April 21,

2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVI No. 20

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:

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

the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the

District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of

Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and the

hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the HCC Huskies Ball

Hockey Team of St. Anthony that won gold at the 3A Boys Ball Hockey Provincial

Tournament that was held in St. Anthony this past weekend.

Ten teams from across the Province competed in the two-day tournament, with

Dorset Collegiate of Pilley's Island and HCC Huskies of St. Anthony competing in

the championship game. The winning team played a fantastic game and won with a

score of 6 to 4. Not only were they proud to have won the provincial

championship banner, but they were extremely proud to have done it in front of

their home crowd.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate each player of the winning team.

They are: Jonathan Young, Ian Warren, Steven Fowler, Alexander Campbell,

Alexander Powell, Jamie Spearing, Adam Davidson, Grant Young, Zachery Hedderson,

David Budgell, Jordan Richards, and Matthew Carter.

I also wish to extend my congratulations to the coaches, Brendan Reardon,

Daniel Bock and Jeff Blackler. Their hard work, relentless effort and attention

to detail have certainly led to their team's success.

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

congratulating the HCC Huskies Ball Hockey Team and their coaches and wish them

the best of luck as they participate in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and celebrate the deserving volunteers and athletes who were nominated for the

Stephen Awards. This Annual Awards Banquet Night sponsored by the Towns of

Stephenville and Kippens was held on April 16 as part of National Volunteer Week

to which the theme was "Volunteers Stars in the Community".

The Citizen of the Year Award went to Dianna Kung of Stephenville, who is

involved with the Duke of Edinburgh Program, Girl Guides of Canada, Canadian

Cancer Society Relay for Life, Stephenville Middle School Breakfast Program,

Salvation Army Church, Pioneer Boys and Girls Clubs and the Sir Thomas Roddick

Hospital Auxiliary Committee to name a few. I commend Ms Kung for her countless

hours of volunteer work.

Also, Mr. Speaker, other Stephen Awards presented that night were: Lauren

Henley was honoured with the Youth of the Year award for her outstanding

volunteer work with the Stephenville High School Humanitarian Club, the School

French Club, student council, figure skating coach, and a member of the Relay

for Life Run for the Cure. William Forsey won the Junior Male Athlete of the

Year Award, Erin Boyd was presented with the Junior Female Athlete of the Year

Award, and Don Cormier was awarded with the Senior Athlete of the Year honour.

Mr. Speaker, also that evening, sixteen Certificates of Merit for Outstanding

Volunteer Work were also presented to individuals for their exceptional work in

the community. Congratulations are extended to: Erle Barrett, Kevie and Robyn

Bennett, Cecilia Burke, Ricki Collins, Chris Cooper, Domonic Drew, Theresa

Duffney, Sheila Felix, John Harnett, Cynthia Hawco, Sean Hillier, Susan Oates,

Stephen Penney, Liz Porter, Dorothy Preston, Heather Shears, Jan Smith, Betty

Lou, Guy White, and Roseann White for their hard work and dedication and their

contribution in making our area a better place to live and work.

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

in congratulating all of the award winners and nominees of the Stephen Awards

for their invaluable contributions to the community, the region, and the

Province for they are truly stars in our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House to recognize

one of the most talented bands to come out of St. John's in years, although I

would not want to be a judge in that contest.

Mr. Speaker, on April 16, the Idlers were announced as winners of the 2011

East Coast Music Award for World and they have a fan over here, I think, Mr.

Speaker for World Recording of the Year for their album Keep Out . The

Idlers join numerous other Newfoundland and Labrador musicians who received

awards at this year's ECMA's, and all deserve to be congratulated, Mr. Speaker.

The amazing talent of musicians from this Province is staggering, Mr.

Speaker, and it is especially good that all forms of music from Newfoundland and

Labrador are now being recognized. From traditional to rock, folk to country,

and now reggae, Mr. Speaker, our musicians are making their mark on the Canadian

music scene.

The Idlers have had an amazing career to date, and have received rave reviews

from across the country for their unique sound. The Coast in Halifax

says: "[The Idlers] give 100 per cent. You would be hard pressed to find a band

with the energy of these guys." Frank Leffredo in Thunder Bay, Ontario calls the

band: "A smorgasbord of sound a non-stop intelligent dance party." The

accolades just keep rolling in for this amazing band.

Mr. Speaker, the Idlers are off on tour this summer to Ontario and Nova

Scotia, and we wish them all the best as ambassadors of Newfoundland and

Labrador's thriving music scene.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Idlers on their ECMA

win, and wishing them continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a group of

outstanding young students at Elwood Regional High School in Deer Lake. I

attended a Shave for the Brave function in a packed gymnasium on Friday, April

15. At this event there were fourteen individuals who had their heads shaved.

This consisted of students, teachers, and public participation, including

Salvation Army Major Wayne Pike, their current principal, Mr. Jamie Park, and

their former principal and current MHA also participated.

The bleachers were filled with students supported by teachers, parents, and

community well-wishers. Mr. Speaker, this Shave for the Brave event raised over

$5,500 for Young Adult Cancer Canada. This event was the brainchild of Mackenzie

Bingle, a fifteen year old Level 1 student who had been letting his hair grow

since December 2009 so he could donate his hair for a wig for a cancer patient.

Once it grew long enough to cut, he decided to have some fun with it, and

organized this event. He raised $2,000 himself, which is indeed a remarkable

achievement.

Mr. Speaker, Heather Lequant, a Level II student, was the only female who

shaved. She raised $1,695 towards this outstanding cause. The hair that

Mackenzie and Heather shaved will be sent to the Canadian Cancer Society Wig

Program through Pantene Beautiful Lengths. All funds raised during the Shave

for the Brave helps us offer programs at no cost to young adult cancer patients

and survivors who truly need them. Young Adult Cancer aims to help young adults

dealing with cancer by offering programs to inspire, inform, support, and

connect with other survivors.

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

participants, organizers and volunteers in this Shave for the Brave event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

of the most important tools provided to our young people in today's society, the

DARE program or Drug Abuse Resistance Education.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 15, I attended the Sacred Heart Elementary DARE

graduation in Curling under the leadership of Constable Robert Edwards of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-eight Grade 6 students went through the program, teaching

them the hazards of drugs, peer pressure and bullying situations, and it gave

them the tools to say no when the situation arises.

Since the program started to take off in full force in 2008, Mr. Speaker, 760

Grade 6 students in Corner Brook went through the program. I am happy to report,

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP also started classes in the three remaining schools in the

beautiful District of Bay of Islands and they will graduate before the school

year ends.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge today the winners of the Sacred

Heart graduation. Top DARE graduate awards went to Morgan Meade and Catherine

Samms. Penmanship awards went to Caitlyn Garcia, Rebecca Myles, Kennedi Boland,

and April Butt.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members here today to acknowledge our police

forces, graduates of the DARE program, parents, and teachers for providing those

important tools to our most important resource in Newfoundland and Labrador -

our young people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate

the community of Goulds on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of its

Winter Carnival.

For twenty-five years, the Goulds Winter Carnival has been very successful in

Goulds. The

schedule of events has changed over the years but the enthusiasm for

these events is still very high. The carnival usually runs for ten to twelve

days each year in late January or early February. This year's carnival started

on February 3 with the carnival kind and queen contest.

On Friday, February 4, a very successful lip-sync contest was held with a

full house in attendance at St. Kevin's Junior High School. During the next ten

days there were card games, talent contests, senior's fun day, three dances for

different age groups, merchandize bingo and a Lions Club breakfast.

The Winter Carnival finished up with a volunteer appreciation night on

February 13. All winter carnival events in Goulds are sponsored by service

groups who use the winter carnival as a way to raise funds. Many people, young

and old, are involved with the organizing and running of winter carnival events;

the winter carnival committee always takes the lead role.

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

congratulating the community of Goulds, the Goulds recreation committee and the

winter carnival committee on the twenty-fifth anniversary of its Winter

Carnival.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize April 22 as Earth Day, a time

for us to reflect on our actions and recognize the need for ongoing

environmental education and continued action. Since its inception in 1970, Earth

Day is recognized as the birth of the modern environmental movement and is based

on the premise that all people have a right to a healthy, sustainable

environment.

The theme of Earth Day in 2011 is A Billion Acts of Green, with a focus on

generating a billion acts of environmental service throughout the world. The act

can be a very simple one such as washing laundry in cold water or using a

reusable shopping bag. Whatever the action, Earth Day is an opportunity to

demonstrate the power of everyday individual acts of green. Collectively, these

acts will not only have an impact on our individual homes and communities but on

global carbon emissions.

Mr Speaker, to celebrate Earth Day, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is

participating in a number of activities to promote the importance of waste

reduction and encourage families across the Province to cut their waste in half.

The MMSB is participating today in an Earth Day fair at the Fluvarium where they

will host a 3R family hike focused on learning simple Reduce, Reuse and Recycle

habits from nature. In addition, the MMSB has been promoting the Get-to-Half at

school message all this week in Topsail Elementary and will be teaching youth at

the Villanova Junior High to "rethink their way to half." The MMSB is also

promoting Earth Day messages through creative online applications and social

media, encouraging people to "give it up" for Earth Day.

Mr. Speaker, we all must work together and do our part to help create a

healthier and cleaner environment for ourselves, our children and our

grandchildren. There are many young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over

the Province who show their commitment to the environment every day through the

promotion of recycling in their homes and their classrooms. Our children of

today are the environmental leaders of tomorrow.

I encourage everybody to make the extra effort this Earth Day to do something

positive for our environment. Mr. Speaker, all of our actions, big or small,

make a difference. We have an obligation to ourselves and to future generations

to protect and conserve our environment. A healthy environment means healthy

people, vibrant communities, and a better Province for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I want to say that we encourage all of those getting involved in Earth Day

today, since its inception in 1970, I think the minister stated. He referenced

education, and we have to say that is very important to educate our young

people. We also have to say we think there are many things in this Province we

should be able to do on our own and clean up our contaminated sites from the

past.

