PDF Version

April 21, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 16

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have Members'

statements for the Districts of Lewisporte Twillingate, Fortune Bay Cape La

Hune, Conception Bay South, St. George's Humber, St. John's Centre and Baie

Verte Green Bay.

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to recognize Mr. Goward Heath. Goward grew up on Fogo Island and in

1940 at the age of 24, he joined the Royal Naval with six of his buddies. He

served throughout World War II and remained with the military until 1945.

His

deployments led him to the Mediterranean and Atlantic oceans where he served as

a gunner on a minesweeper. Post-war, Mr. Heath returned to Lewisporte and was

instrumental in forming the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 31. For 60 years, he

held executive positions as president, secretary and treasurer.

Mr.

Heath volunteered with Civil Defence and was a Canadian Ranger. He also

volunteered with the Canadian Army in Botwood, the 617 Dambuster Squadron in

Lewisporte, St. Matthew's Church and many other community boards and committees.

For his

brave service and contribution to his country, Goward received many awards

including the Queen's Jubilee Commemorative award, the Legion's Meritorious

Service Award and the Palm Leaf. On October 22, 2015, Goward celebrated his

100th birthday with his family and friends.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in honouring Mr. Goward Health for

his service to this great province and country.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize two industrious young women, Nicole Whittle and

Eemaan Thind of Harbour Breton, both recipients of a Youth Ventures Award at the

18th Annual Provincial Youth Ventures Awards in St. John's in 2015.

Nicole

received the Star Coordinator Award for her exceptional work as the Youth

Ventures Coordinator for the South Coast Coast of Bays region. This award goes

to the Site Coordinator that has shown initiative and outstanding efforts in the

delivery of youth ventures in their area.

Ms.

Thind received the Excellence in Product Design Award for EemaanArt. This award

is given to a business that shows unique talent in the craft or artistic ability

of their product. Congratulations to Eemaan for employing her awesome creativity

and artistic skills creating customized handmade drawings and henna body

tattoos.

We are

all so very proud of Nicole and Eemaan for their great accomplishments and

commend them for being excellent role models for our youth.

I ask

that all Members join me in congratulating these fine young women who I am sure

will continue to show outstanding effort and success in their future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Winterfest in CBS was a huge success this year. The ten-day event kicked off on

February 6 and took place at various locations throughout Conception Bay South.

Winterfest has become a tradition in our community. I attended many events this

year and experienced first-hand the strong community spirit.

I'd like

to extend my congratulations and thanks to the Winterfest committee, sponsors,

volunteers and the Town of Conception Bay South for contributing to the

festivals' success.

Mr.

Speaker, Winterfest 2016 had activities for all ages and groups. I was pleased

to attend many events, including the Fred Squires and Annie Parsons Shield

Hockey Challenge, as well as the Junior High Challenge.

The

Annual Pancake Breakfast was a huge success, with a record turnout at the new

CBS Arena. This year there were some new activities added, including an Outdoor

Family Fun Day, and a Casino Night fundraiser in support of the 2016

Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the

Winterfest committee and the Town of Conception Bay South in hosting a

tremendous winter festival.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, recently

American archaeologist Sarah Pareak received a lot of media attention related to

her discovery of what seems to be the second Viking site in this province.

She used

satellite imagery to help hone in on an area that seemed to have evidence of

human activity at Point Rosie in the Codroy Valley. Last summer the team visited

the site and found turf walls and stone hearth which seems to have been used to

heat bog iron.

The

findings were supported by researchers from the University of Massachusetts, who

used radiocarbon dating to determine the bog iron found in the area dated back

to 800 to 1200 AD, which would place them around the time of the Vikings in

North America.

While

there is still a lot of work to be done to determine the significance of these

findings, this is a very important discovery for the area. Along with the

confirmed site at L'Anse aux Meadows, this new site would certainly solidify the

province as the Vinland mentioned in the Viking sagas.

I ask

all Members to join with me in recognizing the value of this work done so far

and wish these investigators well in their future work at Point Rosie.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How

happy I am to announce that our very own Amelia Curran has won two ECMAs for

Folk Recording of the Year and Songwriter of the Year for her latest album

They Promised You Mercy . Amelia is on tour and what a brilliant ambassador

of mercy she is.

She

represents the best in us; hard worker, brilliant songwriter, fierce feminist

and a generous heart. A line from one of Amelia's songs pushes us all to action:

What will you be building when you have to go? Has she ever been building!

addition to her phenomenal song writing, she has been collaborating with people

all over the province to bravely address the stigma that surrounds mental

health.

Springing from the extraordinary response that she received last year from

thisvideo.ca she and her team just launched their newest initiative. It's Mental

is a fantastic grassroots project inspiring citizen action to de-stigmatize

mental health perceptions and improve the mental health care system.

Amelia

and her team are also building a documentary film to raise awareness and

encourage appropriate resources for mental health care. Bravo Amelia!

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Baie Verte Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize a thriving sport in my district. The Dorset

Collegiate Table Tennis Club was founded in 1992 by teacher sponsor and coach

Mark Warren. The club grew from a handful of eager young players playing on one

table at a school of 159 students, to a club today of up to 30 players, playing

high-calibre table tennis on eight tables.

The team

blossomed when it captured four consecutive School Sports Newfoundland and

Labrador provincial high school championships from 2005 to 2008. The team

recently captured its fourth consecutive Central West Regional Table Tennis

Championship as well as its second consecutive SSNL Provincial Table Tennis

Championship. So that's six of 12 SSNL provincial high school championships in

the last 12 years.

Club

members have participated in the last four Newfoundland and Labrador Winter

Games, the Canada Games in British Columbia, the North American Championships in

Washington, D.C. and the National Championships in Quebec.

Dorset

Collegiate is a small school, but its table tennis club is making big waves in

sport in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask

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

Collegiate Table Tennis Club for its achievements.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Honour 100. Today for Honour

100, we have the Member for the District of Carbonear Trinity Bay de Verde.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in

the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland

Naval Reserve, or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine. This will be followed by a

moment of silence.

Lest we

forget: Hubert Victor Gullage, William F. Gullage, Ambrose Guy, Chester Cameron

Guy, James George W. Hagen, Albert Haines, John Halfyard, Silas Halfyard,

Wallace Halfyard, Gordon Archibald Haliburton, Abel Haliday, James Hall, Richard

Hugh Hall, William Hall, William Hall, Albert Hallett, Richard J. Hamen, Stewart

Hamlin, Alan Hancock, Albert Hancock, Eli Hancock, John Hancock, Louis Hancock,

Albert Hann, Brigham Hann, Fred Hann, George Hann, Robert Hann, William S. Hann,

Frank J. Hannon, Wilfred T. Harbin, Ernest William Harding, Herbert Harding,

William Harding, Edward Hardy, John Hardy, William Frank Hardy, Harvey Hare,

Frank Harnett, William Harnett.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to recognize the 90th birthday of Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth II.

Her

Majesty has visited Newfoundland and Labrador numerous times during her reign

and our people have a strong sense of pride and connection to the royal family.

Mr.

Speaker, in 1959, Her Majesty and Prince Philip visited the province as part of

a Canada-wide tour. In 1978, her visit to the province included several

highlights such as turning the sod for what became the Queen Elizabeth II

Library at Memorial University and again, in 1997, Her Majesty celebrated the

500th anniversary of the landfall of John Cabot.

There

are various examples of Her Majesty's impact on our province including the

naming of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, which received its royal prefix

from Queen Elizabeth II in 1979, and the Royal St. John's Regatta, which has the

Queen as its patron and received its royal prefix from her in 1993.

Mr.

Speaker, today we recognize and thank her for her service to the Commonwealth

and for serving over the past 64 years with agility and poise.

behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I wish Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth

II a happy 90th birthday and continued health and happiness.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for the advance copy of his statement today. We join with Members

opposite and all Members of the House of Assembly, as well as all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Canadians, in wishing Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth II a very happy 90th birthday.

As the

Premier alluded to, Canadians and particularly the people from Newfoundland and

Labrador have a real sense of pride and connection with Queen Elizabeth and the

royal family. It is obvious, as referenced by the Premier, the importance and

the highlights and the focus that we've put on Queen Elizabeth in her reign.

Conception Bay South where I live, there is Queen Elizabeth Regional High and

the Premier mentioned the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I think there's only

seven police forces in the world that have the designation as royal and we have

two of them right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, I

thank the Premier and we extend and join in best wishes to Queen Elizabeth II.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement. I'm quite pleased to

stand with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition in wishing Her

Majesty Queen Elizabeth congratulations on her 90th birthday. I just thought of

something; I live in a part of the city where Prince Philip Drive is to the

north of me and Elizabeth Avenue to the south. I couldn't help but say that.

I think

everyone can agree that her dedication to the people of her Commonwealth and the

world, her work ethic and her decades of experience are an inspiration to us

all.

Thirteen

Canadian prime ministers starting with Louis St. Laurent, quite a career that no

Canadian politician can match, Mr. Speaker. We hope she continues to enjoy many

more years.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

recognize tomorrow as Earth Day, a time to reflect and acknowledge the need for

environmental education and action.

Earth

Day is particularly significant this year. In December 2015, all countries

adopted the Paris Agreement to enhance global action to fight climate change and

which aims to limit global temperature increase 2 degrees Celsius and ideally to

under 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Canada

played an active

part in negotiating this agreement and committed to reduce its

greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Since then,

First Ministers, including our Premier, met and agreed to develop a pan-Canadian

framework to tackle climate change. Newfoundland and Labrador is part of this

work.

Tomorrow

in New York, the United Nations is convening a signing ceremony for the Paris

Agreement. Leaders from 155 countries, including Prime Minister Trudeau, will

sign the agreement.

Mr.

