that are there.

Mr.

Speaker, as well, in terms of – fire halls in my district seem to be one of the

main themes these days. I know there's a request now with the Town of

Clarenville who are looking to construct a new fire hall. My hometown of Port

Blandford is looking to construct a new fire hall and so is the Town of

Glovertown, looking to construct a new fire hall. So we were able this year to

provide some funds of the Town of Glovertown to help with the design of a new

fire hall. Myself and the minister have been out and met with them as well to

see the facility they have and to understand their needs. This year, they will

start a process to look at some pre-design work for a new fire hall in that

community.

Mr.

Speaker, when we think about protecting our firefighters, in this budget $1.8

million is being allocated to fire protection vehicles and firefighting

equipment. Over the last two years, this budget has been relatively stable in

terms of supporting firefighting equipment in communities and fire protection

vehicles. I just want to reference some of the communities that have benefited

from these funds over the last two years, including this year.

Monday evening I was in Charlottetown and I was there to announce that we're

providing some money to the fire department to replace a pump on their fire

truck. When I asked the members of the volunteer fire department, I said: Tell

me exactly what it is that you're going to use this money for. So they opened up

a back door and showed me an old pump and they said: We're replacing this thing

here because it's not reliable anymore. It's good to see the monies that are

coming forward, on behalf of the people of this province, that we're putting it

into real equipment to help people do their jobs.

provided firefighting equipment to Glovertown and to the Southwest Arm fire

department in Hodges Cove. We're also providing money to Random Island East fire

department. So bringing forward dollars to help those fire departments do the

work that they need to do is extremely important in my mind.

I just

wanted to reference, there was a comment made by my colleague across the House

about what's happening with seniors and we need to support seniors. I just want

to reference, Mr. Speaker, the things we are doing is not – as my learned

colleague would say – that we are driving seniors out of the province. I mean,

to the contrary.

One of

the things that we introduced in 2016 was enhanced supports to seniors. This

year, again, we're providing $56 million in the Newfoundland and Labrador

Seniors' Benefit. That was, as I say, introduced in 2016 and it benefits – now,

you should pay attend for a second – 47,000 seniors and their families. When the

Member opposite gets up and says that we're doing things that is going to likely

drive seniors out of this province, I think that's incorrect. We are doing

things actually to help seniors. We're also providing $65 million in the Income

Supplement that provides benefit to approximately 155,000 individuals and their

families.

Mr.

Speaker, first, when we introduced this in 2016, I was going out and meeting

with 50-plus clubs and seniors' groups in my district and many didn't

understand, because these cheques are coming on a quarterly basis. People

couldn't understand why they were getting this extra money. They were used to

getting the one lump sum. I'd say to them: Did you get a cheque now in October,

and was it more than what you thought? Yeah, but I didn't know where that came

from, was an answer that I was getting.

So then

in January, they received another one and they were phoning and saying I didn't

get that lump sum that $900-and-something, $968 – I don't know if someone can

correct me on the amount. But I didn't get that. Well, actually you're getting

more than that because it's over $1,300 now that you're getting.

When you

explain that to people they say: Oh, okay, that's great. We thought the federal

government was providing that to us. I said: No, that's what we are doing as a

government here in this province. We recognize that things are tough and we're

trying to bring in measures that's going to support people. So contrary to what

the Member opposite said, I just want to put it out there, Mr. Speaker, and be

on record that it's completely false.

That's

one of the things that we've had to deal with in this House. Consistently, I

hear from Members opposite about this doom and gloom. You know, we were dealt a

very, very dirty card. When I'm out in my district and I'm talking to people,

they consistently tell me that they know how we got in this place. They also

recognize that as a government we are trying. We are trying to right the ship so

that the path forward, The Way Forward

– and I know the Member opposite gets up and says we don't have a plan. I mean,

I hear that from Members opposite all the time: We don't have a plan.

Yesterday we launched phase three of The

Way Forward , with some 30 more

additional actions that are pervasive across a number of industries. The Member

opposite talked about – and I think we kind of agree in one sense that whatever

investments we make in this province, we need to focus on areas that can be

successful. Now, I'm paraphrasing him, but I think that's what he was saying.

You should invest on the Avalon. I think he talked about horticultural

investments.

Actually

in terms of our regional innovation systems, which people will find in

The Way Forward , that is exactly what

we're doing. On the West Coast, we're focusing on forestry. In Central, we're

focusing on agriculture and we're focusing on the aerospace industry. On the

East Coast, we are focusing on technology. So we're building on the strengths

that exist in this province based on the regions.

So I

think when the Member stands up and he talks about let's build on the strengths,

we do agree on that – absolutely. Now, I think he was trying to put a dig

forward that we're not doing what we should be doing, but again, I would say to

the Member opposite that we are exactly doing what we should be doing to build

on the strengths and to build an economy that is sustainable.

Mr.

Speaker, I talk about that from a great deal of experience. My experience is in

community economic development.

I see my

time is winding down, Mr. Speaker, so I will continue on from this point

forward, I will continue on when I get to speak again to the

Budget 2018 .

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a pleasure to rise this morning and speak to

Budget 2018 . People have three opportunities to speak to the actual

budget, so it's certainly an opportunity to speak to the details of the

particular budget. And as well, for Members to speak to issues related to their

district that are related to the budget or not, or just of importance to their

district and an opportunity to speak to those people in their district and

issues important to the people in the province.

As part

of this process – and the people out there know, we go through Estimates where

each department comes in and lays out the budgetary requirements for the next

fiscal year. Obviously, that's related to the policy direction the current

government will take, and those line items in the actual Estimates would flow

into those policy directions or strategic directions the government is taking on

an annual basis or flows into that four-year term and four-year mandate, which

they were elected to follow.

So the

Estimates certainly are for Opposition and for Members on the other side of the

House to ask questions to the ministers and to their officials in regard to

progress made on announced strategic directions or policy directives and the

money that's been allocated for those, what's been spent in the last fiscal year

based on the Estimates and what the actuals were. Those were identified. You can

ask questions on those. Then looking forward, the Estimates for the next fiscal

year and questions on allocations of funding and where it has been spent.

It also

enters into the whole forecast piece in regard to looking beyond that fiscal

year you're talking about but looking at the forecast which is laid out by the

current administration. This administration has talked about a seven year

forecast. They talked about getting back to surplus; talks about the year

'22-'23 in regard to having a small surplus and getting back there.

Now in a

general sense, since this budget has come in and even prior to it, and I've

spoken to it before, there have been some questions in regard to the validity of

that plan. We saw the AG mention it in 2017 in the forecast, in regard to

expenditure reductions, the amount that's been forecasted in regard to the

ability to raise the revenues that were in that forecast. I think it's about

$1.2 billion up to '22-'23. Is it conceivable that will be done?

As well,

looking at inflation and various increases in program delivery and program

resources that are available; when you look at things like increases in

expenditures. We've seen a small increase this year in programs, about 2.1 per

cent. We'll see small decreases, supposedly, in the next few years in regard to

expenditures. About 1.2 per cent in 2020, about 1.1 per cent in 2021, half a

percent in '21-'22 and just a third of a percent in '22-'23.

The

Auditor General in 2017, based on those projections, questioned whether it was

even obtainable. Based on the fluctuations you may have seen in a general sense

in regard to inflationary costs to things like labour, to program delivery. Even

in that period of time there are often ups and downs in the economy. You could

see a small recession which slows the economic activity and which doesn't allow

you to meet your targets related to revenue projections.

Budget 2016 , we saw there were over

300 taxes and fees. Some of them already existed, some were increased, some are

added. We had to look at things like the levy that was brought in. Most

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had to pay it initially. Then there were some

small changes made to it, but it's still there. That affects these indicators in

regard to meeting those targets.

It's a

balancing act in regard to the trickle-down effect. You need to tax at a level

or threshold that allows revenue to be raised to meet the needs but not to

disincentive people not to have money in their pockets or not be able to spend.

That's certainly the balancing act.

The

documents of this current budget; if you look at

The Economy 2018, which was part of the budgetary documents, that

looks at the economic indicators and what the projections are for future years,

which ties into the plan, the forecast. I know the hon. Member before me

mentioned having a plan, talked about The

Way Forward , Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, that's all great stuff. Well,

that plan has to tie in to the economics and to the reality of the day.

I know

my colleague for Mount Pearl North was talking about families and talking about

the effect on families, whether it's seniors or youth. That's really what we're

talking about here. We're talking about young families being able to stay here,

make a living and provide what's needed for their family; activities, all of

those types of things for young kids.

