PDF Version

May

20, 2015

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 17

The

House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I am

pleased to welcome today to the public gallery Mr. Rajesh Sharma, CEO of Tata

Steel Minerals Canada and Vice-President of Operations, Praveen Jha.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As well as Cathy Dornan,

Chief Resident Executive.

Welcome

to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I am also very pleased today

to welcome to the Speaker's gallery: Ava Shibler, or shall I say Premier Ava

Shibler. She is a Grade 1, Topsail

Elementary, student who is Premier for a Day.

She is here today along with her dad, Eric.

Welcome

Premier Shibler.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before beginning proceedings

for the day, I have to make a ruling on a point of privilege that was raised on

May 14 by the Member for Terra Nova.

Hansard and the video recording of the exchanges giving rise to this question of

privilege have been reviewed.

Before

proceeding, I must state that I do have great concern with respect to the level

of provocation and unruliness that seems to have arisen in our debates in this

House, but first I will address the question of privilege.

The

issue was raised because of comments made by the Member for the Bay of Islands

to the Member for Terra Nova suggesting that the Member for Terra Nova and I

quote from Hansard do some preaching or go back to church .

The

Member for Terra Nova raised a point of order on this issue earlier in the

debate. The Chair found that there

was no point of order.

O'Brien

and Bosc, page 637, states, A Member may not.raise a matter as a question of

privilege after the Speaker has ruled that it was not a point of order.

Consequently, I wish to rule there is no prima facie question of privilege and

that under these circumstances the Member for Terra Nova is not able to raise

the matter as such, given that the same matter had already been ruled upon.

However,

I would like to give further comment.

This debate arose as a result of personalized comments being directed in

this House at other members.

This

Speaker and the Chairs will not tolerate language that is personalized,

provocative or likely to give rise to disruption and disorder in the House.

During debate, comments to the opposite side of the House as a collective

group may be quite acceptable, but this does not hold true when the same

comments are directed at individual members.

O'Brien and Bosc on page 618 states, Personal attacks are not in

order.

The

Speaker of our own House ruled on this November 13, 1991, and found at page 2486

of Hansard, If these words were used in the governmental or the opposition

sense, in the collective sense, then they are not unparliamentary.

But if such words were used in the individual sense, then they are

clearly unparliamentary.

I remind

all members of this House debate is not to be personalized, not to be directed

to individual members of the House.

As stated by the Speaker of the House of Commons on December 9, 1980, in

Debates, page 5534, and I quote, the characteristics of Parliamentary language

are good temper and moderation.

Also, as

was stated in this House yesterday, O'Brien and Bosc states at page 618, the

use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly

forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and

obscenities are not in order. I

further quote, The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing

tradition of respect .

We come

to this House to debate important issues; we must adhere to our parliamentary

expectations and traditions and conduct ourselves with respect for each member

and for the process.

In the

future, I would like to let all members know in advance, if the Speaker

determines that a member is engaging in debate that is unparliamentary, then the

Speaker will rise and ask the member to withdraw his or her comments.

If the member refuses, then we will follow the procedure outlined in our

Standing Orders and the member will be escorted out of the Chamber by the

Sergeant at Arms.

However,

if the member does withdraw, but then continues to engage in debate that is

provocative or personal, then the Speaker will rise again, request that the

member withdraw his or her comments; however, at that time, the member will not

be recognized to continue speaking.

Thank

you very much.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear members'

statements from the members representing the Districts of Port de Grave,

Labrador West, Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, The Straits White Bay North, St.

John's Centre, and Port au Port.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN:

Thank you.

goat this! Today I salute

Ascension Collegiate for their Free the Children initiatives We Act and We

Day. Free the Children is an

organization with a goal to empower a generation to shift the world from me to

we, from a focus on the individual to the power of community in this case, the

school community.

Through

Free the Children and We Day, students were challenged to take one local and one

global action to better the world.

Thus, the Ready, Set, Goat Campaign to raise funds to send goats to families in

Sierra Leone. From May 11-15 all

organized groups in the school, sports teams, clubs, and independent groups were

challenged to raise funds for this initiative.

There

are huge gains to getting a goat for a family.

Goats produce sixteen cups of milk daily which can be sold or used to

supplement students' meals and provide much needed protein.

Goats can be bred to help pay for school fees, vaccinations, and other

life-changing essentials. One goat

can change a child's life and a community's potential.

Through

the Ready, Set, Goat Campaign more than sixty goats will be purchased and over

$3,000 raised to support Free the Children.

Ascension Collegiate, you goat this!

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

in this hon. House today to congratulate the many local businesses that came

together to support the Labrador West Food Bank.

Scott Pynn, owner and operator of a local business in Labrador West,

challenged his Facebook followers to donate money or food goods to have their

name put in for a gift certificate draw valued at $500 from his business.

The

local food bank has been hit hard with a spike in clients due to the economic

downturn in the area. The challenge

quickly snowballed into a business community-wide food drive in Labrador West.

Prizes and gift certificates are pouring in.

The

initial plan was to run the food drive until the end of the summer and then have

the draw, but with so many generous gift donations from local businesses there

is now enough to have weekly draws.

Every dollar donated and every food item donated earns a ballot for the draw of

prizes.

In a

time when Labrador businesses are being hit hard by the downturn, they still dig

deep and help others. Kindness has a

domino effect. All it takes is one

person to start it.

I ask

all hon. members to join me in congratulating the businesses of Labrador West on

this huge act of kindness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

They say

grammar and spelling are arts lost to our younger generation.

Anyone who thinks that should meet Greta Warner, a Grade 6 student at

Bishop Feild School in my district.

On Saturday, Greta leaves for an unforgettable trip as the winner of the 2015

Telegram Spelling Bee, she will represent this Province at the fabled Scripps

National Spelling Bee.

The

eleven-year-old has worked all year, practising words with her mother, Rochelle

Baker, and her father, Patrick Warner.

She is proof that hard work yields results.

In last year's bee, she heard the dreaded ding from the judges on her

first word. This year, she won the

competition held, I must mention, also in Signal Hill Quidi Vidi at the Holy

Heart Auditorium.

Greta

will travel to Washington, meet 284 other like-minded students from eight

countries, and enjoy all the excitement of the spelling bee at the Gaylord

National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbour, Maryland.

Hopefully, she will also get to explore Washington a bit with her

parents.

I ask

all members of this House to congratulate Greta Warner, 2015 Telegram Spelling

Bee champion for Newfoundland and Labrador, and to wish her well on her voyage

next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, Grade 2 student

Breanna Clarke is an inspiration!

After watching the Janeway Telethon in 2013 at five years old, she had many

questions as to why children were at the Janeway, unable to go home with their

families, and why money was needed.

After getting answers from her parents, Scott and Regina, she wanted to help the

sick kids of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last

year, she started a walk in her hometown of Main Brook with the support of her

parents. Breanna's efforts continued

with additional fundraisers leading up to this past Saturday, when her second

walk began.

Not only

did she raise funds for a very worthwhile cause, she brought together a

community with her efforts. Last

year, only close family members joined but this year she mad more than two dozen

community members, including the RMCP and fire department.

Breanna

was full of smiles and had lots to celebrate since she was able to raise more

than $2,500 this year for the Janeway, and she cannot wait to do it all again.

I ask

all hon. members to congratulate Breanna Clarke for helping out many sick

children in this Province by raising funds for the children's hospital.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

weekend St. John's bids A Brave Farewell to an institution that has developed

thousands of young minds since it opened as a Salvation Army school in 1960.

Booth Memorial welcomed kids from every possible background, and most

city neighbourhoods even outside the city; St. Phillips students were once

bused to Booth.

Booth

had the Province's first infant child care centre so student parents could

continue their studies and graduate.

This was an incredibly brave no pun intended and progressive thing to do

when it opened in 1992. At Booth,

the arts have been nurtured, and the Braves sports teams compete with unmatched

spirit.

This

weekend, the festivities include an arts night on Friday, hosted by my colleague

for Conception Bay South, a former principal of Booth.

On Saturday, the school throws its doors open for tours, a barbecue

lunch, a meet and greet, and much more.

Next

year, the school doors will be closed, the Braves will become Warriors at

Waterford Valley High, but the impact of everything that Booth Memorial meant to

its community will not ever go away.

Bravo to

the teachers, the parents, the students, the staff, and everyone who made this

centre-city high school an extraordinary place to learn.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Port

au Port.

MR. CORNECT:

Mr. Speaker, I had the

privilege and the honour to attend a formal dinner at the Royal Canadian Legion

Branch 35 in Stephenville on April 25 to celebrate the 220 th

anniversary of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment better than the best.

The

Royal Newfoundland Regiment has a rich and renowned history.

The tremendous contributions and enormous sacrifices that have been made

by our servicemen and women have been and continue to be felt all over the world

and should never be forgotten. From

its involvement in the War of 1812 to Cyprus, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and

Afghanistan, members of this regiment have served proudly and courageously in

the name of peace and liberty.

The

Honour 100 program recognizes the contribution of the Royal Newfoundland

Regiment to the freedom of this great Province.

This program endeavours to ensure that future generations remember and

honour the contributions of the regiment during the First World War.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in thanking all uniformed

services that have served, and continue to serve, to protect our way of life,

our values, and the freedoms we enjoy today.

Merci

tous et toutes pour votre contribution et sacrifice.

Merci,

thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to recognize the work of Tata Steel Minerals Canada and their new

mining project in Labrador. I am

delighted that representatives from the company could join us today Rajesh

Sharma, CEO; Praveen Jha, Vice-President of Operations; and Cathy Dornan, Chief

Resident Executive.

Tata

Steel is a Fortune 500 company and one of the top ten steel companies in the

world with over 80,000 employees worldwide.

Tata Steel and Tata Steel Minerals Canada are part of the Tata Group a

global enterprise headquartered in India with operations in more than 100

countries across six continents.

For the

last three years, Tata Steel Minerals Canada has been constructing a new iron

ore mine in Labrador's northern Menihek region which will be fully operational

by late 2015. The high-grade iron

ore will be processed locally before being shipped directly to Tata Steel plants

in Europe.