Speaker, we must all work together to reduce our carbon footprint to create a

cleaner environment for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians show their commitment to the environment every

day through recycling in their homes, workplaces and classrooms, driving

fuel-efficient cars and buying energy-efficient appliances.

encourage all Members of this hon. House and all people of the province to

reflect on what further action they can take in their homes and businesses to

help combat climate change.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We want to recognize

tomorrow, April 22, as Earth Day as well.

Mr.

Speaker, there is plenty we can do as residents to help make the world around us

a greener place to live, from walking to the corner store instead of driving,

picking up litter everywhere and can be involved in helping protect our

environment. Other green tips include using recycled shopping bags, reusable

water bottles, recycling paper containers, composting at home and so much more.

Climate

change is important, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage the government to work

collaboratively with industry during our fragile economy when we talk about

carbon tax and whatnot.

So, Mr.

Speaker, the list of ways we can improve our environment is endless, and I thank

those groups encouraging us to live greener lives and I encourage everyone to

continue to be mindful of how their actions impact the world and environment

around us.

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 an advance copy of his statement. Every year on April 22

more than a billion people in 200 countries mark Earth Day with events in

support of protecting the environment.

Earth

Day encourages people to make changes in their own lives, such as recycling,

carpooling, and not buying bottled water, but Earth Day is also important for

what governments must do.

Tomorrow, the Paris Agreement will be signed for a global action plan to limit

global warming. Our people want our government to take leadership

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

and commit to reducing

emissions and to help people make changes in their lives.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on Tuesday, outside the House of Assembly, the Premier stated that

seniors making $15,000-$17,000 will be better off because of their Liberal

budget. Now, I'm not sure that he'd say the same for a hardworking

Newfoundlander or Labradorian who is earning say $25,000. He also said the

Liberal budget contains good support for our low-income earners.

So I ask

the Premier: Where's your evidence to support your statements, which I suggest

are completely out of touch?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

you know, in the budget that we released in this House just about a week ago or

so now, there are a number of tax increases and revenue increases in the

province. Offsetting to that, there was an Income Supplement or support program

that was put in place at $76.4 million. That program is meant to offset some of

the tax revenues that were put in place that would affect people, like seniors

in our province.

The

taxes that were put in place last week, Mr. Speaker, as you know, if you compare

the tax rates to personal income tax increases and the levy included, it really

puts us in the vicinity of a 2006-2007 tax level. As a matter of fact, we are

below the tax rates in 2006-2007.

The levy

that the former premier mentioned, I will say, it is a temporary measure put in

place because of the current fiscal situation that we face as a province.

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're hearing differently from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are

low-income earners but work very, very hard to earn that income. They've sat

down and went through the hundreds of fee increases, the levy and tax increases,

and they're clearly stating they're not better off.

So I ask

the Premier once again: Where's your evidence, and will you table that evidence

here in the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

happy to table the documentation related to the budget and as it relates to the

impact on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We're also more than willing to give

briefings to the Members opposite and to the Third Party. This information is

out there. We are more than happy to share that with the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The

impacts, we know these are significant impacts on the people of our province.

This is a very difficult situation that we are facing financially in our

province right now but it was important to us to put in measures to offset some

of those increases. Some of those, as I mentioned earlier, is the Income

Supplement that we put in place at $76.4 million. But, yes, the information is

readily available and we are more than willing to share it with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the invitation for a briefing but it's the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that want to be briefed and want the information as well. He should

consider how he's going to brief the people of the province.

Mr.

Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon the Premier also made a statement that if people

looked into the crystal ball they would understand why they made the choices

that they've made. He went on to say that their budget is simply not the way

it's been portrayed. Now we know that the Finance Minister for days ahead of the

budget had told the province there's nothing good in this budget.

Can the

Premier tell the people of the province how the heavy handed Liberal levy, the

hundreds of tax and fee increases represents a fair budget? What is it that the

people are not understanding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well the

budget of last week is $8.48 billion. What I was talking about last week, there

are a number of initiatives in there that will bring improvements to

municipalities, infrastructure improvements around the province in the vicinity

of some $570 million. There are some good things in this budget I will say, Mr.

Speaker. These are unprecedented times that we face as a province.

I think

the Member opposite is forgetting that for the last 12 years there was $25

billion. I think they lived in the situation that at least they managed in a

situation where they felt that oil would continue to go on; yet, C-NLOPB and

others have made it quite clear that the production levels and the reserves

offshore would continue to fall, which is why we find ourselves in this

difficult situation that we're facing.

We would

have been at a $2.7 billion deficit. That burden would have been placed squarely

on the shoulders of everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not once

has the Premier said what school should not have been built, what hospital

should not have been built, what roads should not have been built.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, not once. Not

once has the Premier picked out which school or which facility should not have

been built.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe, and clearly believe, that people of our province clearly

understand what the Liberal choices in our budget, how it will impact them and

how it will impact their families.

Mr.

Speaker, we are hearing from hundreds of people. I know all MHAs are, people who

are fearful and people who have lost their trust in this government.

I ask

the Premier: You made a statement that the budget has not been properly told,

can you explain to the people of the province the investments into your budget

that will make their individual lives better?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

back in 2007 and beyond there were some decisions, if the former premier wants

to know about decisions. Back in 2007 there were some decisions made about tax

decreases.

As a

matter of fact, if the former premier, the Opposition Leader, would only come

forward with this, the decreases that his government made were at the higher end

of the scale, I would say, Mr. Speaker. If you go back and look at the evidence

and the facts, he made their decreases at the upper end of the scale.

If you

want to know something you couldn't afford, it was the tax decreases that you

put in place in 2007 and beyond. They just were not sustainable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So it's

clear the Premier can't tell us what's good in his budget, but wants to go back

to decreasing the burden on taxpayers that the government prior to me I wasn't

even here in 2007 did for the people in 2007 when they reduced the burden to

help drive the economy.

Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal levy, which his government has burdened the people of the

province with, is simply unfair. A person earning $25,000 a year is just barely

making ends meet and now has to pay an additional $300, while a person making

$450,000 a year or more only pays $900.

I ask

the Premier: How were these levy amounts determined? Is it fair to put the

burden on our lowest and hardest working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me

begin by saying first the former premier, now Leader of the Opposition, was in

place through a significant number of budgets that actually continued to support

the decreased tax measures that your government put in place at the higher

income earners, Mr. Speaker. That's who you gave the tax breaks to. You had the

opportunity and you did not do it.

First of

all, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the thresholds

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

that we see there, I want

to go back to where the thresholds would be in terms of the levy and the

personal income tax rates that we now have in our province, which is very

competitive in Atlantic Canada. These measures that we put in place, I can

assure you there is not one Member on this side of the House of Assembly liked

what we had to do last week. When we looked at the other options that we had

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

The other options that we

had, when you look at the out years that's an impact of the poor planning and

the mismanagement of this previous administration. They did not prepare for

these days. They were not sustainable decisions that they made.

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.

It's

quite clear this levy has not been very well thought out. We know and people of

the province know it's unfair. Combined with the hundreds of new taxes and fees

that the Liberals chose to introduce, it's taxes that people cannot afford to

pay.

Last

year, we added higher income tax brackets. We added new tax brackets so higher

income earners would pay more, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is on record as

suggesting that the rich pay enough in this province.

I ask

the Premier: Will you reconsider your levy? Will you remove your levy from this

budget that's unfairly burdening the lower- and middle-income hard workers of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the former premier, if he read the budget, he would know this is a temporary

levy. When I go back to, if we take the example of a senior couple in

Newfoundland and Labrador

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

with taxable income of

around $26,000, the net impact of the budget, which includes, when you put in

the offsets around the personal income tax and the levy, plus the consumption

tax that would be in the HST the net impact would be $310.

So we

will clearly outline and share this information with anyone who is interested in

having this discussion, because we too want to get the facts out. We also want

to get the facts out why we are in the situation we're in. And if we took no

action at all, I'd also like to tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians where we

would be today after $25 billion in oil and oil revenues that you had to deal

with and did not prepare for where we are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yeah, I

remind him, it could be temporary. If he allows the Members in his party to vote

freely with the people that elected them, Mr. Speaker, it may be temporary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has

stated that no one anticipated the deficit. He said the environment is not the

same one as it was when he knocked on the doors of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians last fall and made numerous promises he's broken to them.

Mr.

Speaker, Budget 2015 indicated a $1.2 billion deficit and if the oil fell, it

would get worse, and it's exactly what happened oil fell for months after.

So I ask

the Premier: What was your plan to address the deficit of $1.2 billion? Did you

base your campaign promises on that $1.2 billion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Absolutely we put a platform

in place based on where we were and what we knew at the time. I'll keep going

back to the former premier who refused to answer the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, refused to answer me back on September 28 when I asked him for the

fiscal update, when we also got in there and started looking at some of the

information, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

When you

look at the budget they put to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the

out years they included revenue from a project that's not even done in this

province right now from oil revenues they do not have a development for. That

was the kind of budget and materials and the information that former

administration put to the people of our province. They were wrong; they couldn't

even get the first year right, let alone the fifth and sixth year right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we

also laid out our budget last year; for every dollar the oil fell, they'd lose

$29 million in revenue. Maybe the current Premier should have spent a little bit

of time doing a bit of math and he would have figured out the deficit was

higher.

So, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier just said he did have a plan for $1.2 billion.

Premier:

Will you table that plan here so the people of the province can see it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

interestingly enough, the former premier did campaign, I believe, in the same

election we were in the last time around. I did not hear him say once that the

mid-year update was $1.8 billion. As a matter of fact, he stood by his five-year

plan. I can tell you every single target, every revenue target, the expense

target that he put out in his election platform, as a matter of a fact, he did

not meet any of them. Even on the long-term care initiative and program that he

put in place, there was no revenue there or no expense revenue put in their

election platform for all of that.