We have

the infrastructure and they want to stay here and build and grow. They pay taxes

over a longer period of time. They contribute to the economy. They're

volunteers. They do the things they need to do in all kinds of our communities

to make sure it's a place that people want to live and stay. So that's extremely

important in regard to creating that environment.

Fundamentally, government doesn't actually employ – shouldn't be the agency to

employ everybody, shouldn't be the agency to create all these jobs. The

government of the day and any day is to provide that environment where there

wants to be investment; it's good investments for entrepreneurs and people to

grow business. It's competitive in regard to taxation, whether personal taxation

for individuals or corporate taxation in regard to investment. So it's

competitive and that's what we need to create that environment and to get to

what's being proposed here in '22-'23 in regard to getting back to surplus.

mentioned when I started about Estimates and the process we go through.

Yesterday, we had Natural Resources Estimates with the Minister of Natural

Resources. She had her staff in. I have to admit, we had a very good,

free-flowing discussion back and forth for three hours. We had a lot of

questions and I acknowledge the minister and her staff and the good job they

did. We certainly didn't agree with everything but we had a great discussion and

exchange of information.

As I

said, the budget is the figures in regard to line items and different divisions

within the department, but then flows out of that is the direction you're taking

to meet strategic directions or policy initiatives that have already been laid

out by government.

The

minister was very open in terms of having that discussion about how the budget

relates to those, some of the issues going on in the province with regard to

natural resources and economic development. We were able to ask questions back

and forth with regard to where we're to and what's transpiring in our province,

because all of that flows into driving the economy.

Natural

Resources, as we know, we're very big in the commodity market, not only in

Newfoundland and Labrador but across Canada. It bodes well for our future,

whether that's in the mining sector, whether it's the oil and gas. Obviously,

our fishery is huge in regard to what we're able to achieve and continue; while

we're having some challenges now in quota cuts. As well, you look at our

forestry industry, again, some challenges.

When you

look at some of the initiatives that are going on in the US in regard to NAFTA

and some of the tariffs that have been put on paper that is being shipped out,

certainly related to the operations in Corner Brook, it is extremely concerning;

yet, those are all issues that are important to us in growing our economy and

doing the things we need to do.

When we

had discussions in Natural Resources in the Estimates, we talked about a number

of items. In particular, we talked about Voisey's Bay and Vale related to the

underground mine in regard to the development agreement, where that's to; not a

lot of details in regard to the current government holding Vale accountable and

moving that forward. We certainly hope that it will.

To go

underground to build that mine, in the past couple of years we've been asking

some questions here in the House in regard to the actual agreement. The minister

had indicated, probably a year-and-a-half ago there were issues with engineering

procurement. They had to get that done. There was a business analysis supposed

to be completed in the fall of 2017. We're told it was completed. We're not sure

what the results of that was, and now we're into 2018. Again, we don't know in

terms of the direction being taken there.

When we

look at iron ore, the prices and the commodity prices, when it hit a rough skid

a few years back – obviously, iron ore is used for steel. Most industrialized

countries, places like China, Brazil, India, a lot of building goes on and they

need that iron ore in terms of steel manufacturing a building.

The

commodity we have is driven by the activities around the world. We have seen in

the last year or two, those iron ore prices start to recover and start to move

up. We also heard the minister talk yesterday in Estimates about other iron ore

deposits in Labrador and the possibility for development and investors out

looking for that to develop those sites.

It would

leave one to believe that Vale and the Voisey's Bay underground site, as well,

could continue to grow, and that's important. So we're left to see what's going

on with the underground mine at Voisey's Bay, getting it up and operational, and

making sure that we get this moving, because there is tremendous opportunity

certainly for Labrador, but as well overall for the provincial economy.

As I

said, in Estimates we have some discussion on that. I certainly look forward to

the minister in the very near future and this government giving us some good

news in regard to moving forward with Voisey's Bay.

The

other issue with Voisey's Bay is the cobalt, a derivative, my understanding, of

the processing of iron ore and from that, the price around the world, my

understanding, the commodity itself and the availability of it is somewhat

limited and this is seen as a huge opportunity as a parallel – what will we say

– an advantage of Voisey's Bay underground mining. So we hope that as well will

stir the opportunity to continue to get this project moving and get the benefits

for all concerned.

So that

was a good discussion we had in that particular area. We also had some

discussion on White Rose extension, the Argentia project and that moving

forward. I know we had some discussions when that was originally announced, and

some of the things that in the negotiation the government gave up in regard to

the graving dock, which was originally in the initial agreement, MOU, that was

signed, which would allow ongoing work on rigs and facilities like that that

would be a permanent structure that would allow that activity to go on. So

instead of sending rigs to Scotland or Ireland or sending to the US, we would

have a facility here to actually do that on an ongoing basis. But that was

negotiated out by the partners.

As well

we talked about, at the time there was a $60 million fund announced that was

part of the negotiations that we were – we believe it was $60 million that we

negotiated that would be used by the province to drive innovation and other

activities in the oil and gas, and so it is. But I know when the announcement

was made, we asked questions here again related to that, and that's a $60

million fund that over 10 years – I think there's $6 million that's put aside

that is going to be used for innovation and different activities in the oil and

gas sector. But in questioning the minister, there's no parameter set up yet in

regard to the application process for that, who would oversee it and those types

of things. The minister indicated that's been worked out and been done today.

One

interesting part about the $60 million is that while it's not part of the

capital cost for the partners within the project, it can be and will be

recovered by the partners through the royalty regime, which is interesting

because that means that $60 million, really, the partners get it back. They're

not, in themselves, giving up $60 million as part of the agreement. What happens

is through the royalties – their capital cost can be recovered through

development agreements but this is outside of the capital cost, the

construction, but it would be part of a $60 million fund that they can pull it

back through the royalty regime that's in place, which is interesting because in

fact they're not really giving up the $60 million, they're recovering it at some

point down the road.

We also

talked about geological surveying related to the mining sector and the

activities that are going on there. On a positive note, there are good things

happening in the mining sector in the province – in the Baie Verte region out

there regarding gold development deposits. As well in Labrador, there was a

discussion about the Labrador Trough and some of the things we've heard lately

in the past couple of weeks in regard to meetings with the current Premier and

the premier of Quebec and the developing of the Labrador Trough.

There's

some work going on in regard to I think the northern region of that trough and

looking at partnerships or what could be achieved together collectively. One of

the questions that I asked the minister – we compete with Quebec and it's good

to have relations and to be able to support when it's beneficial to all

concerned. One of the questions I did ask is there was a reference to sharing of

data. Because we're adjacent to Quebec, Labrador obviously, and we compete for

that investment and when you look at investments around the world in the mining

sector it is limited so how do we be competitive and make sure that oftentimes

we compete with Quebec for that investment.

I asked

about that data, the data sharing, how much data we would share, what type of

data we would share, that type of thing. I think the response was they're

working through that and they would be cognizant of the fact that it is

competitive in nature in terms of competing mines and our deposits both on the

Newfoundland side of that trough and Quebec side. From our point of view, we

need to be cognizant of that in terms of moving forward with that.

But

certainly, as I said, there are positive signs in the mining industry in terms

of our reserves of what we have. Commodity markets around the world are starting

to move in some of those commodities and it's certainly positive for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Many of

it, we talked here in the House a lot about carbon tax, what's coming. At the

beginning, our understanding now is 2019 and what that means for our industries

but as well trickle right down to families, what cost it is going to be to the

average family. I know my colleague the Environment critic has asked several

times here in the House just a simple question: To the average family in

Newfoundland and Labrador, who has two kids, who's doing all those activities

that young families do, what will be the average cost to that family based on

this tax? Because in this current budget of 2018, we hear there is no new taxes,

status quo, those types of things.

actual fact, that's not correct. What we have is a carbon tax coming that no one

seems to know what it's going to cost, how it going to trickle down and what

it's going to mean to the pocketbook of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. So

we look for more information and we continue to ask. The federal government

mandated this by 2019. I think the first is $10 a ton in regard to greenhouse

gas emissions and it goes to $50 a ton over the next few years.