This

project represents a $1 billion investment in the Labrador Trough and is

employing 500 people in Labrador during the construction phase.

Approximately 300 to 350 people will be employed during long-term

operations currently estimated to last at least fifteen years.

Despite

challenging iron ore markets, Tata Steel Minerals Canada is committed to this

project and to its investment in the Province.

As well, there is potential for the company to further develop resources

in the Labrador Trough through their partner New Millennium Iron.

Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be ranked in the top ten of the

most attractive jurisdictions worldwide for mineral exploration investment in

the Fraser Institute of Canada's International Mining Survey.

Our

Province has a proven record of discovery and we are home to the development of

major world-class deposits. We are

known globally as a mining-friendly competitive jurisdiction with a stable

royalty regime and a fair and streamlined regulatory environment.

The

people working within the iron ore industry of Newfoundland and Labrador are

determined, resilient, and hard working.

I applaud the efforts of Tata Steel Minerals Canada, and of all our

industry partners, in providing such a valuable contribution to our Province.

We will continue to work together to secure a solid future for mining in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today.

I certainly welcome the representatives from Tata Steel here today.

I am pleased that they were able to join us in the House of Assembly.

I also want to congratulate Tata on being very persistent in what has

been a very volatile iron ore market.

This

project has already contributed substantial investment and jobs to the Province

and it stands to generate long-term employment and future benefits for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Tata Group is a very unique company.

It is very philanthropic in its distribution of proceeds throughout the

world. When you look at the

provincial economy and see that all the very important economic indicators are

moving in the wrong direction, it is clear that we need to create the

environment of success for companies like Tata Steel.

We know

that the Canadian iron ore companies are typically in the third to fourth

quartile of cost structure, so it is essential that we make sure that we give

them the competitive advantage to overcome the challenges that they need to

invest here in our Province. This

includes regulatory processes that happen in a timely fashion working in

collaboration so that we can retain the investments of companies like Tata

Steel.

I wish

the company all of the success and their employees for many years of business in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

very pleased to stand with my colleagues in the House and say congratulations to

Tata Steel Minerals Canada for having the vision to invest in Labrador at a time

when low ore prices are causing difficulties for other companies mining iron

ore. I hope more people share Tata's

vision and see the immense benefits of investing in the people of Labrador and

not just taking the ore out, but doing processing there before sending it on.

Placing

their confidence in the people of Labrador and in the long-term prospects for

iron ore is, I think, the right move.

I hope other mining companies sit up and take notice of Tata Steel, and I

wish them well in our Province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Environment and Conservation is partnering with rod

and gun clubs in St. John's and Deer Lake to offer two Youth Hunter Skills

Workshops next month. I am pleased

to rise today in this hon. House to encourage young people to participate in

these sessions which promote safe and responsible involvement in hunting and

trapping and other outdoor activities.

During

these one-day workshops, youth between the ages of twelve and seventeen will

learn important hunting safety techniques for shotgun, rifle, and archery

equipment, along with tips on outdoor safety and survival skills and other

important lessons about wildlife conservation and management.

Mr.

Speaker, participation in hunting and trapping is a very significant part of our

culture and heritage and plays an important role in practical wildlife

conservation and management. The

Stewardship and Education

Section of my department's Wildlife Division is

responsible for administering education awareness programs that foster safe and

responsible use of wildlife resources and the habitat upon which they depend.

Programs include the Canada Firearm Safety/Hunter Education Course,

Trapper Education Course, Bowhunter Education, and other workshops and events

that encourage safe, responsible, and knowledgeable participation while

supporting recruitment and retention of hunters and trappers.

Organizations like local rod and gun clubs are important partners in these

efforts. Through knowledgeable and

experienced members, they help promote awareness about wildlife conservation

throughout the Province and allow the general public to learn and practice

hunting skills in a suitable and safe environment.

Mr.

Speaker, I would ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the members

and volunteers of the St. John's Rod and Gun Club and the Upper Humber Rod and

Gun Club for their efforts and wishing them success during these workshops,

planned for June 6 and 13.

Mr.

Speaker, by teaching our youth safe and responsible hunting and trapping

techniques now, we are ensuring a future generation of safe and responsible

hunters and trappers who respect and appreciate all our Province's natural

heritage has to offer.

For

those interested in learning more, details about how to pre-register will be

made available through the department in the coming days and additional

information about other hunter and trapper education and outreach programs is

currently available on the department's website.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Certainly we should teach our youth these important life skills about

safe hunting and trapping, responsibility, and experience the important part of

our culture, especially the activities that are truly a fabric of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

believe that the government, in supporting these activities though, is not going

far enough when it comes to enabling our youth to put these skills into practice

and building the bonds with adult family members.

We have the highest age restrictions in place for hunters in the country.

Why if you are supporting these initiatives are you not looking at

lowering the big game hunting age from eighteen years of age and small game

hunting to lower, yet firearm safety and hunting education is available at

fourteen years of age?

The

Upper Humber Rod and Gun association is on record saying people who start

hunting at a younger age develop better skills of hunting responsibility and

handling firearms in a safe manner.

The government's regressive regulations are causing residents and families to go

to other provinces and deterring the non-resident hunters from bringing their

youth here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Anglers

and hunters continue to point to government's failure to address the age

restrictions on hunting. I support

them in their cause.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

While visiting heritage fairs I met a number of young people who were

interested in hunting, fishing, and trapping, and it showed in their

presentations. They were proud

because it is what their families have been doing for generations.

They enjoyed learning skills from their parents and grandparents.

This is embracing our culture and our heritage.

It is

great to see these workshops being offered and it is incredibly important to

teach safety. Rifles, shotguns, and

bows are powerful weapons and must be handled properly, responsibly, and with

respect. The Province should

investigate holding mentored hunting programs where youth can learn many of the

techniques for hunting through participating in an actual hunt with a licensed

adult supervisor. To all hunters,

young and old, Mr. Speaker, I recommend wearing blaze orange while hunting.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2012,

government signed a deal with Ocean Choice International allowing the company to

ship out unprocessed fish in exchange for 110 full-time processing jobs at the

Fortune fish plant, but it was confirmed yesterday by the minister that the

plant would not be open. There is

only twenty weeks work planned for this year.

The plant is not open and merely twenty weeks work for this year.

I ask

the Premier: Why are you allowing OCI to not live up to the commitments it made

to this Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact

of the matter is that OCI has lived up to the terms of their agreement.

They have invested heavily in the plant in Fortune, almost $2 million,

Mr. Speaker. Their plan originally

was about $1 million worth of investment.

They have actually made almost $2 million worth of an investment.

They have secured another vessel which is hiring Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. They have lived up to

that obligation as well, Mr. Speaker.

What

they have experienced is smaller fish than what their business plan had allowed

for. A higher percentage of fish was

less than 400 grams than what they had anticipated, Mr. Speaker, and that has

had an impact. We are working with

the operator, we are working with the union and stakeholders, the town, the

people of Fortune as well, to ensure that we keep this plant open and

operational. This year there will be

twenty weeks of work, is what is anticipated right now by OCI, and we are

looking forward to them getting underway in early June, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

reported today in the media that government allowed OCI to ship out at least 1.4

million pounds of additional fish in 2014.

This is in addition to their 2012 agreement.

Since

the Premier is speaking for OCI today, I ask the Premier: Since OCI is breaking

their 2012 commitment to Fortune, why are you allowing them even more

exemptions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the member

opposite does not have to be a little bit coy as he has been here in saying I am

speaking for OCI. He is asking me

the questions. He is asking me all

sorts of government questions, Mr. Speaker, and we will provide him with the

information.

I can

tell you, MPR is a complex business, Mr. Speaker.

MPRs are about providing best value and best opportunity for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It

is an opportunity to work with industry.

It is an opportunity to work with the union that represents harvesters,

that represents plant workers. It is

an opportunity to work with the plant workers themselves, and also towns and

communities that rely heavily on the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Speaker.

Doing

MPRs and working with those industries is providing best value to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is what the fishery is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

challenge the Premier on his comments about doing MPRs.

Remember, this is what he wanted to give away in the CETA agreement.

Right now with the exemptions it creates less work in our plants.

Over one-third of the total approved exemptions in 2014 do not indicate a

specific amount that is allowed to be shipped out.

I ask

the Premier: Why are you not attaching a maximum amount to one-third of your

approved exemptions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

mentioned, MPRs are a complex piece of work that happens between government and

industry stakeholders, Mr. Speaker, in order to provide best value to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I

can tell you we would be quite pleased to offer a technical briefing to members

opposite. We would be quite pleased

to have officials as well provide a technical briefing to members of the media

if they want to understand the complexities of MPRs.

The

agreement in Fortune had nothing to do with cod, Mr. Speaker.

The agreement in Fortune is about yellowtail, a species that is not

popular amongst processors in Newfoundland and Labrador.

They were willing to make investments to find an opportunity to process

yellowtail in Fortune so they can provide jobs for the people of Fortune.

We stand by those people who are looking for those employment

opportunities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the Premier that during the CETA arrangements the MPRs were something that his

own government could not put a value on.

Mr.

Speaker, Humber Valley Paving is in Supreme Court today in relation to a

construction job in Southern Labrador.

This is a separate contract from the one that the government cancelled

the day before the PC leadership race releasing $19 million in bonds.

I ask

the Premier: What is the status of the $1.18 million bond holdback that you

cancelled from the Humber Valley Paving contract?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to note to the House, that money is still in trust the $1.18 million in trust.

We are going through the court process.

We have encouraged people, if they have a mechanics' lien that they feel

relevant to that particular project, to put it through the court system.

We are

assessing every day. Every week my

officials look to the courts to see where we are.

We are going through the process, Mr. Speaker, and as the weeks unfold we

will be getting closer and closer to making some determinations with the court

system.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My mind

reflected back, I think it was to mid-March, March 23, when the minister said he

was working with the court system to identify a process for people who have

legitimate claims against Humber Valley Paving to be reimbursed.