There

was a lot of information that we became aware of

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

and I will say the mid-year

update, $1.8 billion, not once did the former premier trying to distance himself

from his own plan, his own five-year plan and we now know that was erroneous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite is the Premier today. What I asked him to do is would he table his $1.2

billion plan. If you cut through all of the rhetoric, as normally happens when

the Premier speaks, you cut through all of the rhetoric, what he said was he

will not table his $1.2 billion plan. Because he doesn't have a plan, Mr.

Speaker, that's why.

Mr.

Speaker, the Finance Minister criticized the 2015 budget for taxing and she

stated that our plan was to take from those who could least afford it. She went

on to say that their plan, the Liberal plan, would be more than just simply,

well, taxing and borrowing. That's what she said.

Last

Thursday she tabled a tax-heavy budget here in the province for the people of

the province like never seen before.

I ask

the Premier: Why has your party's position on taxing and fee increases

flip-flopped only five months after taking office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

more than happy with the election platform that we ran on and is still online,

and you're more than happy to do that. I would also say at the same time that we

should also discuss your election platform that you ran on too, I say to the

Member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, these are

difficult times in our province, and we know that. If no action was taken in

this current budget, in the fifth and sixth year what you would be seeing in our

province is in excess of $2 billion in debt-servicing charges. Already this

year, debt servicing outpaces and we will pay more for debt servicing than we do

for education.

Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the budget last week, we are back to 2006-2007 tax

levels in our province. That includes the levy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today in

our province 219 people, 219 families are waiting for long-term care. Some of

them are lying in acute care beds in our hospitals, resulting in more cancelled

surgeries, and more people are lying on stretchers in hallways in our hospitals

as a result.

I ask

the Minister of Health and Community Services: Can he tell us how many people

are in our hospitals today who have already been medically discharged?

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

exact number of ALC patients varies literally hour by hour. My understanding, in

terms of long-term care, they differ also. I cannot supply him with today's

figures, but if he gives me a particular hour of the day for which he would like

them, I will endeavour to table them tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

again. I appreciate the fact that the numbers change by the hour, the minister

is correct, but could he give us an idea of the average, say, for the past week

or the past month even?

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

average percentage in this hospital for ALC patients in acute care varies

between 18 and 27 per cent on a day-by-day basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

I thank the minister for the

answer. So there are roughly 219 people waiting for long-term care beds today.

Some of those people are tying up acute care beds. They are the ALC patients

that the minister refers to tying up 18 to 27 per cent of our hospital beds at

any given time.

Now this

week, the Liberal government is shutting down 50 existing long-term care beds.

Our government had a plan to put more beds in the system while this government

is taking them out.

I ask

the minister: How can you justify closing beds when so many individuals and so

many families are waiting for proper, dignified care for our aging population?

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

Member opposite is conflating two numbers. Alternate care level patients in

acute care are not automatically long-term care patients. Currently, the numbers

of people waiting for long-term care vary region by region.

For

example, as of the end of March in Eastern Health there were 67 people waiting

for long-term care. There are, as of yesterday, 68 vacant long-term care beds of

various kinds within Eastern Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

presented false information repeatedly last week. He clearly said that all

residents of Masonic Park Nursing Home would simply be moved to the Veterans

Pavilion. He said that in Question Period in this House.

However,

families found out Tuesday night that there are only 25 beds available at the

moment at the Veterans Pavilion. Some of the 40 Masonic Park residents will be

scattered around the region.

I ask

the minister: Why wouldn't he present accurate information to the families and

accurate information to the public? Why does he continue to deny that he is

shutting down desperately needed long-term care beds in this region?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

It's interesting the issue of

erroneous numbers have come up, because the gentleman opposite has just

presented the House with an erroneous set of figures. There are, or will be at

the time the transition plan is completed for Masonic Park, no less than 35 beds

in Veterans Pavilion.

As of

yesterday, 10 of the families in Masonic Park have expressed an interest in

placing their families elsewhere other than Veterans Pavilion. So the numbers he

gave don't add up either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At least

the minister is finally acknowledging that his numbers don't add up. Mr.

Speaker, the numbers that the minister is now providing are different than the

numbers that Eastern Health provided to families about 48 hours ago. That is

rather concerning that the numbers have changed since Tuesday night.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if the minister has had a chance to visit Masonic Park.

The facility is in good shape. Tuesday night, Eastern Health said that about

$500,000 is needed to be invested in improvements. The minister in this House

said about a million dollars.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll acknowledge that every long-term care facility in this region

needs capital improvements, Masonic Park is no exception. But now, the Liberal

government, under this budget, has gutted the repairs and renovations budget for

this year.

Can the

minister provide the data to support his decision to shut down the long-term

care beds at Masonic Park?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

It's interesting and slightly

ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman opposite, who not that long ago occupied

this chair, should talk about gutting renovations budgets when he did a number

on the Health Sciences Centre, for example, in terms of a reduction in

renovations budgets as well as across the province, cutting it by about 25 per

cent.

On the

issue of Masonic Park, I accept it's a very difficult situation to have to move

elderly patients and clients. I understand that and I accept that, Mr. Speaker.

However, there is a huge opportunity here to provide state-of-the-art care in a

newer facility and save the system $1.8 million, at least, on an annual basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the minister has raised the issue of the $1.8 million in potential savings. Mr.

Speaker, I've had the opportunity to review the recent financial statements of

Masonic Park Nursing Home. Most costs associated with the home, of course, are

salaries, medications and other resident services, none of which are going to be

eliminated with the move. It is impossible to save $1.8 million by shutting down

long-term care beds at Masonic Park.

Will the

minister produce detailed evidence of this projected cost savings?

won't, Mr. Speaker, because he can't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much.

It's

interesting that a department run by the gentleman opposite, until not so long

ago, has some very interesting magic mathematics in their budgets where money

has been put in and then removed and people have not had the opportunity to

realize the savings that they were told to.

Having

said that, as far as Masonic Park is concerned, I would be happy to find the

figures from Eastern Health and discuss them at any time with the Member

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister

is acknowledging that he does not have the detailed information to substantiate

his claim that there will be $1.8 million of savings, he has to go get it from

Eastern Health.

I ask

the minister: Will he go get that information in a timely fashion and table it

in this House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I wouldn't have thought

anyone needed to quite put words in my mouth, Mr. Speaker, but if he wants to

try, then that's fine.

From my

point of view, the information I am quite happy to discuss with the Member for

his constituents at any time of his choosing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

So, for the record, Mr.

Speaker, the minister is willing to discuss it with me, and I'm grateful for

that opportunity, and I'll take him up on that; however, he's not willing to

provide this information to the people of the province, to the families

affected, or to the hon. Members in this House of Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, when Masonic Park Nursing Home was taken over by the regional health

authority in 1996 there was a complete inventory taken of the assets of the

building. The agreement with the non-profit owners of the facility states that

upon giving notice to terminate the agreement comparable inventory must be left

in the building. All beds, all equipment must remain in the building.

that's the case, Mr. Speaker, and considering the ongoing renovations that are

now happening at Veterans Pavilion, what is the true cost of this ridiculous

move by the Liberal government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I have explained to the

gentleman opposite that I will be quite happy to discuss the matter of finances

with him at the time of his choosing, and I will do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only

are people upset with the minister in Bay Roberts, but also in Mobile,

Clarenville, Gander, Paradise, CBS the list goes on and on. Ironically, it

wasn't that long ago that the Minister of Education stood and petitioned

government to intercede and ensure the school in Whitbourne remained open.

I ask

the minister: You gave great reasons in your petition why it should remain open,

do I need to remind you of your past arguments? Why the flip-flop now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, we've had a lot

of questions in the House of Assembly about the role of the school district and

the government in the reorganization of schools, so I'm not going to revisit any

of that.

Everybody here in the House of Assembly understands how difficult this is for

people who have children attending Whitbourne Elementary, or any other of the

decided to close. It's not lost on anybody here, but this is the job of the

trustees to try to make efficient use of public funds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

The decision has been made.

If anyone would like to appeal that, there are processes they can use to appeal

that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

But the decision has been

made and it won't be revisited here because it was not made in here.

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 very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It was

obvious when the Finance Minister's extraordinary attack on Nalcor during the

Budget Speech that government had for some time lost confidence in the

leadership of Nalcor.

I ask

the Premier: Why did government not go about an orderly transition instead of

throwing the province into the turmoil which has flowed from the minister's

intemperate remarks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all

understand the impact that the Crown agency and Nalcor have on the people of our

province. On Sunday night I met with Mr. Martin and again at a later meeting he

decided, and through the conversation, that he would step down. It wasn't upon

me or any Member of this House of Assembly, I would suggest, that you would

leave a significant agency, a corporation like Nalcor with a megaproject ongoing

in Labrador, with lots of lines of business in our province and a significant

impact as we have seen on our budget.

What we

did was react fast. We put in place today a new CEO which comes with a

tremendous amount of experience. We did what we had to do to make sure that the

people that are working at Nalcor and the projects that they are involved in

continues in a very stabilized fashion I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I hope

the Premier doesn't think that people aren't smart enough to know that they've

been months making this happen and forcing it to happen.

The EY

review of Muskrat Falls was an opportunity to answer some important questions

for the people of the Province.

I ask

the Premier: Why was EY not instructed to analyze the pros and cons of

continuing with the project in light of the massive cost overruns and other

challenges thereby speeding up this process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We asked

EY to do an analysis of the cost and the

schedule associated risk of the Muskrat

Falls Project. This was something that was important. Near the end of May, late

May this year, you will see some re-baselining of the project, which is

important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get an understanding of where

it fits within its own budget. It's also important to get an understanding on

the schedule, which affects reliability on our province right now.