Now,

originally, it was supposed to be a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador program

for carbon tax. We had started here in this Legislature and passed legislation

actually dealing with five on-land industrial users and monitoring their

greenhouse gas emissions over two years. We were going to deal with them in some

way of trying to work with them, whether it's a technology fund to try and

reduce their emissions; but then, shortly after that, the federal government

announced they were moving forward with a mandated carbon tax but on one knows

how much – well, they know how much it's going to be, but don't know how much

it's going to cost industry or cost the average person in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We had a

good discussion on that and where it would go. There are still not a lot of

details from this administration. There are some jurisdictions in Canada that

have protested significantly to the federal government in regard to this carbon

tax and what it's going to mean for their industries and what it's going to mean

for their families. There has been no protest here by this current

administration in regard to dealing with the federal government and the carbon

tax but that's coming and it's going to play a significant role in our economy

and what costs are going to be paid.

Other

issues we talked about, as I said, was the mining sector, oil and gas. A dvance

2030 , the minister spoke of that of their indication to develop the oil and

gas sector. There was an interesting – in regard to Nalcor in seismic work. We

heard on budget day that the government had put $20 million – or we learned

after the budget that an OC has been approved to put $20 million back into

Nalcor of seismic work.

The

story is that government asked ABCs to look at their cost. Nalcor looked at

theirs and said we're going to take $20 million out of the seismic program,

which seems totally out of touch with the

Advance 2030 that was announced by the current administration. It's seems

like they're offside with the CEO and board of directors with Nalcor.

Then

they had to put the $20 million back. So based on that, I assume there was no

cuts to Nalcor because the $20 million had to be put back. The message to us was

that $20 million is going to be recovered through possible increases in oil

revenues that are expected over the next year. That would offset it, but still

it's peculiar that you announced it in

Advance 2030 for oil and gas development and the entity that exists to

promote that contradicts it with some of the cuts they made.

Those

are some of the significant things we talked about. It was a good discussion and

I look forward to speaking to the budget again in the next opportunity.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR.

WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure to rise in my place today and speak to

Budget 2018 and certainly to represent

the fine District of Baie Verte - Green Bay. A district, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite

proud of, my hometown being Springdale, representing over 40 communities all

throughout the Baie Verte Peninsula and Green Bay.

It's a district, Mr. Speaker, where we're very blessed

with natural resources. When you look at – we're heavily involved in the

forestry industry, the mining industry, the fishery, tourism, aquaculture. We

have a little bit of everything going on in our district.

I had the opportunity to sit with one of the mining

executives a little while ago, and he said to me that if he was to get involved

in politics tomorrow there's not a better district that he'd like to represent

than the District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my comments with regard

to the budget, I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize a couple of

families, I guess, in memory, and that's the Jim family out of Baie Verte. Mrs.

Jim, known as Wong Kim Sue Jim, whose family are: Betty, Quong, King, Jeanie,

Pat, Willie and Patsy.

Mrs. Jim was a pillar in the community of Baie Verte.

Mrs. Jim passed away a couple of weeks ago. I remember going to Baie Verte

playing high school sports as a young boy and we would always make sure we got

ourselves down to Jim's store and Jim's restaurant for a feed of – her French

fries, dressing and gravy was her speciality. O bviously,

Mrs. Jim will be sadly missed. I certainly want to pay my respects to that

family.

Earlier

this week, Mr. Speaker, we heard of the passing of Mrs. Pearl Bailey. Anybody

who knows the mining industry throughout the Baie Verte Peninsula would be

certainly well aware of her family's legacy and business, Guy J. Bailey Limited.

Certainly, I wanted to pay my respects as well to Judy, Donna, Ivan, Scott and

Kent, good friends of mine. Mrs. Pearl Bailey, again, as I spoke about Mrs. Jim,

are both pillars in the community of Baie Verte and will be sadly missed.

I never

got an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, last week to rise in my place to recognize

Volunteer Week, as most of my colleagues did and obviously showed their respect

for volunteers in their own communities. I did want to show my respect for the

volunteers in the District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

While I

don't necessarily want to single out one particular group, I feel that I need to

recognize our volunteer fire departments. I know my colleague from Terra Nova

did so today as well, recognized the fire departments.

I have

24 fire departments in my district. Of those 24 fire departments, I think we

have 397 volunteer firefighters, both men and women. My hat is off to these

organizations, Mr. Speaker. They do a great duty to our communities. They keep

us safe and, obviously, as I said to some of the communities, the fact that we

do have volunteer fire departments is one of the reasons we are – as communities

and as residents of our communities, and homeowners – able to purchase

homeowners insurance, the fact that we are being protected by a volunteer fire

department.

I wanted

to recognize two new fire departments within my district. They were older

departments that came together to sort of form a regional concept. That was in

St. Patrick's, Little Bay and Beachside, just starting a new fire department,

Mr. Speaker, along with Jackson's Cove, Harry's Harbour and Silverdale. They're

taking, I guess, a piece out of our provincial plan, or our government's plan to

see regionalization being a big part of our going forward program.

I had

the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night to join the fire department of

St. Patrick's, Little Bay and Beachside down in Beachside at the Pentecostal

Church in Beachside for a community singalong. At that particular event we

raised over $2,200 for the volunteer fire department, just with a simple

singalong. It shows the appreciation, I think, of what communities feel about

their fire departments. Like I said, I couldn't be more pleased to see that.

With

regard to the 2018 budget, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance alluded in

his remarks, it's a stay-the-course budget and certainly hoping to lead us to

surplus, as my colleague had mentioned earlier, in 2022-23.

I want

to thank the Minister of Finance, past and present, both ministers have done

admirable work on behalf of our government. I certainly want to take my hat off

to their department as well. It's not easy. I spent 28 years running a family

business and I know all about budgets. I know about budgets in good times, as

well as I know about budgets in bad times. I've had my years of that as well.

Again, zero-based budgeting is something that's not new to me. It's the way I

worked when I was in my own business.

As my

colleague from Ferryland had just mentioned in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, I've

had the opportunity over the last couple of years to chair the Resources

Committee. He just spoke about the fact that we had met with the Department of

Natural Resources yesterday morning. I have to say my hat is off to the minister

as well and to her department, her parliamentary secretary, my good friend from

Labrador West, they did a fabulous job in answering the questions yesterday

morning.

If I can

say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the budget, I think the process of Estimates is

an education in itself. While it's hard after a full day here at work in the

House of Assembly, the good work that we do here, sometimes it's tiring to be

able to sit down and spend another three hours going through the Estimates

procedures, but I really enjoy it. I really find it educational. I enjoy

listening to the back and forth between the Opposition and a committee who's

representing government at that particular time, and certainly our ministers.

I've had

the opportunity so far to sit through Fisheries and Land Resources; Natural

Resources; Advanced Education, Skills and Labour – which was last night, with

the minister – and tomorrow night, we will be sitting with the minister and his

department from Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Mr. Speaker, I look

forward to hearing his remarks and those remarks as well.

Going

back again to the budget, Mr. Speaker, it's amazing; I have spent a lot of time

listening to the people in my district talking about where we are as a

government with regard to our financial position. I think most people realize it

hasn't been an easy time running government when you consider the position that

we are in.

Going

down through the budget document when you look at the infrastructure that

government is responsible for: 9,763 kilometres of roads; 1,317 bridges and

culverts; 260 K-12 educational facilities; 20 public post-secondary

institutions; 189 health care facilities; 13 ferry services. All this for

525,000 residents.

It just

amazes me, and I've actually quoted this to some of the people who came up and

sort of wanted to challenge me on where we are as a government and the budgets

that we've come down with. But when I sit down and explain to them the

infrastructure that we're responsible for as a government, I think they get a

true picture of the big story. Doing it all when we are posting record deficits

– even though, again, I want to go back and say that our minister has said that

we're hopefully going to be back to surplus in 2022. I certainly look forward to

that day.

As I

mentioned 97,063 kilometres of roads, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about

Budget 2018 with regard to the roadwork and $77 million was allotted for the

provincial road systems. I'm so happy to announce that $5.9 million has been

allocated to my District of

Baie Verte - Green Bay this year. There's lots of anticipation of some new

roadwork happening in my district.

Mr. Speaker, we get an opportunity as a Member, I guess

when the department goes out to try and prioritize the district, we get an

opportunity to lay down our priorities as well. While our priorities are

important, we always don't get our priorities the way that we hope that we

would. We take the priorities of the superintendents of Transportation and Works

in our area, along with the regional office, and I guess that all goes to the

minister and his department and that's where the decisions are made. I respect

the decisions, Mr. Speaker, but my number one priority in my district this year

was the La Scie highway. That's Route 414.

