PDF Version

April 19, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 15

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Prior to

starting our proceedings today, I wanted to recognize and I guess pay tribute to

some extent, to an individual who was feared by some Members of the House of

Assembly but certainly respected by all.

Our

beloved David Cochrane has accepted a job in Ottawa and

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As everybody in the House

knows, especially the Members who have returned after the election, the Members

who have been here a while, David Cochrane has covered the Legislature here for

a number of years. He has a very keen political nose, as we can all attest to.

We've all at some point been a target of Mr. Cochrane's, but certainly by all

Members of the House, I know he's very well respected and his position in Ottawa

was very well deserved indeed.

So,

congratulations, Mr. Cochrane.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We have some welcomes today.

I'd like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery relatives of Lt. Ken Goodyear, a

former resident of Ladle Cove and veteran of the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel. This

Newfoundland Regiment Officer had his elbow shattered by a bullet near the

'Danger Tree' on the 1st of July, 1916. Despite his injury, went on to become

the Newfoundland Heavyweight Boxing Champion and was inducted into the Sports

Hall of Fame.

As many

of you may have read, David McFarlane's book,

The Danger Tree , describes both the

promise and loss that befell the Goodyear family during World War I. There will

be a Member's statement today providing some detail around the loss to this

family, 100 years ago.

I would

also like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery the members of the Goodyear family

who are relatives of two soldiers being honoured today: Terry Goodyear, Geoff

Goodyear, Noelle Goodyear, Alison Goodyear, Caroline Hong, Sean Goodyear, Ken

Goodyear, Seamus Goodyear, Claire Goodyear, Aiden Goodyear and Brittany Pomroy.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

To our public gallery, Dec

LaCour, who is the subject of a Member's statement today, and his wife, Marg

LaCour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have Members'

statements for the Member for the District of Lake Melville, who I understand

has leave of the House, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl Southlands,

the Member for Labrador West, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main and

Cape St. Francis.

recognize the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to ask for leave officially in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Leave.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you very much.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize a family of heroes. Josiah and Louisa Goodyear

of Ladle Cove had seven children when war broke out in 1914.

Hedley

was studying at the University of Toronto and was the first to enlist. He joined

the 201st Canadian Infantry Battalion. He would have been the leader of the

family business, but he was killed near Arras in 1918.

Ken, the

father of the gentleman you just were introduced to, was wounded with the

Newfoundland Regiment at Beaumont-Hamel. Oswald was killed three months later at

Gueudecourt. He had been too young to enlist but he convinced his parents to let

him go.

Josiah

was wounded near Rouen in November. Stanley was a skilled horseman and served as

a transport officer. He was killed at Langemark in October 1917. Kate, the only

girl, served as a nurse in the Canadian Forces' Voluntary Aid Detachment.

Finally,

Roland attempted to enlist late in the war, but was turned away. The recruiters

deemed the Goodyears had already paid too high a price. This price includes two

names on today's honour roll and one other memorialized with Canadian losses at

the Somme.

I ask

all Members to join me in recognizing the Goodyear family's sacrifices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it is my

privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous success which

was the 34th Annual Frosty Festival in the City of Mount Pearl. Once again, this

year's festival included various activities for citizens of all ages and

interests, including a concert featuring Newfoundland and Labrador's own

Masterless Men, along with the Navigators and the Irish Descendants; two

community breakfasts; an Irish Pub night; a lip sync contest; seniors' bingo;

Jiggs' dinner and a variety show; and a dinner theatre, just to name a few.

Mr.

Speaker, as I'm sure you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude would

not be possible were it not for the hard work and co-operation of a number of

community partners.

I would

therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the

City of Mount Pearl, the Frosty Festival Board of Directors, the various

community groups and organizations, the corporate sponsors, and all of the

community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great success story which was

Frosty Festival 2016.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize Mark and Joanne Lush of Wabush for

organizing the fifth annual Shane Mercer Memorial Fishing Derby in Wabush on

April 9, 2016, which I attended.

Shane

Mercer was a victim of a drunk-driving crash on December 5, 2010 at the age of

30. His girlfriend, Leisa Penney, is survivor of the same crash.

Mark was

employed at Wabush Mines and was both Shane and his dad's supervisor at the time

of the tragedy.

Mark's own words, the year after the needless accident, we decided to do the

fish derby to give back to the town we now call home. After discussing the idea

with the Mercer family, it seemed fitting for the proceeds to go to the local

chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The goal

was a fun-filled family event in the hope of keeping Shane's memory alive and to

send the dark message of drinking and driving to the kids. This year's event

resulted in $3,200 being donated to the local

chapter of MADD.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking Mark and Joanne for their hard work in

organizing this very worthwhile event.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador annually presents the

Manning Awards for Excellence in the Presentation of Historic Places.

The 22nd

Manning Awards were awarded on March 17. The winner in the community category

was the Basilica Heritage Foundation for

Fleming , a one-person theatrical performance presenting the history of the

Basilica Cathedral of St. John the Baptist and the historical figure Bishop

Michael Fleming.

That

one-person show was written and originally performed the multi-talented Paul

Rowe. Bishop Fleming conceived of the Basilica and oversaw most of its

construction with a rare blend of negotiation, cajoling, threats and willpower.

The performance guides visitors through the Basilica, highlighting its

architecture, art and history, via a lively representation of one of

Newfoundland and Labrador's most colourful characters.

Paul

Rowe himself is well known as both an author and an actor. Last summer he handed

the role of Bishop Fleming to someone else because he was performing at the

Stratford Festival.

I am

thrilled to invite all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Paul Rowe and

the Basilica Heritage Foundation for their Manning Award and to thank them for

helping preserve a piece of our history in this very engaging fashion.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize Dec LaCour. Dec began volunteering with

hockey in Wabush, Labrador. He started in 1974, when his oldest son started

playing the sport.

In 1977,

due to health reasons, Dec and his family returned to Harbour Main. Since that

time, he has held many positions including coach, manager and president of the

local association. Mr. Speaker, for the last 26 years, he has held the position

of Eastern Area Director for Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador.

Recently

Dec represented Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador with the St. John's Hitmen of

the Irving Oil Challenge Cup in New Brunswick. They won gold. Irving Old

honoured him as he attended all 25 Irving Oil Challenge Cup tournaments.

Ron

MacLean from Coach's Corner acknowledged Dec's accomplishments while in New

Brunswick.

Mr.

Speaker, he has received multiple awards for his volunteerism, including the

Governor General Award of Canada in 1992.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join with me in recognizing Dec LaCour for his

long-time contributions to the sport of hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I rise in this hon. House

today to thank a local business in my district for continuing to contribute to

their community and for helping the Torbay local library to remain open.

District

Drugs was opened in 1963 and has since been a huge part of Torbay and the

surrounding communities. When schools, sports teams, local service groups and

any group was in need, District Drugs has been there to support their cause.

Recently, the owners stepped forward to help the local library. Jack Hogan and

Keith Hogan, owners of District Drugs, also owned the building where the library

is located. When the library was in danger of closing, they offered it rent free

for a few months.

Jack and

Keith Hogan recognized the importance of the library to the community. The

library has been a huge part of Torbay and many members of the Hogan family have

taken advantage of it. The library is named after Libby Morey, a good friend and

one of Mr. Hogan's first customers.

Please

join with me in thanking District Drugs and the Hogan family for their support

of the local community and their local library.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Honour 100, we have

the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

I will now read into the

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

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

the Newfoundland Forestry Corps, the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine, or the

Royal Flying Corps. This will be followed by a moment of silence.

Lest we

forget: Philip Gillett, Job Gilley, Charles Gillingham, Thomas Ginn, William

Ginn, Edward Francis Gladney, James Glover, Nathaniel Gooby, Robert George Good,

Augustus Goodland, Stephen Goodwin, Oswald Goodyear, Stanley Charles Goodyear,

William Bertram Goodyear, Gilbert Thomas Gordon, Julian Joseph Gorman, Samuel

Goss, Eldred Gosse, Ira Joseph Gosse, Thomas Joseph Gosse, Walter Gosse, George

Goudie, Chesley James Gough, Martin Joseph Grace, Charles E. Granger, Edward

Peter Grant, James Bernard Grant, William Hoyes Grant, Matthew Greeley, Albert

James Green, James Green, John Henry Stanley Green, Moses Green, Robert Green,

Barton Greene, Walter Martin Greene, James Greening, John Griffin, Thomas J.

Grouchy and Daniel Groves.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to announce that our province will welcome the Princess Royal, the

Royal Newfoundland Regiment's Colonel-in-Chief, to participate in commemorative

events for the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme on July 1, 2016.

Invited

on behalf of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Advisory Council, her visit spans

June 28 until July 1, and includes going to Corner Brook to present the Royal

Newfoundland Regiment's 2nd Battalion with new Colours, and unveiling the Forget

Me Not Committee's Danger Tree sculpture at Grenfell Campus.

The

Princess Royal will attend the Ceremony of Remembrance at the National War

Memorial on July 1 and open the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Gallery and Fortis

Courtyard and Amphitheatre at The Rooms. She will also visit with veterans and

with organizations that she supports.

Mr.

Speaker, Memorial Day is a time to commemorate veterans, past and present. It

signifies a deep sense of pride for the important role Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians played in the First World War, and the particular efforts of the

Royal Newfoundland Regiment at Beaumont-Hamel. Their sense of duty shall never

be forgotten and we are honoured to welcome the Princess Royal to Newfoundland

and Labrador to participate in Honour 100 commemorations.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

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

Opposition also welcomes the visit of Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal, to

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme is one that is of extreme

historical importance and one that I am pleased to see the Royal Newfoundland

Regiment's Colonel-in-Chief will participate in. As with any visiting dignitary

to our province, I hope they will be able to experience our remarkable province

and its people.