Mr. Speaker, he went on to mention many programs to reduce, reuse, recycle,

and other programs. I think it is very important that, as he stated, our young

people are the future and it is good to see them getting involved. They should

be commended for that.

He ended his comments, Mr. Speaker, by making the statement "to future

generations to protect and conserve our environment." Mr. Speaker, I have to say

that over the last period of time, it is almost like this government has been

encouraging consuming more when they talk about plasma TVs and so on. I think

they are trying to justify Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the MMSB, and hopefully they will have enough

funds to take

part in Earth Day next year, seeing as they are going to spend

some $4.3 million to transport our used tires out of this Province to Quebec.

So, Mr. Speaker, in closing I just want to commend all of those involved, and

hopefully everybody will get involved to make this place a better place to live.

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

Vidi.

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

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

It is important for individuals to do what we can to reduce the amount of

waste we generate in landfills. The Multi-Materials Stewardship Board does need

to continue the kind of promotional work they are doing, and we, as individuals,

do need to take

part in the kind of actions that they are promoting; however,

individual actions and promotional programs are not enough. Governments also

have to play a role in many things that individuals cannot do alone. One example

is that we all pay $3 on our tires and thought the $3 was going to get our tires

recycled. Here, we now know that the tires are going to go up in smoke. So, that

is not responsible on the part of the government.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this government get more involved

directly

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - with more energy efficiency programs, not just for

government buildings but to help with other buildings in our society as well. We

also need a vehicle emissions reduction program to help people convert to

cleaner driving.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways that we have to help take care of our

environment. Another way that we really have to take responsibility in this

Province is with our mining industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We need to make sure that we do not continue allowing mining

companies to ruin ponds in order to put mine waste disposals in there instead of

the life is naturally there.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do more than just name Earth Day for tomorrow, we

have to make sure as a whole society and not just individuals that we work to

take care of our earth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that the Speaker is having difficulty hearing members

identified to speak.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a summer job is often a young person's first exposure to the

labour market. It is a great way to establish positive life-long work habits and

to understand the value of earning a living.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of the provincial

government's commitment to student summer employment throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. We are proud to deliver student summer employment programs, such as

the Student Work and Service Program, commonly known as SWASP, the Level I, II

and III Student Employment Program, and others from within our provincial Youth

Retention and Attraction Strategy. I am pleased to announce today, Mr. Speaker,

that in Budget 2011, we will invest a total of $3.9 million in these programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Level I, II and III Student Employment Program

helps high school students secure work with not-for-profit organizations,

community-based agencies and municipalities in summer recreation, heritage and

community improvement projects. This year, this program will support

approximately 550 projects and employ more than 700 high school students.

The Student Work and Service Program, Mr. Speaker, assists individuals

currently attending or who plan to attend a post-secondary institution and it

matches them to both for-profit and not-for-profit employers for the summer.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, through the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy

we will continue our support for Shad Valley, a not-for-profit organization

focused on identifying high potential future achievers, both nationally and

abroad. They offer youth internships for level I, II and III students who can

benefit from an enriched four-week internship in a field of their choosing.

Through an investment of $50,000 our government will help offset the cost of

students from this Province participating in Shad Valley programs at

universities across Canada. About fifty students will participate in similar

programs right here at Memorial University.

We will also deliver a new project called PERC with the Economic Development

and Employability Network of Newfoundland and Labrador. Through a $50,000

investment, this initiative will encourage young post-secondary students from

francophone populations outside Newfoundland and Labrador to return home to the

Province and gain an attachment to the labour force with a local employer.

By directly supporting student summer employment, the provincial government

is focused on creating opportunity, reducing students' debt, and building a

better future for our young people.

In total, Mr. Speaker, our government will match 1,360 post-secondary

students with employers for meaningful summer employment this year. I encourage

our students to be safe on the job, to gain new experiences, to learn new

skills, and to enjoy our great Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

This is a wonderful statement, no doubt about it, to see that government is

putting funds in to help our students again this year. I believe there is an

increase over last year. I think it was something over 600-plus last year and

this year it has gone to 700.

That is very encouraging to help our young people get prepared for the

workforce; however, they do still have some problems and challenges. We know the

unemployment rate of young people in our Province is still around 24.8 per cent;

many of them when they leave high school and university and get into various

trades, they do have to go outside our Province. I want to say to the minister:

I think the $3.9 million invested here is far better than the $4.3 million to

transport tires up to Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to wish all the students, as the

minister did, a safe and wonderful summer. Hopefully, at the end of the day when

they go into the workforce, they will be able to get a job right here in their

own Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. This is a

wonderful program, and I am very glad to have the minister bring it here to the

House today to be recognized. The first job is an important milestone in a young

person's life, whether it is a first job as a summer job or a first permanent

job, it is all the same. This program is very, very welcomed. I am really

delighted to see that it has a special focus on non-profit, community-based work

because not only are the young people then getting a job, but they are also

working in an area where they are being opened up to the values of working in

the community and of helping others. So, these projects do look all very

worthwhile, Mr. Speaker.

I am very glad, too, to see the program PERC, so that we include those who

come out of the francophone culture. I think that is extremely important.

What I would like to see the government do, Mr. Speaker, is monitor this

year, in particular I know it is not the first year and to see if the $3.9

million is adequate. See if there are students who actually do not get to go

into the program because it is not large enough. I do not know if it is or not,

I am just saying it would be lovely to see if we need it to be larger next year

that it will be.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I do look to hearing a report from the

minister on how this summer's program goes.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week's Budget highlighted what many in this Province

already know, that our core industry is not on this government's radar. The

people of Port Union who are with us in the gallery today are one of the many

who have been excluded, or feel they have been excluded from this year's Budget.

The Port Union plant experienced significant damage last fall by Hurricane Igor,

and 180 displaced workers have been expecting approval for a regional pilot

project they put forth to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: Why have you not got back to the

people of Port Union on this proposal, and why was their request ignored in this

Budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is well aware of the difficulties being

experienced in Port Union. Three ministries are involved on this file: Fisheries

and Aquaculture; Human Resources, Labour and Employment; and Municipal Affairs.

A number of meetings have been held with membership and union representatives,

the town and the company, Mr. Speaker. Yes, a proposal has been received and is

being reviewed. Hopefully, we will work together again with the membership and

with the companies and with the community and find a way forward. When we find

that way forward, we will also find the way to financially support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say we are pleased to see the Premier speak on the fishery, and I

say that sincerely.

Port Union, Mr. Speaker, became the fishing centre of Newfoundland and

Labrador under Coaker, and with the leadership that has been given to this

fishery so far, what Coaker is remembered for building, this government will

remembered for destroying if they do not soon do something with it.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister, in his comments after the Budget, said

that he saw things as sizzling. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that things in Port

Union and many towns like Port Union involved in the fishery do not see it as

sizzling today.

I ask the Premier: Will she commit today to bring forth a more meaningful

workplace adjustment program so that people displaced from the fishery can

afford to keep food on their table and not have to worry day in and day out

about what their future holds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a fishing community. All of

my family were fishers. The issues that face this industry are long and it has a

long history, some of it very good, some of it very troubled. We are not through

the crisis yet. Many challenges face us before we can get this industry back on

its feet.

We are working towards that, all of us together all have the same goal in

mind, Mr. Speaker. The question is, how do we get there and how do we get there

in a realistic way, in a way that works for communities, works for people and

gets this industry where it needs to be?

Mr. Speaker, we have never walked away from communities in trouble in the

eight years we have been here. We did not walk away from Stephenville, we did

not walk away from Grand Falls-Windsor, and we did not walk away from Harbour

Breton. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to finding a way forward and when we find

that way forward we will financially support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the issues are long and so on, but when it comes to

walking away I can tell you right now there is a community that I know in my

district, the Town of Englee, that definitely believes that the government of

today walked away from them a few years ago when they closed their fish plant.

Mr. Speaker, some of these people have been doubly hit, as they are on their

own for repairs from Hurricane Igor without any support from the government. Mr.

Speaker, the only thing in the Budget for the traditional fishery, as I

mentioned yesterday, was $150,000 to tear down old abandoned fish plants.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier again is: Will the plant in Port

Union meet the same fate? If so, when can we expect to see restructuring in the

fishing industry that will not happen through personal bankruptcy but will

happen through an organized and a proper plan, and not be on the backs of people

like those from Port Union?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been quite clear; in terms of the fishery,

we have to have a plan that not only rationalizes but restructures. Mr. Speaker,

it is critical, we limp from crisis, to crisis, to crisis, to crisis. Families

are not well-served by that, Mr. Speaker, workers certainly are not, and

communities are not either. We are going to continue to put all our resources

towards finding that way forward, working with the union, working with workers

in plants and working with communities, Mr. Speaker.

There are no easy solutions there are not easy solutions because they would

have been found a long time ago. Slapping money at it will not work either, and

we cannot do that over and over again. It is a difficult time. There comes a

time when you really have to stand your ground, do the hard work, and make the

hard decisions. We believe we are there, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to work

together to find a solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier needs to be reminded that families and workers in the fishing

industry are not served by your government's ad hoc approach to crisis in this

Province's industry either.

Mr. Speaker, the people in the fishing industry are looking to this

government for direction. Yesterday, members on the opposite side stood in their

place and said that the fishing industry would restructure itself and attrition

would take care of the direction that the industry was going in.

I ask you today, Premier: Is that your attitude? Have you held your hands in

the air like most of your caucus members, and going to allow this industry to

settle itself through attrition in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the nearly eight years that this Administration has been

charged with the governance of this place, a number of proposals have been

brought forward to try and put the fishery on a stable footing. Mr. Speaker, the

messages have not always been consistent.