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am to report that

we're going to be doing eight kilometres. We're budgeting eight kilometres to

that road this year. These past couple of weeks especially, Mr. Speaker, my

email, my texting, Facebook has been inundated with complaints from the people

of the Baie Verte Peninsula, and especially people who use the La Scie road,

again highway 414, on a daily basis.

That tender was actually let on March 29. I thank the

minister and his department for recognizing the work that needs to be done on

that particular road. When that road was built, it wasn't designed probably to

take the amount of traffic that it handles today. Again, I talked earlier about

the good things that are happening in my district, and one of them is the fact

that we have two operating mines, that being Anaconda and Rambler, employing

some 350 people from around the district .

From the entrance to Rambler to Snooks Arm Road, which is where the mill is

located, we have 84 single trips, 42 round trips of heavy haulers hauling ore

back and forth from the mine to the mill every day.

In a

good year, we have at least probably $400 million worth of seafood. La Scie is

known as probably one of the largest off-loading ports in Newfoundland. So in a

good year, we have hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of seafood that come

up over the La Scie road as well. Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, I talked about

the forestry in our industry. We have contractors who are working down in that

area as well that continue to use the road. So we're hauling pulpwood back and

forth to the mill in Corner Brook. Then, it's your everyday traffic.

Right

now, I think the traffic counts – while I listened to the Member for Conception

Bay South last week talking about traffic counts on his road and they are a lot

more than what's on my road, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that when you look

at the heavy haulers, the fish trucks, the wood trucks and you take the amount

of wear and tear that's on that road with these heavy haulers, it's no

comparison. Again, while we have all this traffic, we're happy to have it as

well. We just need the infrastructure to be rebuilt to be able to handle such

traffic.

Other

things that we look at, other factors I guess when we determine roadwork with

the minister and his department, we look at safety, we look at the economics of

the area and we look at volume of traffic. Again, that road would handle all

three of those factors.

Having

said that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder sometimes about some of the roads –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. WARR:

– that are less used and some

of those determining factors don't play a part. I look at two or three roads in

my area. The one leading to Seal Cove hasn't been touched in a number of years.

I know those people deserve to drive over good roads as well.

Our

previous administration, a few years back, decided to do that Fleur de Lys road,

highway 410 leading into Fleur de Lys, which would be maybe 20-and-change

kilometres; repaved that road and forgot to do the Coachman's Cove road.

Coachman's Cove is 2.2 kilometres off the Fleur de Lys road. I have no idea why

they decided to do the Fleur de Lys road and forget about the Coachman's Cove

road. They had the equipment. They had the engineers down there. I don't know

why we would waste that type of money to go back and do it when we could have

done it in the beginning.

While

I'm on that, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Shoe Cove road as well. In

2015, there was 10 kilometres of roadwork done on the

section from Harbour Round

to La Scie. They decided to do one kilometre of the road going into Shoe Cove.

Mr. Speaker, there's only 1.9 kilometres leading from La Scie road to Shoe Cove.

Why they would choose to do one kilometre instead of doing 1.9, I've yet to

understand that as well.

Mr.

Speaker, we did kick up a little bit of noise and got on the open-line shows and

the radio stations and made our points. Certainly, the government of the day

decided to go down and do that complete road which was the right decision. I'm

certainly glad they did.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk about – I just have a minute left – health care in our

area and the effects the 2018 budget had on health care in my district because

there's a lot of optimism in the community of Springdale, and in particular

Green Bay as a whole. I want to thank the Minister of Health and Community

Services. I want to thank the Minister of Public Works as well.

We had a

cottage hospital that was built in 1952, 66 years old, Mr. Speaker. I think that

was the last hospital built actually by the Government of Newfoundland. There

was $6.2 million allotted for the new Green Bay Health Care Centre in

Budget 2018 , and I couldn't be more

proud as an MHA when the minister advised me of this spending.

Mr.

Speaker, my time is winding down. I'll take the opportunity to continue with my

remarks on my next opportunity, and as always, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

opportunity to speak.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, it's a privilege to rise in this hon. House as we debate

Budget 2018 .

Mr. Speaker, this is the second of three speeches that we all have the

opportunity to participate in because there are three phases to the budget and

the motions that have been brought forward.

Budget 2018

while not as harmful perhaps as previous budgets with all of the increases in

taxes, it certainly wasn't helpful. It didn't do anything to advance our

province and its economy. It was really more of a stay-the-course budget that

really didn't do anything to foster confidence in the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador to continue to invest in businesses here and homes.

There are still a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, who are

contemplating leaving this province.

As I often say when I get up in the Budget Speech, 2019

is around the corner. So I encourage everyone to try and hang in there, better

times are on the horizon. It is we the people who will choose who our leaders

will be, and in 2019 we have an opportunity to once again express our voices as

voters in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will have the

opportunity to vote for the people or persons that we feel are going to best

represent our values, our beliefs and the type of economy we would like to see

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will say, I do feel many of the voters – in fact, I

know from discussions with many of them that a lot of voters in 2015 were

disappointed. Everyone is going to be taking a much closer look I think in 2019

at what the real policies are and who they think they can trust to deliver on

the policies that are outlined.

This is the third budget now of the Ball government. In

2015, I remember as we were heading into the election, it got to be a pretty

animated place here in this House of Assembly leading into the election. I'm

sure you will experience that again next year. It's a different kind of frenzy

that takes over the place.

In those days I believe

the Premier, who was then the

Leader of the Opposition, talked about Newfoundland and Labrador being the last,

the least and the lowest. In 2015, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the case. In fact,

we were still revered across this great country of ours as being people who were

on the ball, on the move, and Newfoundland and Labrador was still an up and

coming province that was admired and respected by many others across the country

for having rode through the recession as successfully as we did. We had some

strong procedures in place with respect to attrition and P3s that we were

looking at as methods of reducing spending of the provincial coffers. Oh boy,

were we ever attacked for that.

Well,

attrition was called job losses, and P3s were called job losses. But, lo and

behold, two years and so many months into the Liberals' mandate, they're touting

the merits of attrition and they're touting the merits of P3s. That's because

these are good policies. These are policies that we identified as Progressive

Conservatives as mechanisms for reducing spending and they can work. It's really

interesting to see how that has changed in the last two years, but the reality

is they were good policies. So good, in fact, that the Liberals themselves are

contemplating bringing them in.

Mr.

Speaker, when I look at the budget documents, they're alarming. You look at the

one titled The Economy , and on page 11

of that document we see that in terms of real GDP and employment growth,

Newfoundland and Labrador – tied with New Brunswick, mind you – is the lowest in

all of Canada. We have the lowest rate of GDP and we have the lowest rate of

employment in all of Canada. Two short years of Liberal leadership, and this is

where we are in terms of economic performance.

We hear

politicians get up and say this is great and this is wonderful, but when you

look at the facts and you look at the figures – which all of us as residents of

this province are capable of doing – the numbers tell a very different story

about where we are as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador under the current

Liberal government, Mr. Speaker. It's not a good change, it's really not a good

change that we're seeing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Page 13

of that very same document has a list of provincial economic indicators, Mr.

Speaker. If you look at those, you will see that household income for the next

five years is projected to decrease. Each and every one of us as Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians will have less household income two years down the road than

what we have today.

Today,

we have less income than what we had two years ago, Mr. Speaker, because of the

additional taxes which, when you add up 300 fees increases, bringing back the

HST on insurance, raising the HST 2 per cent – which was identified by the

Liberals as a job killer and implemented by them shortly after they got elected.

Trust is

going to be a very big issue I think in the next election, because people

trusted that there would not be an increase to the HST and that was part of

their reason for voting the way they did. Lo and behold, within a year that came

crashing. They did not only have to pay higher HST, but they're out of pocket

with all the additional fees, on average, by about $1,500 to $3,000 per person,

Mr. Speaker.

In some

households where you have multiple members of a family owning vehicles, their

disposal income has probably dropped by $10,000 per household. Mr. Speaker,

$10,000 is a lot of new clothes that people can buy, it's a lot of nights out at

a restaurant that people can have and it's a lot of tickets to the Arts and

Culture attractions that we have in our beautiful province. It's a lot of

vehicles that are not being bought. It's a lot of kitchens that are not being

renovated. It's a lot of new flooring that's not going in people's houses.

People

don't have the money to spend. We see, Mr. Speaker, as we look at what's

happening on the federal level, that by 2019, as a result of all the federal tax

changes under a Liberal leadership, we're going to be hit with an additional

$2,200 per household in federal taxes.

Mr.