Commemorating our fallen soldiers and current veterans is something that all

Members of this House rightfully support. Our veterans, many of whom are

seniors, deserve the utmost care and respect from their province and especially

their government.

Mr.

Speaker, I find it curious that this government would claim to make veterans or

seniors a priority when the actions and decisions they've made

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

Member's time for speaking has expired.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

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

announcement that he's made here today. These ceremonies are so important

because they remind us of the terrible price we have paid in the past. They

remind us how important it is that tragedies like the First World War or any

conflict must never happen.

Canada

is a country of peace and these occasions serve to reinforce our commitment to

peace at home and around the world, something which I'm sure those who lost

their lives would agree with it.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

pleased to rise in this House today to inform my colleagues and the people of

our province that a spring training program has been launched for drinking water

system operators.

Mr.

Speaker, it takes serious commitment and dedication on the part of water system

operators to ensure their communities have safe and sustainable drinking water.

Operators shoulder great responsibility and they rely on regular training and

education to ensure that they have the latest knowledge, which is necessary for

them to do their jobs in the best possible way.

Nearly

300 of these operators took

part in the Annual Clean and Safe Drinking Water

Workshop in Gander last month, and this classroom

schedule expands on the

training they received there.

Remaining focused on operator training is a priority for our government and one

I was pleased to discuss with my colleagues on the Ministerial Committee for

Safe Drinking Water when we met last week.

department is working with the Departments of Health and Community Services,

Municipal Affairs and Service NL, on a water quality action plan that will

further our efforts in ensuring safe and sustainable drinking water for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Ongoing

training opportunities for operators are a critical part of that future plan

which I hope to share with you in the coming months.

encourage municipalities to check out the classroom

schedule on the department's

website and avail of training this spring so that together we can ensure our

communities have the best possible drinking water systems.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I also want to

thank department officials for providing this training to water system

operators, especially those in various municipalities around the province.

As a

province we face huge challenges with drinking water infrastructure. Our

province has a large number of boil orders. In some communities, Mr. Speaker,

there is infrastructure in place and municipalities have either turned it off

for a variety of reasons. I encourage the government to work with municipalities

to find solutions, many which require little to no cost. Training will help, but

we all need to do more.

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, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Covering the cost of

basic services like safe drinking water is really challenging for

municipalities. Often, they have to turn off their drinking water systems for

lack of money and trained staff. Boil water advisories are a major public health

problem. For years, communities have been asking the government to provide more

help.

support the water quality action plan promise today and I hope it does in fact

provide the needed resources for regular training.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

The people of Newfoundland

and Labrador deserve no less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Maclean's Magazine wrote an

article immediately following the Liberal budget which stated: the script that

the Finance Minister wrote for Newfoundland's fiscal crisis is sure to make

matters worse, driving away the young, hard-working people she desperately

needs. The minister, in her own admission, stated their plan would reduce

growth, shrink the population actually. Yesterday in Question Period, the

Minister of Finance stated we will not budget on hope.

I ask

the Premier: How can you and your government continue with your actions of

shattering the hope and opportunities for hard-working people of Newfoundland

and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

there has been a lot of commentary around the budget of last Thursday.

Maclean's was one article;

The Globe and Mail had some other

articles and said that given the situation the province was facing, there was

very little choices that we had to make to get the province's financial house in

order.

One of

the things about the budget I will say too, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a lot

of information that are being shared with the public right now that is really

not reflecting what some of the facts are within the budget. If you take the

personal income tax, take the levy, take the HST and add those impacts all

together, the range is somewhere between in some cases, people will benefit by

as much as 1.44 per cent. Then the impacts on the high end will be that of

around 3.5 per cent. We are still very competitive, even with our Atlantic

colleagues.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are

hearing from hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are certainly not

going to benefit but are going to be burdened by this new budget. I haven't

heard from anybody who's going to benefit, I can assure you of that, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, only hours after delivering her budget, which attacked the lower-income

and middle-income families, the Minister of Finance gave an interview to NTV and

stated that her Liberal government, and I quote, would not make decisions based

on who cries the loudest.

Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you, many tears of fear and worry are being shed because of

the broken promises made by this Liberal government. Their own party insiders

are turning on them. This is not the stronger tomorrow that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians were promised, and clearly is a blatant disregard for the impacts

it will have on hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So I ask

the Premier: Will you listen to the people of the province and reverse these

choices you've made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When you

look at the situation that we currently face within the province, when you look

at the transition that had to be made, the information that was not available

prior to transition to what we have today and I will say, too, Mr. Speaker,

not all of it on the previous administration. There are things that are

happening globally right now with the uncertainty around oil pricing as an

example, but primarily largely as a result of information that was not shared

with the people of our province.

The

transition's been very difficult. But if we do not address the situation right

now, when you look at the debt situation in our province, within the next five

years, not taking action, the net debt in our province will actually double. It

is then Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will lose their say and their

opportunity to collect their future and save their future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the question for the Premier was: Will he listen to the people, as they so

proudly say they do on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker? Because the Liberal

government has stated repeatedly and repeatedly that it listens to the people of

the province, and it consults with the public 500,000 advisors. Because of

this budget many are considering a one-way ticket to a better future, which is

another province.

So I ask

the Premier: Will you be true to your word, will you listen to what the people

of the province are saying? Will you listen to your own party insiders about

this budget, scrap the budget and introduce one that's fair and balanced for the

people of the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do

listen to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we're sharing the story of where

our province exists as a result of the mismanagement and the poor planning, the

lack of preparedness by the previous administration.

Now, if

we talk about the facts, we talk about the infrastructure spending that's in

this budget, there are a lot of good things within this budget that will impact

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is a budget that will spend $8.48 billion,

I say, Mr. Speaker, and when you look at the tax increases that are there

which I will say that people want to engage in and have that conversation in

when you paint the picture on how competitive our province remains, even with

the tax measures that have put in place, the levy, the increase in HST and

personal income tax, taking us back to 2006 and 2007 levels, Mr. Speaker. That

is the actual picture that we face today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we know the Premier was very quick to chastise us in the past and he

likes to talk about the past. The question was about listening to the people

today. We're listening and we know that this government is increasing spending

by almost half a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. The choices that they've made are

affecting every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and it's affecting them hard.

The tax

burden that the Liberal choices have placed on the people of the province will

push many to the poverty line. The Liberal gas tax will make commuting,

travelling, access to services the cost of food and other commodities is going

to increase significantly. It may even deter tourists from coming to our

province this year.

I ask

the Premier: How does forcing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay more for

food how does that provide them with a stronger tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You give

me access to $25 billion over a 10-year period and we'll show you how you can

plan for the future of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

That is something that they

ignored. I heard the previous premier on many occasions talk about (inaudible)

and talk about infrastructure investments that they would have had to make, but

they did not prepare. What they did not prepare based on the commodity

environment and situation that we're into they did not prepare when they had

the opportunity.

Now that

they're not in office and they find themselves in this situation that this

province is now into as a lack of preparing for this. They make commitments to

people of this province that were not sustainable.

Does the

former premier is he prepared to say and support that the net debt in this

province should double in the next five years because they did not plan for the

future of our province? Are you okay with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fourth

question today and the fourth time the Premier fails to answer the question and

utilizes the time for his rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. So I'm going to ask the

Premier, in a budget where cuts will be felt in rural communities and it will be

more expensive to live, programs and services will be challenged and reduced

throughout many rural communities, where is your concern for rural parts of our

province? Where is your plan for a stronger tomorrow for rural Newfoundland and

Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

been about 120-odd days plus right now since we've been in office, four months.

I think the previous administration had many more years of that. I ask the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador where rural Newfoundland has gone within the

last 12 years

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

when they failed to invest

in economic diversification.

We're

just starting, Mr. Speaker. We're going to do what needs to be done to get this

province back on track, to diversify the economy and help support rural

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

That is our job and that is

our mandate, and we will do exactly that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

you mentioned diversification because there's one thing we never saw in this

budget and that was diversification, that's for sure, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

So I ask the Premier: Well,

how is your budget encouraging business? How does you budget support business

when taxes are going up, funding is being cut, support for business and

start-ups are being cut, and Newfoundland and Labrador will become a more

expensive place to live? How is that going to help diversify the economy and how

is that going to help support business?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How you

support business in Newfoundland and Labrador and how you support people in

Newfoundland and Labrador is to prevent, is to put mitigating things in place

that will prevent in the next five years, or seven years, we would have been

at a $27 billion deficit. That would have been about equal to where we see our

GDP in our province. That is how you protect businesses in our province and that

is how you protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, you prevent it from

actually having debt servicing being the biggest industry in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's not

only rural parts of the Island that are being impacted by this terrible budget

brought forward by the Liberals, but it is also Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The

Liberal choices in the budget include closure of the Wabush court. We know the

next closest court is about 500 kilometres more away. Cancellation of the Air

Foodlift Subsidy for Labradorians; elimination of sport and recreation grants

for Sheshatshiu Innu Nation; reductions in health care in Black Tickle, in North

Coast and South Coast.

So I ask

the Premier: Can you tell the people of Labrador what are you doing for them?

What's in this budget for the people of Labrador? How does this help them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wonder why the former premier just left out the significant investment, which is

the biggest piece of infrastructure that's yet to be completed in Labrador

that's the Trans-Labrador Highway. It's the biggest single piece of

infrastructure, and if you go to Labrador, you speak to people in The Straits

and you speak to people across Labrador, they you tell you it's the

Trans-Labrador Highway that they feel will connect them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

So, Mr. Speaker, we are

engaged with the people in Labrador. The Trans-Labrador Highway is a big

investment, and, probably to the disappointment of the Members opposite, but

we're in great discussions with our federal colleagues and they are going to

come in and support our investment in the Trans-Labrador Highway as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the Premier raised the Trans-Labrador Highway, because we made significant

investments and partnered

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

We actually partnered with

the previous federal government over six

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

struck a chord today with them now.