I think

the actions and the activities that we have seen in the last couple of days with

Mr. Martin stepping down, the release that we had today with a new leader put in

place, a new CEO in place, was a tremendous experience. He is willing to step up

to help his province, I would say, Mr. Speaker, and will be making decisions

very shortly to put in place a board of directors so the activities of Nalcor

can continue in a very stabilized fashion.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for St. John's

East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

newly appointed CEO of Nalcor has expressed great concern about the project in

the past, as have the people of the province.

Will the

Premier instruct the CEO to release real information about the state of the

Muskrat Falls Project as soon as possible?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for her concern for this project. All Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have expressed a significant amount of concern in the last few

weeks and months and really leading into this.

What we

do know is that the new CEO that's in place today made it quite clear that he

would go into his office and he would go in and meet with the leadership team.

He would look at the facts, the opinions and the information that's available on

the overall project.

I am not

about to interfere with his decision making. He is going to go in, be the person

that he needs to be, provide the leadership that he can bring to this project.

Based on that, he will put his opinion in place on what is best to do for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for St. John's

East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surely

if the Premier can give mandate letters to his ministers, he can give a mandate

letter to the CEO of our own corporation. Mr. Speaker, the contract with Emera

for the Maritime Link sets up the potential for privatizing Muskrat Falls.

Is the

new CEO appointment the first step towards getting rid of Muskrat Falls at a

basement bargain price?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for a very quick

question.

The

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

I ask the Premier to back

that no up with some concrete evidence.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

answer the question here. The new CEO of Nalcor is gone into Nalcor. His

responsibility will be to lead that organization. He will base his own opinion

on what he believes and thinks will be the best way forward for Nalcor and our

province. That does not include privatization of Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents 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 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, we've been getting as I'm sure every Member in this House of Assembly

has been getting, because many of us have been copied by people who are talking

about how very difficult this Deficit Reduction Levy is on their own personal

incomes, and how regressive the current tax regime that government has

introduced is on the lives of people.

We know

that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are a resilient people. We all know

how tough this fiscal situation is. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, every

person in Newfoundland and Labrador is willing to roll up their sleeves and do

their part to get us through this fiscal situation.

Mr.

Speaker, this government has done nothing to lead us forward. In fact, what

they're doing is that they're choking people who are already having a hard time

making ends meet. Instead of taking us forward, this is taking the people of the

province backwards. I'm sure that's not the intention, but I believe that is the

consequence of this particular approach to our fiscal crisis.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a short note from a constituent that just arrived today, an

elderly gentleman. He says: If this goes ahead, I'll have to leave Newfoundland

and Labrador. I'm not getting enough money to pay my bills and live. There's

months I can't pay my drugs; every month I have to do without something. It's a

hand-written note, Mr. Speaker, I'm only getting $1,300 a month old age pension.

There's rent, drugs for wife and I. She's not getting any income, so it's hard.

I also have children living away. One daughter was going to come back and get

married and is rethinking that due to the budget.

Mr.

Speaker, we would hope that government would instill hope, not desperation. I

hope that this government will listen to the desperate pleas of the people of

the province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

shame that I have to stand here and present this today, but I will present this

petition on behalf of the residents of Harbour Grace Port de Grave District.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. P. PARSONS:

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

we, the undersigned, require a primary school to service Bay Roberts, Coley's

Point, Port de Grave, Bareneed, Shearstown and Butlerville areas; and

WHEREAS

our leaders act to ensure that a new school is made a priority, primary children

are overpopulated in the classrooms and there are health and safety risks in the

current 60-year-old facility; and

WHEREAS

the process for a new school has to be started right away to ensure our

primary-aged children receive a quality educational facility; and

WHEREAS

there are issues in the present facility with no air ventilation, overpopulated

classrooms, no windows, natural lighting and office spaces, no designated

cafeteria with children eating in classrooms and portable classrooms that will

take up the mandated active play area;

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

of Assembly to urge government to begin the process of building a new primary

school for this area.

Mr.

Speaker, we know, and it's very, very unfortunate this is a 60-year-old

facility. This has been a problem for years and years. As a matter of fact, we

have a letter here by a hired consultant by the Department of Education back in

2007, and I quote: the school has exceeded its life expectancy and usefulness.

For

three past budgets, Mr. Speaker, money has been allocated by this previous

administration to replace Coley's Point Primary. Again, it's a 60-year-old

facility. The student population is 350-plus. This has been ongoing for years

and years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. P. PARSONS:

As a matter of fact,

ironically, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here that was dated October 30, 2015,

by then Education minister Susan Sullivan to the mayor of Bay Roberts: I am

writing to this time confirm that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is

committed to the school, to replace the school in Coley's Point Primary. We know

this did not happen.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. P. PARSONS:

We find ourselves in the

situation now, it is a very unfortunate situation, but as the Member for Harbour

Grace Port de Grave, I am committed to fighting for my constituents.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker doesn't want to name Members, but if Members are not respecting the

authority of the House the Speaker will have no choice.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I guess

the Member is not going to vote for the budget because there was no announcement

in this year's budget for it. So that's good to hear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, to the 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 Deficit Reduction Levy as introduced in Budget 2016 unfairly targets the

middle class; and

WHEREAS

the Deficit Reduction Levy also asks low-income earners to pay more than their

fair share instead of increasing taxes to high income owners;

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

of Assembly to urge this government to immediately stop the introduction of the

temporary Deficit Reduction Levy.

Mr.

Speaker, we're hearing from everyone. We're hearing from people all across this

Island, all over the place. I know every message I'm getting on Facebook I've

received more messages since this budget came down than I've ever received in

the last eight years I've been in this House of Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, I like to be fair, and fair to people. I think that's the name of the

game, we should all be fair. This levy is so unfair. It's unfair to the poor

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at this, here is a person or a family that's making

$25,000 a year and they are expected to pay $300.

AN HON. MEMBER:

No way.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes they are. If you look at

your own thing it shows $300. It's not wrong. That's what's wrote here on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

People from $25,000 to

$36,000 pay $300. It's right here in your document.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER:

You're supposed to sit down

when the Speaker stands up

MR. K. PARSONS:

I don't listen to you

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Well, the Speaker is

standing, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis.

I am not

going to allow Members of the House to disregard and disrespect the authority of

the House. I've recognized the Member for Cape St. Francis. I ask for order in

the House.

The

Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, listen, this is

about fairness. It's about being fair to people.

I've

received calls and emails from people in all the districts, in the other

districts in this province, and they all tell me the same thing; this is so

unfair. How can you justify that a person of $25,000 a year is going to pay

about 2 per cent of their income, versus a person who's making $200,000,

$300,000 pay 0.18 or 0.15 per cent? It's just an unfair tax.

I ask

the government, I really ask you to think about it, and all the backbenchers and

everybody in this House of Assembly are getting emails; you're getting people's

concern. People are really concerned about this tax. Do the proper thing and

cancel it.

Thank

you very much.

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 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.

I'm

quite pleased this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to be able to do what I've been

promising the people of the province, and that is to present the voice of the

people, especially the ones who have signed this petition I have in my hands

today. Our responsibility as MHAs is to present the concerns of the people of

the province. That's why we stand here.

Mr.

Speaker, it was just today a senior came to me when I was outside in the

community and said: Ms. Michael, I have one question. Do they stop to think

about our lives? Do they meaning the government stop to think about the

burdens that we carry as seniors? She started to talk to me about what it was

like to be a senior who is now widowed her husband has been dead for seven

years and that every year since he's died life has become harder for her.

We have

a system both provincially and federally but we'll talk about our provincial

that is so circuitous and so difficult that trying to work your way through the

system with regard to your income tax, with regard to your government pensions,

the OAS and CPP, and the way in which we claw money back from people's personal

pensions, we don't stop to think about what's happening to seniors, Mr. Speaker.

The thing that she said and raised was: And then, Ms. Michael, there's that

Deficit Reduction Levy. What are they thinking about?

matter who speaks to me and we have all these signatures that are coming in on

a regular basis from people asking the same thing: What were they thinking

about? It hits middle income to low income. Then, when you think about fixed

income and this is what this government doesn't seem to think about at all.

Our seniors are on fixed incomes. Yes, they may have pensions but

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

be happy to speak again and present these concerns.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 decreased the amount of funding available for health care services;

and

WHEREAS

as a result of Budget 2016, Eastern Health has reduced routine breast cancer

screening in women aged 40 to 49; and

WHEREAS

early detection of cancer results is the best prognosis possible;

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

of Assembly to urge government to direct Eastern Health to reverse its decision

and to ensure that the population-based Breast Screening Program is accessible

to women aged 40 to 49.

Mr.

Speaker, we're all very upset with Budget 2016. I go to bed every night and pray

that the Members opposite will have the courage to stand up and vote against it

and vote with the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We just

listened to the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi talk about the direct impact

it's having on people's lives. People may die as a result of this move, that's

how serious this is.

Early

detection of breast cancer makes all the difference in a woman's survival rate.

Many of these women have young children. They all have friends and families who

love and care for them. To take such a backwards step when it comes to women's

health is absolutely deplorable, Mr. Speaker. I truly hope that this decision is

reversed and reversed in short order.

There's

no price tag we can put on a person's life. It was their own member opposite,

who represents us in Ottawa today, who stood in this House year after year after

year, a person who experienced breast cancer herself and lobbied for the breast

cancer screening to take place, Mr. Speaker, at the age of 40. We did that. The

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the women of this province deserve no

less. I would say almost every single day I get an email from women in this who

are under the age of 50 and they're looking for breast cancer screening, or

they've already been diagnosed.