Speaker, you take a chunk of about $10,000 to $12,000 out of the households of

Newfoundlanders and it's no wonder why we're in the state we're in, and it's no

wonder why we see things like retail sales forecast to drop significantly over

the next five years. We're also seeing the unemployment rate continue to rise,

and no plan on the horizon as to how we're going to support the entrepreneurs

who create the jobs to drive the economy.

Investors, both within the Province of Newfoundland, investors from the country

or global investors, before they drop their money in any economy, in any

province, in any country, they have to have a confidence level that their

investment is going to be protected and what they're investing in today, the

parameters around that investment remain solid and don't change over the next

five to 10 years. If they can't trust that if they invest today, the rules are

going to change next year, they may be much more leery to come to our

jurisdiction versus another where they feel they can have trust and confidence

in the deals they are trying to make, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

very, very grave concern for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am

happy, I will say, to notice the change in their messaging and their tone and to

hear them talk about the good things that are happening and the good potential

we do have in Newfoundland and Labrador. There's a song Simani wrote. It talks

about the strength of Newfoundlanders and how we're gleamed by the lightning and

strong from the storms. It's absolutely true because we are strong and

resilient. We wouldn't be here today, in fact, if we were weren't so strong and

resilient.

I read a

book one time about the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a point

in our history when they used to come over in the fishing boats that England

started to get worried about how many people were leaving England and coming to

the Island of Newfoundland but not returning. So they actually started to pay

the captains of the boats $25 a head for every fishermen they brought back to

England in the fall. So there was a very concerted effort to try and prevent

colonization of our fine province. We withstood that and we did populate this

wonderful province. We have produced some incredible citizens that have gone all

around the world to offer their skills, their talents, their strengths and their

intellect.

We have

a proud history, Mr. Speaker, and we have a strong, bright future ahead of us, I

do truly believe. I look forward to seeing the emergence of our potential once

again in years to come and moving past this era of doom and gloom that we find

ourselves in.

One of

the things that I do want to talk about, and I truly hope that the executive

council opposite gives some serious consideration to, is the fact that the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador simply cannot afford another tax. To say

well, we raised your taxes on gas already so instead of dropping it, we'll

convert that now to the carbon tax, that's not okay. People are hanging on

because they're waiting for the rest of that tax increase on the gas to drop.

They do not want to see it converted to a carbon tax.

The

other issue I think we have as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is the amount of

output of emissions that we have as a province. With our investment in clean,

green energy, Mr. Speaker, with our potential to truly be the energy warehouse

that can attract the mines to Labrador because we have the power – instead of

shipping it through Quebec to Ontario, the power is right here in our province.

Because we're creating those kinds of opportunities, Mr. Speaker. We're becoming

an even cleaner and greener province. So why should we who are not the major

emitters of the carbon tax be the first to the table paying a carbon tax?

Mr.

Speaker, we still don't even know where this carbon tax money is going to be

spent. There's no clear direction on that, so I think that Newfoundland and

Labrador should stand with the other provinces in this country who have the

courage to push back to Ottawa and say now is not the time for this carbon tax.

With the economy with the way that it is in this province and in many other

provinces in the country, maybe Ottawa needs to stand back and rethink where it

wants to go with this carbon tax and look at delaying. I think they should look

at eliminating it myself, but certainly a delay to help our economies which are

struggling through some rough times, Mr. Speaker.

If our

government doesn't fight for us as a province, if our provincial leadership

doesn't fight for that then we certainly can't expect any change at the national

level. Even to see an effort to try and get some reprieve for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians would be great, but instead what we see is a government that's

rushing to be the first one out of the gate and first ones to impose this tax.

Ottawa is saying well, you know, if you don't something, we're going to make

something up and you'll have to impose our solution, well, let's see what their

solution is. Maybe it's not going to be as bad as the increase in taxes that our

government is looking at converting, who knows; but certainly to just sit back

and say okay, Ottawa, we'll do as you say, Ottawa, no matter how much it damages

us, Ottawa, I think that's wrong. We need a government that is willing to stand

up to Ottawa and to fight for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

When

this third budget came down on March 27, this year's big story that was in the

government messaging is that it's steady as she goes. No big layoffs and a very,

very, very minute bit of tax relief, which we are going to start seeing in

January of next year.

So the

Liberal message was basically relax, everything is in good hands. We have to ask

the question, Mr. Speaker, it's our responsibility as the Opposition and it's

our responsibility as each and every citizen living here in Newfoundland and

Labrador to question them. They're telling us to relax, everything is in good

hands and we have to question: Is that really true? Was this the budget that our

province needs, The Way Forward , or

was it really a step backwards in the wrong direction?

Mr.

Speaker, some people are going to say wait a minute, you're a PC, how can we

trust a PC to have a fair, unbiased assessment of a Liberal budget. They're your

political opponents. That's what some people will say. I hear it from Members

opposite – fair statement, but it is our job in Opposition to hold the

government to account, and we are doing that.

AN HON. MEMBER:

We like our job.

MS. PERRY:

We like our job, indeed we

do. We really like our job, Mr. Speaker.

We're

only seven in our crew and three to make up 10 in Opposition, and I think we're

doing an absolutely good job in terms of holding government accountable for the

decisions that they make, and raising the questions that the people of our

province want raised. We're going to continue to do that on their behalf and

we're going to continue to get stronger in that regard.

It's our

job to raise the concerns honestly, with integrity and based on solid evidence.

That's the only way that we're going to earn the trust of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess this side of the House is truly an

alternative for the province to get back on track. We really think that when

2019 comes, the people of this province are going to have the opportunity to

make a decision for better leadership.

I am

running of time here this morning, so I'm going to take my seat shortly. Again,

where this is a budget speech and we do have the opportunity during a budget

speech to speak about any issue whatsoever, there are no limitations and no

restrictions on relevance, Mr. Speaker, I do want to end today by talking about

the PC Leadership Convention and to throw a bouquet out to two fine gentlemen

who have had the courage to put themselves forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

To put themselves forward to

lead, as options for leadership for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Each and every person –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

– who put themselves forward

for politics, I think – and I was a regular citizen like everybody else, Mr.

Speaker, and I had my opinions of politicians. And now that I'm here in this

hon. House, my eyes are much wider open than they used to be, and I have a much

greater understanding.

People

who are willing to make the sacrifices to really try and improve the greater

good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should all be commended. I

truly believe that and I truly believe that we have two phenomenal individuals

who have put themselves forward to lead the Progressive Conservatives and

present us as a viable option –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

– in 2029 election, so hats

off to all of them, hats off to every politician for trying. We have to continue

to try, Mr. Speaker, to make this a better place. We owe it to our children, we

owe it to our grandchildren, we owe it to all the fine men and women, the

seniors, everybody in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to truly try

and make this place a better place and, in fact, the best place that it can

possibly be.

Mr.

Speaker, we do have the resources. We're nowhere near bankruptcy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

If you look at our balance

sheet and you weigh our assets against our liabilities, we're nowhere near

bankruptcy. Such fear mongering, I'm glad they finally stopped it. This province

has potential. We're well on our way, 2019 is around the corner, budget 2020 can

be much better than what we're seeing produced.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of non-confidence, the budget

amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Division.

MR. SPEAKER:

Division has been called.

Whips

and House Leaders, please call in your Members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion of non-confidence, the budget amendment?

All

those in favour, please stand.

CLERK:

Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Brazil,

Ms. Perry, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael, Mr. Lane.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against the motion,

please rise.

CLERK:

Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.

Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Kirby, Mr.

Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Letto,

Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Ms. Haley, Mr. Derek Bennett, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.

Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons and Mr.

Holloway.

Mr.

Speaker, the ayes: eight; and the nays: 25.

MR. SPEAKER:

In my opinion, the nays have

it.

The

budget motion is defeated.

We will

now return to the main debate on the main budget.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to get up once again and speak on the budget. It's always good to stand

in your place in this House and speak about the various aspects of the budget. I

guess various aspects of everything that's affecting each one of us in our daily

lives, which pretty well starts in this House and spreads out.

I'm not

going to be belabour it, but I have to go back to one issue. I spoke about it in

my other two times up and I just wanted to quickly point it out again. I've

asked numerous times in the House for the roads – I go back to the roads. I know

Members opposite they'll – I made the comment to take politics out of paving and

I've yet to see that happen. I'm waiting – hopefully, I will see that eventually

but right now, to date, I haven't.

