PDF Version

May

4, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 22

The

House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members' statements

we have the Members for the Districts of Lewisporte Twillingate, Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune, Exploits, Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and Stephenville Port au

Port.

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to recognize a young gentleman in my district from the community of

Herring Neck. Cameron Rice is currently 16 years old and attending grade 11 at

New World Island Academy. Cameron is a very active student participating in

school sports, the jazz band and also playing minor hockey.

Cameron

is better known in his community for all his dedicated volunteer service. At the

age of 13, Cameron really took a leadership role in the community. He was

instrumental in organizing the 2014 Come Home Year Celebrations. From the

success, Cameron, along with other volunteers, continued to host the annual

Herring Neck Dory Races.

During

the Christmas season, Cameron was concerned there was no community supper, so he

took it upon himself to organize a potluck meal for residents in his community.

He even paid for the Christmas decorations, tablecloths, plates and cutlery out

of his own money and being a talented musician, he performed to a full house.

Cameron

is a true testament of what our youth can do for the betterment of our

communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in honouring Cameron

Rice for his dedicated volunteer service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize the outstanding public speaking abilities

of youth in my district who participated in the Lions Club Annual Speak Offs,

local and zone, both of which were hosted this year by the St. Alban's Lions

Club.

The

first place winner was Julie Young whose topic this year was that music should

be a part of every child's life. Melanie Collier placed second and Bianca Stokes

placed third. Julie placed first at the local speak out with nine other

participants, and went on to win the zone speak out. Congratulations also to

Maggie Adams Vaslett who placed second at the zone speak out. From there, Julie

went on to compete in the Lions Club International District 3N Speak Out in

Corner Brook.

All

these extremely bright, young ladies continue to show their outstanding ability

for public speaking and they certainly make us all very proud. I would also like

to throw a bouquet to the Lions Clubs, teachers, parents and volunteers who

assist the young in developing their oratory talent and skills. I throw a

teachers ever.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in delivering accolades to all the

fine young ladies who show such courage in highlighting important issues and

concerns in our society today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to commend the Botwood Collegiate Robotics Team, which

has won a number of significant accolades over the course of the last eight

years it has been around.

On April

8, the team competed in the Skills Canada Provincial Competition and were

awarded a first-place finish. They will travel to Moncton in June to represent

Newfoundland and Labrador in the national Skills Canada competition. During last

year's national competition in Saskatoon, the team won silver.

I have

to commend teacher/sponsor Brian Antle, who is the vice-principal of Botwood

Collegiate. He has sponsored the team for eight years and also serves as the

provincial technical chair for the running the annual provincial competition in

St. John's.

His

sponsorship of the Robotics Team demonstrates his commitment to empowering his

students to develop technical and creative skills that will set them up for a

lifetime of success.

Please

join me in thanking Mr. Antle for his mentorship of the Botwood Collegiate

Robotics Team, and congratulate the team and wish them the best of luck as they

represent our province in the national competition in June.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize a burgeoning sport in my district. In September 2014, thanks

primarily to Didier Naulleau, a retired master warrant officer, a Judo club was

born in the Labrador Straits. Classes are held three times a week as an

extracurricular program of Labrador Straits Academy and open to ages 5 to 99.

The

Labrador Straits Academy Judo Club has 25 students, no monthly fees and is

operated by a group of very dedicated volunteers. Equipment was obtained through

fundraising efforts and complimentary delivery services from the Labrador

Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Ltd.

In April

eight students travelled to Gander to compete in their very first provincial

tournament and they walked away with a stellar showing. Colton McClean and Noah

Normore received gold; Jada Normore, Keegan Fowler and TJ Flynn received silver;

Michael Normore and Lucas Buckle received bronze; Corey Normore received a

participation medal and Jada Normore was named Most Spirited Judoka of the

tournament.

It's

simply remarkable when a small school walks away from a provincial tournament

with seven medals, demonstrating they can compete on the big stage.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Labrador Straits Academy Judo

Club and we wish them much luck into the future.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to acknowledge Michelle and Andre Jesso of Three Rock Cove. A husband and

wife team, Captain Andre and First Mate Michelle have fished together for over

30 years. Their boat, Wave on Wave , is

based out of Piccadilly and they fish in Port au Port Bay.