Over six

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over

$600 million spent on the Labrador Highway, the Trans-Labrador Highway that we

built, Mr. Speaker, when we were government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the executive

director of the Women's Centre in Western Labrador has expressed concern about

the safety of the people with the impending closure of the courthouse in Wabush.

Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite and the government was very proud last week

they set a precedent by allowing parliamentary secretaries to answer questions.

I ask

the Member for Labrador West, the parliamentary secretary, if he supports the

closure of the Wabush courthouse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an

opportunity to answer my first question in the House and talk about the closure

of the court in Wabush, which I would remind Members was actually a circuit

court up until 2007. Fortunately, since that time, there has actually been a 48

per cent decrease in the number of cases heard there.

We are

in consultation with the judiciary. Obviously, it is still a tough decision to

make when you have to talk to individuals that are affected by this. We've had

those tough conversations. We look forward to working with the judiciary to

ensure that there is still access to justice, certainly access to justice that

existed up to till 2007. So we look forward to continuing to have that

discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

they neglected to contact and consult with the Women's Centre in Western

Labrador because they have a very strong feeling about what's happening in the

Western Labrador court.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday it became known that the Premier has a personal interest in a

condo project known as Sundara, which is being repurposed as a seniors' assisted

living complex. The Premier has stated publicly that the business has not yet

been placed in a blind trust.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: We are hearing from people throughout the province

who are concerned about this

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier if the project has benefited in any way from any decisions that he

has made or his government has made since coming into power. Has it benefited in

any way financially, anything budget related, HST related or any other

discussions or expect to qualify for any programs in the future?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question actually because it gives me an opportunity to tell

exactly what we've been doing since the election. First of all, I met with the

Commissioner of Members' Interests on this very issue. The establishment of the

blind trust is being done right now.

currently have a number of operating businesses. The professionals, the lawyers

and people that actually deal with this are dealing with this, I will say, a lot

faster than many other Members in this House of Assembly, maybe even some

Members opposite. The blind trust is important. I can tell you, we want to get

this established as quickly as possible.

This is

not a personal care home. It is a condo development right now that is being

repurposed to rent to people. There is no government money put into this. It is

not a personal care home. It is not a long-term care home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the answer from the Premier. I understand that these things can be

complex and take some time to do, but people have been contacting us and asking

us wanting to be sure. I know that the Premier wants to be open and transparent.

I just

want to ensure because the Premier hasn't answered the question. Can he assure

that there's been no benefit to the project or anybody interested in the project

as a result of any decisions he or the government has made since he came into

power?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

assure the former premier of any of those calls that he's getting, he can

forward them directly to me. I will deal with it. I certainly don't mind at all

people asking questions about any of those things that impact me.

Mr.

Speaker, right now, in terms of anything from funding from this government, not

at all. It was a condo building that was built for condos.

As you

know, now it's being repurposed not for a long-term care site at all, not for a

personal care home. They will be rental units. People will move in there, and

actually services will be provided to those individuals. The long-term care

individuals that were talked about yesterday in the news story, these are not

the individuals that would go into a facility like that at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the

Minister of Health said that the Masonic Park long-term care facility was in a

state of disrepair and its living conditions were deplorable. Then this morning

we hear the Mayor of Mount Pearl, a political staffer on the Liberal

government's payroll on a radio morning show, echo those same talking points.

I'm not sure if the minister or Mr. Simms has been in the facility lately, so

I'm not sure what they're basing their opinions on.

I ask

the Minister of Health to please provide the information and data that

demonstrates that the Masonic Park long-term care facility is in a state of

disrepair as he says.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, Masonic Park was re-roofed. It is in need of renovations and repairs

to the tune of approximately a million dollars, I'm informed. Even with that,

the layout is now less than optimal for best practices in management of

long-term care patients.

We have

available federally funded beds through the Veterans Pavilion. Eastern Health is

in negotiations with the appropriate department to move those clients into newer

and better accommodations. It is our aim to proceed with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, lots of our

facilities are less than optimal, given the age of the facilities. Whether

you're talking about St. Pat's or St. Luke's or Agnes Pratt, Masonic Park would

be no different.

Mr.

Speaker, Eastern Health has an operating agreement with Masonic Park, the

non-profit organization that owns the nursing home. Eastern Health has an

obligation to maintain the building and protect Masonic Park's asset. I know the

facility is well maintained. The owners of the building know the facility is

well maintained. The residents know it's well maintained. In fact, the roof was

replaced just last year. But the minister and a political staffer say otherwise.

I ask

the minister: Can he provide the list of items that have caused him to conclude

that the building is in a state of disrepair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

The move

from Masonic Park to the Veteran's Pavilion will save Eastern Health at least

$1.5 million per year. This decision has been an option available to the

Department of Health for in excess of 18 months, and because of local influence,

that was never actioned at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister is

correct. I did stop the closure of Masonic Park. I stopped the closure of 40

needed long-term care beds in this region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I refused to close long-term

care beds in this province while seniors and families desperately wait for

long-term care in every region of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

So I won't apologize for

that, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask the minister to provide the detailed

information that shows how moving these seniors from their homes at this stage

of their lives will save $1.5 million. It's simply not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

It seems the gentleman

opposite is getting quite excited about this subject. It is a subject of

importance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAGGIE:

These folk in Masonic Park

deserve the best care we can provide. Those beds are vacant and unused in a new

facility with adequate staffing and are able to avail of the best optimal

staffing ratios according to Canadian best practices. I will not deprive them of

that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. This will go ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

It is shameful, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Health and Community Services in this province would try

and justify the closure of 50 long-term care beds in this region.

So I'll

ask the Premier I say to the Premier, you're closing 50 badly needed long-term

care beds in this province just months after deciding to cancel a solid plan to

create an additional 360 new beds. That serious shortage of long-term care beds

has a profound impact on the people who need them, not to mention their

families. As a result of this decision, surgeries will be cancelled, people will

be waiting in hallways on stretchers waiting in a personal care home, or maybe

they'll even wait in an assisted living apartment, maybe even in Mount Pearl.

I ask

the Premier: How can you justify eliminating long-term care beds when there are

so many individuals and families in need of long-term care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell you, I've been in this House of Assembly now for about five years and I can

honestly say that is probably as low as it gets. This is a former Minister of

Health that seems to be willing to take people that need long-term care and put

them in a facility, which it seems what he hopes to do put them in a facility

that's not even licensed or not even equipped to do so.

The

facility that he's talking about will not take and cannot service long-term care

patients I say, Mr. Speaker. It is not a personal care home at all.

So let's

take this off the record once and for all. There is no government funding going

in at Sundara and it's not connected at all to the decisions that were made by

Eastern Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier

didn't answer the question that I asked. I'll move on.

Numerous

residents of Masonic Park Nursing Home have spouses that reside in nearby

cottages or apartments, or at Hillcrest Estates which is two minutes away. They

make numerous trips to the facility every day to help care for and support their

loved ones. Now that relative convenience and peace of mind has been stolen from

these families.

What

does the Premier and the Minister of Health have to say to those families who

will now be unable to provide the same level of support and care to their loved

ones?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

desired aim is to move folk from Masonic Park to the new beds at the Veterans

Pavilion. However, working with Eastern Health and the families, if they come up

with other options that are viable, those can be entertained too. This is not a

question of railroading people into accommodations that don't suit them.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Eliminating beds.

MR. HAGGIE:

We are not eliminating beds.

I would suggest the Member opposite check his math.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

mayor of Bay Roberts says he's lost confidence in the Education Minister and is

asking him to step down in light of the Liberal horrendous budget.

I ask

the minister, the man who argued so passionately for the need of a new school

when overcrowding and age becomes an issue: Why did you axe Coley's Point

school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Education for a very quick response.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

interesting that the Member's interest is now piqued in this issue now that they

are out of office. They had lots of time to replace this school; they did

nothing about it. There are about a dozen schools in the province that are of

similar age as Coley's Point. It remains a priority for us, but because of the

damage that was done to the provincial Treasury by the previous administration

and the horrific deficit position that we're in, it's something we can't do

right now.

to try to find a solution. We'll find one if we can in the interim. If we can't,

we'll build the school when the funds are available. But like I said, because of

the damage the crowd opposite did to the Treasury we simply don't have the funds

this year.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member has about 15

seconds for a question.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, not only are

people upset in Bay Roberts, but all across this province with the recent cuts.

The minister himself has flip-flopped on his decision and his comments about how

schools should move forward.

I ask

him: Give us a reason why you're cutting the schools in this province and why

you're putting the risk of education and the students here at risk for the

people of this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the reason is

last year this crowd told us we had a $1.1 billion deficit but that has

ballooned to more than double to $2.7 billion. We're not going to keep putting

funds on the credit card of the next generation of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We're not going to charge back to the next generation like the

other administration wanted to do. We're not going to do that. We're going to

have responsible management of the Treasury. That's the platform we ran on.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the Member

for St. John's East Quidi Vidi, I would ask the House for order and decorum.

The

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

During

the November election campaign when asked about his many business interests, the

soon-to-be premier said he was committed to transparency but could not say

whether tougher blind trust rules were necessary or not.

I ask

the Premier, who does not yet have a blind trust in place: Can he now tell the

people of the province whether or not he believes the current conflict of

interest rules are tough enough?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

current conflict of interest rules and what we do as Members in this House of

Assembly first of all, there is a public disclosure of the activities that

you're involved in. These are things that we do on an annual basis. In my case,

these things are done. The blind trust situation is really the first time that

I've gone through this process. We are currently going through that, as I said,

right now. All the activities that will go inside of that blind trust will be

delivered and the activities will be carried on by the trustees in that blind

trust.

Mr.