I want

to be on record one more time. I know I'll have other times, probably, but this

is my third speaking on this budget, I have to say I think it's incumbent upon

the government and Minister of Transportation and Works to provide that

comprehensive list to the people of the province because it's only right. It's

something that they promised that they'd provide comprehensive scores of all

roads in the province, where you landed; people would know when the road is

going to be paved.

It's

something that was promised. It's something I'll keep asking for and I'm being

on record here again today of asking for it once more. I look forward to,

possibly, one of these days, or one of these days soon, that information will be

provided. We'll keep asking, Mr. Speaker. It's our job to do that and I'm

looking forward to finally hearing something on it.

The next

issue I'd like to discuss is something that I've asked a lot of questions in

this House about and that's carbon pricing. We ask questions. I understand

there's a plan in the works that the minister refers to, and that's fine. It's

supposedly this federal tax and that's fine, but I've said before and I'll say

it again, we're elected in this province to represent the people of this

province. I feel strongly, and our caucus and our party feel strongly, that

another tax is the last thing the people in this province need.

saying that, and I've spoken a lot, there have been a lot of conversations about

it and I've spoken out a lot on it. I think the bigger piece that not a lot of

people are talking about, is the dynamics that are happening across the country

with carbon pricing. You have Ontario, which we all know the power Ontario has

in the federal government – it's huge. You have a person right now, the Leader

of the Official Opposition up there, Mr. Ford, who's very outspoken on the

carbon pricing. He's going against it.

doesn't take a genius to figure out the dynamics of what's happening there. He's

going to garner support within most of Ontario, people who live in Ontario,

because they don't want extra costs. They don't want extra prices put on them.

Right now, he's well out in front, and the way things look anything is possible.

If he is successful in June, that's going to throw a big wrench into the Prime

Minister and the federal government's plan for carbon pricing.

I think

you can go ahead, and the Prime Minister can forge ahead and Minister McKenna,

they can go ahead with the carbon tax plan, but not having Ontario on your side,

well caution to the wind. It's something that I think is going to cause them to

have to reconsider their full plan, because I think it's a non-starter. If you

haven't got the bread and butter of being elected Prime Minister of this

country, if you don't have Ontario you don't get elected, and we've seen that

over and over again. They carry an awful lot of weight in the federal

Legislature.

When we

talk about carbon pricing, we can play on it all we want, and we can go back and

forth. That's part of what we do here in this House, go back and forth on lots

of issues. I really feel this strongly, I think a lot of people are not really

registering fully – I think it's getting out there, because the more we talk

about it I think is better, it's a good conversation – how it affects them.

There's still, and there has always been that perceived notion.

When you

talk about emissions, you talk about carbon pricing, you see these big polluters

but you don't see the family at the supermarket buying groceries off the shelf

paying more. You look at the stacks, you look at – around here we look at Come

By Chance, we look at Holyrood. We don't look at the day-to-day stuff.

Like, we

don't look at the person who's going to the funeral home paying for a cremation.

There's an actual fee built into that based on carbon pricing. That's not fear

mongering, that's true. That has actually happened.

I've

said it before, I think I said it in this House, it happened in Alberta. The

cremation at funeral parlours were actually putting a line item there on the

bill when people had cremations done. It caused a huge uproar, and it's no

longer there. It's still there, but it's not there in a line item. People found

it very insulting, and there was a big outcry over it.

Again,

I've spoken to people in Alberta who've told me some stories. They are presently

under carbon pricing, and it is mixed reviews. I think out there as well, with

the political climate out there, it looks very much like the Conservative Party,

whatever they have themselves called now in Alberta under Jason Kenney. They

look like they may very well take over in the next general election out there.

Another person who's against the carbon pricing.

You can

park Newfoundland and Labrador where we are with our seven seats and our

influence federally and nationally on the scene. You can't deny the power of

these big provinces and the weight they carry around the federal table. They're

not in favour of this. Saskatchewan is another one to throw in there. They're

already out there against it.

Carbon

pricing is far from a done deal if you ask me, Mr. Speaker. I think there are a

lot more shoes to fall on this issue but it's the issue of how it affects the

day-to-day lives of every person in this province. That's never been relayed.

It's just like a bogeyman, the word carbon pricing is there but no one really

grasps on to what carbon pricing really means.

sounds great. We're reducing emissions. We're protecting the environment. No one

on this side is against that. No one on this side is against climate change and

doing stuff to improve it. We just don't feel a tax is the answer. Punishing

people because there are emissions or they're being considered polluters. I've

heard people say the polluter pays. A lot of polluters in this province, if you

want to call every man, woman and child in this province, can't afford to pay.

They're at the max of paying now.

There

are ways we can deal with carbon emissions. There are lots of things we can do.

Do we have to tax people more? I don't think so.

I use

this example. If you have a furnace in your home, you burn furnace fuel. So

you're burning fossil fuel, your chimney is creating emissions. The polluter

pays. Is that going to stop me? Is that going to make me go into a $20,000

investment to get rid of that and probably bring in another heating source in my

home because you're going to charge me an extra three or four cents on my

furnace oil as a punitive measure to carbon pricing? No, because the upfront

cost to replace that is just too much, and most families won't. They'll suck it

up.

You had

this gas tax that was brought in in the 2016 budget. People complained about it.

It hurt people and it hurt the economy. People still never got electric cars.

They still never carpooled. That's not the way our population is designed and

the dynamics of the way our communities are. They still drove. They paid the

extra cost and it affected other things, other purchasing power.

Carbon

tax will have the same effect on people, Mr. Speaker. It's not going to change

their behaviour. That's not the answer, but it will hurt the economy and it will

hurt individuals. All the while, where does this money go? You hear of these new

innovative, creative ways that you can bring it into innovation to help reduce

emissions. Provinces will get this money back.

That all

sounds fine in theory, Mr. Speaker, but I personally think, at the end of the

day, that may be all right for a short period of time. I think at the end of the

day, you're going to see it going into general revenues. It will be just like

any other tax. They have the GST. As people will remember, that came in. A tax

is a tax.

They say

the first tax came in to pay for the war a long time ago. We know how long ago

the war was and we know how long taxes have been around. That was a temporary

measure to pay for the war and we're still paying it.

I feel

the reasoning given for a tax – I'm not talking about emissions and I'm not

talking about climate change. The reason given – this doesn't answer the

question. Taxing is not the answer to this, Mr. Speaker. I think there is lots

of research, there are a lot more things we could do to deal with this issue.

Taxing is not the answer.

We feel

strongly about it and I think that a lot of people – the more you speak about

this, I find, the more that it's brought out in the public domain, the more

people start paying attention to it.

I'll go

back again. I love talking to the common people because I feel that's where we

all need to be. As recently as last week, people are starting to ask questions

about carbon pricing. What does it mean? I heard you speak about this, or I read

this or I read that. What does it mean?

I'm not

for one second saying: That crowd, the government over there, they're doing

wrong. I'm not saying anyone is doing wrong. I don't think this is the right

answer.

understand carbon pricing. I understand petroleum emissions. I understand our

climate change. I understand all of that, and I'm in support of most of it. I

just don't feel this is the answer to our problems. When you talk to most

people, they get it. They agree, too. Most people cannot afford more taxes.

That's what it comes done to. It's another tax. Any way you cut it, it's another

tax.

You take

the four cents, as the minister referenced the other day, taking the four cents

off gas. That's good, but there's still going to be another cost come in.

Whatever way that's manoeuvered into our system, that's still going to be

another cost, Mr. Speaker, and people have to absorb it. Right now, I feel that

people are pretty much at their limit of taxation in this province. I don't know

if many people in this House can disagree with that.

It was

brought in in 2016 and we're in 2018 and it's still there. So we may very well

go – maybe next year during the election you might see some adjustments made. I

somehow doubt it, but you never know. That seems to happen in those years. I'm

not sure people will pay much attention then, though, Mr. Speaker.

Another

issue I'd like to mention is something we haven't talked about in a while now.

It's kind of coming to the end of the school year but I think it's still a very

valid argument and it's one that's going to resurface in September. Most people

are winding down now, but it's the 1.6 kilometre policy. That issue, we brought

it up here in the House through Question Period, through PMR and what have you.

I met with a lot of parents in my district. They had their own organized

protests. I met with school councils. I presented numerous petitions as my

colleagues have done the same. This policy has been around forever. Our family

models have changed; our communities have changed. No longer are we living in

those little, sleepy communities where a scattered vehicle would pass by and

children were used to walking long distances. Society was different then, Mr.

Speaker.