For the

past two years, this dynamic couple and their crew have been featured on the

Cold Water Cowboys television series.

Now in its third season, this show has put a tremendous spotlight on our

province's fishing industry. Fans of the show reach out from as far away as

Europe and Africa. Their following has earned them a celebrity status they never

anticipated.

They are

as passionate about helping others as they are about their profession. They've

used their newfound celebrity to do just that. Having held several very

successful fundraising efforts; they have contributed to organizations such as

the Bay St. George Women's' Centre and the Janeway. They have also partnered

with Coleman's Food Centre to promote healthy eating and the importance of

consuming healthy protein like fish in one's diet.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Michelle and Andre Jesso on their

success and their ongoing efforts in being strong ambassadors for the fishing

industry and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration

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

MR. SPEAKER:

For Honour 100 today we have

the Member for the District of Gander.

MR. HAGGIE: I will

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

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

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

moment of silence.

Lest we forget: William Blackler Knight, Cecil James Knott,

Harold Knott, William Knott, William A. Knowling, George B. Lacey, Harry Lacey,

Robert Joseph Lahey, Anthony Joseph Lamb, Frederick Lambert, John Lambert, John

Lambert, Gideon Harland Lane, Malcolm Lane, John Langer, George Langmead, James

Joseph Lannigan, James Lannon, Michael Francis Lannon, William Joseph Lannon,

Francis Lavigne, William G. Lawrence, Samuel John Learning, Charley

Leary, Robert LeBuff, James Allen Ledingham, Edward LeDrew, George Hussey

LeDrew, Herbert LeDrew, John F. LeDrew, Albert Lee, Joseph Legge, Marcus Legge,

Walter LeGrow, Wallace James LeMessurier, James Leonard, Michael Leonard,

William Leonard, Manuel LePage, James H. LeRiche.

(Moment of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians as we think about family and friends in Fort McMurray during the

devastating wildfire and resulting mass evacuation.

The wildfire that is currently raging in Alberta and those

impacted, including the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians living and

working there are foremost in our thoughts today. Like my hon. colleagues in

this House and all residents, we have seen the images carried on mainstream

Last night our province reached out to offer help in

whatever way that was needed. Today, I have a call scheduled with the Alberta

premier, Rachel Notley, to

discuss this further.

Mr.

Speaker, the provincial government is ready to respond to the needs of the

residents of Fort McMurray. We are in contact with Alberta Agriculture and

Forestry to offer our assistance. We will coordinate our actions through our

Mutual Aid Resources Sharing Agreement and the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire

Centre, through the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency to make our resources

available.

While

sharing our resources, we will continue to be equipped to protect our province,

our people and our forest resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have

responded to other provinces in situations like this one. In the past we have

sent aircraft, firefighters and our Incident Management Team to Manitoba,

Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Today is

International Firefighters Day. We want to take this opportunity to also thank

the courageous firefighters for keeping our family and our friends, both in

Alberta and right here at home, safe.

Our

thoughts and prayers are with Fort McMurray today. For anyone concerned about

the whereabouts of a friend or loved one in the area, please call the Alberta

Red Cross at 1-888-350-6070.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for providing us with an advance copy of his statement today. Mr.

Speaker, our thoughts along with the thoughts of the entire province are with

those in Fort McMurray, especially the 60,000 residents who have had to evacuate

their homes during this enormous tragedy.

While

the situation is still developing, it's our hope, of course, that they get the

proper assistance and support as soon as they can to assist them in these tragic

circumstances, so they can focus and turn a page and focus on rebuilding. I want

to acknowledge and thank the government for reaching out to Alberta and offering

support and assistance to the Fort McMurray area and the people that live there.

As we

know in this province, Fort McMurray has a very special place in our hearts for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's served as a second home to so many of our

own family and friends.