I remember very well sitting here in this House during RMS and being told by

members opposite and people from the gallery to mind our own business and let

the market take care of it. We all remember those days. We certainly remember

them over here.

We do not believe that; we do not believe that. We think there is a role for

government in terms of the restructuring and rationalization of our fishery, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We are going to work together to find that solution,

Mr. Speaker. It is not going to be easy, it is not easy now. It is not easy for

the people who are in the gallery today, but we are not going to walk away from

them. We will find a short-term solution for that plant, Mr. Speaker, and

hopefully we will find a more fulsome solution for the whole fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government's record in eight years on the fishery speaks for itself.

Premier, I remind you that you walked away from the people of Englee and you

gave temporary measures to the people of Jackson's Arm. Where are they today?

Now the people of Port Union are looking to your government for direction as

well. Well, Mr. Speaker, this government's approach to the fishing industry was

initiatives like RMS where they tried to push policy down the throats of people

in the industry, and the people fought back.

Premier, I say to you today, people expect more and they expect leadership in

this industry. When is government going to make substantial investment in the

fishing industry and lead forward the restructuring of this industry so that

people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador can live in their communities with

dignity, with sustainability and with stability, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the fact that the members of the Opposition

are at least motivated enough to ask a question. Because when we came in 2003,

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Arnold's Cove was threatened. The plant was going to

close; the quotas were going to be sold. Not only did they not ask a question,

they never wrote a letter, never made a phone call, Mr. Speaker, to help that

community. We stepped in, that plant is operational today. So you can add that

to the list of communities that we do not walk away from, Mr. Speaker, and we

will not walk away from Port Union either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the Premier and her government have

already walked away from the industry and they have walked from rural

Newfoundland and Labrador in doing so.

For eighteen months your government led the people in this Province's fishing

industry to believe that your MOU was going to be the path forward for the

fishing industry, that you were going to lead a process of restructuring and

eighteen months later, $800,000 of hard-earned people's money in this Province

was spent and your government threw your hands in the air and walked away.

What kind of solution is that, I say to you, Premier, for the fishing

industry in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we can stand, we can play the politics of this

and shoot barbs back and forth across the way but that never finds us a

solution.

I am pleased to see the people from Port Union in the gallery today, Mr.

Speaker, because we have to put in an interim measure. We already have, through

the ministry of HRLE, two people on the ground and there will be another person

going down next week, after the two meetings that we have had with them. I would

like to report to the people of Port Union that yesterday myself and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs met with the company to see what things we could

partner with them to bring forward measures to support the people.

In terms of the MOU, Mr. Speaker, there is no one more interested in this

Province than this Premier, this government and this minister in finding the way

forward. I look for the responses that have come back and I hope they allow us

to get back to finding the permanent solution so that we do not end up in these

situations every spring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actions speak louder than words and it is time for that minister and

government to take some action in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper is back in Newfoundland and Labrador today and we

are seeing electioneering at its finest, reiterating promises that he made to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians twice now but yet failed to keep.

Mr. Speaker, he is saying today that his promise on 5 Wing Goose Bay still

stands, a promise that he has already broken twice to the people of Lake

Melville and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Minister of Labrador Affairs today: What do you think minister when

it comes to Stephen Harper's election promises? Is the third time the charm for

the people of Lake Melville?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It just shows, Mr. Speaker, how out of touch she is with the people of Lake

Melville and 5 Wing Goose Bay. The federal government placed $40 million in a

new airstrip, the longest airstrip up on 5 Wing Goose Bay. They also invested in

a new air terminal building. They promised 650 troops that we did not see, but

we did not see them anywhere across the country. Let me say to the hon. member:

While your government was there what did you do? What did your Premier of the

day do when he went to Germany and did not even as much as go to see the German

Parliament that thanked him for the low level flying that was happening in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay at 5 Wing Goose Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to direct their commentary to the Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, very few people in Newfoundland and Labrador today take Mr.

Harper's promises seriously with the exception of the members across the way.

Mr. Speaker, there is a serious issue at stake here, I say to the Minister for

Labrador Affairs. The base in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, 5 Wing Goose Bay, Mr.

Speaker, is the cornerstone of the economy of the central Labrador region. It is

the hugest contributor to sustainability in that particular region and, Mr.

Speaker, under the current federal PC government it has continued to be

downsized.

I ask the minister today: What do you have in terms of a commitment on 5 Wing

Goose Bay today from Stephen Harper that was any different than the two

commitments he made in the past and never kept to the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have written all three

federal party members and asked for their views on a number of issues, Mr.

Speaker, which we will make public before the election.

Mr. Speaker, she needs to go Mr. Harper is in Newfoundland today, I suggest

you go and have a chat with him and find out what his commitment is and what he

has to say, because nobody over here has to answer for Mr. Harper. We answer for

the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

Progressive Conservative Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we welcome

every opportunity to talk about the great things we are doing for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Premier and her government saddles themselves to Stephen Harper as

they have done in this election and have thrown caution to the wind and have

gone out and taken the word of Stephen Harper in this campaign when he has

broken his commitment to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on so many occasions,

then I think, Mr. Speaker, they need to answer for their actions.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador has been and will continue to be long into the future a

major contributor to the provincial economy, contributing millions and millions

of dollars on an annual basis. Yet, we have seen no long-term vision in this

Budget for Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier today: Why is there no commitment

in this Budget for upgrades to Phase II and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador

Highway, something the people of Labrador are crying out for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned with our

relationship with Prime Minister Harper. I suggest to her that she pay a little

bit more attention to her own federal leader, Mr. Ignatieff, who wants to delay

timelines on the JSS project so Davie Shipyard in Quebec could be included.

Competition against Marystown, Mr. Speaker, not a word not a word, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ignatieff who is prepared to do a

coalition with the Bloc Qubcois who will certainly put the gears to Muskrat

Falls and any

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - other kind of development on the Churchill River.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Labrador, our government's commitment to the people of

that region of our Province has been exemplary, Mr. Speaker; more investment in

Labrador in the last eight years than there has been in the former twenty-five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier forgets that she wrote off Marystown, she wrote off the JSS

contract and she wrote off Kiewit, Mr. Speaker, when all three government

departments failed to meet the grade in terms of doing what was necessary to

secure those benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, there is no vision in this Budget for Labrador. There was no

money for Phase II or Phase III of the Labrador Highway. Mr. Speaker, there is

nothing in this Budget to address the growing concerns that are happening in the

Strait of Belle Isle ferry service and the challenges that is presenting in that

region of the Province.

I ask the government: When are they going to commit to some long-term

solutions for the people of Labrador in transportation infrastructure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is important the Leader of the Opposition's relationship with

Mr. Ignatieff because of his alignment with the Province of Quebec. His

particular relationship with the Bloc Qubcois will have significant impacts

for the Newfoundland and Labrador people, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they have aligned themselves with Hydro-Qubec on the

development of the Lower Churchill. Now they are aligning themselves once more

with the Bloc through their relationship with Mr. Ignatieff and promotion of Mr.

Ignatieff.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing billions of dollars in Labrador in the

Trans-Labrador Highway, in colleges, in schools, in long-term centres, Mr.

Speaker, and in schools in her own district. The list goes on and on and on.

We acknowledge the contribution of the people of Labrador and we make sure

that they get their fair share.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no one more aligned with Quebec than the government opposite. They

have given out contracts to Quebec companies to build schools in this Province,

build hospitals in this Province, build roads in this Province, build long-term

care facilities in this Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: and now they have given a contract to a Quebec-based company

to do the design and procurement around the Muskrat Falls project. So let us

talk about, Mr. Speaker, who is doing business with Quebec.

Yesterday, we saw we are going to send our tires to Quebec to fuel energy for

Quebec customers, Mr. Speaker. So no one is more attached.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this, because there is no

commitment in this Budget for Labradorians. There was nothing to address the

growing needs of marine service on the North Coast of Labrador and in the Strait

of Belle Isle, nothing to address Phase II and Phase III of the highway

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to pose her question now.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to do that.

My question to the Premier is this: Why is that you failed to address the

high cost of commercial generated diesel power on the North and South Coast of

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to ignore the Agreement on

Internal Trade. She should know a little bit of something about it, Mr. Speaker.

I know she only spent a small time in the Cabinet

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: but at least she should have learned some basic

facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Her disparaging remarks about SNC-Lavalin, that has a

fifty-year history in this Province, employs hundreds of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians - unaware, or appearing to be unaware, being cute about investments

in Labrador. Over $3 billion in the last seven-and-a-half years by this

government was invested in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, today there is a yard sale going ahead in St. John's. NewLab

Life Sciences, formerly Newfound Genomics, is selling off their lab equipment

after laying off two-thirds of their staff late last year. This happens after a

year of failed negotiations with government over equity funds. This yard sale

represents the end of the commercialization of life sciences in this Province

and a profound failure in government industrial policy.

I ask the minister: Why has government taken no action to maintain this

industry here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we certainly realize the importance of this sector to the

economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. This sector to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador has been one to which we have paid a great deal of

importance, Mr. Speaker. To the particular company that he refers, we have

invested, from my department alone, $1 million in the last couple of years, and

as well RDC has invested $400,000. Just today, there is another $250,000 being

invested in that company. I do not call that ignoring this particular company or

the sector, Mr. Speaker.

Apart from that, we have invested millions and millions of dollars into the

sector. When time permits, I will go through the list of that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, you can hold your list, Minister, until we get

some more answers on Genomics, if you would.

According to the gentleman who spoke out about this in the media, you never

had time on occasion to stay in the media, Minister, according to that gentleman

that I heard on the media today.

Now, Minister, you know that it looks like NewLab Life Sciences facility in

Grand Falls will be closing as well. This facility was touted by government and

this minister as the core of a new industry for that region. Now, that it has

been shown to be a mirage, government likes to be there when it is time for the

announcements, when it opens, but government obviously, in this case, has run

away in an opposite direction when the bad news comes.