It's

becoming a problem, and it's an issue that's confronting women's health. Our

health, Mr. Speaker, is just as important as anyone else's in this province. I

call upon the Minister of Health and the Members of Executive Council to reverse

this budget, many components of it, including this one.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We'll

call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

normally get up and say it gives me pleasure to rise to speak to a bill or a

motion in this House, but I don't think there's anybody in this House and I

say this sincerely. I don't think there's anybody in this House who can stand

with pleasure and talk about this budget. When you have Cabinet ministers and

the media saying it's a bad budget, you know you have reason to be concerned.

Anyway,

as Opposition Members we will have multiple opportunities during the budget

debate to get up and talk about specifics in the budget, to talk about how it

impacts people in our districts, to talk about any element of the budget or its

implications that we wish. I intend to use my initial time today to just

highlight some of the things that are in the budget.

There's

been a lot of focus on some specific elements that are perhaps the most

controversial, but there's a wide range of cuts and changes that will impact

people, that will impact some of our most vulnerable people, our children and

youth, and families and seniors and communities. I think the government has

rightly acknowledged there's nobody in this province who won't be impacted

negatively by this budget.

realize we live in challenging times economically, Mr. Speaker, and I realize

we're far too dependent on oil revenue. Nobody could have predicted what has

happened to oil prices over the last year or so, but, Mr. Speaker, it's very

easy to get into finger pointing and to try and lay blame. I can tell you that

those of us who were part of the most recent administration do take

responsibility for the decisions we had to make. That's part of what happens

when you govern. I recognize Members opposite now face that reality as well,

that you must stand and take responsibility for the decisions that you make.

The

blame game is a silly one, because there are some factors that were, in

fairness, beyond the control of this government in terms of oil prices. Some of

those external factors were beyond our control as well, but we do have the

ability to make choices today. We do have the ability to make decisions today

that will impact the people that we represent in each of our communities.

When I'm

talking to my constituents, and I know from talking to colleagues opposite, that

everybody is feeling the heat, and rightly so. Even Opposition Members are

receiving a vast number of emails and phone calls and letters and petitions.

More so than I ever recall in my eight years in this hon. House, because I think

people are legitimately upset. I think people are angry. I think they feel

betrayed and I think they feel like they've been lied to, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the really unfortunate part of the entire situation, and it's fine even in

Question Period today the Premier talked repeatedly about our choices and our

record and our spending. We'll take responsibility for all of that. I am happy

to talk to any constituent and anybody else in the province about some of the

decisions we had to make during our time in office.

The fact

remains, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals knew the financial situation this

province was in when they made all kinds of irresponsible, reckless election

things that's been most striking in the last few days is the posting of actual

quotes, even video clips and formal advertisements that were presented by

Liberal candidates and the Liberal leader during the recent election campaign.

understand why people are upset. I understand why people do feel betrayed. I

realize it's a very emotional time for everyone. So for that reason I'd like to

use most of my time today to just talk about the facts of the budget and some of

the things that jumped out to me as I heard the Budget Speech and as I've been

reflecting on it and following the public discourse in recent days. It's clear

that people are hurting. We're certainly taking our share of criticism as well.

One of

the things I have had to remind people in recent days respectfully is that

because one of the things that has been presented to me over and over again,

You're criticizing this Liberal plan or lack of a plan and this budget, which is

extremely right wing and aggressive, and will impact every person living in

Newfoundland and Labrador and will also have a devastating impact on our

economy. People are saying: What was your plan?

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to remind people that we did present a plan. We did have a

sustainability plan. We did have a platform. We did present a budget last year.

We were very honest and clear about the situation we found ourselves in.

Granted, given declining oil prices, that situation over the last 12 months has

worsened considerably. That would have meant that even our plan would have

required adjustments in order to deal with the enormous fiscal challenge that

the province now faces.

We had a

plan. We presented that plan to the people and, frankly, they didn't like it.

Frankly, the people of this province sent a strong message that they wanted

change. They listened carefully to what Liberal candidates were promising and to

what the Liberal leader was promising. I think they took him at his word. They

took candidates at their word.

The

budget was known. The financial situation of the province was well known. As the

Leader of the Opposition stated in Question Period today, there's a

multi-million dollar impact every time a barrel of oil drops by $1 a barrel in

the world markets. It is regrettable and it is unfortunate that we're so

dependent on natural resource revenue. That's why we spent an enormous effort

and I believe that the new government will continue this effort to try and

diversify the economy in a number of key sectors.

We did

make progress when it came to the tourism sector jumps to mind and the great

strides we've made over the last decade. Ocean technology there are all kinds

of specific sectors being targeted by Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural

Development that is producing results. We do have the potential to grow the

economy, but unfortunately this budget is not about any of that. This budget is

about some choices that are now being made that are completely inconsistent with

what was promised to the people of the province back in the fall. It's affecting

everybody.

I think

it is important that we focus on facts. I understand that people are emotional

and they have a right to be. I understand people are upset and they have a right

to be. In this Chamber, when we're debating this budget, and where every Member

on both sides of the House will have to stand and be counted, then even through

this process we all have a choice to make, Mr. Speaker.

There's

been some public call for a free vote. I recognize the implications of that.

I've served on the government side and I know that this is a confidence vote

which means that government could fall if the majority of Members of this House

did not vote to support the budget. That puts the Premier and the new government

in a challenging position to say the least.

But we

all have to stand and be counted and we're all going to have individual choices

to make. The choice for the New Democratic Party or for the PC Party is a rather

easy one. We know what we would have done, we campaigned on it and we were

honest about it. For the Members opposite, though, it's a different challenge

altogether.

I think

it's important we try and get past the blame game and talk about the actual

merits of this budget and the implications it is going to have on people. For

every Member, it means different things. I've been speaking passionately for the

last number of days inside this House and outside the House about the decision

to close Masonic Park Nursing Home. A measure that's being taken by Eastern

Health, endorsed obviously by the Department of Health and Communities and the

Liberal government.

I can

honestly stand here and tell you that I believe based on all of the information

that was available to me in the past year and all of the information that's been

available to me in recent days that it is the wrong decision. But I'll also say

I recognize, having sat in one of those chairs opposite in recent times, that

some of those choices that need to be made around the future of our health care

system are very near impossible ones.

We had a

plan to bring the system towards sustainability and there are many difficult

decisions that we as a province face in order to get there. I sincerely wish the

minister well in pursuing some of those choices and decisions because a 1.5 per

cent cut to Eastern Health's budget is not in any way going to achieve

sustainability. It's a step, but there are many more steps to take before we get

to where we need to be, given our per capita level of health care spending.

In this

particular instance, I don't believe the evidence supports the decision. So I

have a choice to make and as a Member of the Opposition perhaps it's a little

easier to make that choice than it is for some of the Members that are sitting

opposite. I have to stand and speak for my constituents because there are now 40

residents of Masonic Park who are going to be displaced, who are vulnerable, who

are in the final years of their lives, many of whom are very attached to their

current living environment and it's very disruptive for those families as well.

On a

bigger scale, though, if I was to park the concerns of my individual

constituents for a moment and look at the bigger picture, which I acknowledge

the minister and the Cabinet and the government has to do, then I'm still

concerned. What we're talking about in this particular individual decision is a

reduction overall in the number of long-term care beds in this region.

The

minister and I had an animated discussion about it during Question Period. I

will accept his invitation to sit down and have a further conversation about the

numbers and where they come from because I do have a hard time believing them,

Mr. Speaker, having been through the financial statements of the home.

having spent the last 18 years visiting the home, I know what condition it's in.

I know some of the improvements that have been made in recent years to that

facility as well. I also have some appreciation perhaps not as much as the

minister who has a far more extensive background in health care than I do. I do

have some appreciation for the costs that are involved in running that facility

that are operating costs based on the number of patients, the number of beds,

and the staffing mix and the staffing ratios that are required to provide proper

care to those patients. Most of those costs are not going away.

I can't

stand and support a budget that's going to see long-term care beds reduced in

our province. I frankly don't believe anybody should. We've been talking for

years in this province about the need to grow long-term care beds and we had a

plan to do that as well.

I will

also agree with the minister that we need to do more to keep people in their

homes as long as possible. That is part of the

Close to Home strategy that we have

been working on for the last number of years. That effort needs to continue.

There's

some innovative work being done in the country and has started within Eastern

Health to advance a home first strategy, which is a great move and something

that we need to aggressively pursue. We have more of our personal care homes in

this province that are private facilities that provide excellent care to about

3,000 residents in this province that can do more in some cases, that can

provide an enhanced level of care. There's a pilot project that demonstrates

that it makes good sense.

Even if

you do all of those things, for the next two decades we are going to have a

shortage of long-term care beds. Even despite the fact that we've added hundreds

of new beds to the system over the last 10 years, we're still going to have a

shortage. We have a shortage today. We have a couple of hundred people waiting

today. Those numbers aren't going to get dramatically better any time soon.

There

may be weeks, there may be days, there may even be months where those numbers

improve because as the minister pointed out, it does fluctuate. Overall, based

on the population trends, based on our population that's getting older and

older, faster than the rest of the country, and sadly, a population that's

getting sicker and sicker, faster than the rest of the country, we can't avoid

the need to expand long-term care beds. So a decision to close 50 in this budget

is something that I can't stand here and support.

Now, I

did notice and I would be remiss if I didn't comment on it, Mr. Speaker. I

know that the Member for Port de Grave and I'm trying to remember the new

district name.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Harbour Grace Port de

Grave.

MR. KENT:

Carbonear Port de Grave?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Harbour Grace.

MR. KENT:

Harbour Grace Port de

Grave, thank you. The change of district names is going to take those of us who

have been here a while some time to adapt to, I think.