Speaker, I tell you what, from my own point of view, it couldn't happen soon

enough to please me, and it will happen, it will get done. There is a time frame

that's put in place for that to be established. I can assure you that we are

doing that in a timely fashion, and much faster than many other previous leaders

or Cabinet ministers would have done in the past.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As we

know, blind trusts are only needed by Members of the Cabinet.

So could

the Premier tell us: How many others in his Cabinet need blind trusts, and are

they set up as yet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you

know, those with business activities that feel a need to set up a blind trust,

the responsibility on any conflict of interest lies within the Members that are

included in those activities. So I don't go around and ask Members, and I don't

think the former Premier would have done that in the past I'm not sure but

Members, as you know, they put blind trusts in place. It's their responsibility

under the conflict of interest rules to declare their business interests and

their personal interests.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday we learned that the minister is cutting crucial mental health and

addictions services for youth. Government sat on the same All-Party Committee as

I did, and we heard the desperate, desperate pleas from parents trying to get

help for their children. We all knew we need a strong, robust day treatment

program for our youth like the Rowan Centre.

So I ask

the minister: Knowing this program needed to be strengthened, how could he

support the closure of the Rowan Centre when in fact it should have been

strengthened?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

opportunity to answer the question from the Member opposite, who is an active

Member of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health.

The

Rowan Centre is actually a program, not a physical building. In 2015 it had less

than one referral a week. The staff that are there are being redeployed to other

mental health areas where their skills will be better employed helping a larger

number of people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: How could these decisions be made without consultation with the

All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions and without consultation

with the Minister's Advisory Committee on Mental Health? Is this how he uses our

expertise? And exactly what will the minister put in place to provide the gaps

left by the closure of the Rowan Centre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

It's unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker, that I should have to remind an active Member of the committee of the

terms of reference of the All-Party Committee. It is essentially to provide a

snapshot of current mental health services to establish best practices and the

gap, and then to report back to this House who actually set up the committee.

The

committee is active, as the Member opposite knows, and will be meeting shortly.

It has activities planned and it is hoped that we will be able to submit the

report before this sitting ends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre for a very quick question.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions was not at all consulted on

this decision or any of the mental health decisions and cuts that were announced

yesterday.

I ask

the minister: Why not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue of fiscally responsible use of money by Eastern Health has to take

priority at the moment. We have been left in an appalling situation with the

single biggest department, in terms of government expenditure. We had money

frittered away and unfortunately we are having to deal with the realities.

The

Rowan Centre was underutilized. On an operational basis, Eastern Health made a

very prudent fiscal decision to reallocate the staff to areas where the need was

far greater and they would not be sitting there underemployed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing a higher

tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS

surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently

demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other

countries; and

WHEREAS

government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax

schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

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

of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be

eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation

principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador

provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased once again to stand here today with a petition from

the people in our province. This time a petition with regard to this terrible

levy that has been included in the budget for 2016-2017.

I have

many names here in my hand, but I want to let the government know and let the

Premier know and the Minister of Finance know that I haven't been able to go

anywhere public since last Thursday without people stopping me and saying: Ms.

Michael, this has got to end. People are calling it a poll tax. Even at quarter

to eight this morning in the supermarket a man stopped me to say: Ms. Michael,

keep speaking out against the poll tax, this is absolutely unjust. Everywhere I

go.

I have

hundreds of emails that have come in. I have more than just these petitions.

People are letting us know they are out there getting names. There's going to be

name upon name upon name brought into this House.

Not only

did this government do this levy, which is bad enough because it's unjust, it's

unequitable, it puts a heavier burden on lower income people than it does on the

very wealthy in our province, besides that, those people, people who have a

taxable income of $25,000 having to pay an extra $300 a year, on top of that

they are having to pay 16.5 cents more per litre for the gas in their vehicles.

On top of that they have to pay more for their income tax, period, because the

income taxes have gone up. On top of that they are not going to get the Home

Heating Rebate they have been used to getting. On top of that they are going to

have to pay 2 per cent more HST.

I don't

know how this government can listen to the petitions we are bringing into this

House without paying attention. They say they wanted to consult with 500,000

here they are.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

commend the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi on her speed. She's very

fast and races to her feet quicker than I can some days, Mr. Speaker.

Today's

petition that I'm presenting relates to food security.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

greater food security ought to be a priority for Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

of Assembly to urge government to set targets for improving the food security of

Newfoundland and Labrador by promoting the growing in this province of more of

the food we consume.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this petition is more important now than ever, given the budget that

came down last week. The price of food, which in many cases is already at

outrageous levels, is now going to go up because of the increase in taxes that

this government is placing on fuel.

Labrador

communities have seen the Air Foodlift Subsidy being removed. The health of the

mind and body is partially a result of the foods that we eat. We get 90 per cent

of our vegetables from outside the province. Because of this, we only have

enough fresh vegetables for several days if there is a problem with the delivery

of food. We also make a lot of fishery food products, but we send 80 per cent of

these products outside of the province. This helps people have jobs and

businesses make money, but it means there is less food from the fishery for the

people in our province.

Our

province has a lot of communities that are spread out. Many communities in the

province don't have their own grocery store. This means that people buy food at

corner stores or drive to nearby towns to go to grocery stores. For every 10,000

people in our province, there are 14 fast food stores, eight corner stores, four

gas stations with stores and three grocery stores. There will be a need now for

this more than ever before. With no regard to the health of the people of the

province, this government has imposed taxes without any consideration for those

affected.

There

are fewer farmers and we need more farmers. There's less land being used for

farming. We need to use more of our arable land for farming. Our farmers are

getting older and not many young people are becoming farmers. We need to do more

to attract new entrants to farming. The cost of buying land and growing food is

high. Many of the animal feed and fertilizer used on farms also comes from

outside the province.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll conclude by saying there's a growing interest in food security in

Newfoundland and Labrador. The time is right for all sectors to work together to

achieve food security and to create a healthier food system.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

present a petition. I've presented this before and I will continue on, I guess,

on this one as well.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the federal government should be reducing, not increasing, Marine Atlantic ferry

rates to drive tourism growth and stimulate the economy of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

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

of Assembly to urge government to press the province's federal Members of

Parliament and the federal government to reduce Marine Atlantic ferry rates.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

As I've

stated before, Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic ferry rates have a distinct impact

on every one of us here, whether it's the grocery shelves, whether you're

travelling or you're coming in off the province. Tourism is a big factor. With

our rubber-tire traffic, as I said before, it will definitely have an impact.

Now on

top of that we have a 16.5-cent a litre tax added to our gasoline. So not only

are the rates at Marine Atlantic increased, but that 16.5 cents will definitely

have a detrimental impact on in-province tourism for sure and, no doubt, it will

affect the prices on our grocery sales.

One

other point to that, as I say about tourism, we have a $13 million tourism

budget. A couple of months ago we were told it was going to be increased by a

million dollars a year for the next three years, but that never happened.

closing, I just want to say, you have 16.5 cents a litre on your gas, ferry

rates have increased, there is no new money for tourism, which we have a

successful tourism campaign, but we can always be better. I do encourage

government to press their federal cousins and try to get some relief on the

marine ferry rates, because I suspect we will see a big drop in tourism this

year.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The

Province, Bill 24, and I further move that the said bill a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 24, and

that the said bill shall now be read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to read the bill the first time?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Against?

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, An

Act Respecting Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province, carried.

(Bill 24)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting

Insured Medical And Hospital Services In The Province. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 24 has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 24 read a fist time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I now call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the budget speech.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to be the first on the government side to speak

on the budget. I would just like to recognize my colleague across the floor

yesterday in speaking on last year's budget and this year's budget, and

certainly took a considerable amount of time and detail to go into some of the

details he had. I'm going to try to respond to some of the items today. I won't

get to all of them, but I will certainly try to get through some of them.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the Member opposite who

yesterday recognized all the civil servants and the amount of work that they put

into helping us prepare this budget. A lot of times we don't adequately

recognize the amount of work and commitment that people who are employed within

government will give to the service of their employ.

I just

want to echo what the minister mentioned and certainly want to recognize all the

civil servants who spent so much time in helping us to prepare for this budget.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk about the seriousness of this budget. I know many of us

have been sitting on this side of the House and we've been listening to what the

Members opposite have been saying. It's very easy to do that. I guess one of the

most difficult things in life that we have to do sometimes is clean up someone

else's mess. I feel like that's what we're doing. We're trying to clean up some

of the mess that's left behind. It's not an easy task.

What

happens then, Mr. Speaker, is obviously when we do that we have to make some

difficult decisions. The decisions that we've made, I've got to let the people

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know, they have not been taken

lightly. We have to realize when we are facing situations that we are now facing

with the unprecedented debt we're left with and also the potential going

forward, that if we did not do anything what we would be faced, and what our

children and our grand-children would be faced with.

So, Mr.

Speaker, none of us, not one single Member sitting on this side is taking this

budget lightly. None of us, if we had a choice, would ever be able to make the

decisions we made. Unfortunately, we've had to make some tough decisions and

these are decisions that we have made, and we will make as we move through this.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite yesterday also mentioned the fact that our expenses

in our expense line this year is going to be higher than last year. One of the

challenges our Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board had to deal

with is the gap that's between the revenue and the expenses. In trying, part of

what we have to do is try to narrow that gap in order to reduce some of the

borrowing that will be necessary.

When we

looked at the numbers this year going forward on the expense side and I know

we're talking a lot about revenue and that we've had to look at the revenue

section, and that is true, we have. There's been a lot of talk about the

increase in the gasoline per litre, and also of course in the levy. I want to

remind the people of this province that these are temporary measures. They are

measures that will be in place for a very short period of time. Somehow we've

got to face trying to reduce this debt.