I used

to walk two or three miles to get to my school, elementary school, but that was

accepted. There was no such thing as bus coming to pick us up. I don't think the

bus could get in where I lived to actually turn around. It's the way we all

lived, but in today's day and age – I have children in my district who actually

walk to and from school and they're walking on Route 60. That's a four-lane

highway. It's up to 20,000 vehicles a day, as I've said in this House many

times. It's not safe.

I have

schools that are right on that road; they're on that four-lane highway. Under

this policy, they have to walk to school. Again, the school district will say

it's not a walk zone, but if you have no other choice it becomes a walk zone.

You have a single mother who has no vehicle, living on her own with a small

child at home, another child is in elementary, grade one – primary, I should

say. These are the most vulnerable people.

I've

argued to this for elementary students. You're looking at five- to 11-year-olds;

they are your most vulnerable. When you get into the high school, junior high

and high school, busing is never usually an issue there because it's a different

culture. They get in high school, a lot of them drive, they get rides, they

don't mind walking and they can walk the roads. They walked the roads when they

were hanging out with their friends. It's a different society; not when you're

looking at your most vulnerable. Your five- to 11-year-olds are the most

vulnerable and that's who I've spoken out for, because one life is too many.

After

all the debate that we go on about here in this House, it's unimaginable. I

wouldn't want to think about that but the reality is there are some people who

really struggle. They can't bring their child to school. They are home, they

have a small child home, they have no way of getting – there's a real stress

placed on them. People try to help them out and whatnot, but I've seen it

first-hand and I know my colleagues have as well. This puts people in a real

predicament. This really affects people.

The

costs have always been thrown out. There's a cost. It's a lot of money, Millions

of dollars for this and millions for that, but I don't think you can be accused

of wasting money on our youth, on our children, for their safety. Safety has to

be paramount. Policy cannot override safety, Mr. Speaker. I've said it here in

this House many, many times and no one will be critical of any government that

brings in a policy or makes changes to an archaic policy that's going to protect

our youth and our most innocent. It amazes me, to be honest. I've often thought

government would be applauded for it. They would be absolutely applauded it.

Sure, it's going to cost money but the money is found for lots of other things.

I think money could be found for something like this. This is too important to

place a dollar figure on, Mr. Speaker.

It's

something that we will continue to lobby for in this House and even outside this

House. It's too important an issue for us just to give up on. I know we're

pushing the end of April and the school year is coming to an end, but rest

assured come September when the new bus routes get out and new children start in

school, I'll be dealing with a lot more parents again. It's a ritual every year.

understand their points loud and clear. I will continue to advocate for them

because it's something I strongly believe in. It's something that's very

important to me, not just as an individual, as a parent, not only as a Member

for the district but it's a huge issue. I think a lot of us face it around here.

The Northeast Avalon is a growing area, the family models change and our

roadwork and our population has changed.

Mr.

Speaker, as my time is starting to wind down, I'd like to just make a couple of

reference points. I don't actually talk about this topic that much and for no

reason other than I try to zero in on some real stuff that really affects my

district and my critic roles.

listened intently and I hear a lot of commentary that comes across the way every

time it comes up, the response, a lot of times, to questions I may ask or stuff

I may say. I always hear Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls. Muskrat

Falls is here. It's soon going to be completed. It's going to be online next

year.

The

critics are out there, there are proponents and critics. That's all fine. The

debate, sure, will be out on that and we have an inquiry coming, all that is

going to happen and that will run its course. I can't help but think when I sit

down and I start listening there's so much politics being played with such an

important project, important issue to the people of this province.

The

power rates are going to double; you heard that over and over again. Not so much

lately but now people are starting to realize are they really going to double or

is that the reason they're going to double. Then you're going to find a

government that's going to come in when it comes online: Oh, we saved the day,

the rates didn't double.

That

stuff causes fear amongst people. I don't know, I personally think there are

mitigating factors to preventing that from doubling. There are others built into

this project that could – I don't think the rates will double. I personally

don't think it. They shouldn't. All of the rhetoric sometimes moves away from

the bigger picture.

I've

said this many times and I'll be on record here again today, I know a lot of

those people, the previous people that were involved in the inner workings of

this project and had a lot of say in it. A lot of them are pretty credible

people. They will say it and I believe every time they say it, I fully believe

them, their decision was based on the best available information. Given that

same information today, those same people would make the same decision. I think

anyone in this chamber probably would agree and do the same thing, based on the

information you have before you.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Is it a bad project? I'm not sure; I'm still not

convinced it is a bad project. I think that the media, the beaten up this has

taken publicly it's amazing that some people still think that the project is a

good project. It will make us 98 per cent green energy. It has created thousands

and thousands and thousands of jobs. I mean, there are a lot of jobs being

created; good-paying jobs that when this project is up and running next year, a

lot of those jobs are not going to be there. There's going to be a void there in

our economy and in our tax base.

It's not

all bad, Mr. Speaker, and people can be critical and that's fine and that's what

this is all about. That's why I bring up this Muskrat Falls debate because it's

something that I don't talk a lot about, but I do feel that there's more

politics being played with this and it's a real punchline than really the true

project. I think this inquiry will shed better light on the project and on the

decisions that were made and, hopefully, that will elevate those, I guess a lot

of falsehoods and misdemeanors that are out in the community, out in society

now. People will understand this project. They'll get a clearer picture of how

this came to be and what decisions were made.

Right

now, there's a lot of rhetoric and, really, there's not a lot of substance to a

lot of the commentary. I guess that's it, that's the world we live in and

sometimes a lot of stuff happens through partisan politics sometimes and trying

to get one up on people.

My final

part there, Mr. Speaker, the economic indicators. So when the budget is

released, every economic indicator is pointing down. A lot of that is a result

of 2016. Those effects are really starting to come home. When we spoke about the

2016 budget in this House, I remember speaking about it – a lot of the effects

in 2016, I said here myself, you wouldn't see them until 2017, maybe even 2018.

Some were immediate; some were more long term.

You look

at all of these economic indicators, whether it be your household incomes, your

domestic product, your retail sales, they're all trending downward. It's in

their own documents –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

It's in their own documents

and I think that pretty well sums up the 2018 budget, I just think it's a

variation of 2016.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

Thank

you.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Burin

- Grand Bank.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always

welcome an opportunity to address Members on both sides of this hon. House. It's

been more than two years since I was elected to represent the wonderful people

in the beautiful District of Burin - Grand Bank. It's been an interesting two

years, to say the least.

During

those first two years serving as Government Whip, I learned very quickly most of

the intricacies of how this hon. House works, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier,

once again, for giving me that opportunity, as I do for the new role he has

entrusted me. I knew before taking on the role as parliamentary secretary to the

Minister of Health and Community Services that this was a large and complex

department, but I didn't realize just how large and complex until I actually

started in the role, Mr. Speaker.

I've

been in that position now since last summer, since last August and with every

day that passes, I have a deeper appreciation for the men and women who make our

health care system work. I have a deep, deep appreciation and much respect for

the Minister of Health and Community Services. Oftentimes, in fact, I refer to

him as a walking library, a very knowledgeable individual.

If I've

learned anything about this department, Mr. Speaker, over the last several

months it's this: The Department of Health and Community Services is staffed

with hard-working and dedicated individuals. The health boards, agencies and

various interest groups throughout the province are equally staffed with

hard-working and dedicated individuals, many of them volunteers, Mr. Speaker.

The department and the boards and agencies with which it works and collaborates

are interested, first and foremost, in the health and well-being of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It has

been my pleasure to represent the minister at several health-related events, Mr.

Speaker. Everywhere I have gone, I have been greeted openly and warmly, and have

been struck by the high degree of professionalism in which the issues are

handled. Mr. Speaker, I am also struck by the dedication of the many volunteers

who are part of health boards or involved with the various advocacy groups.

Their work truly makes a difference in the lives of practically every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and I thank them for all that they do.

My new

role has given me an opportunity to do more than represent the minister when

he's not available, Mr. Speaker. As is widely known, the Burin Peninsula has

been facing a crisis that has brought much grief and despair to many families –

many families in my district. With the alarming number of suicides over the past

couple of years, it was critical that something be done. I was very pleased to

be able to work with the stakeholders in looking for answers.