So that was eight weeks ago.

He mentioned back on March 23 that, Over the next couple of weeks, I will have

something to announce in the House of Assembly about the full end of that

process.

I ask

the Premier: It has been over eight weeks, as I said, since this statement; why

haven't you made this announcement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

noted earlier, this is an ongoing process within the court system.

We do not control the time frames within the court system.

What we do is work within the court system to ensure that people do get

their due diligence here and those who have a legitimate claim will be taken

care of.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

are small companies in our Province that has been waiting a long time for

payment from this mechanics' lien holdback.

I ask

the minister: Can you please clarify, stand on your feet and you say it is

coming soon, very soon, in a couple of weeks when can this process be made

public to the people who are owed the money?

They rightfully deserve it.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

have noted before in this House, those who have a legitimate claim against

Humber Valley Paving on that particular contract, this is being assessed through

the court system. Those who have a

legitimate claim, no doubt, will be rectified and they will receive that.

This is

a court process, as the member opposite is aware of.

There is a process that has to be followed.

We hope in the near future this will be rectified and those who have

legitimate claims will indeed be reimbursed.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since

there is an established process that the minister is talking about, will these

small companies that have to go through this court process that the minister

outlined, simply because one of your colleagues, one of your other ministers

cancelled the bonds from Humber Valley will this government now pay for the

court costs of these small companies?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I need

to clarify the process here. There

is a mechanics' lien that is held back on every contract that government signs

with any contractor out there, Mr. Speaker.

That is to protect those sub-contractors who feel that they did indeed

supply a service or a product, but are owed money and have not been paid through

that process. We hold the money in

trust, Mr. Speaker. That is the

legal responsibility we have.

The

court system is the court system. It

is an outlined process where companies go through the court system, through

Small Claims Court, and make their claims.

The courts decide exactly what is owed.

Under that process, we then release the money to the proponents so they

can then pay out to the people who felt and had been ruled that they have a

legitimate claim against that particular contractor.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are

all aware of the ongoing issues in Labrador West.

There are presently over 2,500 outstanding grievances between the union

and IOC waiting to be resolved.

I ask

the Premier: What role is your government playing in resolving those outstanding

grievances with IOC?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know

that the circumstances that are affecting mining globally are impacting

Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

We have seen the impacts of that already in Labrador West.

While some companies, as we heard about earlier today, are continuing to

make investments in Newfoundland and Labrador, we know that there are also

others that are struggling in their own operations, within their own shops, Mr.

Speaker.

We offer

support and services to companies who have conflicts and internal matters that

they want to resolve and want to work together to resolve, Mr. Speaker.

It is no different in Labrador West; we will do it with IOC as well.

We certainly encourage all members of the IOC family, workers, workers'

representatives, and management to make all their best efforts to keep that

operation viable and operating in Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, we understand that the number of grievances that I just mentioned is

continuing to increase in that area.

One option that the union has called for is an industrial inquiry.

I ask

the Premier: What other options have you considered; and, if there are none, are

you reconsidering the call for the industrial inquiry into IOC?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, through the Labour Relations Agency we offer a broad range of services

to support industry, certainly employers, unions, from instances where there are

issues arising between them.

Obviously the first priority is that those are worked out with those partners in

terms of issues that arise.

We do

provide services through the Labour Relations Agency.

We will in this case as well to try to work through these issues.

Again, we certainly encourage them to work through them, but we are there

for support through the Labour Relations Agency.

We will do everything we can.

We know how important the industry is to Labrador, and all the industry of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will continue to work collectively with them

to find solutions.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

Barbe.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, several years

ago government commissioned a report into youth sexual exploitation, yet refuses

to disclose the report. Stakeholders

claim that as many as 100 youth are involved in the local sex trade.

I ask

the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services: Has he read the report; and,

if so, can he confirm that this estimate is generally true?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Attorney

General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, there is very

little I can add to the discussion that the minister already provided to this

House, and the Premier, with regard to the sex exploitation report.

I can only take the member's question and pass it on to the minister and

make an undertaking to give that answer back in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

Barbe.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the question was

to the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services because stakeholders say as

many as 100 youth are involved in the local sex trade.

I ask

the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, not the Attorney General

Child, Youth and Family Services if he has read the report and is it generally

true?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

say to the member, I am very familiar with the report.

I am also familiar with the sensitivities that lie within it.

I think if I were to echo what the Attorney General had just said, in

echoing what the Minister of Justice has said previously, the sensitivities

around that and the reasons for not allowing that information to go out

publicly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

Barbe.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, of the youth

involved in the local sex trade, can the Minister of Child, Youth and Family

Services advise how many of them were once the responsibility of his department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot

give him a number here today. I

would certainly endeavour to look into that and provide any information that I

can.

As I

have said before, quite frankly, any information that I can provide publicly,

either to the public, I will. When

it involves the Child and Youth Advocate, there is a proactive disclosure with

her as well. I have no issue

whatsoever. If I can respond to the

hon. member, I certainly will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

Barbe.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, at sixteen,

youth can sign themselves out of care of Child, Youth and Family Services.

However, government policy will not allow them to sign themselves back

into care if they realize they cannot make it on their own, indifferent to their

plea as government forces them to go it alone.

I ask

the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services: How can you justify leaving

vulnerable youth to live on their own, prey for pimps, drug dealers, and other

hardened criminals who further victimize them?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, it is

unfortunate the member continues down the road of his commentary.

That he adds to it, and gross commentary, if I can say, with regard to

talking about many of our vulnerable youth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS:

If I could finish I would appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I have said quite clearly on a number of occasions how we have actually

enhanced that legislation around Youth Services.

We have extended the age of custody to eighteen recently.

Some of the things we provide because we do, we provide an umbrella of

services to youth.

It is a

voluntary service. However, if they

choose to stay within that service there is an umbrella of services that we are

able to provide, things such as financial management, housing stability, general

life skills, education, and emotional healing, all of which are very important.

We have

come quite a ways with regard to Youth Services in this Province.

I am very proud of the work this government has done, in particular with

regard to the Department of CYFS enhancing that service.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, the Marystown

Shipyard Families Alliance has been in existence for ten years now.

The Alliance is of the belief that family members were exposed to

dangerous chemicals while on the job at the shipyard and ended up diagnosed with

cancer some have died. After

months of lobbying, the previous minister finally promised to meet with the

Alliance, but within two days of agreeing to do so, he resigned from Cabinet.

So I ask

the Minister Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission today: Will he now take up this cause and agree to meet with these

distressed families?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question and being able to provide some clarification.

The member is not aware, I have actually responded to the group on April

15 offering my willingness to meet with the group.

I have invited them to come in and have a chat with me.

I also went on to say, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a level of

politics added to this, and I said to the

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS:

the two ladies involved in

this group, I said, how about yourselves and myself meet?

We will have a very frank discussion.

I want to be able to learn from you folks, hear from you of what your

concerns are, but we do not need to have this shrouded in politics.

That is of course what the member across the way is trying to do.

Just to

reiterate, on April 15 I sent an email.

I have not heard back yet, but I am more than willing to meet with these

individuals and discuss their important concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, I say to the

minister, I am very well aware of that email, and I actually spoke to them

today.

Mr.

Speaker, the Families Alliance tells me that the minister will only meet with

them if they come to St. John's. He

is not prepared to go to Marystown.

If the minister had a fire truck to announce, he would have no problem showing

up in Marystown. These people are

suffering financial hardship.

Travelling to St. John's is a challenge.

So I ask

the minister: Will you reconsider this heartless stance and go and meet with

these grieving families?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

quite clear first off, I should say, if the member was aware I had that email,

I do not know why we are wasting time asking the question if he was aware of

that information. Again, I sent it

out

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS:

If I can finish, please, Mr.

Speaker.

I sent

the information out April 15. I was

very clear, and I said the House of Assembly is open during the week.

I am in St. John's. I would

be more than happy to meet with you.

I would work within your schedules.

I would meet with you in the morning.

I would meet with you within

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. S. COLLINS:

If I can finish, please.

I would

meet with you in the afternoon; I would meet with you in the evening.

Any time that works for you I understand you have to travel in I

would meet with you. Of course, I am

in my district on the weekends.

So I

sent that out. I have had no

response whatsoever. If the group

feels it is necessary to respond to me and propose a different time, perhaps

after the House closes, sometime later in the summer, I would be more than

willing to go to Marystown.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

yesterday stated with confidence that there are 5,500 jobs in the forest sector,

yet government's own 2008 Forest Sector Strategy states total direct employment

at two paper mills and all sawmilling activity was 2,400 people.

Given

that a paper mill closed in 2009, sawmills sit idle, and no new development,

only job losses, will the Minister of Forestry admit his own government numbers

have been wrong for the last six years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, the numbers that

I gave yesterday as I went back with the department officials yesterday and

last evening and confirmed the numbers that I said here in the House of Assembly

were accurate, and I have no problem tabling this document which verifies the

numbers that the member is asking for.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, government's own

forestry strategy states indirect employment for all other industries increase

total I repeat total employment to approximately 3,000.

For six years government has been selling a fairy tale of forestry jobs

and industry growth.

I look

forward to getting that tabled document, but I want the minister to confirm in

this House that this number he has tabled is less than 5,500.

Will the minister admit that forestry has not been the focus and that the

job numbers are just a fantasy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, again, I will

reiterate what I just said, but I had the opportunity on an airplane two weeks

ago to sit with the hon. member and we had a great discussion flying back from

Ottawa because of another meeting.

We had a great conversation about the potential in forestry and fisheries in the

Province.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I will table this information as soon as I sit down, which

verifies the numbers I said in the House yesterday.

Thank

you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Speaker, over five years

ago government commissioned a report on fish harvesters not permitted to sell

their products directly to retailers or consumers.

Our office went to ATIPPA twice for this report, and finally government

was forced to release it.

Not to

pressure you, Mr. Minister, after all it has only been five years, but when does

government intend to act upon this report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, the fishery in

the Province is extremely important to all regions of the Province.