I ask you, Minister: What do you have to say now to the people of Grand

Falls-Windsor who had been committed to and were hopeful of this project

succeeding now that your department has not stood by this company to help it

succeed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first part of the epistle there, I will get

to the question in a moment, but let me talk to the first part of this. He made

some reference to the fact that I walked out of a meeting, a meeting that I did

initiate and a meeting that I did hold with that company, Mr. Speaker. Let's set

the record straight. I walked out of that meeting for a period of ten minutes

because there was an emergency in my family. My daughter had a car accident, and

Dr. Gulliver well knew that at the time. I was called out to address that issue,

and I make no apologies for being a parent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I walked out of the meeting, I left him

also in very good hands. I left for about ten minutes until I was able to get

the emergency services people to my daughter who was in a ditch on the side of

the Trans-Canada Highway at that time. That is the reason I was not at that

particular meeting for that ten-minute period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I thank the minister for her explanation about her personal circumstances.

Maybe if she had let that be known to Dr. Gulliver, it would not have become an

issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say, again, Mr. Speaker, if Dr. Gulliver had known

that, which obviously he did not when he made that statement in the media, he

would not have been making that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the 2006 Throne Speech referred to

NewLab Life Sciences as a goal medal success, but now government treats it as an

also-ran. The company is not looking for a handout; they are looking for a hand

up. They have a contract with Eastern Health to conduct tests on genetic

samples, but Eastern Health has decided to go elsewhere. Rather than honour the

contract they had with NewLab Life, Eastern Health sent their work to either MUN

labs or outside of the Province and no public tenders were called -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows quite well the time allowed for asking questions. I ask

the hon. member to pose his question now.

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

My question for the minister is: Why is Eastern Health ignoring their

contract with NewLab and using other labs outside of the Province without any

form of public tender?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The delivery of health services, Mr. Speaker, and the

provision of laboratory services in the Provinces is run by the four health

authorities. In this particular case, Eastern Health is the one that has the

arrangement with this particular company. It is their responsibility to ensure

that we get lab tests done in this Province that are of quality, that are

reasonably priced. Their contractual arrangement is between Eastern Health and

this particular company in question.

The Department of Health and Community Services is having some discussions

with Eastern Health to better understand what went on in this particular

circumstance. Clearly, the relationship is between Eastern Health and the

company in question and not directly with the Department of Health and Community

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, the response of the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services

yesterday to my questions concerning those who need child care was nothing less

than cynical. Yesterday she said that family child care spaces can be

established within a week or two, but the minister should know that this is

virtually impossible. She should know that there are not enough staff even to

license and monitor homes that take in children.

Given this, Mr. Speaker, how can the minister guarantee that family child

care spaces can be created within two weeks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well at least now she has moved from her position that it is not enough, and

we see her moving along to accepting the fact that we are creating 400 new

spaces, so that is a good thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we are very dedicated to working with the people

who are interested in setting up family child care centres. Mr. Speaker, in this

Budget we have put money aside to do a promotional campaign. We are working with

the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to assist anybody

around the business side of things in running a business. We are partnering with

AECENL, the Association of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundland and Labrador,

and we are partnering with the Family and Child Care Connections.

We will do whatever it takes to assist these people both financially and from

a supportive business perspective to get these homes up and running as quickly

as possible so that people will have the much-needed spaces available to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister not to put words in my mouth. I, in no way, said that I

believe she is coming up with 400 spaces because I do not believe it.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services said on Monday

that government is committed to a ten-year strategy. The Speech from the Throne

led us to believe that something really big was coming in this year's Budget and

we have been hearing the story for three Budgets now. This Budget threw a

pittance at child care, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister: Will she recognize the urgent need for child care, and

will she present to us, sooner rather than later, a comprehensive plan for

accessible and affordable child care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is really unfortunate that the member opposite has the pessimistic

attitude that she does because on this side of the House the glass is always

half full for every one of us, Mr. Speaker. If you call a pittance $3.2 million

for child care spaces over two years and $3 million for a child tax credit that

is going to put money back into the pockets of parents who need it, $6.2 million

is nothing to snuff about.

Now, we can stand on our record. Since we came into government in 2003, we

have increased spaces by 50 per cent. Just in the last couple of years we have

added another 168 spaces through our capacity initiative. This is another 400

here, and, Mr. Speaker, we have plans for nearly 500 more which will be

announced over the coming years. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing to snuff about. We

have a great record. We recognize that we have a ways to go, Mr. Speaker, but we

are on the right track and we certainly have an optimistic attitude on this side

of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Yes, it is a pittance, the same way that $250,000 for home care is a

pittance.

Mr. Speaker, this morning a daycare provider was concerned that there is no

ceiling on the rates that daycare centres and family care homes can charge

parents. The minister said Monday that there is a subsidy available, but in past

years when daycare centres raised their rates, parents receiving the subsidy

would either have to make up the difference or take their children out.

Mr. Speaker, with no universal child care system and no control over rates

currently charged, how can the minister say she is making child care more

affordable and accessible for all parents?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess it depends on the day of the week that

you come to this House because time and time again we hear we are spending too

much, we are not spending enough, this is pittance, it is not enough. Mr.

Speaker, $6.2 million is nothing to snuff about.

Now, we have dedicated to a ten-year strategy, Mr. Speaker. Under that, we

are going to look at regulated rates, we are going to look at regulated wages,

but in the interim we are not going to sit back and do nothing. That is why we

have a great child care tax credit that will go on top of the current federal

and provincial child tax credit that were already there.

Mr. Speaker, this is putting money back into the hands of parents who need it

the most, to give the most

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sorry.

People who already have money get the tax credit, she says. Mr. Speaker, but

as she said herself, there are surcharges and this money can be applied to this

tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, for two people who earn minimum wage with two children, $5 a day

I think is very affordable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and I present a petition on behalf of the residents in the

District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

Mr. Speaker, people in this particular district are not happy with

government's decision to basically take five acute care beds out of their health

care facility and have them redesignated for other use. Although people in the

area wanted to see restorative care beds placed in their hospital in

Twillingate-New World Island area, Mr. Speaker, they did not want to lose five

acute care beds. They sent a petition to the House of Assembly, and I will read

the prayer of the petition:

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

Hospital Health Centre; and

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

the fall; and

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

Twillingate-New World Island; and

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

admittance to Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

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

health care services cut;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and ask the House of

Assembly to urge government to reinstate the five acute care beds in the Notre

Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

Mr. Speaker, people all over the area of Twillingate and New World Island,

all of the communities in that region, and I have listed a number of them in the

House of Assembly on other occasions when I have been presenting this particular

petition, but there are people from communities like Durrell, Herring Neck,

Bayview, Moreton's Harbour, Valley Pond, Bridgeport, Summerford, Virgin Arm,

Cottlesville, Twillingate, Carter's Cove, Too Good Arm, Cow Head and there are a

whole host of them, Mr. Speaker, of communities where people have signed this

petition because they are not happy with the decision that government has made.

Mr. Speaker, not only did government close down the five acute care beds for

the summer and not reopen them in the fall, but they then redesignated those

beds to restorative care and actually went out and made a public announcement

MR. DALLEY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Business, on a point of order?

MR. DALLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continuously stands

in this House obviously, she does not have her facts right on this petition.

There are seventeen acute care beds in the Twillingate facility, Notre Dame Bay

Memorial Hospital. There are seventeen beds available as a result of the new

improved services in restorative care. There are still seventeen beds available

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I ask the hon. member to carry on with her petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for The Isles of Notre Dame is smart enough to stand in his place

in this House and try to make smart comments

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - but I would like to remind the member for the area, if he was

paying attention to his constituents he would know the information that I

provided on the fifteen beds is what is in their petition. So you go back and

tell your constituents now, Member, that they do not know what they are talking

about, the thousands of them who sent this here. You go back and tell them as

their MHA, I am sorry but you do not know what you are talking about, and maybe

then you might be able to get

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for presenting the petition is up, and

I remind hon. members that petitions are wishes of constituents. It is not meant

to be entered into debate here. It is to present a petition and present the

petition only.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair called further petitions; nobody stood.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have to start showing disrespect for the Chair. The

Chair called for Orders of the Day; nobody stood. Now, if the hon. member wants

to revert to petitions, I suggest he ask for leave of the House or ask the

Government House Leader to return to petitions.

This kind of an attitude is certainly not going to be tolerated here, by any

member of the House showing disrespect to the Speaker. It is not going to be

tolerated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume we are at Orders of the Day.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do the third readings of bills before we return to

the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, with that I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and

Attorney General, that Bill 17,

An Act Respecting the Mandatory Reporting of

Gunshot and Stab Wounds, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 17,

An Act Respecting The Mandatory

Reporting Of Gunshot and Stab Wounds be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 17 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot and

Stab Wounds. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that Bill 17 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot and

Stab Wounds", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 17)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources, that Bill 27

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

National Resources, that Bill 27,

An Act Respecting Forestry Professions, be

read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 27,

An Act Respecting Forestry Professions, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Forestry Professions. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass, and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Forestry Professions", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources, that Bill 28,

An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority

Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 28 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act.

(Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority

Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 28)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call, under Motions, 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, that this house approves in general the budgetary

policy of the government, otherwise known as the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in response to the Budget

that was announced by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, the 19 th .

Now, under the rules, of course, there is a certain process when it comes to the

Budget process. It is dealt with differently than a legislative process would be

handled. In this case, the minister gave his speech on Tuesday past. I believe

he actually used one hour and eighteen minutes to deliver his speech, according

to the Table Officers, and that gives me double that, or up to three hours.

Now, I am not certain at all, of course, if I am going to be here three

hours. I have managed it in the past, despite some back issues and whatever. I

did manage to make do, but it gets difficult sometimes, particularly if the

members opposition heckle and shout at you when you are making certain points.