I'm very

pleased as well to see the Canadian Red Cross is now accepting donations and

coordinating efforts to support people in their homes. I encourage everyone to

contact the Canadian Red Cross and do anything we can to lend a helping hand to

those in Fort McMurray.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement. We hold all the people

of Fort McMurray and our loved ones living and working here in our hearts. We

have not heard of a single fatality which is a great testimony to the emergency

response planners and firefighters courageously and generously battling this

terrible fire. We thank them for their service.

This

tragedy once again shows us the beauty of the human spirit with people reaching

out to help and protect one another. Thank you to all from this province gearing

up to help the people of Fort McMurray. We support the commitment to share our

resources to help the people of Alberta.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, today I would

like to provide an update on the Waypoints Foster Family Support Pilot Project.

This project is a collaboration between Child, Youth and Family Services, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association and Waypoints.

Waypoints, a non-profit organization providing child and youth care for more

than 35 years, provides after-hours support, crisis response and training to

foster parents through this new pilot project. The project recognizes the

current skills and expertise of foster families and builds upon their

competencies, further enhancing the quality of care provided to children and

youth in care.

Currently, there are 17 foster families receiving support from the project and,

since January 2016, four training sessions have been provided

The Impact of Trauma ,

Effective Discipline , Developing

Relationships and Taking Care of

Yourself .

Mr.

Speaker, our government continues its commitment to child protection with

support of approximately $150 million in Budget 2016 which allows for ongoing

initiatives such as this pilot. We know the positive impact this initiative is

having on our foster families, and we will continue to work closely with

Waypoints and the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services for an advance copy of her

statement. We are happy to hear that the current government chose to continue

with this very valuable program, a partnership with a fantastic non-profit

community organization that has much to offer in such an arrangement.

The

Foster Family Support Pilot Project was developed in response to a growing need

for additional resources to support our province's foster families. We know that

there are increasing pressures on our foster system and the need for additional

foster families continues to grow. One way to ensure more people are willing to

come forward to become foster parents is to establish appropriate provisions.

Fostering, while so fulfilling, has its share of challenges. We need to make

sure we have the supports in place for these families. This pilot does just

that.

Before

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The Waypoints pilot

project providing foster families with on-the-ground support and training is a

great step forward. I commend the foster families in our province for the

important work that they do welcoming children into their homes and into their

families, children who so badly need their help.

Pilot

projects like this one will hopefully encourage more families to foster and that

the new supports to these families will become part of a permanent program.

Bravo!

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Liberals speaking points are changing on a daily basis in regard to this budget.

They've said that people don't understand. They've said the media don't get it.

Just yesterday, they blamed the Opposition parties for not explaining their

budget. They have no plan, no vision, no focus on the people who elected them.

It's time to show some leadership, some flexibility and respond to what people

are asking for.

I ask

the Premier: Will you listen as you promised to do? Will you reconvene your team

of leaders and revisit this budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the comments made yesterday, particularly those around the Opposition, were

really about not putting out some of the other information that was in this

budget that the Opposition is quite aware of. As a matter of fact, it was the

Opposition who even refused to come and get a briefing session on some of the

important elements around this budget: things like the Newfoundland and Labrador

Income Supplement where there is over $74 million available to help low-come

families; things like the $570 million in infrastructure spending that's

included in this budget. There are many other things.

Also,

Mr. Speaker, the fact around the levy. It is a temporary levy, one that as soon

as we are in a financial situation the plan is already in place; that's been

outlined in this budget. It is a temporary levy, one thing the Opposition has

refused to continue to discuss.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the Premier, it's not our job to sell their budget. It's the people of the

province who are having difficulty understanding this; as well, the media are

having difficulty. They're the ones who need the briefing from the government.

The

Minister of Finance, herself, seemed caught off guard yesterday when asked by

the media: Who will actually benefit from her own budget? She said it was

difficult to know, but that those most vulnerable will be protected. She went on

to say she wasn't sure if it was one or 100 or 1,000 people who would be better

off. She had no way of knowing.

I ask

the Premier: When your own caucus is having problems explaining your budget, how

do you expect the people of the province to make sense of the choices that

you've made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, there are

424,000 tax filers in our province. Every single one of those tax filers has a

unique set of circumstances as to how they would be paying taxes and also how

they would be consuming products that would incur consumption taxes.