We have advocated to better markets for our cod fish and other fish

products, and worked with the people of 3Ps.

Last year we opened up fish markets to outside buyers coming into the

Province. As we return to a

groundfish fishery and cod fish in the Province, Mr. Speaker, we will advance

the fishery in the Province and continue to do so.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really agree with the minister on that.

After all, I have fish harvesters over in 3Ps who leave millions of

pounds of fish in the water every year for the last three years.

Mr.

Speaker, the report recommends allowing people and restaurants to buy certain

seafood directly from fishermen at limited amounts.

I ask

the minister: Why are you allowing this report to collect dust?

Why are you standing in the way of helping to diversify our fishery and

our tourism industries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, I have had a

very close look at that report and I had some good conversation with my

colleagues in the House and former Ministers of Fisheries.

I have also had conversations with industry folk and tourism folk in the

Province, and I have given it some great consideration.

When we

are ready to advance that file along, I will announce it here in the House and

we will look at all impacts of that report and those kinds of decisions will

have either on tourism and the small industry in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and

we will continue to do so.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, schools around

Newfoundland and Labrador have now been notified of how they are exactly going

to be impacted by the teacher cuts that were made in the Budget.

I ask

the Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: How many

schools are affected by these cuts, and how many individual teachers are being

cut from classrooms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Acting Minister

of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, through the

Budget exercise, and I guess the annual exercise as well, the discussion between

the Department of Education and the school districts with respect to staffing

allocations for the year, this year through the Budget exercise and through the

allocation exercise a decision was made to reduce the number of teachers by 77.5

units.

The

majority of these will be impacted based on the class cap size.

I think there is a small number reduced as a result of declining

enrolment. That allocation is made

to the districts and then the district will work with individual schools as to

what their needs are to ensure that we provide a quality education.

Mr.

Speaker, that process has taken place.

The exact number I do not have the exact number yet, as a report back

from the board has just taken place over the past couple of weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, if the minister

is going to be responsible for education he should be more on top of how many

schools and how many individual teaching positions are affected.

At small

rural schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, teachers and school staff carry on a

variety of responsibilities. A loss

of only a portion of a teaching unit has a huge impact on everything from

educational outcomes to school safety.

I ask

the minister: Why are you penalizing students at small rural schools by cutting

into the quality of their education with the latest round of poorly thought out

teacher cuts that you know very clearly little about here today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Acting Minister

of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had

more time to be able to talk about my twenty years in the school system.

In a rural school, in a small school, and the value of teachers and the

work they do and how they work with parents.

They are able to work together with all stakeholders to deliver a solid

education in this Province.

It does

not matter if you are in St. John's, like the member opposite, or if you are in

a rural school, the smallest rural school in the Province.

We have great teachers. We

have a good system; however, we must acknowledge that when there are reductions

it does have an impact, no question.

During

our allocations we recognized the smaller schools: twenty schools with less than

twenty students, ten schools with less than ten.

We do have special allocation formulas for these schools, and so the

member opposite knows, we did not cut them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's North has time for a very quick question.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, we only have one

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for a very quick

question.

MR. KIRBY:

I suggest to the minister:

How about, Minister, you commit today to tabling the information I asked for?

You did not answer the question.

Bring some of your twenty years of teaching education experience to bear

on that and table the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, time for a

quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, as acting

minister or my twenty years of experience, I will debate and have a conversation

or provide information to the House or to the people of the Province.

Very valuable education information is available to the public.

Whatever I have, I will make it available, Mr. Speaker.

If he wants to have a debate about it, we can have the whole afternoon to

debate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, government announced increased annual caps on support for dental

services and dentures for people with low income, claiming they are making

health care decisions focused on improved outcomes for patients wishing to enjoy

better oral health.

I ask

the Premier: Does government's plan include preventative dental services, such

as regular cleanings?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are

very pleased to have announced some improvements to the Province's Adult Dental

Program. What we have done is

increased the cap for adult dental services from $200 to $300.

We have also increased the cap for dentures from $750 to $1,500.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

We have heard concerns over

the last couple of years from people involved in using the programs and there

has been concerns raised in this very House, Mr. Speaker.

We are

always looking at ways to improve the programs, and any suggestions we receive,

like the one the member is presenting, will certainly be considered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the minister: How does not including preventative services square with his

stated goal of spending wisely, getting better value for money, and improved

outcomes for patients?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, we provide

publicly funded access to dental services to over 188,400 children, youth, and

adults in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

We have one of the most

comprehensive public dental programs anywhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Close to $16 million is

budgeted annually for the Dental Health Plan.

At the same though, Mr. Speaker, while it is never good enough for the

NDP, we have also as individuals to take some responsibility for our own health

and well-being. Prevention is an

important part of that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

I ask the minister: Does not

he understand how cleaning teeth is part of oral health?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm

for the hon. member that cleaning your teeth is a good part of oral health.

She is indeed correct. I can

also confirm that we have a universal Children's Dental Health Program that is

indeed preventative and focused on prevention where it matters most.

So yes,

it is important for people to take care of their teeth.

That is why we have one of the best dental programs in the country, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, today I got a

call from constituents living in a boarding house.

Their electricity has been cut off because the landlord has not paid the

bill. These are folks with barely

enough money to live on. All their

food will spoil. They said trying to

deal with Residential Tenancies is like spitting in a hurricane.

I ask

the minister: Where is the new Residential Tenancies Act and its

recommendations? It has been almost

three years. What could possibly be

taking so long?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do

recognize that the act is in need of updating.

It was brought in, Mr. Speaker, in 2000, I believe.

The act right now serves the residents of the Province very well,

landlords and tenants. There are

mechanisms for dispute resolution built right into that act.

Mr.

Speaker, the people at Residential Tenancies are very effective and things

happen very quickly over there. If

they contact Residential Tenancies, there are people there to help your

constituents in question. There are

ways to deal with these situations right now within the existing act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I went to the

consultations for the Residential Tenancies Act and there were huge, huge, huge

problems identified by people who took the time to testify.

That was three years ago.

What could possibly have taken so long?

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister again: Will he instruct Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing to stop the sale of all housing, land, and assets until a comprehensive

housing strategy is developed in consultation with municipalities, community

advisory boards, housing advocates, community groups, and his own

interdepartmental housing advisory committee, and the recommendations of the OCR

report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador has time for a quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, in 1998,

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, directed by the Liberal government at the

time, was directed to take assets and sell these assets and monetize them

assets that were not being used for housing and to put that money back into

the coffers of government to help those that are most in need, and it was a wise

decision.

Mr.

Speaker, we have no issues with that whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CRUMMELL:

So the assets that we are

talking about with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that they have, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CRUMMELL:

in their stock, are not

housing assets or other assets that we are divesting of, and we are going to

divest of that, put the money back into general revenue, and help the people of

the Province that need help the most.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. WISEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

section 49(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the

attached list of temporary loans that were raised under

Section 48 of the act

since the last report in the House on April 3, 2014.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 55(3) of the Financial

Administration Act, I wish to report that there was one guaranteed loan paid out

by the Province since the last report in April 3, 2014.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 55.1(2) of the act, I wish to

report that there had been no guaranteed debt of a Crown corporation or agency

assumed by the Province since the April 3, 2014 report.

Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to

section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, I

wish to table the annual report of the loan guarantees provided to local

governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN:

I am pleased to report that

there are no new loan guarantees on behalf of local governments during the

fiscal year.

Mr.

Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on April 3, 2014, and

included guarantees issued up to and including March 31, 2014.

This report covers the period from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015.

Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling three Orders-in-Council relating to funding precommitments for the

2016-2017 to the 2017-2018 fiscal years.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

It now

being 3:00 p.m. we go to the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Does the minister have leave

first to table a document?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Leave.

The

minister has leave to table a document.

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, in response to a

question yesterday from the Member for The Straits White Bay North, I table

this document entitled Forest Industry Employment and Sector Value for the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

We will now go to the Member

for St. George's Stephenville East to begin debate on his private member's

motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

great pleasure to rise in the House today to do my first private member's

motion. I have spoken on other

people's private member's motions, but this will be the first one that I have

put forward in the House. It is a

very good honour to rise to present this motion, Mr. Speaker.

Before I

get into the motion, I just want to read the motion into the record of the House

so that people will know what we are debating here today.

People in the House, of course, have it on their Order Paper, but I just

want to read the motion into the record so that we know what we are debating

here.

Mr.

Speaker, the motion is:

WHEREAS the government has made many expensive mistakes

which have cost the taxpayers of this Province millions of dollars; and

WHEREAS

the government has not provided leadership in establishing proper processes and

management practices that would result in the prudent expenditure of tax

dollars;

BE IT

RESOLVED that this House of Assembly condemns the current government's wasteful

inept mismanagement of taxpayers' money.

That is

the motion that we are debating today.

Mr. Speaker, it is a private member's motion and motions are different

from bills. We go back and forth

every Wednesday, people bring forward motions.

The motions that we have in this House are really non-binding.

It is really an opportunity to have an issue discussed, Mr. Speaker.

In other

Legislatures they have opportunities to debate private members' bills.

People can bring forward private members' bills and have them debated.

So, it is an opportunity for government members and Opposition members to

have a more substantive sort of input into the operations of government.

These

motions that we have, and we go back and forth, one week it is the government,

one week it is the Opposition. These

motions are basically an opportunity to have an issue debated, to have a

discussion. To have a debate about

issues that we think are important.

The

issue I am dealing with today is an important issue I think.

Basically, it is about: How do we spend taxpayers' money?

What controls do we have?

really goes to the basic principle of government.

It goes back to the idea the whole concept of government is based on

that people are willing to come together and organize themselves in a way that

they can make their lives better.

They contribute a certain amount of money to the operation of government because

they believe having a government really makes their lives better.

It provides them with services they need that can make their lives

better.

Mr.

Speaker, this whole concept of government and taxation really begins to fall

apart and really beings to erode when governments do not spend taxpayers'

dollars in a responsible manner; when they spent it in ways that do not really

get a benefit for the people who paid the taxes.