When the

Member opposite yesterday talked about the fact that actually our expenditure

line next year is higher by over $400 million, that is correct. Mr. Speaker,

$225 million of that, it's my understanding, is going to service the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Pension unallocated funds. So we're looking

at about a quarter of a billion.

Then we

look at the extra amount of money that's going into the expenses. It will be for

interest on money that was borrowed this year. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about

challenges that we're facing, I've got two grandchildren that are living in this

province. I made mention of them in my maiden speech. I have some of my family

I wish I had all of my family here but I don't.

We are

facing challenges this year that really, when we look at it, $988 million to

service the debt, more money to service our debt than we're spending on

education for our children. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a sad commentary. It's a

sad commentary for me. As a result of that, it's a sad commentary for my

grandchildren who are in the education system.

Mr.

Speaker, I think we have to put these numbers in perspective when we're looking

at the budget. I know it's very easy to sit on the Opposition and to sit on the

opposite side and look at all the negative things in this budget, but there are

some positive things. I think it's important that we look at these.

One of

the other things, Mr. Speaker, that was referenced and I know my good friends

opposite have talked about the fact that they're getting a lot of emails. A lot

of the emails are negative emails. We're no exception; we're getting them as

well. I've had comments made to me that we're not going to gain any votes on

this budget.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to just be clear, this is not about votes. The decision we made

is not about votes. This is about trying to correct some of the issues we have

and trying to chart a course for the future.

In doing

that, Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that we're not going to get 100 per cent

support from the province. One of the things we have to look at is to realize

this is not a popularity contest. What we're doing is not a popularity contest.

We are representing the people of the province. What we have to do, we are

mandated to try to the best of our ability to present a budget that we will

chart the course for the future of this province and not for the past. I realize

when we do that, there are always issues and always concerns and people will be

impacted. We all know that.

Again,

what we have to look at and realize: How far could we go on the course that we

were on? That's a question we all need to ask. I think when we look at it, I

think we have looked at a future that will provide at least some semblance of

getting us out and back in a positive nature.

Madam

Speaker, I wanted to also reference the comment the Member opposite made

yesterday with regard to our federal government and negotiations and

discussions. I just want to tell the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, we have been very successful. I have met with Minister Sohi on two

occasions face to face, and also one on a teleconference. I must say our

discussions have been going very well, very positive, and I think we're in a

good working relationship.

I think

one of the first things that we were able to realize was the $25 million

remission we had on the tariffs for our ferries. That was a very positive step

in the right direction, and it was an area we concentrated on. I had a

significant, as well as the Premier, we had significant discussions with our

federal counterparts to realize that we wanted even though we did not place

the province in that position, we felt it was important. We had two new ferries

that were delivered that we did not order as a government on this side; however,

we have to put that aside and we've got to try to work with the situation we

have. Part of that was trying to get the $25 million remission done on the

ferries, and we were successful in doing that. So I think that's the first step

in building a good, strong relationship.

We have

continued to have further discussions with the federal government, and we will

continue to have them. Right now, Minister Sohi and myself are looking at

there are some restrictions under the Building Canada Fund when it comes to the

small communities portion of the Building Canada Fund, as well as the PTIC

portion as well. We are working to try to get some of the criteria changed, some

of the restrictions removed from the criteria that's there, and we are pretty

optimistic that will happen. I think part of that will be because of our strong

relationship that we do have with our federal members.

Madam

Speaker, we were looking at I think the Member opposite yesterday as well

talked about our roads and how they were done. I think I referenced in the House

before that this year, we have taken a different approach on roads. Madam

Speaker, part of that was to try to remove some of the politics from the roads

and the awarding of contracts to districts. Part of that whole exercise was to

bring in all of the regional directors, and they came to St. John's for two

days, engaged in I guess they were immersed in two full days of discussions on

how to move those tenders forward.

Madam

Speaker, through that discussion, we had a number of criteria that we wanted;

safety was number one. They were all rated; all of the road requests were rated.

Safety was one. Condition of the road was another one. The class of the road was

a third. We looked at economic impact. We looked at bundling opportunities

because a lot of times in the past, you'd do a kilometre in this district and

another kilometre in another district and the cost were always escalated on

that.

What we

tried to do if there were opportunities for bundling, which would bring the cost

down, we did that as well. When that exercise was finished, we had roughly about

$10 million that we were able to do an early tender before the end of March.

That was done according to the information that was given to us by the

professionals in the field.

The same

exercise is continuing and we will have a second group of tendering, a block of

tendering, that will be going out I am hoping before the end of this week, and

the same sort of exercise that we had in the previous one, Madam Speaker, will

happen this time. Some of my Members opposite will be quite pleased to know that

they will be included in some of the road tendering.

That's

been taken out of the whole picture and I know my friend for Ferryland, if I

remember correctly, will be happy with a couple of pieces that I have. He may

not be happy with all of them I have, but at least a couple. We'll work with

that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

(Inaudible).

MR. HAWKINS:

What was that?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It won't take much to make me

happy.

MR. HAWKINS:

I know, I saw that yesterday,

Madam Speaker. I was a bit curious. I listened intently to what he was saying

probably for almost three hours. I was saying to myself because I was next to

speak. I said I have to stick this out. I was just amazed that he was able to

drink that water and still be able to speak for three hours and not have to

leave. That really did it for me. I was wondering if there were any other things

under the table.

Anyway,

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciated that and appreciated his comments. That's

the new approach that we're taking. We're working through that. It's not easy. I

do have right now about 1,500 requests for road repairs. I had my officials do a

costing on that. If I were to do all 1,500 roads this year, it would cost about

a billion dollars to do that.

Madam

Speaker, those are the challenges we're facing. We will work through it. We're

still looking at about $60 million this year in the roads, but everyone is not

going to be happy with that. We will take it step by step and hopefully be able

to get some of the worst roads done and work on that, and the highest traffic.

So that's a part of what we're doing with that section.

Madam

Speaker, when we complete this next phase of construction, we will be working on

a five-year plan. Part of that will be incorporated into our Building Canada

Fund to try and have a five-year plan for roads so that we can have our tenders

out as early as January. These are some of the things that we're doing.

One of

the things I also wanted to mention because I knew there was no way I could

mention all the facts that my good colleague across the floor mentioned

yesterday. I wanted to point out a couple of things with regard to supporting

low-income individuals and families.

We talk

about the tax structure and we talk about the fact that we're all going to be

burdened with extra taxes. A lot of the seniors are concerned. I just wanted to

make sure that a senior couple that's making $26,000 a year will now be

getting four payments every three months of $455.75, which compared to what they

were getting is an improvement. We know that there are concerns. Obviously, we

want to work with people on that, but I just wanted to point out that these

numbers are not mentioned anywhere from the Opposition when we talk about that.

Madam

Speaker, the other reference I wanted to make is that in spite of what we're

hearing, a lot of the negative things, there are some positive pieces coming out

of this budget and there's going to be a fair amount of infrastructure spending.

I think overall, when we talk about health, education and some of the others,

we're looking probably somewhere in the vicinity of about $570 million which

is half a billion dollars, which is a significant amount of infrastructure

spending.

In TW,

our infrastructure spending is going to be somewhere in the vicinity of about

$226 million. I just want to highlight a few of them. We're going to be spending

$62 million in the provincial roads program I just mentioned that and into

our brush clearing.

We're

going to be setting aside $750,000 this year for a study and a request for

proposals into the fixed link. That's included in my mandate letter from the

Premier, is that we are going to be looking the feasibility of the fixed link,

and we're putting in $750,000 to get that study started. I think there is some

merit in that, and I really want to get into looking at what are the options and

what are the opportunities. I think once we start exploring them there may be

more opportunities there than we really expect or anticipate. So, Madam Speaker,

that's one area that I really want to look at and to get some work done on.

We're

also looking at, even though we are somewhat constrained in our spending, we are

still going to put about $61-$62 million into heavy equipment and into ice and

snow control. We're also looking at $23 million for the continuation of the Team

Gushue Highway, and that's important for us. We're looking at from the Kenmount

Road to the Topsail area, hopefully getting that work done. That's a

continuation of the work from the previous government on that. We're going to

continue putting in about $23 million to do that

section this year. So that's a

significant amount.

One of

the big items I want to mention and bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, is

the fact that we're taking $63.7 million to leverage federal funding for

widening and paving of Phases 2 and 3 of the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are

going to be spending a significant amount of money in Labrador to look after

some of the needs that are there. So that's a significant amount of work that

hopefully we will be able to leverage federal funding that will be able to give

us the ability to do work in Labrador this summer.

I want

to also talk about the fact that we're putting $13 million to vessel refits. I

really can never stand and speak about vessels of course; I'm always plagued by

the Veteran . That's an ongoing

discussion that we will continue to have with Damen. I'm going to be a little

more forceful going forward on speaking with this group because obviously the

service we're providing to the people of Fogo Island and Change Islands is

totally unacceptable after having a new ferry. These are discussions that I will

continue to have. They will not be pleasant discussions going forward.

We're

going to spend about $6.1 million for renovation to the wharves at Portugal Cove

and Bell Island in preparation of the

Legionnaire . So that's going to be ongoing. I wanted to also mention the

fact that we're completing the work on the Placentia Lift Bridge. That's another

$9 million.

Madam

Speaker, we're spending a fair amount of money. We're also looking at putting

the Arts and Culture Centres throughout the province.

Even

though we are looking at a budget that is causing us some concerns on that, we

will still have a significant amount of infrastructure money that we will be

putting out during the summer so we can provide employment for people that are

looking for jobs. Hopefully this will be a stimulus as well to get the economy

going. We're looking forward

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

I remind the Member his time

has expired.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail Paradise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to have time in the House today. It's not a pleasure to talk about the

difficult circumstances that we face as a province, and it's not a pleasure to

stand and talk about the choices that the current government has made.