It would

be impossible for a province the size of ours to create a tool that will provide

an example of every single tax filer. What we have done, as I said in the media

yesterday, we have provided clarity with the Newfoundland Income Supplement

calculator so individuals who are the lowest income people can understand what

they're going to get, and we've also provided all the information in tax tables

so everybody else can see the information as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

trying to tell the Premier that it's the people of the province who are having

difficulty understanding the budget, Mr. Speaker. The minister can get up and

give us all the facts and figures here in the House, invite us over for

briefings, but it's the people of the province who are having difficulty

understanding the mixed messages that are coming from your government.

The

current Premier, he has told the people that we have a plan and the people are

going to like it. So I say to the Premier, I spoke to a lady today who just

barely gets by, a senior lady. She doesn't quality for the low-income supplement

that you rave about and she's in fear of paying her bills. She's looking for

some reason to feel that she's going to be okay.

So I ask

the Premier: You're on the record as stating that all seniors will be better off

in your budget, so what is in there for this lady?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, if

the former premier didn't know the answer to that, I would encourage the lady to

call our office and we will go through the options and the services that

available to someone in her position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the point is that people don't understand. It's not about me telling

her who to call. They're not getting the message, Premier. They're not

understanding how they're going to benefit from this budget.

The

minister spent days and days and days telling people there was something bad for

everyone in the budget, and now you've switched and said no, it's a good budget.

People are confused by this.

Mr.

Speaker, they're angry. They feel personally betrayed by this Liberal

government. The Liberal sold people what many considered a fairy tale, a bunch

of magic beans and the Liberals told the people no tax increases, no layoffs, no

hardships and a stronger tomorrow. People can't find any of that, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier campaigned on the only thing he'll eliminate was waste. Teacher cuts,

health care workers, eliminating 40 long-term care beds, is this all the waste

that you said you were going to eliminate, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

former premier knows very well the numbers that he had access to long before the

election, refused to share them with the information I would like to ask the

former premier: Why is it that he held on to that information? As a matter of

fact, the information in his own election platform that he campaigned on, that

the NDP campaigned on, the numbers were wrong when you released your platform

and the former premier knew the numbers were wrong at the time, yet refused to

make them public. I'd like to ask the former premier why he did not let the

people know that during your election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

If hon.

Members in this House want to be recognized by the Speaker, I'm asking you to

respect the person that the Speaker has recognized to speak, whether it's a

question or an answer. If Members continue and persist in interrupting when

another Member is speaking, they will not be recognized by the Speaker.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate that.

Mr.

Speaker, last year in our budget, we laid it out for the people of the province

the circumstances we faced. We were going into a budget saying we were going to

increase taxes, we're going to reduce services and programs and the public

service. We went to an election saying we had to make hard decisions. Much

unlike what the Members opposite who promised the world to the people of the

province; they sold them a bill of goods, Mr. Speaker, is what they did. They

sold them a bill of goods.

Last

night, Mr. Speaker, right here in this House, the Minister of Education well, we

saw what I think was a meltdown. It was a temper tantrum at the very least. He

thumped his fist on the table and he stated no matter what he is going to cancel

leases on the regional library in Conception Bay South and the regional library

in Corner Brook if it was the last thing that he did.

Mr.

Premier, I'll ask you this: Do you support this type of behaviour by the

Ministers of the Crown that represent you? Do you support the closures of these

regional libraries? It is clear (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

speaking about poor behaviour, last year during the budget that the former

premier just mentioned, he outlined a plan for the province. His plan that he

said was the way forward for Newfoundland and Labrador. His plan last year said

that this year there would be less than $900 million in the deficit. In less

than one year in one year, under his plan it would have been $2.7 billion.

Mr.

Speaker, that's a big miss. That miss would have led to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians in just seven years owing for every man, woman and child nearly

$53,000 per person. That's the plan that the former premier is trying to defend.