That is the very important issue I want to talk about today and I want to

have debated here today, and that is why I am bringing it forward.

I think

it is timely, as well, because we are really in the middle of the Budget process

in this House, this month and the next few weeks.

We are really in the period when we are focused on the Budget and

spending and expenditures in this Province.

So it is a timely debate to have here in this House.

With

that in mind, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I want to bring up is when the

government presented its Budget, one of the things they highlighted was eight

principles. The first principle was,

We Will Cultivate a Culture of Cost Management. That was the first principle

the Minister of Finance laid out in his Budget Speech.

The idea of cultivating a culture of cost management.

At first

when I read that in the Budget Speech I said, well, that is a noble sort of

ambition. That is a wonderful thing

to do, really, to cultivate a culture of cost management.

That sort of fits with the basic principles, but then I sort of thought,

well, this government has been around for twelve years, Mr. Speaker.

They have been in power for twelve years, and they are characterizing

this as a new approach after being in government for twelve years?

It is

somewhat concerning that they would put forward this as a new initiative.

I guess the question people have to ask is, why haven't they been doing

this all along? It is something that

you would assume a government would have done all along, cultivate a culture of

cost management. Mr. Speaker, it

seems that was not the case, because they presented it as a new initiative.

I guess it sort of fits the political theme now,

whereas maybe in the

past it did not.

It sort

of rings to me the old saying: the horse is gone, maybe we should close the

door. It is a little bit concerning

that it took twelve years to come to this realization.

I think we really have to question, because of the nature of this

commitment, the nature of this principle and the way it is presented, I think we

really have to question is this government's commitment to that principle.

The

other thing is they are saying they are going to get an outside consultant to

come in and have a look at the cost expenditure in the Province and how we can

contain it. They are going to hire

an outside consultant. Mr. Speaker,

outside consultants serve a purpose.

They often provide a new set of eyes or they bring some expertise they have

developed in other areas to government, and sometimes they bring in expertise

that is not there in government. Sometimes external consultants are valuable,

but I think we really have to question it becomes problematic when you have an

overdependence upon consultants.

When you

look at consultants and this government, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask, how much

does this government spend on consultants?

Does anyone have any idea how much this government spends on consultants?

MR. HILLIER:

Do you know, Scotty?

MR. REID:

I think I have a figure here,

yes. I am just wondering if anyone

else knows.

MR. HILLIER:

I bet you it is low.

MR. REID:

Is it $10 million a year?

MR. HILLIER:

No, it is more than that.

MR. REID:

Would it be $20 million?

MR. HILLIER:

The Auditor General knows.

MR. REID:

Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Higher.

MR. REID:

In 2013, the latest year that

I have figures for, it was $85 million.

Mr. Speaker, $85 million on consultants.

Well,

$85 million on consultants, Mr. Speaker.

That was more than we spent on roads, more than we spent on road works in

this Province.

MR. HILLIER:

More than we spent on

seniors.

MR. REID:

More than we spent on

seniors, as the Member for CBS says, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER:

More than we spent on

Labrador ferries.

MR. REID:

More than we spent on

Labrador ferries, Mr. Speaker.

More

than we will spend on implementing full-year kindergarten, Mr. Speaker.

It was more than we will spend on the Home Heating Rebate Program.

It is more than we will spend on housing this year.

It is an enormous figure when you think about it $85 million in

consultants.

So, Mr.

Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that the first job of any external consultants

might be to look at the expenditure that we have on consultants.

It is sort of ironic. The

first job of the outside consultant will be to look at the expenditure on

consultants.

Mr.

Speaker, when we ask questions about what things are happening in the House, or

things are not happening in government, one of the things the government comes

back at us with is, well, what a slap in the face to public servants and people

who work in this Province and do their best.

Well, what does it say when we have to hire so many consultants?

What is the message to the senior management that were selected by this

government? What is the message to

them when we have to hire so many outside consultants?

Mr. Speaker, what is the message to them?

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk about an external consultant that we already have.

We already have an external consultant in place.

We already have one in place.

The external consultant is called the AG, the Auditor General.

We already have an external consultant.

AN HON. MEMBER:

We bring him in occasionally.

MR. REID:

Every year, every year

AN HON. MEMBER:

Not every department, though.

MR. REID:

He looks at different

departments every year, but every year he does a report and makes

recommendations, Mr. Speaker. So

they already have an external consultant.

That is already built into the government process.

Mr.

Speaker, the question is: Has this government been listening to the

recommendations made by the Auditor General?

Have they been implementing the cost-saving recommendations that the AG

has been making over the years? No,

they have not. That is the problem

and that is another reason why you have to question their commitment to this

idea of cost containment, cultivating a culture of cost containment.

Another

reason I think you have to question this idea of cultivating a culture of cost

containment, I think you need look no further than the Budget package itself.

You do not need to look any farther than the Budget package itself, Mr.

Speaker, to see that government really is not committed to cost containment.

You look

at the Budget package each year, you usually have the Budget Speech, you have

The Economy which outlines things that are happening in the economy, and you

have the line by line Estimates that give you the details in the department, and

you have the Highlights document which sort of highlights certain points.

Until last year you used to have the detail salary estimates.

I am not sure what has happened with the detail salary estimates this

year. I am not sure if they are

online this year. We will have to

have a look at that, but there is a new document there this year.

The new document is called Solid

Investments in Provincial Infrastructure .

It is a

new document. It is forty pages.

It is a very glossy document, and really it outlines infrastructure

investments over the last few years.

Really, I think that is a campaign document, but I do not think the PC Party is

paying for it, Mr. Speaker.

That is

another reason why you have to question how committed this government is to

containing cost and containing waste when in their very Budget package they are

making wasteful expenditures based on political expedience.

You have to question their commitment to controlling waste when they do

not even get out of the gate, Mr. Speaker.

In the whole Budget package, it is not internally consistent.

The message does not match the reality of what they have been doing.

You have to question how committed they are to cost containment.

I only

have a minute or so left here in my first round, but another issue that makes

you question their commitment is the amount of money being spent on government

advertising now, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor

pretty well every department is out there spending money on advertising of one

kind or another. What the government

would have us believe is that it is very difficult fiscal times.

They are out there spending taxpayers' dollars to promote themselves,

basically, in a lot of cases.

A lot of

other provinces have legislation which restricts government advertising.

This Province does not. It is

left to the good judgment of the people who are in government and how an

Opposition can hold them to account.

This government has failed that test as well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

showing that they really want to contain waste in government.

Mr.

Speaker, my time is up. I will have

a few more minutes at the end to provide some concluding comments.

I look forward to what the other members have to say.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

delight today to get up and respond to the private member's motion.

The Member for St. George's Stephenville East laid out what a private

member's motion is, the value of it, and the value of the debate we have in the

House around private member's motions.

So he wanted to enlighten people, provide some information, and that is

important.

It is

also important when you participate in the debate and you make your comments and

you contribute to the debate, it is intended to inform and to enlighten, but it

is also intended to be accurate. It

is intended to be accurate, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to comment on a couple of things that the member opposite has just introduced to

the House. For example, he talks about spending $85 million on consultants.

If you left that on its face, you would think that this was $85 million

that government spent to bring people in from the outside to provide advice on

day-to-day management decisions. The

member is referring to a document that they would have received as a result of

an ATIPP request.

What he

did not share with the House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was a

breakdown in that $85 million, I say, Mr. Speaker, because in that $85 million,

let's think about what is in there.

Embedded in that $85 million are fees that would have been paid for legal

counsel. Government is involved many

times in getting advice from outside legal counsel.

We need to buy those legal services.

That is consulting fees. He

failed to raise that issue. That is

part of that $85 million.

The

other thing he failed to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, was that embedded in that $85

million, the biggest portion of that $85 million in fact, I am not sure what

the exact percentage is, but it is well in excess of half of it is based on

our significant investment in infrastructure that he alluded to in his comments

as well, because the Budget document this year provided an overview of our

fiscal plan, our capital investment plan.

When he held up the book and made a reference to it, he did not bring

your attention to the last part of it which starts on page 36, which talks about

the investment that we are proposing this is a part of the Budget forecast.

Budgets are about capital expenditures.

Budgets are about current expenditures.

What he failed to realize is that in this document there is a layout of

the money we are going to spend on schools, money we are going to spend on

health care, money we are going to spend on transportation infrastructure.

Every

time we build a school, an architect has to design it.

We need an engineer to manage the project for us.

We need someone with the necessary architectural and engineering skills

to build those schools and to build those hospitals.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? That

is embedded in that $85 million.

Fees normally would be in the range of 6 per cent, 7 per cent, or 8 per cent of

the total construction cost. So just

think about it for a moment. Every

year we spend $700 million or $800 million on infrastructure, building roads,

building schools, building hospitals, building health clinics.

Every time we do it, we have to hire an architect and we have to hire an

engineer. That is embedded in that

$85 million.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we can give up spending money on capital.

The $6 billion that we have spent over the last ten years, we could have

said no, we are not going to do that because we do not want to pay engineering

fees. How ridiculous and how stupid

would that be? If you are going to

have an aggressive infrastructure program and spend $6 billion over ten years,

you are going to pay consulting fees.

It is called design. It is

called architectural fees. It is

called engineering fees. It is a

normal course of doing business.

Mr.

Speaker, it is somewhat disingenuous to stand in the House to suggest that $85

million was wasted on frivolous advice that you got from consultants who came in

to tell you how to run the day-to-day operations of government.

When he stood and repeated that number, he had in front of him a list of

all of those items. He had in front

of him, by category, what areas the money was spent.

In fact, he had in front of him what departments spent what money.

That detail was provided to him by my department, or one of his

officials, or one of his speech writers, or the person who maybe even wrote his

notes for him for today. They had

that in front of him when he, in fact, stood.

Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to make sure the people in the public and the people in

this House were fully aware of what that $85 million represents, why it is

spent, and how we get that kind of number.

I say, Mr. Speaker, we do not apologize at all when we go out and spend

that kind of money on infrastructure and needing to hirer architects to help us

do that piece.