Hopefully, that will not happen today, they will restrain themselves and be

respectful of the speaker this afternoon and listen intently, because much of

what I have to say, of course, the people of this Province are interested in

hearing it, hopefully, and will want to hear it because it gives a different

perspective.

In the process and I think it is appropriate to take a moment just to

outline the process. There are even members in this House, I am sure, who are

not aware of the full budgetary process. The minister delivers his speech, which

has been done. The next order of business is that there are a number of

committees struck in the House consisting of House members that deal with the

items in the Budget. For example, there is a committee that deals with general

government and legislative committees. The various departments that would come

under that would be Business, for example; Environment and Conservation;

Fisheries and Aquaculture; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development Department;

Natural Resources Department; Tourism, Culture and Recreation Department. There

are about eighteen different departments under the Budget. They all have to be

considered and they need to be considered in detail.

Some people assume that the Budget is announced, we come in here and

ultimately vote on the Budget after a few days of debate and that is the end of

it. Actually, there is a whole process that goes on outside the confines of the

House of Assembly called the Estimates process. Each of these departments either

get referred to one of the three committees of this House that deal with the

Estimates, because that is all a Budget is, of course. A Budget is a group of

Estimates that each department brings forward and says: Here is what we estimate

our expenses to be for the forthcoming year, and therefore this is what we

expect to spend.

In that, they do not only tell you what they expect to spend next year, this

year of 2011-2012; they also contain what they estimated last year or budgeted

last year, and the revised figures. They gave that Budget last year. Now, a year

later, when they do this year's Budget, they have some idea of what they spent.

They have been living with that Budget for that year so they can give you some

pretty accurate figures. Not totally accurate because there is some stuff that

comes in to clue up the books even after March 31 in order to make it finally

accurate, and the Comptroller General gets at it then and makes sure it is all

right.

In any case, those Estimates Committees, that is when you get to drill down

in a bit of detail. In the House each day, for example, you can ask questions of

any minister here, or the Premier, and you get an answer back, sometimes; not

often, but sometimes you might get some kind of answer back. Some ministers are

more forthcoming than others when it comes to their answers. Some have even

suggested that it is called Question Period. It is not called answer period, so

why should I give you an answer? That is kind of rude and disrespectful of the

process, but some ministers do try to give a proper response.

In any case, now that the Budget has dropped, these various departments go

off to the Estimates Committees. That is where each member on the Committee, for

example, has an opportunity to question the minister, the deputy minister, his

directors, or his ADMs whoever he or she brings to the Estimates with

themselves, the minister brings we in the Opposition, the Official Opposition

members, the Leader of the Third Party, and even government members get to ask

questions of that minister and his or her department to find out and drill down

into a bit of detail as to what is going on here.

Now, there are a couple of little issues with it. Number one, it is not

televised. Truthfully, if the Estimates Committees were televised, it would be

very, very informative for the public. Not only do you see the face of the

politicians, the MHAs who ask the questions, or the minister who responds to the

questions; you would actually get, watch, observe, and understand the details of

the exchange of information that takes place in an Estimates Committee.

For example, we are limited in this particular case. The Official Opposition

in the House of Assembly only gets twenty-six minutes of questioning four times

a week; hardly enough and never enough to ask the myriad of questions that exist

that we want to ask a government certainly not the minor details of something,

and the give and the take. That is where you do that stuff, in Estimates.

Last evening, for example, the Estimates were held last evening in the House,

after it closed, for the Department of Natural Resources, and Forestry and

Agrifoods. It commenced at 5:30 and they were here until after 11:00 o'clock

last night. The Leader of the Official Opposition was there, the Leader of the

Third Party was here, researchers, and so on, asking questions. I understand it

was an invaluable exchange of information.

It is stuff you might wonder about as a critic, for example, of that

department to say: Well, how many people do you have hired here? What money are

you spending there? Why are you spending that money? Why do you have that

policy? Is that necessary? You get to have that great exchange of information.

That happened last night in that particular department, Natural Resources,

and it was, as I say, over five hours. The Leader of the Opposition and the

researchers who were there told me this morning that it was a fantastic exchange

of information. It lets you know and get a better feel for the department that

not only does the minister deal with but you as a critic are supposed to

understand as well.

That is not better just from the sense that you are more informed or that it

gives you more information to unload on the minister in Question Period. Quite

often, I find what happens is because you had that exchange in Estimates, you do

not need to ask a question when you get in Question Period. Because what you may

feel is a very serious issue going on in that particular department, once the

minister or his officials gets an opportunity to explain it to you, you

understand full well the logic of why such and such exists, why a decision was

made or why it was not made in a certain fashion. A lot of times in Question

Period you do not get that opportunity.

Because it is so in-depth and because it is so informative, that is why I

feel it ought to be televised. I know the minister risks being embarrassed if he

is on TV and does not have an answer and so on, that may be one of the reasons

they feel it should not be televised. I am sure cost is not the issue. We pay

for the linkage hook up. Compared to a lot of the things that we spend money on,

having our Estimates Committees televised would not be an exorbitant matter,

especially when we are running super, super surpluses as the Minister of Finance

tells us. I think that is great

MR. DENINE: You had the opportunity to (inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl North - I

believe it is now - please do not be disrespectful and disrupt me, I say to the

minister. I would also

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not intend to be argumentative, I say, Mr.

Speaker, to the Member for Mount Pearl South here. If he wants to be

disrespectful to me for the next three hours when I am on my feet - if he wants

a question answered, feel free to ask. I do not intend to enter into a shouting

match with him, but I will have him know that it was the former Administration

that brought cameras into the House of Assembly.

MR. DENINE: That is a good point.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right. At that time, Mr. Speaker, it was the

year before

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible) done the full meal deal.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Again, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs and the Member for Mount Pearl South could stop being

disrespectful for a moment and listen, I will certainly give him the

information. I have no problem whatsoever with him standing on his feet and

explaining his case. This is my moment right now to give my talk and hopefully

he will be respectful enough to allow me the opportunity to do that. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, if I can continue now without the disruption from that particular

minister again, that will be fine.

Back to my Estimates piece; if it were televised it gives the people an

opportunity, as I say, to understand the issues in detail. Now some ministers I

am sure might think: well, maybe someone is going to try to hijack me because we

are on camera. I do not get to give a nice flat answer or I do not get to be

evasive because I am on the spot, I am on the camera. The upside to that is

minimize, Mr. Speaker. If not even minimize, totally eliminate it because not

everybody can be expected to retain every single piece of information that goes

on in a department, and I do not care what minister you are. You just cannot

possibly keep track of every single detail of every policy, every program and

every letter that comes in or e-mail that comes in. That is why I believe it is

important, and the minister does have his or her officials with them so that it

does not have to be the minister who responds to the question. If the matter

were televised in Estimates and the minister wanted to say: look, excuse me, I

do not have that information. Is there anyone here with me who has it? You are

the director of such and such: Do you have that information, for example? At

least the information gets conveyed and the people would see what the issue is,

hear what the issue is, and hear the response. I think that is just another step

in the process of being totally open and totally accountable.

Now, I have raised this issue for the last four or five years and made

suggestions that it be done. Obviously, this government does not want to go

there, which raises the question: Why would you not want to go there? Are you

afraid somebody is going to find out something that they should not find out?

Because it is going to come out anyway, whether you find out through an FOI or

you get it in the form of a brown paper bag that somebody slips you or envelope

or the media find out, or someone talks to you. The issues ultimately come out.

You can only keep it covered and hidden away and secret for so long. Quite

often, of course, it is best when it does come out. When it comes out, usually

if it was handled properly in the first place it would not be a problem with

having people understand what it was all about.

Now, as part of that process, when these Estimates are done for all of these

eighteen different departments, some of them are done right here on the floor of

the House, for example, everything comes back here to the House again. Members

have their debates and comments from each side. There are timelines involved

but, ultimately, at the end of the day, that process could take anywhere from

three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, depending on how many amendments,

non-confidence motions there are, sub-amendments, but ultimately, at the end of

the day, the Budget would get voted on.

What the people in the Province are going to see in the next five, six weeks

is going to be an Easter break, now starting this evening. That will go on for a

couple of weeks during the Easter recess. We are back here on May 9; I think is

the date, and then we will pick up from today. The Estimates will resume again

and so on and the debates will resume here in the House of Assembly.

For people who follow this channel regularly - and a lot of people do follow

the televised channel regularly - that is what is going to happen. Basically,

there will not be a lot of legislation done in the next number of weeks; it will

be dealing with the Budget issues. Some people think it is the most exciting

time or interesting time in the House of Assembly because you actually hear

MHAs. You have pretty wide latitude when it comes to the Budget Speech and

Budget response as to what you can say, because everything in that particular

document talks about either a policy or money is being spent and so on. So, you

have pretty wide latitude as to what you might want to talk about. That is why

some people consider it probably the most interesting part of the process of the

Legislature.

Now, as I say, that all ends up with the Estimates, the voting, commentary,

and at the end of the day, we are here probably some time in we are certainly

here in May month. We are going to be here some time toward the latter part of

May, shall we say, getting the process done. That is the general process of the

Budget.

I am going to be, not deliberately, but certainly in the nature of a speech

when you are trying to respond to a document that consists of all these various

documents I have here in front of me; one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

eight different documents were produced as part of the Budget process. It is

pretty difficult to give a speech in reply that deals with - of a totally

consistent nature. Because usually with eighteen departments, and each

department having different responsibilities, different amounts of money, and

different programs and policies so, it is pretty general; pretty treetop

stuff, as I say.

There will be some incidents throughout the next few moments when I am

speaking that I will drill down into some detail, comment on a few things that

have raised concerns with the public and so on, on a particular issue, in a

particular department, but for the most part you are sort of at the treetop

level. Bear with me if I seem to be scattered on occasion from one topic to

another.