For

those tuning in at home, as Leader of the Opposition, I get an hour to speak to

the budget this afternoon. We'll see what happens as time goes on. I do have at

least an hour, maybe more, depending on what happens later in my speaking time

to talk about the budget.

During

the budget debate and money bills as I know you, as the Speaker, are quite

aware it provides a tremendous amount of latitude for Members of the House to

talk about a broad range of topics or anything that impacts the budget, the

finances, the circumstances of the province and virtually any kind of program or

bill or promise or line in the budget.

Madam

Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to back up in history just a little bit.

Members opposite throughout their campaign in the fall, when they made a

significant amount of very defined and careful promises and commitments to the

people of the province they also utilized much of their time, and we've seen

it in Question Period day after day, when they talk about history. I'm going to

talk about history now, too, while I have the chance to do so.

They

talk about what's happened in the past. They go back in the early 2000s. Maybe

we should go back to the '90s if we want to talk about history, or even earlier,

because remember back in the early '90s I was a public servant when the Liberal

government of the day came to the House of Assembly and had a budget that wasn't

a lot different from today in many aspects. It was crushing to the public

service. It was crushing to the economy. It was crushing to the province.

We see a

budget today that even in the Finance Minister's own admission, during her

Budget Speech she had indicated that this budget was going to have a similar

response. Her Budget Speech itself references the impacts on people working. I

think it's a 15 per cent reduction in the number of people working by 2021. A 22

per cent reduction in real income being earned by the people of the province by

2021. That was in her own speech and her own comments when she delivered the

budget last week. In her own admission and her own delivery of what they've done

here as a budget, it certainly doesn't instill confidence in the future.

That's

very important to the people of the province. When people go to bed at night and

they think about what's going to face them tomorrow, they want to know there's a

chance for them. They want to know that there's going to be opportunities for

them. They want to know if they study hard, if they work hard, if they do their

best to make ends meet, if they do their best to create a better future for

themselves and their family, that there's a chance and an opportunity that

that's going to happen. They've lost all that hope.

This

budget has nothing to do with people or care about people. There's been no talk

about that. Now the government talks heavily about finances, and that's very

important, but I know a former rear admiral of the US Navy used to say, Grace

Hopper hyphenated last name, cannot think of her name off hand, but I remember

learning this many years ago. She said, You manage things; you lead people.

The government is very focused on managing things but it appears they have

forgotten about people. That's one thing that is really missing in this budget

is they have forgotten about who has elected them and why, because people are

looking for an opportunity.

In the

last decade or so through population sorry, about the poverty reduction. There

was an effort by previous administrations, prior to me coming here, prior to the

short time that I was in office as Premier, prior to me being a Cabinet minister

and prior to me being elected as an MHA, there was work and a focus on, how do

we reduce the number of people and the amount of poverty in our province.

It was

very important, because Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians for decades and decades throughout our history were seen as in some

way disadvantaged, who relied on social programs, relied on unemployment cycles.

Well, we have seasonal industries, such as the fishery. Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians were quite seen like that. We know statistically speaking we had a

high level of families who relied on low incomes living in poverty in our

province.

The

government several years ago long before I came here back in the 2000s

started a process in 2005, 2006, 2007 of poverty reduction, a concerted effort.

There were over 30,000 people during that time that went through a transition in

their own lives, who were able to better themselves and reduce and end their

reliance on social programs and to be self-sustaining. Families who worked very,

very hard, most of them very moderate incomes low, middle incomes. Very

moderate incomes for families in many, many ways, but they were able to get a

start in life where they could live independently without relying on the

government for social programs.

Madam

Speaker, we hear Members opposite all the time talk about, oh, they squandered

money and they wasted money and so on. I'm going to talk a lot about that. I'm

going to talk a lot about that in my time. You tell one of those people who we

invested in, who were able to either further their education or had a chance to

work on their own and get a good paying job partners not always with

government. Quite often it was working with a company or with a business that we

helped stimulate and helped create. That was giving them an opportunity to work

there. You ask any of them if that was a waste of money and you'll get a very

clear answer from them. You'll get a very clear answer that the government

provided them opportunity.

What's

being held today, one of the problems today is that people are afraid that

opportunity worked hard for is being taken away from them. We don't want that to

happen. I'm sure Members opposite don't want that to happen.

I'm sure

many of the new MHAs that are here got a bit of a fright on Thursday when they

learned what was contained in their budget. I know we're all facing a tremendous

amount of input from people of province and reaction from the province. We

certainly are. I know Members opposite are as well, but there's a reason for

that.

People

just don't get up in arms. People who have never called their MHA, or written

Facebook and Twitter and so on when people don't normally do that and all of a

sudden they do it, there's a reason for that. One of the reasons for that is

they've lost hope. They've lost their hope is what are opportunities for them in

the future.

When you

hear people saying, I'm going to pull up stakes. I'm taking my family and I'm

getting out of here because there's nothing here for me, they've lost hope. When

you lose hope and when your society loses hope, and people start that slope of

loss of belief in their future, it's really hard to turn that around. Bringing

that hope down from where it was not that long ago, when people believed we can

get through this, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do it all the time.

I was

down to Bay de Verde on the weekend, and I talked to people down in Bay de

Verde. They said, do you know what? We're going to get through this. They

praised Quinlans, as an example. They spoke very highly of Quinlans as an

employer interested in their community. I talked to citizens who said they are

rallying together. They have an awful mess in the entire town to clean up.

We know

they are going to need government support and help to do that soot and pieces

and chunks of ash on people's lawns and in their gardens. Inside people's homes

where there is soot on their kitchen appliances and so on; inside their homes

where you have such a concentration of smoke and so on, but they said, do you

know what? We're a resourceful lot. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we're a

resourceful lot.

All they

want is a chance to make a go of it. The people down there just facing disaster

thankfully, there was no loss of life. I haven't heard of any injuries or

serious injuries that occurred. Thankfully that's the case because they want a

chance to get forward, and they're going to pull together. That's what we do.

If I was

to go down there and say: No, forget it, you're done. No one is going to help

you here; you haven't got a future here in this town. If Quinlans turned their

back on them that would be a problem, and people would feel differently.

That's

the way they feel about this budget. They feel like the rug has been pulled out

from under them. The rug has been pulled out from under them, and somehow the

Members opposite came to the House day after day after day and asked for more.

I will

give you some examples of that. They asked for more, and somehow when we tried

to say, well, that's a good idea and we should try to find a way to create that

program. Let's talk about adult dental, the best program in the country.

Now the

government, the Members opposite talked about today we heard the Premier

reference today in Question Period we have an equal level of taxation comparable

to other provinces. Well, we need to be better than that because we are

geographically disadvantaged for one from where we are with the rest of the

country. We have a huge land mass with a small population and having equal

levels of taxation doesn't give people an advantage and an opportunity for a

better life.

Sometimes you have to find a way to give them a better chance. That's what has

happened over the last decade. That's why there is more than 30,000 fewer people

in poverty today than there was a decade ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

The fear is they are going to

go back to that.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's not funny.

MR. P. DAVIS:

You're right, it's not funny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Madam Speaker, last year in

the fall of 2014, when I had the privilege and the honour to go to the Premier's

Office, we were facing we knew we were facing very difficult circumstances; we

knew that we were facing very difficult challenges. It didn't take me very long

in the office to know I had to take some actions that were not going to be

popular. I thought about it, I said: B'y, look, here we are going into an

election next year and I'm going to increase taxes, I'm going to reduce public

servants and jobs, I'm going to make things a little bit tougher on

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we're going to tell people there's going

to be more of it over the coming years. That's exactly what we did. That's what

we did; we laid it out. We laid it out and we're in a tough time, and we got a

tough time coming ahead and we've got to start making changes.

Just a

year ago, Madam Speaker, when we did that there was a long list of quotes from

Members opposite who chastised us for increasing taxes. They chastised us for

reducing the public service. I remember back even before that, back in 2013,

some of the Members who occupy the front bench opposite there now were so hard

and critical on us when we cut public servants back in 2013 wrong thing,

should never do it. They stood in a place right here on this side of the House

day after day saying you should never, never put people out the door. You should

never do it; wrong thing, bad thing, shouldn't do it; bad government, bad

government, bad government. What did they do? They turned around and did it

themselves.

They did

it themselves because they're facing circumstances as we did last year, and we

said was coming this year, depending on what happened with the price of oil and

where it was going to go. Then they said oh, bad, bad government for doing that,

for cutting and reducing and trying to find efficiencies and reducing the public

service. We said attrition we came to the House with an attrition plan. Yeah,

they were critical of that. Now, they were a bit cute, because they knew there

were going to go to a similar place. They knew that. They were a bit cute, but

they were still critical. We increased taxes, HST and I mean, so many times

the Premier has spoken on his position on the HST increase.

remember, Madam Speaker, last year on budget day and the Minister of Finance was

stood in his place here delivering the budget. The Members of the Opposition had

been in the budget lockup and reviewing the circumstances of the budget. Much

like we do every year; I did the same thing this year. I was in the budget

lockup, I came out and sat in my place, the minister began to speak, media

requested for me to go out and speak to them, which I did, and last year the

same thing happened. Very quickly the Premier went to the lobby and he said:

HST's bad; I will not increase the HST, if I'm elected.

Now, he

talks all the time about taking the politics out of stuff. Well, very quickly he

said: If I'm elected Premier, I will not increase the HST. Not on my watch,

won't be done, job killer it's a job killer. If he said job killer once, he

must have said it a thousand times, that HST is a job killer. We were the bad,

bad government, Madam Speaker, because we were increasing taxes because we

needed revenue because the price of oil was dropping.

In a

time when your revenue is down and it's not only down for a government, but it's

also down for the people of the province, that's when you've got to find

creative ways to be able to inject an infusion of funds and opportunity back

into the economy so people can continue to thrive and have a good go of it, and

have a chance to have a go of it. That's the time that you need to create and

build with people. That's the time you need to stand side by side with people.