He wanted the biggest industry in our province to be one paying interest on the

missed failures and the mismanagement of his administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to see that the Premier did not defend the minister's behaviour here in

the House last night. I would suggest to the Premier that investing in libraries

and in literacy is a much wiser investment than paying upwards of $500 per hour

for external legal and communications counsel. I think that would be a better

investment.

I ask

the Minister of Education: When you flip-flopped on your decision last night,

did you include this reduction in your budget? Was this part of your budget

plan, or did you just make this decision up last night based on the emotions we

saw in the House of Assembly yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I was emotional

in the House of Assembly last night because of Members opposite and individuals

referring to children with special education needs as leftovers. As I said last

night, I will not stand for children with disabilities being referred to in that

way, and discussions in this House of Assembly about the good students and then

the leftovers. I'm not going to stand for that.

apologize to the Member who I didn't see him over there last night paying

attention to me. I apologize if he was upset about what I said.

What I

said last night was that we had two library operations that had a negligible

charge to government, and then the previous administration entered into

agreements to the tune of over $200,000 per library.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, since the budget, the Minister of Education confirmed to me, in a

conversation we had, that he was committed to the library in CBS. CBS must be

part of our regional system.

confirmed the funding was committed to. He went so far as to say you can

publicly say that the minister he spoke to the minister and he is committed to

the project and funding. Feel free to tell whoever.

I ask

the minister: Why the change? What happened last night? Why the flip-flop?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, we are committed

to maintaining the library in Conception Bay South. There's no question about

that. I spoke to the mayor about that several times, including today. That's not

the problem.

The

problem with the CBS library proposal that was basically endorsed by the

Education minister of the day is that the previous operation, the lease cost

zero because it was in a municipal building. The lease that the previous

government endorsed is 25 years at $230,000 a year; from zero a year to $230,000

a year locked in for 25 years. That's the lease arrangement that they want for

CBS. The mayor himself has more or less said we can find a better deal than that

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, two regional

libraries the minister has targeted, CBS and Corner Brook he left out Corner

Brook; he's not alluding to that one. The regional library system that he's

proposing will serve one-fifth of the population, upwards of probably 100,000

people.

The

minister has touted the regional library system, yet now he says he's going to

close down his quote today is a bit different than what he said last night. He

was pretty good last night in his tantrum. If it's the last thing he ever does

he was going to do that. I had to listen again this morning, Mr. Speaker, to

make sure I had his facts right.

I ask

the minister: It's a bit of a change in tone today, but how can you eliminate

two libraries when you're saying regional libraries are the future of the

province? That's not what you said last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, let's just recap

here. I did not say that.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North took to Twitter spreading false information about

what was said here in the House of Assembly and I ask anybody to review the

record. That's the Member for Mount Pearl North's record of behaviour around

this budget. So that's not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the problem with

the Corner Brook situation is that the previous library was in government owned

space that cost nothing additional to the people of the province. The minister

in that government put us into a situation where we're paying now over $200,000

a year in a 20-year lease. That's what they endorsed. There's a problem with

this. We went from zero in both instances to almost half a million dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Liberals promised to diversify the economy. We've been reviewing

the budget Estimates over the past couple of weeks and we haven't seen any

economic diversification revenue budget in current for future years. The only

revenue the Liberals will generate is from the pockets of the people through

taxes and fees.

I ask

the Premier: When will we see your heralded plan to generate revenue, or is it

simply to take a lazy way out and continue to tax, tax and more tax?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking

of the lazy route, the route that this former administration had this province

on which would have led to an unprecedented amount of borrowing, 66 years since

Confederation, $12.4 billion in debt accumulated during that 66 years, that

would have doubled under your borrowing strategy. Is that what you call economic

diversification, go to the banks and find which one has a diversified portfolio

that you can borrow more money from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the question was

about his plan and what he was going to do. So from his answer there's no

revenue for economic diversification from the plan. So he's answered the

question. Alarming!

Mr.

Speaker, frustration is building as people do not understand the Liberal budget

choices. The Minister of Finance is having trouble explaining the budget to the

people of the province. Yesterday, in a media scrum the minister could not

identify who would benefit from the budget.