Now, probably a good place to start is this little pamphlet called the

highlights package. It is very helpful for anybody who just wants a quick

overview of what is in the Budget, where we stand from money coming in or a

revenue point of view, where the money is going out and so on, and what we spend

it on. I notice the unique graphics they have on the government Budget this

year. I am assuming blue, of course, everything is blue these days. We have blue

windows in Confederation Building. I understand they are even looking for blue

fire trucks now, but there was some problem with the international coding on

that. Anyway, the blue and the wave - again, not being a critic but one who

likes a bit of graphics and creatively in graphics, I notice that we are on the

downside of the wave, number one; the wave is absolutely down. I notice with all

of the wording that they have in the logo, the last one, the furthest out on the

bottom part of the wave highlighted is vision. I do not know if that is telling

us something, or maybe it is just my critical nature of looking at their

packaging.

I will tell you, it certainly does not compare with the graphics that I have

seen when it comes to our Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Because

I must say some of the ads I have seen coming out advertising our Province in

the media in the last few years from the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, the work is just simply fantastic. It highlights our culture, our

people, and our traditions. I have had people from all over this world who

happen to either see them other places in the world, or have been here and seen

them themselves, and they are just astounded by some of the work that was done

on that.

Anyway, that is just an interesting comment on the covering, but, of course,

the devil is in the details, so we will get inside of this little book. To begin

with, probably the easiest place to start, because I am more of a graphic person

than I am a written person, is the very last two pages in this little pamphlet.

It is very helpful. They take a pie chart, we call it, and they split it up. The

first one says this is where the revenue comes from. This hopefully will be

informative to some people who might be listening and want to know: Where does

our revenue come from? The Minister of Finance and the government can only sit

down, of course, and decide where you are going to spend your money if you have

some idea of where your money came from and how much money you are likely to

have.

According to this pie chart that I am looking at here, taxation brings in

about 39 per cent of the revenues that we get in this Province. That is for this

year. This is all of the Budget documents of this year, 2011-2012. That is some

$2.993 billion. That is the kind of money we are talking here by the way. We are

talking billions. We are not talking any millions or hundreds of thousands here,

we are talking big dollars. Just imagine it is like a household in Newfoundland

and Labrador, for example, there is your pot of money and you are wondering how

much you have in that pot every day. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador,

that pot gets $2.993 billion put in the pot from taxation.

That taxation, of course, is from a number of different sources. There is

personal income tax. There is corporate tax. There could be gasoline tax. There

could be tax on liquor. There are all kinds of different taxes that provinces

and countries have that take the money out of your pocket. It is not just what

you pay in personal income tax, for example, there is a whole myriad of things

that you pay taxes on. Just about 40 per cent, 39 per cent of what is in our pot

right now comes from the taxation angle. It could be taxes on corporations,

companies, for example, the mom-and-pop store on the corner to the bigger

corporation that might function in the mining industry or function in the

offshore industry. It is all in the form of taxes.

The second biggest single chunk of revenue is the offshore royalties. That

was some 28.7 per cent or $2.2 billion. As you can see, if you put into the pot

what comes from taxation and what comes from the royalties offshore, we are over

60 per cent, almost 70 per cent of the revenue in our Province comes from

taxation and the offshore; almost 70 per cent from two single sources of

revenue.

Now there is some that comes from investment, a mere 2.8 per cent. Fees and

fines, those are from any of us who have been unfortunate enough to have a fine,

speeding ticket, or stuff like that, all that goes into the government pot; or,

if you had to pay a fee, you might be, for example, going to get Crown lands or

whatever and you had to pay your annual rental fee on your Crown land property,

all of that goes into the fee structure and gets paid into the pot. Again, it is

fairly small compared to taxation or revenues, it is 3.1 per cent.

Then we get some from the federal government. Now you heard back some time

ago, of course, that we were a have-province and some people were under the

illusion that just because we were a have-province we did not get any more money

from the federal government, they figure we are paying our own way on

everything. Of course, that is not correct; we do still get money from the

federal government for certain things.

There is one category called Health and Social Transfers that brings us some

8.1 per cent from the federal government. That is only fair ball, by the way,

because the way the system is suppose to work. We all live in Canada, we pay a

federal tax, and we pay a provincial tax. The federal tax that you pay to your

federal government, you hope to get something back for in return. We do get

something back. It certainly can be argued whether we get enough back. Usually,

it is based upon your per capita, in other words: your population. If you have a

small population, you get less than you would if you were in Ontario for

example. The bigger the population the more you paid into the pot, so therefore

the more you take out. That is the basic logic. Then sometimes you have to

balance that with special needs that come up. Albeit you might have a small

population, there are certain pieces of infrastructure that you need that the

federal government says: Yes, we will deal with that on a special above and

beyond basis than your regular transfers.

Anyway, we take 8 per cent from health and social transfers; the Atlantic

Accord gives us this year in the 2011-2012 Budget some 7 per cent from the

federal government; and Other Federal Sources, 6.8 per cent, so just about

another 7 per cent. If you add all that up, you have the seven and seven which

is fourteen, and eight, we get 22 per cent in this year's Budget from the

federal government. If you take the 70 per cent that we are getting from

taxation and from oil royalties and you add to that the 22 per cent that we get

from the federal government that gives you over 90 per cent. You have 92 per

cent of your Budget revenue just in those three segments: federal, taxation, and

offshore royalties. The rest, as I say, consists of investment income that we

might get, some fines and fees, and from other provincial sources, which are not

enumerated here on this little chart but certainly can be found in the details

of this batch of documents that I have here.

That is where the money comes from. The point I am trying to make here is

that we are dependent on basically three ways to pay our way. The bulk of it is

taxation, royalties from the offshore or from the mining industries, and the

federal government piece that comes to us. Then the question is - and I am just

talking again treetop here - where do we spend it? We know how much we have

coming in. According to this, the estimated total revenue for this year

2011-2012 is $7.677 billion in the chart that I am looking at here, amount

estimated for 2011-2012 total revenue income. Now, that is a far cry, of course,

from where we were. We spend a lot more money today than we spent ten years ago;

we spend a lot more money today than we spent eight years ago. In fact, I am

going to come back later. I have a chart here that I put together myself not

one the minister had, but one I actually put together just to try to keep

track of where we were to where we are in terms of some of these expenditures,

not only global expenditures but also departmentally to show where we have gone

in the last eight years or so. Actually, I took it from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,

2009, 2010, and 2011; up to this year.

Anyway, back to my chart here. We have our money put in our pot, as I say,

from royalties, taxation, and the Canadian government. Then we have to start

paying out things. It is the same thing in your house: You have to pay a light

bill and phone bill, you have to pay your property taxes, you have to repair

your roof, you have a hole down in the basement, you have a window broke out,

and you have to paint your fence. All of those things have to be paid for.

Governments operate no differently. There is a whole pile of things that need

to be paid for: different programming needs to be paid, there are health needs,

and there are education needs. So if you look at the chart of where the money

goes out, there are some pretty big sectors there as well.

The Minister of Health and Community Services was out yesterday, I heard him

on several of the media sources, talking about just how much our health care

takes out of our budget each year. Anybody who lives in this Province knows that

health care is the number one priority with anybody. We all might like more

schools, we all might like more income in our pockets from our pay cheques, and

we all like better roads to drive on, and so on. When the chips are down, the

number one thing that everybody needs not a case of liking, but what you need

is you need your health care needs attended to and looked after properly.

Out of our Budget, out of the full, 100 per cent whack that is in our pot, 39

per cent comes out for health care 38.5 per cent, actually. Now, if you go

back to the chart I just gave you, I said revenue coming in was 39 per cent from

taxation from the federal Canadian, corporate taxes, and everything else. So if

you just do the simple equation, every cent of money that comes into this

Province by way of taxation whether it is provincial, federal, or corporate

every single penny goes out to health care every single penny.

Health care takes 39 per cent of our pot and 39 per cent of our pot came from

the taxation; a pretty even trade off, almost to the dollar in terms of trade

off.

As you can see, that is a pretty big chunk. You have 40 per cent of your

revenue, every dollar - can you imagine in your household, if every dollar that

you have in your house; if I were to tell you today that every time your cheque

came from your employer that you had to take forty cents out of every dollar

that marched into your home and pay it out in health care? That is what the

Province is doing, paying out forty cents on the dollar in health care.

In the Education Sector; just about 20 per cent, 19.6 per cent. Again, that

is a lot of money into education. When I say education of course, that is a

pretty broad category. There are all kinds of programs. We operate our schools

in the Province, for example, we have to build schools; we have to pay teachers;

we have to pay teacher's aides; we have to run Memorial University; we have Sir

Wilfred Grenfell. We have the College of the North Atlantic that has to be

operated and paid for. You have to keep the lights on in these places and so on.

There are books that these students need to use. Twenty percent goes out of the

pot for education.

Then you have what they call the General Government Sector and Legislative

Branch, another 22.4 per cent. In other words, that is running the House of

Assembly, running the offices of the House of Assembly, whether you are the

Chief Electoral Officer or you are the Auditor General or the Citizens' Rep. All

of that stuff gets paid for out of the Legislature budget. Plus, of course, then

you have everybody who works for government. Anybody who lives in the Province,

we all know somebody who works for the provincial government. They are in our

communities, whether they are social workers, whether they are teachers, general

government pieces. It might be an inspector for gasoline tax, it might be a fish

inspector, and it might be an inland wildlife officer. It could be somebody who

works for the Child Support Enforcement Agency. It could be any number of people

who works here in Confederation Building. All the deputy ministers, ADMs,

everybody who works for the Premier's office, everybody who works in the

Opposition research office. A whole pile of money goes into that, about 22.4 per

cent.

Then it is called the Resource Sector; 4.4 per cent is what we spend in our

Resource Sector and the Other Social Sectors, 15 per cent.