On one

hand I'm glad to see the Member stand and raise concerns on behalf of her

constituents. That does take some courage, and I applaud that. I don't want to

be overly skeptical, Mr. Speaker, but then when I hear the government Members

who are all going to stand one by one and vote for this budget, a budget that

does not include replacing Coley's Point Elementary; they are all going to stand

and pat each other on the back today and applaud the Member's petition. But when

it truly matters, when the time comes to stand and be counted, will the Member

for Harbour Grace Port de Grave stand and vote for this budget that will not

address the needs of her constituents?

It is

fine to say, as she did today, with a great deal of passion, you have known

about this for years and you didn't do anything about it. Well, that's not true.

We made a decision. We made a commitment to build the school. We've built all

kinds of new schools in areas across the province, and not all in government

districts at the time. There have been schools built in various places where

they have been needed, based on aging infrastructure and based on the population

growth in certain areas of the province as well.

So we'll

stand by those decisions that we made. We knew that Coley's Point was a high

priority, and that's why we committed to getting it done and the groundwork had

been laid.

Now, I

know given the financial situation the new government faces, they can't

necessarily proceed with every single infrastructure project that was slated.

They are now, despite the fact that there's a limited amount of design work to

be done before tenders can be called on the Corner Brook hospital, the Liberal

government ironically has now chosen to delay the Corner Brook hospital, despite

the fact that over the last number of years they've been quite critical of the

previous government for not advancing the project fast enough. I acknowledge

that project did not advance fast enough; there is no doubt about that.

They

also campaigned on building a replacement for the Waterford Hospital which would

start in 2017. Now they've backed away from that commitment as well. So, Mr.

Speaker, we all have choices to make. The Member for Harbour Grace Port de

Grave is going to have some choices to make. The theatrics of presenting a

petition is one thing, and I commend her for standing and doing that today. The

theatrics of people applauding that are great, but when the time comes to truly

stand and be counted, when people in this House are going to determine if this

budget passes, the question that has to be asked: Will the Member and will other

Members then stand and applaud? Will they stand with their constituents? Will

they stand with the people of the province or will they not? Time will tell.

We'll do

our best during this budget debate to present our concerns about the budget.

We're hearing the same concerns from people around the province, just like

government Members are. We have a responsibility to make sure those concerns get

heard during this debate, and that's what we'll do in the most respectful way

that we possibly can. But there will come a time where we all need to stand and

be counted.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I said I was going to give the overview of all the things I was

concerned about in this budget, and unfortunately my time is quickly ticking

away.

One of

the things I've heard the most about is the levy tax. I've not heard of

governments anywhere, really, introducing temporary measures that magically

disappear after a year or two, or three or four. Most times when government

introduce taxes and fees and levies, they tend not to go away rather quickly. I

think income tax was a temporary measure after the First World War, and we're

still paying a heck of a lot of it. This, actually, Mr. Speaker, is income tax

by another name.

The

criteria that's been established, thresholds that have been established, how

this is being applied with a cap just doesn't make sense. Especially for our

lowest income families and individuals, and especially for middle-class families

who are struggling right now to get by. When you're going to increase the cost

of insurance dramatically, when you're going to increase the cost of gasoline

dramatically, when you're going to increase personal income tax and increase the

HST after promising you wouldn't do that, it's hard to swallow the levy on top

of all of that. So, this Liberal levy needs to be reconsidered.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't have confidence in this budget and I don't have confidence in

this new government. I, as the Member for Mount Pearl North, move a

sub-amendment to this budget, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East

Bell Island, that the amendment that was previously presented, the

non-confidence motion, be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a

comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: and that this

House also condemns the government for its failure to demonstrate sound

leadership and compassion by addressing the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador's

most vulnerable: its children, its youth, its seniors, its families, its

communities, or its many others who are impacted by its approach.

Mr.

Speaker, I so move, and I am pleased to present this sub-amendment today.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

Is there

a seconder to your

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I did say

initially it is seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, the House will take a

few moments to review the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

We have

reviewed the amendment as put forward by the Member for the District of Mount

Pearl North and the amendment is found to be in order.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased that in your wisdom you've chosen to find our sub-amendment in order.

For those that may be watching the debate this afternoon, there is some

tradition that goes with the budget process. It's not uncommon for Opposition

parties to lay down an amendment to the budget and then a sub-amendment. It is

particularly important this year.

Our

sub-amendment that we are now debating, as a result of it being found to be in

order, is challenging this budget. It's highlighting the devastating impact that

this budget will have on seniors and families and every individual living in

this province. Not to mention the fact that it will stifle our economy as well.

I'm

pleased to get another opportunity to rise and speak to it because in my first

time this afternoon, I didn't get an opportunity to go through some of the

budget highlights from my perspective which now I'll have the opportunity to do,

so I'm grateful for that.

Again,

as I was saying before time ran out previously, we really do need to keep this

fact based. I think then it will be more informative for the people of the

province. It will be more productive. Given the amount of upset people out

there, it's very easy for us to scream and shout and get people further riled up

and upset. I don't think that's necessary in this instance. I don't think it's

productive in any instance.

I'd

rather talk about some of the facts. Sometimes it's hard to know what's fact and

what's not in this hon. House. I do want to pick up on something that was

mentioned in Question Period today by the Minister of Health and Community

Services in response to one of my questions and then I will move along and talk

specifically about some of the initiatives that are mentioned or killed through

this budget.

talked about work being cancelled or put off at the Health Sciences Centre. Now,

Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that there are millions and millions of

dollars' worth of work needed at the Health Sciences Centre. I know there are a

lot of people particularly in this region of the province who think of the

Health Sciences Centre as the new hospital. Mr. Speaker, the Health Sciences

Centre opened before I was born. It has been serving this province for something

like 40, 41 years. I am not suggesting it hasn't been well maintained but given

the changes and the advances that have happened in health care in the last four

decades, any facility that is 40 years old would be showing its age.

Now,

it's not the most urgent health infrastructure need in this region, given the

state of the Waterford Hospital that we're all familiar with; but there's no

doubt that given how important the Health Science Centre is to everybody in the

province, no matter what region you live in, there's work that needs to be done

there. I actually attended a news conference I don't know if it was in the

fall or over the summer to highlight some of the work we were approving in

capital improvements at the Health Sciences Centre in repairs and renovations.

suspect if we were able to have a more sensible and productive conversation

about it that the minister would agree that the Health Sciences site is in need

of redevelopment. In there may lie part of the solution for the Waterford

Hospital as well, so there are some, at least, elements of it. I do want to

clarify that there were new dollars committed to work at the Health Sciences

Centre last year.

I had

the unfortunate experience very briefly early last year of being a patient at

the Health Sciences Centre. I went for something that I thought was very routine

and I ended up more or less being held captive. I spent two or three days in the

hospital for something really minor. I have to say I received incredibly

excellent care from the staff working in our health care system. I have to

applaud particularly the nursing staff for the amazing work that they do each

and every day.

Anyway,

the point I want to make is that it felt a little bit like

Undercover Boss at the time. I got to see first-hand and I never

had an opportunity as Health minister to really share this experience so I'll

share it very quickly now. I had the opportunity first-hand to see what the

facility was like, how it was operating and what some of the challenges were. It

was a really glimpse obviously, so you can't make decisions or form solid

opinions based on a really brief glimpse.

What was

clear is that there's major infrastructure investment needed. That's true at the

Health Sciences Centre; it's true at St. Clare's. The Waterford Hospital simply

needs to be replaced. Again, as I think the Health Minister would acknowledge,

it's not simply about replacing the bricks and mortar as it exists today; it's

about putting a facility in place and programs in place that will meet the needs

of the community and of the province well into the future.

I look

forward to some of those conversations. I realize that it's tough to have those

kinds of conversations in these fiscal times, but you have to start somewhere

and you have to have a long-term plan. Some of those financial decisions can be

figured out over multiple years and need to be figured out over multiple years.

We were absolutely committed to making investments at the Health Sciences Centre

and we did.

Mr.

which gets mentioned daily in this hon. House. I support public consultation and

I support meaningful engagement with the public. So I can't frown on a process

that gives citizens the opportunity, a chance to have a more meaningful say in

the province's finances. That as a concept is a really good thing; however,

what's done with that information and how it's used and whether citizens are

truly engaged is part of the question.

The

initiative took place, lots of feedback was gathered. It's apparently going to

go on for 15 months. There's going to be more decisions on budget number two

this fall. Then I guess further decisions next spring when the 15-month period

comes to an end. I recognize you can't do everything in one budget, obviously.

One of

the questions I have for Members opposite, and I hope will be answered through

the course of this budget debate. Beyond the input that's been gathered through

the formal process so far, will the input that's now rolling in be considered as

part of that government renewal initiative as well? Because hundreds of citizens

participated and that's great, but now on a daily basis we're all hearing from

hundreds of citizens.

brought down with me a folder of emails. I haven't printed them all, just the

emails that I've chosen to print to me personally from the past week from people

who are not just expressing concern, and there's a lot of that and it's valid,

and I appreciate it and I empathize but beyond that, people are also making

suggestions on alternatives. Now some of the alternatives are easy to throw out

there and perhaps not even practical and perhaps not even fair. One of the

popular ones is cut everybody's salary in here. Because the suggestion is that

maybe we're not all working hard enough to deal with this situation.

Well I

know that Members of this House, no matter where you sit, are working quite

hard. I know the Cabinet ministers who have presented this budget must have been

working around the clock. I don't agree with the decisions they've made. I

believe there are better choices to be made, but I have no doubt about the level

of work that's being done in challenging times like this. If you're a Cabinet

minister, the work is constant.

Beyond

those kinds of situations that tend to be randomly thrown around every time

there's a financial challenge to deal with, there have been lots of constructive

meaningful suggestions made about other alternatives. Some of them are

alternatives that we had considered. Some of them are alternatives that we had

actually proposed in our blueprint last fall, or in our previous budget or in

our five-year sustainability plan.