It was a

good day on the Burin Peninsula when the Premier, along with the Minister of

Health and Community Services as well as the CEO and officials with Eastern

Health, travelled to the Burin Peninsula in January and announced the province

will be implementing a new Roots of Hope program, becoming the first province in

Canada, in the country, Mr. Speaker, to sign on this new national initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

I am confident the new

program will offer those suffering with mental health issues hope and a pathway

to a better future.

course, Health and Community Services is just one of the many departments,

boards and agencies that are staffed by dedicated individuals. I think I've

dealt with practically every department and many of the boards and agencies

since being elected. Every time I have approached the department, I have

received prompt and professional service. Of course, I could say the same thing

about the ministers leading those departments. So it's nice to lead by example,

Mr. Speaker. Ministers have busy lives and I am grateful for their willingness

to listen to my concerns when they come up and get back to me in a timely

manner.

It goes

without saying that as the Member for the District of Burin - Grand Bank, issues

related to the district will always be a priority for me. I believe all

assembled would agree that we assumed government at a time of economic decline

in this province. We have committed ourselves to the task for rebuilding our

economy and I believe we are well on the road in doing that.

I can

certainly speak for what is happening on the Burin Peninsula, after a period of

economic woes, the area I share with the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue is

finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. There is a general feeling of

positivity on the Burin Peninsula right now.

For some

years now, Mr. Speaker, the residents of St. Lawrence and the surrounding towns

have been waiting for the revival of the mining industry in the area. When I

became elected, it was certainly a priority of mine. After months of

negotiations and hard work, we were finally able to broker a deal that was not

just good for Canada Fluorspar Inc., but a deal that took into account our

fiscal situation and was ultimately good for the province as well.

I, along

with the Premier, and several other Members of our caucus, recently visited the

site and everyone was tremendously impressed by the magnitude of the operation

there. I am happy to report the construction phase at the faculty is complete

and soon Fluorspar concentrate will once again be leaving for markets around the

world. A shot in the arm for St. Lawrence, a shot in the arm for the Burin

Peninsula and a shot in the arm for the whole province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

Mr. Speaker, since becoming

elected, I have also concluded a new deal with Ocean Choice International that

will see the company operate the plant in Fortune for four more years, with an

agreement widely supported by the workers at the plant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

The Husky oil project that

was announced last year will see work carried out at the Cow Head facility in

Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER:

In Marystown.

MS. HALEY:

In Marystown yes, while work

continues on finding a new operator for the shipyard.

We have

a trained and skilled workforce on the Burin Peninsula. Give it to us to build

and we will build it, and build it as well as any workforce in any part of this

world, Mr. Speaker.

Despite

developments last summer, I am confident the Grieg sea farms project will soon

become a reality – a project which has a potential to bring many jobs to

Placentia Bay and the Burin Peninsula; a project that has the potential to

impact people in every town in the area, Mr. Speaker.

There is

no hiding the fact that we need to create jobs in this province, but we need to

be mindful of environmental impacts as well. I am confident this is a project

that can provide those much-needed jobs, Mr. Speaker, and do so in an

environmentally responsible way.

We are

also looking at an opportunity that is just now cropping up, Mr. Speaker. I use

cropping up both figuratively and literally in referencing new entrants who are

working hard on proposals to allow them to participate in the growing and

marketing of cannabis for the recreation market.

Mr.

Speaker, I am hopeful that the former fish plant in Burin will soon be the site

to which employees again head to earn an honest and good living for their

families. I have been working along with the town and an eager entrepreneur to

make this new project a reality. Hopefully, this new venture will become a

reality in the very near future.

It's an

exciting time for the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, with the initiatives I just

outlined, but there are many other opportunities as well. It seems every region

of Newfoundland and Labrador has something unique to offer, and the Burin

Peninsula certainly has uniqueness in abundance and seldom does a tourist visit

our area and leave disappointed.

I'm very

pleased that the minister responsible for Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation has been able to visit us on several occasions now, Mr. Speaker. He's

very aware of the tourism potential for the peninsula as a whole, and I believe

I am correct in saying he is quite impressed with the work that has been done

thus far.

There is

no better example than the beautiful Town of Lourdes Cove, Mr. Speaker. In the

summer of 2016, he visited Sandy Cove and we supported the efforts of the Town

of Lourdes Cove to develop the area. Development in that area is ongoing and I

know I speak for the minister when I say the work that has been completed to

this point is quite impressive.

We were

told last summer there were tourists throughout North America at Sandy Cove and

there was nothing but positive feedback.

As I did

mention, our government did give some financial support for the Sandy Cove

project, Mr. Speaker. Of course, there are those out there who would balk at

such support, as looked at as being a waste of money. However, the reality is

because of that increased tourism, an enterprising couple opened a combination

convenience store, café and a bar, all under the one roof in Lord's Cove, Mr.

Speaker, and have done extremely well since opening.

This has

been more than a convenience for tourists, Mr. Speaker. Prior to this business

taking root, the residents there had to travel to another town to even buy the

most basic items. The Town of Lord's Cove didn't have a single convenience

store, Mr. Speaker, not one single store. In addition to offering a convenience

for locals, during the tourist season this enterprise also employs four or five

people from the area who are now contributing to the economy of the province. In

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, every single job counts.

I will

continue to support such developments, as will this government, because we

recognize the need to diversify the economy. That will happen through large

projects, medium-sized projects and through small ventures like the one I just

referenced.

Sandy

Cove is just one place for visitors to explore on the Burin Peninsula. Every

nook and cranny has a hidden gem or two. If natural beauty is your thing,

Fortune Bay East is sure to leave you in awe, as is Burin and the surrounding

inlets and coves. A treasure throve of scenery for the budding photographer, Mr.

Speaker.

If you

are into history, we have lots of that to offer as well with the Heritage Run,

Mr. Speaker. It's an area that was long desired as a base for fishing by several

European nations, Portugal, France and England. Place names play homage to that

rich French past, Mr. Speaker. Some obvious, like Bay L'Argent, Port au Bras and

Jacques Fontaine, some less obvious like Lawn and Lamaline. Then there's Fortune

which takes its name from the Portuguese, but our history can be seen in more

than road signs, Mr. Speaker.

Grand

Bank is home to an array of sights which harken back to its seafaring past

during the bygone days of schooners. There you'll find a seamen's museum laden

with artifacts related to all aspects of working at sea. There's a stunning and

moving memorial to lost sailors. Located on the grounds of the restored Harris

House, you'll find a café that in itself is a mini museum, Mr. Speaker, and

houses that are still topped with a widow's walk, a stark reminder of the

dangers of the fishing industry.

For

those who don't know, the widow's walk harkens back to the day of the schooner

fishery, Mr. Speaker, when communication between vessels and shore were almost

non-existent. The widow's walk was a small platform, accessible from the inside,

but on the very roof of the house. With the husband at sea, and at a time

approaching the anticipated return of the vessel on which he served, it was

there that the woman would go in anticipation of seeing the vessel approach the

harbour, and in dread of seeing the black flag that indicated the loss of life

during the voyage.

Mr.

Speaker, St. Lawrence offers a miners museum that pays tribute to the fluorspar

miners of St. Lawrence, many of whom died due to accidents in the underground

mines, or years later due to lung disease resulting from poor ventilation and

airborne contaminants.

The

museum also has an exhibit commemorating the USS

Truxtun and USS Pollux disaster,

Mr. Speaker. For those who are interested in the events that unfolded in the

area on February 18, 1942, there is always someone on hand to narrate the tale

of tragedy and heroism that is still commemorated every year in both St.

Lawrence and Lawn. If you want a true feel for the area where that disaster

occurred, you can now access the trail to Chambers Cove, where the USS

Truxtun ran aground.

Well, a

volunteer group, in fact, Mr. Speaker, in Lawn is busy raising funds for the

construction of a trail to Little Lawn Point, very near the sunkers where the

USS Pollux was lost. Of course, if

you're a culture buff, you'll find your share of uniqueness in that field on the

Burin Peninsula.

Some

mistakenly think that all of the nuances of our culture are as a result of our

proximity to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The interaction between

those French islands and the Burin Peninsula cannot be overstated. For the last

two centuries we have been interacting with the people of the islands sharing

ideas and customs.

During

the summer you are almost as likely to see a vehicle with a St. Pierre and

Miquelon licence plate on it as you would of our very own province. The ties

have been strong for generations, with many families, including my own, Mr.

Speaker, having relatives on the French islands. Many of the family names in

places like Point May and Lamaline are also a reminder of this link. However,

some of that for which we are known had little to do with St. Pierre and

Miquelon, rather it was a result of our seafarers heading via trading schooners

to the ports of the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean Sea.

Soccer,

or football as it's known by our other residents even today, was discovered

during voyages that was brought to the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. Not so long

ago, practic