Now, if you look at, it is easy to see where it goes, basically. The two big

chunks go to health and education; 60 per cent goes out to health and education,

and everything else in this Province has to be paid for from the Budget. Some

might ask, why only 4.4 per cent on our Resource Sector? Because you notice,

going back to the pot again where I talked about revenue coming in, we showed

Offshore Royalties at about 30 per cent. When it comes to our fishing industry,

our forest industry, our mining industry, our offshore industry, 4.4 per cent

goes back into expenses that we pay out on our Resource Sector. So that just

gives you an overview of where the money gets spent.

Now, the minister gave some interesting figures as well on the economy, that

is of course a piece of it. How is your economy functioning now? Where do you

expect to go in the future and so on? He talks about the economic performance of

2010. We did not fare too bad, given the tsunami the economic tsunami I called

it, of a couple of years ago. There were some countries in the world that were

pretty well devastated. Places like Portugal, Greece, and the United States took

a slam. They are still not fully recovered yet. We in Canada fared pretty well.

We did not get into the banking issues that a lot of countries had. We had some

pretty good banking laws which helped us survive a lot of the negativity that

some other countries and economies had. We bounced back pretty good. Here in the

Province, we did fairly well compared to a lot of places as well.

Our real gross domestic product, for example, in 2010 grew by 5.6 per cent,

the highest amongst all provinces. That is not bad stuff. That is good stuff for

us as a Province. When your gross domestic product, or your GDP as they commonly

call it, is growing, it bodes pretty well for people who live in this Province.

When it comes to our economy being in good shape, people having jobs and

opportunity, at least, to have a job, and opportunity to do well, versus

somewhere where you live when you have negative GDP, just the opposite. We live

in a positive place in that regard.

Investment grew by 32 per cent to over $6.5 billion. Now, none of this is

explained, and I am sure the Minister of Finance will take an opportunity

sometime throughout the Budget Debate to give us some more detail on some of

that stuff, like the nature of the investment that grew by 32 per cent. Real

exports are estimated to have increased by 4 per cent due to a significant

increase in mineral output. I checked the figures today, and I am not sure if

the minister checked them, but in last year's Budget - I asked him, actually. I

said you are pretty optimistic on your Budget. I said, it looks like you are

expecting mining royalties to increase next year by 60 per cent. I said that

seems pretty optimistic, big growth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right. I tell the minister in case he has

not, but I am sure he has, I ran the figures today and apparently it is 63 per

cent. So, not only were you off, you were off in the wrong way. In the right

way, they went up three points more than you had anticipated.

It just goes to show something about the budgeting process, that you budget

based on estimating. You hope that things go well. You hope that you have the

right information to make the right assumptions so that at the end of the day

you are not too far off and you are where you had hoped you would be when you

delivered your Budget.

Sometimes things go wrong that throw it off that you have no control over.

That is one of the sad parts about our economy, that it is based upon oil and

mining. When you run into the economic woes that the world ran into, our iron

ore that comes out of Lab City and Wabush, we were not making much money off the

mining at that particular time because they were not getting any prices for it.

The same thing happens with the barrel of oil. The barrel of oil, I believe,

yesterday was trading at $108 or $109, it fluctuates a bit, but over the course

of a year it can be a major fluctuation. I do believe even within the last

twelve months it was down to $54 a barrel. It gradually came up to the $80 mark,

then the $90s, and of course we have been on a real surge in the last two or

three months.

When your economy is based on the oil like that, you sometimes have a concern

that if you undertake expenses that you are going to have every single year, but

all of a sudden if something goes wrong in your income then you are in trouble.

For example, if I go out and buy a car, I live in a certain kind of home, and I

buy a certain kind of furniture, it is great as long as you have your job and

you are making the money that you were making when you bought those items. If

you lose your job, or if you get sick and you cannot work, all of a sudden you

have these expenses that you have every year or every month but you do not have

the same income to pay those expenses, to pay your credit cards, and whatever.

That is when the trouble starts. People in the Province often hear the word

these days of sustainability. That is the whole question: Can you sustain what

you have set yourself up for?

In the last eight years since this government took office, we have more than

doubled the annual expenditures; doubled. When they took office back in 2003 in

October, their first Budget came in 2004. The Budget was a little over $3

billion. Nowadays, we are spending over $7.6 billion, more than double. The

issue of whether or not we needed to double it and what we are spending it on is

one thing, but the sustainability issue comes into play because now that we have

ramped it from $3 billion to $7.7 billion we are basing that on this oil staying

like it is. Obviously, if the bottom goes out of the price of a barrel of oil,

how do we pay the bills then? That is when you end up going into deficits.

Fortunately, for the Province right now, the Minister of Finance is telling

us we are okay for this year. We had a surplus last year; we are going to have a

surplus next year. Then there are going to be a couple of rough years, and that

is admitted to, and hopefully then if the oil stays where it is we will be okay

and we will get back in shape again and stay. I guess the question is: If we are

going to have a couple of rough years, when we have those rough years what do we

do? Do we have any money put aside in the cookie jar to help us when we have a

rough year or are we going to say, we will just incur deficits for those two

years? If you have reserves, of course, it is nice to have that money in the

cookie jar so that you can say we are going to spend this. We do not have quite

that amount of money, but we have some in the cookie jar to help ourselves.

There is an issue of debt here. If you cannot pay your bills, of course, you

go in debt. Right now, I believe the figures, according to this minister, the

Minister of Finance right now. He is saying, for example, he is forecasting a

surplus of $485 million for next year. So, it looks like we are going to be

pretty well off next year. We are not going to be worried about going in the red

or anybody coming and seizing any of your property because you could not pay

your bills next year.

The net debt is expected to be $8.2 billion. Now, that is a lot of money

folks, $8.2 billion that we owe. I think it translates into something like

$17,000 per man, woman and child in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the figure right now. It used to be higher than that. Granted, it was

higher than that, but fortunately the government were very fortunate that they

could have some surpluses in past years. They had surpluses. By the way, the

government will have you believe they caused the surpluses.

This government, for example, that took over under Danny Williams in 2003,

they would have you believe that they are responsible for, and bring all this

money into the pot. That is where people do not get hoodwinked. That is when

people who listen intently to the TV and so on and watch the programs, they

know. This government is entrusted to manage the money, to administer the money.

Hopefully, they can be somewhat creative and decide and come up with ways to

make more money. Not only rely upon what somebody handed to you and I say

handed to you, I mean literally handed to you. For example, this 40 per cent

that I am talking about - 30 per cent that comes out of the royalties, the

government would have you think that they actually created that.

Our monies basically in the oil industry come from Hibernia, White Rose, and

Terra Nova. Those are the three that are producing. To my knowledge, there is no

other oil producing field in this Province right now. That money that is in

their pot that they are spending right now belonging to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians came from, in the oil industry, Hibernia, White Rose, and Terra

Nova.

There are some plans; they talk plans about doing other things, admittedly.

Be the first one to admit because you have to tell the truth. Hibernia was

designed by the former Liberal Administration, okay? There is nobody who does

not know that. They would have you believe that it was a Conservative

government, a Tory government that created Hibernia.

There was one Conservative individual who played a large role in that and he

deserves full credit. That is the current Lieutenant Governor who at that time

was a minister of the federal Crown, in the federal Liberal Party. They had some

problems, one of the companies that was supposed to do Hibernia were not

prepared to carry on. It had gotten expensive. They did not know if they had the

money to put into it and they were going to draw out and we may never have had a

Hibernia.

Thanks to Mr. Crosbie at the time, who was the federal minister, he managed

to convince the federal government to buy a share into Hibernia equivalent to

the company that was leaving. That worked out to be 8.5 per cent. The feds put

in their money, Hibernia proceeded, and I believe in 1997 we saw the first oil

out of Hibernia. I do believe from 1989 until 1996, it was Premier Clyde Wells

who was Liberal. From 1996 on to 2000, it was Premier Brian Tobin who was

Liberal, I do believe. That was the Hibernia span, just so there is no confusion

in anybody's eyes as to who the government was that made the Hibernia piece

possible from a provincial government perspective. That is Hibernia. The other

one that is producing money is White Rose. That was done under a Liberal

Administration as well. Before this crowd ever took over government that was

there; and likewise, Terra Nova, that was done by a Liberal government. It is

almost like winning a lottery. You come into the government, you formed the

government in 2003, and you got White Rose, Terra Nova, Hibernia, the price of

oil goes up, puts all this money in your coffers and you are left there to spend

it and you say: We created a surplus. We created a surplus, they say. Now,

nothing could be further from the truth. If a barrel of oil goes from $50 to

$110, this government over here had absolutely nothing to do with seeing the

price of a barrel of oil go from $50 to $110, Mr. Speaker. That is absolutely

regulated by world oil prices, world demand. It could even be a war that causes

issues that leads to the price of a barrel of oil to spike.

Let's put some of the facts together. Number one, this Administration was not

responsible for the creation of the oil project on our offshore. They are not

responsible for the price of a barrel of oil that happens offshore. They are not

responsible for how far and how fast we produce it offshore. That is determined

by the oil companies. Our government has no say in how fast you can produce it.

If the oil companies had their way, they would probably like to pump it all out

overnight, when the prices are top.

The people of the Province, they are not fooled when they hear this

government say: We created a surplus. You won a lottery is basically it. You

walked into a situation where the offshore oil platforms were existing, or were

created by Liberal Administrations, the price of a barrel of oil escalated

fortunately putting money into the coffers of the governance of this Province

and now they have to spend it. Now, it is true, the government is planning on

expanding Hibernia. Again, you had nothing to expand if you did not have

Hibernia in the first place. They are planning on an expansion of White Rose.

Again, you would not have an expansion of White Rose if you never had the White

Rose. That is just the oil industry.