That's when you need to do it. That's not the time to cut the guts out of her.

We knew

we had work to do and we had hard decisions to make. We started that last year.

Members opposite sat over here during the Budget Speech, during Question Period,

during petitions and asked for more and more and more, day in, day out. Very

quickly and for times after that the Premier came in about HST and he said and

I have pages of quotes here, Madam Speaker, and I'm certainly not going to go

through them one by one, but stood here in his place and talked about the HST

and how bad it was. Not going to raise it actually when January 1 comes, there

will be no HST increase.

One of

the first decisions he did when he became the Premier is he made a call to the

federal government and said: Can we stop the process? We have to stop it. Wrote

a letter, made the request, let's put this to a halt, we have to stop the HST

right away. I'm not sure and the Premier can speak for himself or Finance

Minister if that was an evidence-based approach as they talk about, we have to

make evidence-based decisions yes, sure you do. Absolutely you do. I'm not

sure if it was evidence based. If it was evidence based, their evidence was

wrong because they've changed it. We know they've changed it, so there was an

err in their ways somewhere.

We know it takes several months for the federal government to turn the switch

back on for changing the HST. The federal government actually collects the HST.

It's collected on remittances at retail outlets on a regular basis, and monthly

they make those remittances to the federal government to process it and return

the revenue back to the province. That's an ongoing cycle that happens in the

province.

They cut

the HST, a very popular thing to do. People were going to support them

goodness, they're not going to put up the HST 2 per cent; we have to vote for

them. My God, they're wonderful. Yes and not only that, we're going to diversify

the economy. Oh, wonderful. We're going to invest in business. We're going to be

smarter with business. We're going to be smarter with industry. Well, guess

what? The budget has reduced spending and investments in business. The budget

has actually reduced the spending and investments in business in our province.

When the

Finance Minister stands in her place and talks about how their decisions are

going to shrink our economy, that really doesn't tell that entrepreneur at home

who is about to invest their lifetime savings in a new business, maybe for the

first time in their lives they want to start a new business or someone currently

in business wants to expand their business, that really doesn't instill the

confidence in them and say yeah, boy, it's a good time to invest in my business.

You heard the Finance Minister. She has a lot of hope for the future; I'm going

to invest in my business. It doesn't.

If a

business is trying to make ends meet and trying to make the best to make their

ends meet, they may say I'm cutting my losses and get out of here. I heard what

the Finance Minister said; I'm going to cut my losses and I'm going to go.

Madam

Speaker, we've seen this movie before. We saw it back in the '90s. Back in the

'90s we had all of this happening: remember 1991, tough budget; 1992, the

fishery collapsed, the cod fishery, the ground fishery collapsed. In 1993 that

big budget came and if you look at all the economic indicators and I looked at

them when I was in the Premier's office and officials, I'm sure, gave me all the

same information they're giving the current administration. You look at all the

economic indicators and when they took that attack on we have to cut, cut, cut,

we have to increase taxes and cut public servants and so on, boom, there it

went. It was gone. The economy went bang and it dropped like a rock. It dropped

like a stone.

didn't want to do that. Alberta who has a very similar circumstance as we do

Saskatchewan does too but if you ask Members opposite, they'll say that's my

fault. The 14 months I was Premier, that was my fault. I'm responsible for what

happened back in 2004 and 2005, 2006 and 2007. I was a public servant back in

those days, but somehow I'm responsible for that. I must be responsible for

Alberta.

Alberta

is taking a very different approach. When you look at the actions they're

taking, I think it's much more similar to the approach we took last year much

more similar. They are saying we can't give up on our people. We can't give up

on our province. We can't give up on the people who've invested in businesses

who are hiring people of the province, giving them jobs and opportunity for

their families and so on. They said we have to invest in them. That's what we

have to do; we have to find a way to do that.

Well,

our government has taken a different choice, contrary to the promises they made

last year contrary to the promises they made last year. Let me back up to our

budget last year for a few minutes. Because when we did our budget last year,

there were a number of documents that we made available: one is on

infrastructure; of course there's the Estimates book, as we have every year,

which provides a line by line of Estimates; there is the Budget Speech itself.

We also had a book called Highlights. In the Highlights book and this goes to

some comments we've heard from the Premier. The Premier said: Oh, we didn't

know. We didn't know how bad things were. We had no idea. We had no idea.

Well, I

think that's a pretty weak argument, Madam Speaker. You come to the House every

day, you have committees of the House, you have Public Accounts where you can

call evidence, you can bring in people from departments and say: What's the

status of your department? Tell us where you are? You can bring in the

Department of Finance. Under those circumstances, you can bring virtually anyone

you want in and ask them about different aspects of government. They could have

done that.

I know

they focused on Humber Valley Paving a lot, but they didn't too much focus on

what was contained in the Highlights book. If you look over the Highlights book,

it talks about the circumstances we face. It talks about what projections were

for financial projections. It talks about our five-year plan that we had laid

out. It talked about fiscal targets that were laid out. It talked about

infrastructure investment infrastructure is always a good investment. We know

it creates jobs, it provides opportunity for businesses, and they hire people

and it improves the quality of life and so on. We know that.

Just

over here on page 7 there is a block about fiscal sensitivities: Fiscal

Sensitivities to Key Assumptions, 2015-16. It is written in millions of dollars.

It talks about two key factors that impact the economy. The two most significant

factors that impact the economy, one was oil prices and one is the exchange

rate. It lays out right here that for a $1 change in the price of oil, the

impact is $29 million. Now, that's pretty clear. For one cent on the exchange

rate, the US to Canada exchange rate, the sensitivity, the change is $22

million.

Every

time a barrel of oil goes down a $1, the province loses $29 million. Madam

Speaker, that's not that difficult to follow. While yes, you have to calculate

well how much was it when on what day and so on. But if you know the price of

oil dropped by $10, that's $290 million, roughly $300 million. If you know

you've lost $20 on a barrel of oil, that's $600 million. That's not hard to

figure out, Madam Speaker.

Last

year Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Alberta, every jurisdiction in the

country, saw a significant drop in oil prices. When the significant drop in oil

prices happens, then you know exactly what's happening, is that you are in much

worse condition and you can very quickly do some calculations to determine how

significant that is.

Now, the

other side is that when the dollar drops by a cent, then there's a $22 million

benefit to the province when it comes to exchange of oil because it has a

greater value, so it somewhat offsets. But if the dollar drops five cents and

oil drops $25, you have essentially got a $20 equivalent of a $21 drop in oil

prices which is going to put you at the $600 million mark. It's very simple. I

think it was late December or early January the Premier was asked one time

what's the impact of oil. His comment was something like, well, since we came in

office we've lost $400 million in a matter of a few weeks. So the Premier was

cognizant of that and he knew that.

For the

Members opposite just to stand in their place and say we didn't know how bad it

was. Oh my God, it's terrible; we didn't know how bad it was. All they had to do

was look at the documents and you can very quickly find out the circumstances

that's facing the province. That was what's in those documents.

As well,

we did a document on infrastructure. We said do you know what? We have to lay

out infrastructure. We have to do that. We have to talk about projects we want

to do. Yes, we want to build a new psychiatric hospital for the province, no two

ways about it. Probably one of the single most important, significant

infrastructure projects that we talked about as a government. Members opposite

talked about it on a regular basis. We know the importance of it all too well. I

know the importance of it all too well.

Overall

health for our population, including mental health, is so, so important. It is

so important for all of us and so important for the people of the province and

being able to provide a location, a building, a facility that allows for the

best services possible within that. Because it's about service; there's no doubt

that's a very important piece of infrastructure that needs to be done. We said

yeah, when we get to it. When we get the money, when we turn the province around

because we knew we couldn't.

The

other big one that was facing us was long-term care. We don't want to just

blatantly go in and gut public service or do anything like that. We don't want

to do that. I have a high respect for public servants. I was one myself for 25

years. The Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island was in the public

service for many years. It's not unusual. Some of us had parts of our lives

where we worked in the public service as well as private business and so on.

I have a

high regard for the public service; there's no two ways about it. One of the

problems with much-needed long-term care is when we thought about it, when I

became premier and we had discussions about it and just to sum it up very

quickly to try and bring it together for people watching at home and for Members

of the House, we have a certain amount of long-term care beds. We have fewer

today because yesterday there were some closed. I'm going to talk about that. We

have a certain amount of long-term care beds and we have the fastest aging

population in the country the fastest aging population anywhere in Canada.

Madam

Speaker, that means the need for long-term care is going to grow in the decades

to come. It's going to get bigger and bigger and bigger in the decades to come.

We said we got a problem. We've got to deal with this problem or else we're not

going to have anywhere for our seniors, our mothers and fathers, and our

grandparents and our aunts and uncles, our siblings, our spouses, our partners

we need somewhere where they can live out their lives with dignity in a

circumstance where they can be properly cared for. There's a significant

shortage of long-term care in our province today a significant shortage of

long-term care.

Now, we

have personal care homes, which are generally level 1 or level 2. They are the

people with the least amount of complex problems. We started a program where we

would provide additional health care professionals in the personal care homes so

people could stay in the homes longer as they got into what they refer to as

2-plus, which is not quite full level 3, you're 2-plus. Then level 3 is your

health is now getting to a complexity where a longer and a larger amount of

care, more intensive care is required. And when you get into level 4 and into

level 5, there is a significant amount of care required for our seniors, our

aging population. Not always seniors, quite often they're younger people who are

in a health circumstance where they need that extra assistance and support.

We have

a problem in health care today where acute care hospital beds the most

expensive room anywhere in the province is an acute care hospital room, and we

have a large percentage of long-term care patients who have nowhere else to go.