Beyond

that, there are new and innovative suggestions being made by residents around

the province about what else could be done to tackle the province's financial

situation. Because taking the drastic measures that this Liberal government is

taking, which will affect everybody in the province and force people to actually

have to maybe not even contemplate, but actually have to move away.

There is

a better way forward, Mr. Speaker. While I have no doubt that the choices we

face are tough, we face them. I know that based on where the financial situation

is now, the choices are even that much tougher. I respectfully acknowledge all

of that, but there is a better way forward. I hope during this debate there's an

opportunity to highlight some of that as well.

I don't

want to spend my time in the budget debate simply quoting constituents that have

written, although that is important, but I'm just going to give you a sampling,

just for a minute or two, of the kinds of things that are being said. There is a

consistent theme along the way.

One of

the things, though, that is bothersome and some of it is directed at Members

on this side of the House, but most of it is directed at Members opposite. I

find the personal attacks really hard to take because I've been there, Mr.

Speaker. For people to personally attack, whether it's the Finance Minister or

the Premier or other Members of Cabinet or other local MHAs, in a personal way,

I think that's rather unfortunate.

understand people are angry. I think we have a job to do to make ourselves

available to hear that feedback and empathize and truly hear what constituents

are having to say. I would ask all constituents and all people in the province

to be human about it and to be respectful about it because we're all human

beings. I'm sure as Members have said, and as I said earlier, there's nobody on

the government side that can be excited about what they're proposing to do to

the people of the province. So let's be respectful in the discourse.

There's

language in some of these emails that I can't read in this hon. House, first of

all because it's unparliamentary; and secondly, because it's just unfair and

it's disrespectful. I am angry. I am outraged by this budget. I think that

terrible choices have been made by this government. I feel that people of the

province have a right to feel that they've been misled because so many promises

have been broken. Despite that, there's no need for personal attacks, whether

they be aimed at the Premier, the Finance Minister or MHAs.

That has

to be particularly troubling for new MHAs who are coming into the job for the

first time and have not necessarily been through rough waters like this, and

hopefully won't ever be again. It's got to be particularly troubling for those

MHAs. I know there are probably people who are listening who are saying, well,

that's what you get elected to do, so suck it up, and don't be whining about

people being aggressive or nasty. You can be upset, you can be angry, you can

express concern and you can be outraged, but let's not attack people and their

families and make this personal, even though every decision that's being

proposed in this budget is personal. It will affect my family personally, it

will affect my children, and it will affect my parents. That's true for the

Members opposite as well and it's true for everybody else in this province. So

let's just try and be a bit respectful as we go through the next number of weeks

of debate about this budget.

So,

Madam Speaker, welcome. Just to give you some sense of the kinds of messages I'm

seeing I'll say on an hourly basis, and I think Members opposite would agree

that's not an exaggeration: The budget recently announced is a travesty and will

not only hurt employment and the economy, but will devastate families who were

thought to be making pretty good money. There are a lot of working families,

good taxpayers, middle-class families who are making decent living and would

legitimately feel that while they don't have a lot of money left over, they're

getting by and they're making a contribution to the economy and to society.

I'll

just go on. Between mortgages, child care, heat, food and transportation,

there's not a lot left. Whether you're an MHA or whether you're a public

servant, or whether you're working in the private sector or in the community

sector, that's true for most of us. There are those on the extreme end who are

making much, much more money than any of us are making, who may have a different

set of challenges to deal, but for the vast majority those struggles to make

ends meet are real.

Your

budget has taken this from them and essentially left them with nothing. So many

people were already living paycheque to paycheque and trying to decide what bill

they could pay this pay period or what food they could buy for their children. I

don't know how these people will survive your budget.

This

Liberal government has sucker-punched the people of the province and there's

language then that goes on that I won't read in this hon. House, Madam Speaker.

So I

understand those sentiments. In fact, when I tended the protest at noon with

Members of our PC caucus and also Members of the New Democratic Party who spoke

well at that protest this afternoon, I knew our presence wasn't extremely well

received, and I understand that. I understand some of the anger people are

feeling right now is directed at the past administration as well, and that

conversation needs to be had. We need to take responsibility for the decisions

we made and for the plan we presented and for the promises we campaigned on. But

it doesn't change the fact we're not governing today and we aren't the ones that

can now make the decisions that will affect families and affect the future.

I talked

to one of my constituents who were on the steps who I hadn't seen in quite some

time. She expressed outrage and she witnessed the reception that our leader and

others received today, and it was mixed, but it was also quite obvious that

there were some people that were upset. Her comment was that's not necessarily

productive. We need to focus on the issues of today.

That's

not to say we can deny what's gone on in the past, and we do need to have the

conversation about the decisions that we've made, what our plan was and what we

were prepared to do. We did have a plan and unfortunately people didn't like it.

I respect the decisions that the people have made.

The

point she ultimately made, beyond expressing some sympathy and some appreciation

for the fact that we did stand and be counted today, she said, the choice I have

to make is about when I can buy groceries for my kids. She said, I work for the

provincial government. I have a reasonable job in the provincial government.

It's not high paying.

government was to formalize a sunshine list, which has been the subject of much

public discussion recently, it would show that there are lots of people who work

for the government that are not making huge salaries in this day and age. The

vast majority of public servants work very hard every day to earn that money.

The

point she made, she said, I'm trying to make a go of it on my own. I have two

children and it is a struggle, even now, to meet the basic needs, to buy the

groceries that we need from week to week. We have tough choices to make in that

regard. She said I have no idea when July 1 comes I don't know what I'm going

to do.

When

this Liberal levy comes into play and I'm hit harder and I'm taking home less

money every two weeks, on top of all of the other charges that we're going to

face people are going to pay more sales tax, people are going to pay more

personal income tax, people are going to pay more for gas, they're going to pay

more for insurance; everything is going to be taxed or increased with something

like 300 new fees. That's going to be devastating for not just our lowest income

earners and we've invested heavily over the last decade in social programs to

support our lowest income earners but it's going to have a devastating impact

on middle-class families as well.

So to

hear first-hand from that constituent of mine today who was on the steps of

Confederation Building which took a lot of courage when you're a public

servant to express anger, to express outrage, and to pose some tough questions

to me as well about our record, our contribution and the questions that I should

answer as her MHA, those aren't easy conversations to have but they need to be

had. Again, all I ask is that people try and do that in a respectful and

constructive way.

One of

the things we need to demonstrate to the people of the province, and to Members

opposite when their time comes to stand and be counted, is that there is a

better way. We need to be specific about what that might look, despite the very

difficult choices that government must make at this point in time.

Madam

Speaker, I don't have much time left. I'm very concerned about rural

communities. I know I'll often get heckled by Members in this House when I talk

about rural development because I live in Mount Pearl, but do you know what?

There are a lot of people who live in Mount Pearl who come from all kinds of

small communities in every single corner of this province and beyond. They have

families, they have loved ones, they have friends living in those communities.

Most of us, even if we now find ourselves living in an urban setting, have had

some experience and some background and some connection to rural life in this

province.

When I

see offices being closed and services being removed, whether we're talking about

health care in the Central Region or whether we're talking about the closure of

Advanced Education and Skills offices that provide programs and services to

those in need across the province, that does affect the sustainability of rural

communities. Within the Office of Public Engagement and our Rural Secretariat,

our provincial councils and our regional councils are now being eliminated,

which eliminates a rural voice within the government sector that needs to be

heard as well.

I hope

as this debate rages on, Madam Speaker, that I'll have more opportunity to delve

into some of those issues and some of the other issues that affect my

constituents and constituents throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I look

forward to a productive debate. I look forward to a respectful debate.

I know

the choices we face as a people, as a province, aren't easy but I do believe,

Madam Speaker, there is a better way and there are better choices to be made.

The choices that this government is making after making all kinds of promises to

the people, those choices are the wrong choices, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

I remind

the Member his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I do

want to take a moment and thank my colleagues in the House today. As they would

have been aware, I wasn't here for Question Period. I was attending a funeral,

and I appreciate the support of the Members opposite and the Members on this

side of the House for allowing me to do that with my family today.

Madam

Speaker, over the last week I've had the opportunity to listen to the debate

that has been happening not only in this Chamber but also in the community about

this budget. Madam Speaker, I think one of the things I'd like to do with the 20

minutes that I have today, and I look forward to speaking more to this budget

over the next coming weeks, Madam Speaker, is to address some of the things

Members opposite have been saying, and also work to make sure the right facts

and the correct facts and the real facts are getting out to the people of the

province.

Quite

frankly I don't think it's any surprise, certainly to those of us on this side,

or to people in the province that there are Members opposite, particularly in

the Official Opposition, who continue their habit of telling half-stories and

half-truths. That's exactly what they've been doing for a week, and it's time

for this side of the House and for those of us in the public to put a stop to

it.

Madam

Speaker, Members opposite have said a number of things as part of this debate

this week, and they've talked about this budget in terms of the decisions we had

to make. I think it is really important for those people at home to understand

that many of the difficult choices that came to us as part of the decisions to

make, to cut, and make decisions to save money, save taxpayers' money so it can

be invested in critical public services were placed in front of the former

government. They would have had the same information that we would have had.

Now they

will say they would make decisions differently, and I can certainly understand

why after spending over 130-plus days digging through what are the real facts of

what's going on. It was obvious when I listened to the Member opposite, the

Member for Ferryland, talking about how we're spending $400 million more than

they did last year. He tells that story in the context of how we've let spending

grow, how we've let it expand.