The other big industry, of course, that is putting money into the coffers is

the mining industry. This government would have you believe that they were in

somehow, some fashion connected to the money that goes into the revenue pot from

the mining industries. Now, I do believe the biggest producers when it comes to

the mines in this Province: the Iron Ore Company of Canada out of Labrador City,

and you have Wabush Mines in Wabush. I do believe they were back decades ago,

maybe even on the watch of that gentleman called Joey Smallwood. I think it goes

back that far in IOC. I think he was still around as Premier.

Of course, the newest one, the gem of the mining industry some say today, is

Voisey's Bay. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you did we have a tussle getting this

government, and particularly the former Premier, to acknowledge that was a good

deal. I was here, the deal was cut. Unlike this government which cuts a deal and

does not give you the details of the deal, I happened to be Minister of Justice

at the time we did the Voisey's Bay deal. I was intimately involved in it. The

House of Assembly was opened, it had closed. The deal happened to be struck when

the House was closed. The government of the day said: Let's take it to the House

of Assembly. Let's actually take the deal, the statement of principles on

Voisey's Bay, put it into the House of Assembly, let everybody get up and have a

say. We will even have special rules so that you can debate the issue. They were

agreed between the then Government House Leader, Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition who by the way was Mr. Williams, the official Leader of the

Opposition at that time.

We came here in the House in June, a special session, and debated Voisey's

Bay. Every single Conservative Tory Member of the House of Assembly, and some of

them are still here, stood on their feet and condemned Voisey's Bay condemned

it. A terrible deal, a terrible deal, you are giving away the resources. You can

drive a truck through the contract. There are more off-ramps in the Voisey's Bay

deal than there are on the 401 expressway, they said. The person who said it was

the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Williams.

I was the second-last person to speak. My questions to him were simple.

Rather than just say that there are off-ramps on this deal for Voisey's Bay,

could you tell me where they are and what they are? You have been a lawyer of

longstanding, much longer than I had; he had four or five more years at the Bar

than I had. I said: Maybe I am missing something here. God forbid, if I would

want to be party to a deal that somebody was going to take us to the woodshed

on. I said to him: Can you tell us where the off-ramps are because we would like

to know? You are in business. You run a cable business. You have been a lawyer

of longstanding. Just do not make these statements. Tell us where the off-ramps

are in the Voisey's Bay deal.

So anyway, we were never told. He would never, ever say where the off-ramps

are. All he would say was: give-away, bad deal, off-ramps. That is all that was

ever said. Then, of course, he became the Premier. I kept asking him in numerous

Question Periods. I would say: Premier Williams, you are in government now. You

run the shop. You run the show, now. Now that you are there, you have seen the

deal, you have met these people, you are dealing with it, Voisey's Bay is a year

or two years in now, can you tell us now what the problems were with the deal? I

never got an answer.

That went on until about 2008. All of a sudden in 2008, I look in the paper

this morning, The Telegram , and there is a picture of the Premier stood

on the back of a piece of machinery up in Voisey's Bay. The caption was: The

Premier proclaims Voisey's Bay great deal. I thought that was pretty good. Seven

years after condemning the deal and saying that the former Liberal government

had given it away, the very same man who did that finally, when the truth had

smacked him in the face and had no alternative, had to admit it was a good deal.

We should not have to drag the truth out of somebody like that.

Anyway, I digress a little because I started this comment by saying this

government had nothing to do with the creation of the offshore drilling,

Hibernia, White Rose, or Terra Nova, which they did not. This government had

nothing to do with Voisey's Bay, which they did not, and which is currently

taking place, the major, major development down in Long Harbour which is going

to employ hundreds of people cost of millions and millions of dollars to be

spent, to say nothing of the open pit mining that is going to take place up in

this Voisey's down the road. This government is spending monies that former

Administrations created to allow them to spend. So, let's give credit where

credit is due.

Now, that is not to say there are not some good things that have been done. I

can appreciate being a government you sometimes get called upon to do stuff. You

have people beating on your door. No matter what you do, it is never enough,

never enough. There are always going to be needs that cannot be contended with,

but I guess the magic of being a good government is that you have to prioritize

and you have to put the money where it is best used, where the most people are

helped and so on. That is where we get into some of the issues of where we put

the money in this year's Budget.

Before I move on, I think it is important to talk about as well, we looked at

the chart as to where the money came from and the basic areas. There are two, as

I say; there are only two basic areas. Health and education take 60 per cent of

it. The minister talks about standing strong on infrastructure, standing strong

on innovation, standing strong on energy. I am going to come back to the energy

one because the energy piece, of course, Muskrat Falls comes into that, and

there is a lot of things about Muskrat that the people do not know about yet and

the public do not know about. They are catching on little by little because the

information is seeping out little by little. We are not getting much from the

Minister of Natural Resources. We are certainly not getting much from the

Premier. We get some grandiose statements in the form of we are going green, and

this is great, the cheapest, most affordable power you are going to get in the

future. I have heard that one response in Question Period here for the last five

weeks. You do not get a lot of substance, but there are a couple of little

pieces that are trickling out.

I will come back to that, because Muskrat deserves a little commentary in and

of itself, because it is so important to the people of this Province, and it is

going to be so important in October. Come October, everybody, of course, in this

House is going back to the polls, or most of us are going back to the polls.

There might be a few who are not going to run again. When they do, of course,

they have to knock on the door, and you have to tell that voter how you feel and

where you stand on Muskrat Falls. A part of telling him or her is that I am the

person who is asking for your vote, and by the way, if you vote for me if you

are a Conservative member I guarantee I will double your light bill. I want

your vote. You vote for me and I will go to the House of Assembly, I will vote,

and you will get double the light bill. Please vote for me. That is what the

Conservative members, PC members, are going to be saying at the door. That is

what they are going to have to say at the door because that is the truth of it.

Whether you are the Sergeant-at-Arms in this House of Assembly or whether you

are an MHA, they are going to knock on the door, the truth is they are going to

say, whether you are a Page in the House of Assembly, if you have your own

apartment and pay your own light bill, please vote for me and I will double your

light bill. That is the truth. That is a factual, true, absolute statement that

cannot be rebutted. It is not rebuttable, absolutely not rebuttable and this

government cannot refute that statement. That is where song and dance gets you

in trouble because you can song and dance, you can gloss things over, you can

make all kinds of statements to people about spin and how to spin a project, but

there are certain bottom lines to every project. The Minister of Finance is

smiling at me over there and he knows that what I am saying is correct. He knows

what I am saying is correct because there are certain truths that cannot be

hidden.

Now you might try to justify: Yes, they are going to double, but they would

have doubled anyway. You might use that argument. You might say: Well, yes, they

are going to double but they would have doubled anyway, so do not complain about

it. It is going to happen anyway, so why wouldn't you vote for me? That is the

argument that the government would give you. That is called spin because there

are a few things missing when you use that scenario: They are going to double

anyway. There are a few unknowns in that. Number one, how do you know they are

going to double? Give me the information that shows me they are going to double.

We do not have any of that information. We asked for it numerous times. If you

go back and check the record, the Premier undertook to table it in the House

before the Easter break. It is not done. Unless she is going to walk in before

5:30 p.m. and do it, she did not get it. She undertook that in Question Period

one day. She never gave it to us as she said she would. She said she was going

to table it.

Anyway, I digress again because Muskrat is so important, it is not just a

digression, Muskrat Falls is going to be so primary, paramount, and important to

the people of this Province that it certainly does not need to be made fun of

because it is a very serious issue. It is an issue that is going to slam every

single Newfoundlander and Labradorian in the pocketbook, whether you live on

Waterford Bridge Road, or you live on Water Street in St. Barbe, or you live on

Water Street or Army Hill in Port aux Basques, you are going to get a double

light bill. This is not a rural versus an urban problem. This is not the

fishermen versus an offshore issue. This is an issue that transcends every

single citizen of this Province. You are going to get your light bill doubled

because of Muskrat Falls. That is not a threat. That is what everybody tells you

and that is what everybody knows to be the truth, even the government tells you

that. They are expecting you to take it in, hook, line and sinker and say

nothing about it.

Maybe it is an appropriate time, since I am on this issue; I have to get into

some of the departments because this is important. I think I have given a pretty

comprehensive overview. I would like to get into some of the departmental

issues.

There are a couple of good things in the Budget. The minister is going to get

up later on and say I did not say anything good about the Budget. There are a

few good things. Again, you can hardly spend $7.7 billion and not do somebody

some good. I would be a fool to stand up here and say that you spent $7.7

billion and did not do somebody any good. I do not think anybody is going to

believe that. There is obviously some good. We pay teachers, we pay doctors, we

pay social workers, we build schools, and we build hospitals. That is all good

stuff. Nobody is going to deny that is not good stuff. We could not exist as a

society if we did not do those things. The more money we can put into those

things, obviously the better it is. We need good roads. We need to attract

industry to our Province. That is all good expenditures.

Then, every year, of course, there are a few different things that happen if

the government has the money and they can afford to do it. This year, for

example, on the HST portion for residential energy - I know the NDP like to

claim full credit for this. I actually delivered a petition two or three times

in this House on the HST thing. It came from my District of Burgeo & La Poile,

the petition was generated, a lady by the name of Elizabeth Harvey. I even

acknowledged her in petitions. She asked me if I would deliver a petition in

this House on the HST piece. I agreed to do it. The lady really knows her stuff.

She has been into a lot of issues, whether it is about helping veterans, whether

it is about people who have energy costs, whether it is about helping dialysis.

She is a very concerned citizen who makes herself known. The Member for

Lewisporte, for example, has dealt with her as well. She is a lady who is very

concerned in her community.

I brought the petition here to the House of Assembly. She asked me and I did

it several times. Lo and behold, I have to say, I was absolutely surprised that

the government decided to take the provincial portion of the HST off the home

energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, maybe if the members can carry

their conversations outside of the Chamber because I find it very difficult to

talk here and be heard abov