I just

wanted to make sure that we are clear.

That $85 million that he talks about, he seems to suggest it was a waste

of money, but when you go down through it, look at how we have, in fact, spent

that money and what value we got for that, Mr. Speaker.

suggest that the Auditor General is a consultant the Auditor General is not a

consultant, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor

General provides very valuable work.

He provides very valuable assessments, provides very valuable feedback to

government. I do not categorize him

as a consultant, and I doubt very much if the Auditor General himself would view

himself as a consultant.

Quite

the contrary, he is acting on behalf of this House.

He is an independent Officer of this House.

He does his work independent of any department of government, reports

directly to this Chamber, to this House of Assembly, and then by extension to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He is not engaged as a consultant to give advice.

He does his own work and provides information.

He is independent of any department of government but he reports directly

to the House. I just want to make

sure people understand clearly the use of the language consultants and what we

do with them.

At the

same time, Mr. Speaker, we are big people.

We acknowledge we need to reach out sometimes to engage people to provide

advice and provide direction to us.

We do not sit on this side of the House, even though we have the majority of the

people who sit in this House, we do not stand here and believe we have all of

the answers to everything that goes on in the world.

We do not stand here and think we are absolutely right on every single

issue that arises. We are big

enough, Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge there will be times there will be issues

that arise that we need to seek out the best expertise that is available.

It is no

offence to anybody in the public service, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, we have said in this House many times in fact, during this

Budget debate in recent weeks I have said, the Premier has said on any number of

times that we respect the public service of this Province.

That is why we are upfront with them.

That is why we said that over the course of the next five years here is

our plan for how we will readjust the size of the public service.

We have not said secretly that we are going to wait until we get another

set of facts in front of us and then we were going to decide what departments we

were going to eliminate. We did not

say that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

We did not say that at all.

We respect the public service and the work they do but everybody

recognizes, regardless of where you are, whether you are in the public service

or whether you are in the private sector, whether you are in it does not

matter what industry you are in.

There will be times when you will look at what you need before you, what the

issues are before you, and you will need to make a decision.

We have talented expertise in-house but we need to bring someone in who

has a very specialized set of skills to help us work through a given

circumstance we have, and that is the circumstance we find ourselves in today,

Mr. Speaker.

If you

look at and I am delighted the member opposite read the Budget documents

because we have received some compliments on this Budget document.

It is a comprehensive plan.

It lays out a five-year fiscal framework.

Never before, Mr. Speaker, never before and the reason the member

opposite is so astounded by it is because the Liberals never ever built a five

year budget.

This

House of Assembly has never seen a document like this, Mr. Speaker, where you

lay out a five-year plan. You know

year by year by year for five full years.

The other significant thing which the Liberals never ever did, they never

ever developed targets. They never

said here are performance measures, you can judge us on our performance

measures.

We are

going to come to this House twice a year.

We are going to come in the fall with an update and we are going to give

you a progress report. We are going

to come in the spring or late winter every year and we are going to give you a

Budget, another update, and we are going to be judged.

We have performance measures here, Mr. Speaker, that we will be judged on

our performance.

The

other reason I suspect he is not very happy with the Budget document itself is

because we have provided a forecast for the future but we have also looked at

some history. If you look at some of

the history, it dates you back to about ten years of Liberal reign.

If you look at all these performance indicators, just look at all these

performance indicators, Mr. Speaker, and look at the period when the Liberals

where in power versus the last ten years.

Just look at the comparison.

Look at the comparison, Mr. Speaker.

As an

Administration, we have outperformed the Liberal Administration that were here

the ten years before that on any of those performance measures.

That is why the member is astounded by it.

Never before has he seen in this House a government that introduces a

five-year plan, a detailed five-year plan, never before has he seen performance

indicators where we are going to be measuring our success in working towards

these budget targets.

So I

say, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that he read it.

I am delighted he read it because we have received many compliments on

it. Never before, as he has pointed out,

it never happened before. The reason

it never happened before is because we believe with a new leadership Premier

Davis and a new leadership, a new vision for the future, a new approach to

governance. We lay out so everybody

can see. There is nothing secretive

here. We have a plan, we have a

vision, and we have a clear understanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, when you start

talking about fiscal management, and to suggest there has been something wrong

that has happened in the last ten or twelve years, just look at where we are.

Look at those performance indicators.

Look at how we have reduced net debt during that period.

Look at how we have made significant investments in infrastructure, $6

billion.

Just

drive around the Province today and look at new schools.

The Member for The Straits White Bay North, look at the South Coast of

Labrador. The member stands in this

House every day and talks about how the South Coast of Labrador is left out.

You drive up that coast and what do you see?

Two new schools. Drive up the

Northern Peninsula, what do you see?

New schools as you drive up the Northern Peninsula.

That kind of strategic investment, Mr. Speaker, in key infrastructure in

this Province is important for the people who live in those regions.

We made those decisions.

So if

you want to stand in this House today and you want to go to any one of these

communities go to a community that had a new school built in the last ten

years and say, do you know something, they should not have built that.

That is mismanagement. You

did not deserve that new school. We

should have saved that money. We

should have reduced the debt. Is

that what they are suggesting, Mr. Speaker?

Look at

poverty reduction, just one issue. I

could go on for hours talking about the money we have spent in the last ten

years, the programs we have enhanced, and the investments we have made to

position this Province to be better served today than we would have been had we

not done it. Just look at one issue,

Mr. Speaker, something that is dear to all of us as a society, as a people, as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We

value and respect our neighbours. We

care for them. We are nurturing

people, caring people.

When we

came to government we had the highest rates of poverty in the entire country.

It was embarrassing, Mr. Speaker.

As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian it was embarrassing to say that we

had the highest rate of poverty in the entire country.

We said

we are going to do something about it.

It was not good enough to just say, boy, that is terrible, that should

not be. We are going to do something

about it; we are going to fix it. So

we set out on a path, Mr. Speaker, and we have stayed focused.

We set out on a path, developed a strategy, a Poverty Reduction Strategy.

In fact, we had people visiting from around the country wanting to mimic

what we had done here, it was such a well-laid-out plan.

started making investments year over year over year.

Regardless of what other priorities came up, what other issues surfaced,

we were diligent, Mr. Speaker, we were focused, and we were on a mission.

Just look at what has happened today.

Look at the poverty rates today versus where they were back in 2003 and

2004. There are only about half the

number of people today on Income Support as there was back in 2004-2005 just

one indicator, Mr. Speaker.

Look at

what we have done with providing some support to young families.

Look at what we have done in reducing income tax for people with incomes

less than $18,000. This year, Mr.

Speaker, just think about this, if you are a single individual making just a

little shy of $19,000 a year, you pay no personal income tax to Newfoundland and

Labrador. If you are a family and

your income is just a little over $30,000 a year, you pay no personal income tax

to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what we have done. It

is just one of the many things that we have done to make sure that we eradicate

poverty in this Province.

Many

years ago you only have to go back, what, twelve years ago?

Every September, families sending kids back to school, what would they

have to do? Buy books, supplies, all

kinds of fees. When they walked

through the door the first day, the principal was there with the hand out, you

need a fee for this, the fee for that, the fee for something else.

Do you

know what, Mr. Speaker? That was

contributing to the poverty that existed in this Province.

We said that cannot happen; we have to fix that.

That was embedded then in our Poverty Reduction Strategy.

We took an eraser to every single fee in schools, took them all out, and

eliminated them. Today, we do not

have any fees in our schools in this Province.

We provide free textbooks to the students of the Province in our K-12

system.

So just

think about that, Mr. Speaker, the strategic investments we have made in the

future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Our young people, the people who are Grades 4 and 5 and 6, people

starting out in life, and we have made a huge difference.

So any man who stands in this House and says this has been mismanagement

of fiscal resources

MR. SPEAKER (Cross):

Order, please!

I remind

the minister his time has expired.

MR. WISEMAN:

point to something that

they would not do. Point to one of

these things that they would not do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Bay

of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

just stand for a minute. I heard the

minister talk. I tell you one thing

we would not have done. When he was

Minister of Health with a wink and nod, with Billy Fanning, gave the Centre for

Health Information a 300 per cent raise.

The Auditor General went in there and said it was shocking that the

minister would not put it in writing.

That is one thing we would not have done: given a wink and a nod to Billy

Fanning, going down and say give them all the raise, while the civil servants

here are going on next to nothing and giving all the bunch down there that is

one thing.

I just

find it odd, Mr. Speaker now, I am not here to criticize the minister, but he

is criticizing the Liberals. What

platform did he win the election on if it was not a Liberal platform?

If you want to talk about disingenuous, he ran on a Liberal platform,

went out, got elected on all the Liberal policies, and turned around and say how

shocking those Liberals. You want to

talk about disingenuous. Oh my, I

could not believe it I could not believe it.

Anyway,

the minister just spoke about some things you would not have done.

For twelve years

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

The government gets tired,

Mr. Speaker, and abuse creeps in abuse creeps in.

I remember Paddy Daly and I was on a talk show and he said: Well, the

Liberals did. I said: Yes, and the

Liberals got booted out, the same as what should happen with this crowd, booted

out. I make no bones about it.

Anybody who takes the people of the Province for granted, takes their

finances and spends it, in my opinion, in several occasions in wasteful ways

and I will give you some good examples and the minister wanted us to stand up

and give you some. I will give you

some, Mr. Speaker. I will give you a

nice few.

Do I

think there have been good things done in the Province?

Absolutely. I would never

stand in this House and say there has nothing good been done.

Absolutely, I would never say that, Mr. Speaker, because there has been,

but this is about abuse. This is

about ownership now of abuse. This

is some type of entitlement that we can go off and do what we like in this

Province because we are the governing party.

I will

just go through some, Mr. Speaker. I

will just go through a few of them that we are going to talk about.

Let's talk about the $25 million or $30 million because up in Parson's

Pond when they wanted to drill a hole, you think they would have did that with

their own money. Drilled two holes

up there $30 million, wannabe Jed Clampetts of the world, tried to find oil.