Well,

Madam Speaker, for clarity, the budget would have been, based on their numbers,

$620 million more, and the reason it is $400 million more is first and foremost

there was $300 million, which includes a one-time $222 million increase in

pension expenses due to the pension reform. That's one reason. The second reason

is $320 million increased in debt expenses due to the increasing deficit. So the

$620 million that would have been the budget this year, had we not done

anything, comes from those two items, Madam Speaker. What we were able to do was

to take a number of expenses out.

Now the

dialogue about the budget over the last number of days has focused around the

taxes. Madam Speaker, it may come as a surprise to those listening at home, but

it won't come to a surprise to the Members on this side of the House when we say

things like we are competitive in Atlantic Canada and based on taxes for a

variety of rates, which I'm happy to table in this House and showcase the

competiveness of the current personal income tax, I'm prepared to table that

document and let the Members opposite be reminded of the full story they're

going to have to be accountable to telling the people of the province.

Madam

Speaker, there is one story they're not telling, and that is the journey this

province has been on when it comes to personal income tax. In 2001, the highest

tax earners in this province 2001 were being taxed at a rate of over 18 per

cent.

In 2007,

the former administration lowered taxes and everybody celebrated about the lower

taxes. I'll remind people in this House, that was when peak oil production was

forecast. The top earners were moved down from 18 per cent to 16.5 per cent.

In 2008,

they again reduced taxes, and what did they do? They reduced it to 15.5 per cent

for the top earners. Then in 2010, they again dropped taxes. Now having dealt

with peak oil production had passed, peak oil price had passed, there was a

significant shift in revenue, and they dropped the taxes on the highest paid

earners down to 13.3 per cent.

Now,

Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Members opposite speak about the tax

increases we made and the difficult choices we made, and I say they like to pick

and choose the stories they tell, that's a story that needs to be told.

Madam

Speaker, I think it would be important for the Members of this House to also

understand that between 2008 in the 2008 tax reduction and in the 2010 tax

reduction when they were dropping the taxes for high-income people, Members

opposite, when they were in government did not adjust the tax rate for the first

bracket, for the lowest income earners in our province.

They sit

here and they go out in public and they talk about these increases and they only

want to tell half-truths. It's the same pattern of behaviour they had in the

dying days of their government when they only wanted to tell half-truths to the

people of this province, Madam Speaker. I can tell you that Members on this side

of the House are not going to tolerate half-truths out there in the population.

Our tax

increases, even last year when they moved the minister last year spoke about

introducing two tax brackets and they were going to go after the high-income

earners. They only moved them to 15.3 per cent. They didn't even go back to 2007

levels. They kept the rates low on those high-income earners.

What

we've done, Madam Speaker, is we have moved the taxes in 2007 on the highest

bracket to 18.3 per cent. So let nobody misunderstand that this government and

the decisions we made are based on fairness and are based on being responsible,

based on the facts that we're faced with.

Now the

Members in the Third Party like to talk about all of the things in the budget

that we're cutting. Madam Speaker, this temporary deficit levy that we're going

to have and that we've introduced and we've publicly put ourselves on the

record to say that amount of money will stop and be phased out as part of

2018-19's budget. Members opposite in the Third Party like to talk about it in

the context of just that amount and not in the entire amount of taxes. I would

also be prepared to table a document that speaks very clearly. With the personal

income taxes that we have changed and the deficit levy, every single tax bracket

is paying less than they were under the Tories.

Madam

Speaker, I understand and I have said repeatedly since January that this issue

of the deficit that we're facing is a very difficult one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. C. BENNETT:

When we spend 12 to 13 and

increasing cents on debt expenses, we have to take action. The Official

Opposition in government wouldn't make the choices. They wouldn't communicate

with the people of the province. They wouldn't give them the facts. The Third

Party believes that there is a pool of money somewhere that's going to show up

they have the same thinking that somehow money is going to show up somewhere to

pay for things.

Madam

Speaker, when we launched our budget last week, I was very clear with the people

of the province that we had a clear plan to get back to surplus because, quite

frankly, that's what the people of the province expect us to do. They also

expect us to make sure that we are investing money to make sure that those

people who are most vulnerable in our province are taken care of.

We've

done three things, Madam Speaker, as part of this budget that the Members

opposite don't want to talk about. They don't want to talk about it. The three

things would include the introduction of the Newfoundland and Labrador Income

Supplement, an increased amount of money that allows us to mitigate many of the

tax increases that people in low incomes are going to be faced. It was a

priority for this government and it is going to continue to be a priority for us

to continue to invest where we know people in vulnerable situations are having

struggles.

Madam

Speaker, the other thing we did was to make sure that those individuals on

income support who may be affected by the discontinuation of the Home Heating

Rebate under the previous government what we did is we implemented a new pot

of money to make sure that those individuals are not disadvantaged. The Members

opposite don't want to talk about that. They don't want to get those facts out

to the people of the province.

The

third item we did was to make sure that those people in our community, those

seniors

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. C. BENNETT:

The Member opposite wants to

continue to heckle me while I'm talking. She can continue to do that, Madam

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. C. BENNETT:

Madam Speaker, we've also

invested in enhancing the Seniors' Benefit so seniors will be able to get more

money to offset the implications of the consumption tax increase, and also to

offset implications of the Home Heating Rebate reduction.

The

Members opposite, I understand, they want to play politics with this. If I was

sitting on that side of the House, I'd be pretty ashamed to go out to a protest

as well. I'd be pretty ashamed to show my face as well when the people of the

province watched them justify investments and justify things without having

financial accountability to today.

They

talked about, for years, that the motherlode was coming; the big money was

coming. Madam Speaker, our government is not prepared to not take action, and we

will continue to make decisions that are in the best interests of the province.

Now, you

know what, there is absolutely no way any government, any government, any Tory

government, any NDP government, or the current government could look to increase

revenue and not impact people. It's impossible, but what we can do is to make

sure when we make those difficult decisions on revenue that we invest in

protecting the most vulnerable in our community and make sure they are taken

care of.

The

other thing we can do is to be open and transparent about when we intend to

bring this province not only back to surplus, but when we intend to move off

temporary taxes. But for Members opposite, particularly in the Official

Opposition, to talk about the deficit levy as something that is giving

high-rollers a free ride, I would remind them of the free ride they gave

high-rollers in 2007, 2008, 2010 and in 2015, Madam Speaker.

You know

what I'm happy to listen to the debate, but when Members opposite get up and

stand up and talk about things like we had a five-year plan; it was a balanced

plan. Well, Madam Speaker, I think it would be really important for the Members

of this House to understand that in their plan last year they budgeted all of

the things they were going to spend money on, and then they decided let's throw

$150 million in there that we hope to save, and wish for good luck.

That is

unacceptable when it comes to openness and transparency. It's unacceptable when

it comes to the responsibility they had to be transparent about the budget. That

is not a seven-year plan; that's sticking in a number and making something work

in an election year.

The

Members opposite spoke about, as I said, the two new personal income tax rates,

two new income tax brackets they brought in. As I've said before, they brought

them in, and the highest earner was 15.3 per cent, the second-highest earners

were 14.3 per cent. I remind the people of this House and the Members home who

are listening that we've moved that rate up in 2017 to 18.3 per cent.

Madam

Speaker, the Members opposite talk about things like this to scare people. They

say the HST went up and there's no rebate, but they don't want to talk about the

Newfoundland Income Supplement, which is actually even more money than what

would have been the HST rebate that hasn't been adjusted or changed since 1997

that this government did, this government took leadership on

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. C. BENNETT:

this government changed to

make sure that those people on low income had much more money in their pockets

than the previous government.

Madam

Speaker, we talk about infrastructure and investment. The Members opposite in

their debate so far talked a lot about infrastructure investment. I want the

people of the province today to understand that our government, through

investments, is leveraging and spending $570 million and that doesn't include

any large-scale projects. That's $570 million invested in infrastructure that's

going to create 1,000 jobs a year for the next four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. C. BENNETT:

Madam Speaker, when that

comes to looking and investing in the economy, I think that's something that our

government, considering that we're faced with a $1.8 billion deficit, can be

really proud.

The

Members opposite want to talk about the budget in the context of pieces of it

that they want to talk about for their own purposes. I understand that. I

understand having been in the House now for a little over a year and a half.

I've seen how they operate. I understand that their choice is to talk about

things in terms that get the people fanned up.

Madam

Speaker, do you know what? When we find out things as part of our budget

process, like one-time decisions that the former administration made that saw

money, fire trucks and others go into Tory districts 19 out of 20 times, I think

the people of the province need to understand that.

I'm

quite prepared, and Members on this side of the House are quite prepared, to

work with our constituents and all of the people in the province to make the

decisions over the next four years, through our mandate, to get our province

back on fiscal ground that is solid so that we can ensure that we have efficient

services for the people of the province. What we won't do is we won't sit idly

by and watch the Members of the Opposition both Opposition parties

cherry-pick the things they want to go out and create in the community even more

anxiety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MS. C. BENNETT:

Madam Speaker, I look forward

to participating in this debate; I look forward to continuing to participate in

this debate and explain to the people of the province the amount of priority we

have put into low-income individuals and the money we're investment back through

the Newfoundland income tax credit and the temporary nature of the deficit.

I look

forward to the Members opposite standing up in this House and explaining to us

the things they would like to see cut in their districts and in other districts

that would save them money from the Deficit Reduction Levy. I would look forward

to that conversation.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I stand

today to speak to the budget. This is my first time speaking to the budget in

this session: Restoring Fiscal Confidence

and Accountability .

Madam

Speaker, I would imagine that many people who voted for the Liberals in our last

provincial election in November did so based on the very concrete promises the

Premier and his team made to the people of the province: no public sector

layoffs, no HST increase, a strong plan for diversification, a stronger future.

The Premier and his team loudly, boldly and unequivocally made those promises to

the people New