They can't go home because of the level of care they need and expertise they

need, and our long-term care homes were filled, filled to capacity. It doesn't

matter what part of the province you're in, this impacts you. Now, some are

less; some cycle in and cycle out of having waiting lists. You get smaller

populations. You might have a hospital that has one or two or three long-term

care patients. There are hospitals where there's a combination of both there

are long-term care beds and there are acute care beds very close by in the same

facility. Larger centres, quite often they're separate facilities.

But

there's a wait-list. There are people waiting for long-term care homes who can't

get in there. So they're occupying acute care hospital beds. We've all heard the

stories. We've all had constituents contact us and for the newer Members in

the House who haven't yet had those constituent calls, you will of a family

member or a loved one who is now lying on a stretcher in an emergency room. Went

to hospital sometime through the night or in the daytime, or the afternoon or

the evening, whatever the case may be, and the health care professionals at the

hospital say you can't go home; you need to be hospitalized. I trust you, good

care and we've got great health care providers in this province. Well, we

don't have a bed for you. We're going to leave you in a stretcher now in a

hallway in the emergency room.

remember talking to a lady last year whose husband was a cancer patient. He's

since passed. It was about a year or so ago, I remember talking to her. Her

husband was like three days lying in a stretcher in an emergency room because

there was no bed available for him. That's no joking matter. That's a very

serious matter. We said, how do we fix this? How do we find a way ahead?

Well,

for us to build long-term care, it's going to mean significant investment in our

infrastructure. It's a huge cost to build these kinds of facilities. Then we

have to staff them and operate them and so on. To be perfectly honest with you,

some private businesses can be better employers than sometimes what government

agencies, boards or commissions can be. Sometimes we struggle we all heard

lots of stories about nurses who can't book their holidays, licensed practical

nurses who can't get a day off, personal care attendants who are being

constantly called to work. We've heard all those stories and we've also heard of

private businesses who do it a little bit better than us.

We know

there's a private business here in town that government buys beds off today for

long-term care. They do a pretty good job of caring for their families. I've

experienced, when people have called and said my mother is in hospital, lying in

a hospital bed and needs to go to long-term care, can you try and see if my

mother can go to the privately-owned centre versus one of the government-owned

centres? Because people feel and their perception is sometimes that's a better

level of care.

Madam

Speaker, we dealt with that. The ministers and our Cabinet, we talked about it.

I don't know how many times we met and discussed, how do we fix this problem? We

went through a number of scenarios. We talked to different industry experts,

construction and infrastructure, and partnership and public-private partnership.

The federal government has a whole branch, department of public-private

partnerships. Ontario has done some, BC has done some.

Every

other province has done partnerships on long-term care as a regular way of

delivering long-term care. Every other province, except for Newfoundland and

Labrador, who's done it as a one-off, in one circumstance but every other

province has done that. We said let's have a look at it.

Yes,

there are provinces that have had challenges in the delivery of the service and

how the program is established and how it operates and how they form it up and

so on. We know Members opposite remind us, Auditors General in Ontario were

chastising public-private partnerships with long-term care. Yes, there are

provinces and there are examples around where they never got it right on their

first go around, but there are also examples around of where it has worked

really well.

BC has

had great success. As a matter of fact, other provinces utilize Partnerships BC.

Partnerships BC is a Crown corporation of British Columbia where there is a

Liberal government, by the way. A Liberal government in British Columbia, and

they have Partnerships BC they do lots of projects with. They do schools and

hospitals and clinics. They do all kinds of stuff with public-private

partnership.

That's

the road we went down because we have so many seniors in hospital beds that

shouldn't be there, that are backing up emergency rooms. They have impact on

surgeries from time to time. I've heard the stories.

I heard

from a lady a while ago it's a few months ago now. She showed up at surgery in

the morning and said, I'm here for my surgery. We were trying to get you, your

surgery's cancelled. We don't have a bed for you. She was turned away and had to

wait for a reschedule.

Now, I

don't know how often that happens. Hopefully it's rare, but obviously it

happens. It happened in this case. That's what she was told, there was no bed

for her.

We know

of lots of circumstances where people are occupying acute care beds who should

be in long-term care. It's a better quality of life for them, and the acute care

bed can be utilized for an acute care patient as they're needed; sometimes the

ones who are lying in those emergency rooms. So we had to fix it.

Now with

a public-private partnership, one of the things that happens is that if you

engage in a partnership with a company or a business and they have to build a

new building, well, they have to hire contractors to do that, much the same as

government does. They have to hire skilled trades to build the building. The

same as government would hire a company to build it. Well, in public-private

partnerships, the person, if a business is partnered with government for a

project they decided to do all of that. So that drives the economy, growth and

so on.

The

problem was, of course, is that us as a government the same as the problem the

current government is facing didn't have the capital to go do that. You don't

have the hundreds of millions of dollars you need to go build all the long-term

care that you really need. So where do you go? Our plan was to build 360 120

in Western; 120 in Central, divided between Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander; and

120 in Eastern.

Madam

Speaker, I tell you, I couldn't believe the criticisms we faced with a plan like

that. I had expected Members of the House would have said, well, thank goodness.

Government's going to build long-term care. They found a way, they're going to

build it, thank goodness. I expected to hear from them: It's about time, boys

and girls, ladies and gentlemen. It's about time you went and built that

long-term care. We never heard that. All we heard was, bad government, bad

government, bad government, don't do it.

One of

the very early decisions the process was well along, and if we had to have

rushed it and hurried it we could have finalized it before the election. I said,

let's not do that. I'm not rushing it to get to an election. If we don't get

elected on November 30 and there's a new government, then it's there for them to

go ahead and say, let's do it. Look what we did, we've created long-term care.

expected the new government would say something like, oh, the Conservatives

couldn't get it done, but we came in and we got her done. The Conservatives

couldn't do the deal and get it finished, but we came in and got it done. I

couldn't be more honest, Madam Speaker, that's what I fully expected to happen.

The new government would celebrate the same as they've gone to open schools.

They

were up in Southern Labrador recently and opened a school. I always kind of

think, yeah, it's too bad we never had the chance to go down and do that. I

would have liked to have gone to Southern Labrador. I didn't want to go down

just to open a school, but I did want to have that opportunity.

We did

have chances and there are other openings and celebrations that have happened as

well, and I'm glad they did. With long-term care, I expected that's what was

going to happen. They're going to come in one day there was going to be a big

health announcement, 360 long-term care beds.

Madam

Speaker, they didn't do that. They just cancelled it. They just cancelled 360

long-term care beds. I can't think of an investment that government could have

made and a partnership they could have done to have a significant positive

impact on people's lives more than long-term care. I can't think of it. Along

the way

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. P. DAVIS:

I hear my colleague behind me

saying, and along the way you would have been creating jobs, stimulating the

economy. Money would be injected without government having to lay out hundreds

of millions of dollars. Money would be injected in the economy. Businesses would

be doing business. They'd be hiring people. Then they'd be hiring employees and

they'd be creating work. They'd be caring for our most vulnerable population,

our seniors who deserve it and need it. They decided not to do that.

I've got

to tell you, I was pretty disappointed and I know other people were as well.

People don't realize sometimes the importance of long-term care until you have a

loved one who needs it, until you have a loved one who's in a personal care

home, a level 2, level 2-plus.

I know

of cases of personal care homes where clients are now really level 3 but they're

trying to keep them below level 3 as long as they can or considered to be

because there's no place for them to go. We know people in hospital beds who

should be in a long-term care home but they have no place to go.

Madam

Speaker, for me, that was a big disappointment. If there was a regret of not

finishing the project or getting it done early, that's one I can tell that I

have. I wish it had gotten done and a disappointment that this government could

have signed the contracts essentially and moved on. I think the minister I

don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think the minister said something

like the scope is very narrow and we're not sure it's best interests of best use

and the best way to do it.

I also

know, Madam Speaker, that when you make those decisions and when those types of

projects occur, your decisions really have big impacts. We know that it takes a

long time to do it. We know when it comes to health care, that the new health

care centre for Springdale was ready to go. Tenders were out, tenders were

called, and the project was moving ahead. It was going to be another great

celebration for the new government. I'm sure the people of Baie Verte Green

Bay District were looking forward to this new health care centre. The minister

rose in his spot here and he said well, it's not cancelled; we are just

re-scoping it. I know the minister is new but when you re-scope a project, you

have to cancel a tender to re-scope the project.

Just

cancelling a tender for simply re-scoping the project, minor changes and so on,

trying to get your cost down, is really contrary to the act. You actually have

to change what's going to be contained within it or what's going to happen to

it, how that's going to be done.

For

example, if you have a health care centre you are going to build and in the

health care centre, say, there is a dialysis unit. Some may decide well, we

can't do dialysis in that unit now in that hospital; we are going to take the

dialysis out. We're going to put a CT in there, for example and I don't know

if Springdale was going to get one or not. I don't want anyone to think that we

had planned to because that wouldn't be right. Oh no, we are not going to put

that in now; we are going to take that. Well, that would be a significant change

in the project and that would be a reason to cancel the tender because you have

to redevelop a brand new plan. I was disappointed to see that the

Springdale-Green Bay health centre has been deferred for two years.

I know,

Madam Speaker, that when you defer something for two years, then you have a

project being put on the backburner and you have to make sure you kick-start

that again in two years' time. Sometimes that's tough to do because two years

from now, there's going to be other challenges, more crisis, other priorities,

more on the plate that has to be done. It's really hard to make sure that stays

on the priority list.

On the

deferred list, the list of deferrals that the government has circulated and

provided to us, they are also deferring the Grand Falls-Windsor labs project for

two years. We heard earlier in Question Period about Coley's Point Primary. I

know this is very important to the Member. We heard her today. We saw her

response today when the questions were asked. I know the Member for Harbour

Grace Port de Grave, it's very important to her.

She has

a stack of petitions she was given to table in the House, to bring to the House

of Assembly. I know she said she stands by the people and I'm sure she meant