Because it is taxpayers' money, they go up and drill two holes; that is

$30 million.

Think

what could happen in this Province with $30 million.

That is just counting drilling the holes, not counting what it cost again

to build the roads to the hole, and this is all Nalcor.

This is all approved by this government.

That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, $30 million.

They were dry holes and they were told that.

They were informed of that because if any oil company who already did any

seismic work in that area, they walked away; but because it is taxpayers' money

just think $30 million.

How many

children could that help? Just

think, there would be no increase at Memorial University this year because of

that. Just think of how many people

in child poverty that this could help out with $30 million.

That is just one.

Just

look at Abitibi in the big haste because they wanted to make sure that Abitibi

were not going to walk away with our money, Mr. Speaker, and the fatal mistake

of the government, the abuse and they would never admit it over $200 million

liability now in environmental cleanup.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, just think about it, just think about what this Province could do with

$200 million. Just think about it.

This is what happens when a government gets in and they feel they are

entitled to make these decisions without doing due diligence.

Just think about it; that is $230 million.

That is just two things in the last number of years, Mr. Speaker.

Every one of those members opposite voted for all of this.

They all agreed with it. They

all stood up and supported this.

When you talk about entitlement, you have to think about are you doing what is

best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is just two examples.

We spoke

to the government. We said: We have

to look at this. Mr. Speaker, we

were shut down. Oh, no, we are

against government. We are not

standing with the government. Look

at what happens. Any time you stand

up and ask a question it is almost like you are against us.

You are against the Province.

It is either us or them. That is

$230 million. Just think what the

people ask anybody out there who is listening today: What would you be able to

do with $230 million? Just think

about it.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to go back to something that I brought up in the Auditor

General's report. I know the Member

for Humber West is well aware of them.

We have Holson Forest Products up in Roddickton when they built a pellet

plant. I just want to put this on

the record, Mr. Speaker. I did it in

Public Accounts and I just want members opposite to know what they voted for.

When I asked questions on this, it was you are not for the Northern

Peninsula. You are against

development. Here is what happened

there, Mr. Speaker.

They

went up and they put $10 million into a pellet plant in Roddickton.

I asked questions about it after it was done.

Guess what? In Public

Accounts it is on the record I asked them, the officials, show me the

markets that you had for the pellets.

Do you know what the answer was?

We have none. We did not do a

market survey. They did not do a

market survey and put $10 million up in Roddickton for a pellet plant and gave

the big impression when they went up for the big press release of how we are

going to save the Northern Peninsula.

On the

second part of that it is sad because people really believed that government

did the work on this. That is $240

million so far. Mr. Speaker, I asked

a further question. You have no

market, so you have no place to sell you pellets.

Second of all: Where are you going to store your pellets?

We do not have a storage facility.

I said: Well, how much will that cost?

That is $1 million. I said:

Didn't government no, they said that was all right.

So if

you are going to make the pellets, you have no place to sell them, you have no

place to store them while you are in production.

That is one part of lack of due diligence of $10 million.

Then I said, well, how are you going to ship them there?

Well, we had a wharf, but the federal government came in and tore down

the wharf. I said, did the

provincial government step in and say we need the wharf?

Oh, no. So how are you going

to get it? How are you going to get

the pellets which you do not have stored, which you do not have in markets,

how are you going to get them to the market?

We need another $4 million to build the wharf.

Mr. Speaker, so you call that a waste of money?

I call it a waste of money, absolutely a waste of money.

Mr.

Speaker, here is the kicker. In the

big scheme of government, it is not a big deal, an extra million dollars for

Holson Forest Products in Roddickton.

When it came back from the federal government, they got the rebate of a

million dollars. They went to the

provincial government, and they sat here in Public Accounts.

I asked a question. I said,

what happened to the million dollars?

Oh, we gave it back to pay the bills.

The

question that I asked was very specific.

Can you show me what bills they paid with that million dollars?

They said, no. Just ask

people, would you ever do that with your public money?

If that was your own personal money, Mr. Speaker, would you do that?

Would you go to somebody and say, oh, we just paid some bills, here is

the money for it. You have to prove

that it was done.

Mr.

Speaker, that is where entitlement comes in.

Just think about that.

Northern Pen , here is the article,

Roddickton's recycled power plant.

Holson Forest Products has this also, they put it out on bid.

They did not want it. It was,

I think, five megawatts of power.

They gave it to Holson for the pellet plant which is never going to operate in

Roddickton, not a chance right now, unless what I mentioned earlier happens.

They

gave them the generation plant, Mr. Speaker.

Get this now, for the pellet plant they gave it to them.

Boom, here it is. They would

not disclose. They dismantled the

plant. Take a guess at what happens,

Mr. Speaker. They sold it to a

company in Quebec, a green forest company.

The company they sold it to in Quebec, the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador get this: the company would not state how much they paid for it, but on

a $17 million project they saved $7 million by getting this free gift from the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

An asset they gave away for a pellet plant which never existed.

Mr.

Speaker, I am up to $270 million already, and I have not even started yet.

Those are just some of the major things.

You wonder when the member brings up about waste in government, this is

what happens. This is the

entitlement this government feels is their right and their ownership.

It is our obligation, as Opposition, to bring this up to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask

any person out there in TV land, Mr. Speaker, who are looking at this debate

today to tell me: What would you do with $250 million, $260 million?

What would you do?

I am not

even going to get into Muskrat Falls today.

I am not going to get into how I feel about Muskrat Falls, millions and

billions being poured in of taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, poured into

something. I hear the minister

standing up day after day, but we are going to have money coming in from here to

eternity. We are, but it is the

people of the Province who are paying for it, so you cannot say it is new money.

You cannot say the government is making all this money, because we are

paying for it. We are paying for it.

The prices are going to go up, and guess what?

If you want to talk about abuse, Nova Scotia is going to get it at cost

price if you want to talk about abuse, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into that today, I am going to speak for my

last three or four minutes. Just

look at some smaller things. Look at

Bill 29 and the cost, $1.4 million.

People in government say, well, that is not a lot of money.

To a $7 billion, $8 billion Budget, it is not.

I ask

the average household person out there, what would you do in your area, or any

member, in your district with $1.4 million that it cost for their mistake?

Just any district, pick a district in this Province, water and sewer,

roads, upgrades, municipal buildings, schools.

What would you do with $1.4 million?

Mr. Speaker, you would do a lot.

When you

look at the big scheme and you become tired and you get entitlement, oh, it is

only $1.4 million. It is not a big

deal but it is. When you are out

in the communities and you see people without proper drinking water, when you

see sewer running into ditches, it is a lot.

It is a lot of money. This is

why the people are saying that any government, Mr. Speaker, that all of a sudden

becomes entitled, they lose focus of what they were elected for.

This is what is happening here.

Mr.

Speaker, I can go back, and not everybody was here at the time.

I was here. The office in

Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, the big office.

We are setting up an office in Ottawa because we do not have confidence in the

MPs. We are taking our fight to

Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, that cost $4

million to $5 million. We still do

not have the full figure on it; $4 million to $5 million to have an office.

The

funny part about that, Mr. Speaker, the office in Ottawa, I know the members

opposite do not even know this, they had someone from another office to come

down and collect the mail because there was no one ever in the office, but we

were paying rent at the building. We

used to hire people to go up to the office.

We had seven MPs. We had all

the ministers here, yet for some reason we had to go take on Ottawa and we had

to spend millions upon millions of dollars to go up to Ottawa to say that we are

going to fight for ourselves in Ottawa.

They had no one in the office.

They had it leased but no one in the office.

They had all the equipment in the office.

They had no one in the office but we are going to fight for someone in

the office, for spite, in Ottawa.

Mr.

Speaker, even when we look at the consolidation of Eastern Health, even the

Auditor General, $4.7 million. I am

up to $280 million now.

Look at

the fines in Newfoundland and Labrador.

They laid off the collection people.

They laid them off. The fines

in Newfoundland and Labrador, get this, Mr. Speaker, is $42 million.

I ask any town out there, take the seven largest towns, what could you do

with $42 million? What can the

average person do if you split that up around the Province?

Just think about that, and they laid off the people who were actually

going to go out and collect the fines.

Mr.

Speaker, right now, as we speak, we are up to $360 million.

So the next time the member opposite wants to ask me, what would you do

differently? I am up now to over

$370 million by the time I am finished with it here.

When you

look at the moose detection, that is another fiasco.

That cost, again, $1.5 million to $2 million.

Guess what? I ask any

municipality out there, what could you do with that money?

Ask any common person who is struggling right now, Mr. Speaker.

How can we help out the common folks in this Province with that type of

money?

Mr.

Speaker, I know my time is coming near.

The next time someone opposite wants to challenge me on what would you do

different? There is $380 million

right there, Mr. Speaker, of what I would have done different.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. member's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS :

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has

been an interesting discussion this afternoon.

I was amused by the motion that was put forward yesterday by the hon.

member who spoke first today. I

think there are probably more constructive ways we could utilize Private

Members' Day but nonetheless, I congratulate him on his first motion.

As the

Finance minister pointed out earlier today, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to

participate in debate then it is important to be accurate.

It is important to provide real information and not just rhetoric and

spin.

We have

heard two members of the Opposition today get up and talk about waste.

Well, I would like to challenge that.

Over the little bit of time I have this afternoon to participate in this

debate, I intend to do so, because, Mr. Speaker, our government has been

implementing solid plans for the last twelve years.

In fact, we have a plan right now to deal with the current fiscal

situation, as the Minister of Finance spoke to earlier today.

We have clearly set out a five-year fiscal recovery plan and it is very

clear. It has been set out very

clearly. We have set clear targets,

Mr. Speaker. We have set out

benchmarks to measure ourselves against.

This is

the first time that any government has laid out such a clear, fiscal plan, but

the members opposite do not want to hear that.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve a clear plan, but I can

assure you that they will not get it from the folks opposite because we keep

asking where is the plan from our detractors, and last week

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. KENT:

You can hear them

gibber-jabbering over there; it is like

The Muppet Show over there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for your protection.

Last

week, the Liberal Opposition said that they were going to unveil a big economic

announcement, an economic plan. Then

they got everybody together, a couple of folks from St. John's, somebody from

outside St. John's, and then the big announcement was that they do not have a

plan. They actually were announcing

they have a plan to create a plan.

If they do have a plan, they are keeping it to themselves, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure that is a position that you can trust.

It is not a position that I trust.

The

Leader of the Opposition announced I think on Budget day that he would increase

borrowing against the future. That

was his plan to deal with the fiscal situation, but he did not talk to the

Member for Virginia Waters. They did

not confer on their positions on Budget day, and maybe it is because they are a

team of leaders as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested.

The Member for Virginia Waters outlined clearly that she would cut

spending, she would cut programs, and she would get rid of public servants.

In fact, in a very derogatory way she referred to one of the offices that

I am responsible for and basically said that the entire office is a waste of

government resources.

Those,

Mr. Speaker, are diametrically opposing view, so which position should you

trust? Should you trust the Leader

of the Opposition, or should you trust the Finance critic, the Member for

Virginia Waters? I am not sure which

one of them I believe, and I am not sure which position that I would trust.

Unlike

the opposing views that have been articulated by the Leader of the Opposition

and his Finance critic, we have a real plan.

As the Finance Minister has outlined, that plan is about balance.

It gets

more confusing than that, Mr. Speaker, if you try to dig into what they actually

stand for or do not stand for. Just

yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Member for St. Barbe said, I think

everybody understands that you can control how much you spend one way or the

other. You can defer some things.

You can cut back some things.

You can eliminate some things.

Well, I

am glad there is at least one member opposite who understands that sometimes you

have to make tough choices throughout a Budget process because his leader and

many of the members opposite do not seem to recognize that.

In fact on April 30, The Globe and Mail reported that the Leader of the Opposition

said that he would not cut any programs.

He said that he would roll back the HST increases.

So if you want to talk about fiscal mismanagement, Mr. Speaker, let's

talk about that for a moment.

The Liberal idea seems to be let's avoid tough choices,

let's make the popular choices, let's say whatever we think the public wants to

hear, let's borrow, let's borrow, let's borrow.

Unless you are the Finance critic because the Finance critic does not

want to borrow, she wants to gut the public service.

It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

Who knows how high the debt would rise and the deficit

would be if the Liberals actually were to take power in this Province.

They say they would reduce taxes and fees, thus reducing revenues.

They also continually challenge us to build more schools and bigger

schools. We cannot pave roads fast

enough for their liking, Mr. Speaker, and they ask us to wave our magic wand and

make new health care facilities appear and at the same time they want us to do

all that no matter what the cost is.

They do not like our partnership for long-term care, a

partnership that will provide services, vital services in a fiscally responsible

way, but they do advocate spend, spend, spend well, with one exception, and

this is all we hear from the members opposite; but at least the Member for St.

Barbe recognized yesterday in this House that sometimes you do have to cut.

So maybe the team of leaders should get together and have a chat about

their fiscal policy.

Also yesterday in this very House, Mr. Speaker, the Member

for St. John's North joined in and he said: The Budget this year should have

been called lost opportunity and misplaced priorities.

Misplaced priorities I ask the members opposite, which priorities of

ours are misplaced? Because the

priorities of our government and the priorities of our Premier were actually

quite clear going into this Budget process.

That is more than we can say about the Leader of the Opposition and we

are still trying to figure out what his priorities are.

We were not at the dinner in Toronto, so we could not really get to hear

it first-hand.

The priorities of our Premier, though, and the priorities

of our government were to help the economy be as strong as possible, to protect

the jobs of public servants

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: There

they go again, Mr. Speaker. There

they go again. I am glad they are

entertained or amused or whatever is going on over in that back row.

Our plan was to protect the jobs of public servants, to

prevent mass layoffs like

we saw in the 1990s which would also assist the economy.

We also committed to providing the best health care and access to health

care possible for our residents, and we are going to continue to develop

infrastructure where it is needed most.

Our Premier's priority was clearly to balance fiscal concerns and social

concerns.

So I ask

the members opposite: Are these the misplaced priorities that you refer to?

Are these misplaced priorities?

Because it seems like these are the priorities of the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

On May 4

in this House of Assembly, the Member for Virginia Waters said that For any

government, including a Liberal government, attrition will help with reducing

the cost of government without negatively impacting the economy .

So, it is good to see some acknowledgement that our attrition plan may

very well be the right move.

The

Leader of the Opposition a couple of years ago not even a couple of years ago

said, you have to put sustainable practices in place in your expenditures.

What we have done here in the last few years I am not here to argue

that we have to have less wages, but we do need less people.

So, he is acknowledging, like the Member for Virginia Waters not that

long ago, that we should reduce the public service.

That is why we are using attrition.

The approach that seems to be talked about across the way, if we could

get a clear answer, is layoffs, which is not something that we support, Mr.

Speaker.

Just

before that, the Leader of the Opposition who was not the leader at the time,

I do not believe; maybe he was he said, this is the third term for government,

and there was no question that back in 2003 there was significant debt within

the Province. So, there was some

acknowledgement. He said and these

were his words we had social debt, we had infrastructure debt, and of course

we had financial debt. There just

really was not a lot of money to go around.

So, the

Liberals asked where our money went.

I will tell you where the money went, Mr. Speaker; it went to fix those issues

that the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged himself.

We fixed social debt, we have addressed infrastructure debt, and we have

addressed financial debt. We have

made great progress, Mr. Speaker.

We hear

members opposite get up day after day saying that we have mismanaged the

Province's finances. They say we

have wasted money

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

and apparently it is a joke

to the crowd in the back row over there, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I think it is actually very serious, because they are accusing

government of wasting money and to the members opposite if they could pay

attention for a few minutes I asked them: Are all the bridges we have built

wasteful? Are the schools we have

built and renovated wasteful? Are

the roads we have paved the waste that they are talking about?

They

tell us about all this waste, but they cannot tell us, not one of them over

there, Mr. Speaker, can tell us what they would do differently, except, as we

heard last week, now they have a plan to come up with a plan someday, perhaps by

September, I believe.

If you

look at the Budget Highlights document on page 4 you will see where over $6.6

billion has been and you will see how it has wisely been invested since 2004.

It has gone into infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure that will keep people safe, allow them to get

from point A to point B, and allow them to access government programs and

services. I ask the members opposite

again: Is that the waste that they are talking about?

Is that the waste that they would have cut?

The

infrastructure highlights in this Budget include $1.89 billion for roads and

buildings, $1.6 billion for education infrastructure, $1.5 billion in health

care infrastructure, and $1.27 billion for municipal infrastructure.

So we have presented all that information about our plan and our

accomplishments. I would like to

know is that all waste? Is that what

the members opposite consider waste?

Are they

telling the communities of this Province that they should not have gotten their

recreation complexes? Are they

telling parents that their children should be in old mouldy schools that were

neglected by the previous Administration?

I certainly hope not, Mr. Speaker I certainly hope not.

I will

stand on our record and members of this government will stand on our record as

well. When we compare the Liberal

financial record of the past to the Tory record of the past decade, we can see

that we truly are the best financial managers because we balance social needs,

the people's needs. We balance

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. KENT:

They do not want to hear it;

they laugh and joke. We want to

balance social needs, the needs of people, with financial concerns.

We aim to spend money wisely all the time and we cannot say the same for

previous Administrations. I will not

focus on some of the mismanagement that went on prior to our Administration

because it is a long time ago, and I recognize that just about all members

except one were not part of that Administration.

Let's

talk about some economic measures.

Page 3 of the Budget Highlights document shows several fiscal performance

indicators. When we look at net debt

as a percentage of GDP we see that it was much, much higher under Liberal

Administrations, approximately 60 per cent higher.

The net debt as a percentage of GDP was incredibly high until 2004 when

it started to decrease because of actions that we have taken, Mr. Speaker.

That

metric then dropped to about 25 per cent in 2009 and it is still, Mr. Speaker,

at 25 per cent. So it will increase

very slightly in the next couple of years due to low oil prices.

I hear members opposite shouting about oil.

It is still much lower than what it was in the past.

When you

look at debt expenses and percentage of gross revenue, you will see the same

thing. From 1995 to 2001, the

Liberal debt expense was 20 per cent to 25 per cent and higher.

Thanks to our wise financial planning the debt expense is now less than

15 per cent and is forecasted to continue to be less than 15 per cent.

Those are just a couple of metrics.

If I was not running out of time, I could give you more examples.

We can

also compare the borrowing of Liberals in previous Administrations to our fiscal

plans today. If you at page 6 of the

Budget highlights, Cumulative borrowing totalled $6.78 billion over the 1987-88

to 2003-04 period, averaging $399 million per year.

If that level of borrowing has continued, borrowing would have totalled

$4.4 billion over the 2004-05 to 2014-15 period.

However, in reality, borrowing over that time frame was much lower .

So what that means is that we fixed a lot of the issues that have haunted

us in the past.

I only

have a minute left so I want to talk about health care spending, which I assume

the folks opposite would categorize as wasteful as well.

It has been one of our top priorities and it has been one of the biggest

line items in the Budget. So maybe

this is the waste the Opposition is talking about, but I do not think the people

in Newfoundland and Labrador would call it waste.

There is nobody on this side of the House who would call it waste.

In a

Province of just over 500,000 people we have fifteen hospitals.

We have twenty-three community health centres.

We have 119 community clinics.

We have twenty-three long-term care facilities.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

We are going to build even more.

So which

of those facilities, which of those hospitals, which of those community health

centres, which of those clinics, which of those long-term care facilities do the

members opposite consider to be waste?

Because they are the same folks who will stand in this House day after

day and advocate that we should be spending more money and doing more and more

in all kinds of different areas.

Whether you are talking municipal infrastructure or education, or health or

whatever the case may be.

What is

irresponsible is the kind of suggestions that have been made here today that

some of these investments are wasteful.

That is not something I will stand for, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the minister his time has expi