I ask

the minister: What groups are better off and how many people are doing better

based on your calculations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I think there

are many people in this province who are learning the harsh reality of this

budget in the context of what would have happened had we not taken action. We

are spending more than we have, we are borrowing the most we have in our history

and our costs and our risks of borrowing are greater than any province in

Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, this week, and up to the budget and since then, we have had individuals

who have reached out and said the people they want to make sure don't bear the

burden of the mistakes of the former administration are the ones in future

generations that they would like to punt this problem to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister isn't able to tell us who's going to benefit. So I'll ask her this: If

she doesn't know who's going to be affected, how can her revenue projections in

her budget, based on the levy, income tax and other taxes in the budget be

accurate when she doesn't know who's being affected and negatively affected and

what the revenue generation is going to be? How is your budget going to be

accurate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, we realize that

this budget is a very difficult budget for the people of the province. There's

no doubt about that. Nobody in this House is ever going to argue that fact. The

reality is that had we done nothing, our province would have been faced with

significant risks to be able to finance the critical services that we have to

offer.

Mr.

Speaker, the Members opposite continue to not acknowledge the reality of the

very difficult fiscal situation that we are in. We invested $74 million to

ensure that the most vulnerable in our province are protected as part of this

budget. We will continue to make decisions on how to continue to mitigate those

things as time progresses, but we will not kick the can into the future and put

our province at risk of other crises.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

No answer again, Mr. Speaker.

She's preparing a budget and she doesn't know what the impact to people is going

to be based on the rates and additional fees they brought in. We should be good

later in the year when they're trying to figure out how they're balancing their

budget or where they are with it.

Mr.

Speaker, a single, 22-year-old working mother with a young son tells me with the

increases in home and automobile insurance, increasing gas, no Home Heating

Rebate and all the other taxes and fees, even without including the Liberal

levy, she will lose at least $100 a month to her and her son to live.

I ask

the minister: Is this mother and her son in the group that is doing better?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, without knowing

the exact information for that tax filer as I said earlier, there are 424,000

tax filers in the province. What I can assure that mother is that this

government is making sure that her young child doesn't bear a burden in debt in

the province that would be equal to $53,000 per person. That's what I can assure

that mother.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

budget is supposed to be about people. Closing schools, increasing the number of

multi-grade classrooms, larger classes, less teachers, fewer programs and now

cutting busing for children I say to the minister: The NLTA has lost

confidence in you, teachers have lost confidence in you, parents and students

have lost confidence in you and recent leaks suggest your own caucus has lost

confidence in you. People are outraged.

Will you

revisit the devastating, ill-informed choices you have made?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

I'll tell you what they don't

have any confidence in, Mr. Speaker, is anything that Member says about

education in this province. Yesterday, he stood up in the House of Assembly and

said: Will you put a stop to multi-grade classrooms?

Newfoundland and Labrador has had multi-grade classrooms since the inception of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have over 100 of them in this province today. We

had over 100 of them every year that the previous administration was in power.

We're going to have 170 of them in September, that's not including the

combined-grade initiative.

Yesterday, he asked about getting rid of them. The cost associated with what

he's asking for, that basically have classes with one student in it and one

teacher, in many instances, the price tag on that is $46 million for an

additional 500 teachers and an additional 500 classrooms. We don't even know the

cost of the infrastructure of what he's asking for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

So, Mr. Speaker, his answer

is he is going to continue to devastate the education system in this province.

Shocking!

Mr.

Speaker, we support full-day kindergarten; however, we question proceeding in

September when grades one to 12-aged children will be negatively impacted by

these budget cuts.

Will the

minister inform the people how he supports choices which negatively impact kids

currently in the education system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the previous

administration two years ago over two years ago now made a commitment to

full-day kindergarten that we are going to honour.

Thirty

million dollars was put aside. Much of that work was underway by the time we

took office, some 100 renovations to classrooms across the province. I think it

was done by them because they believe we should invest in our children, but I

don't know based on what the Member just said if he still believes that. We

believe we need to catch up with the rest of Canada and make necessary

investments in the youngest generation, our smaller children. That's what we

trying to do here.

We know

none of this is really easy. These decisions are very difficult but we make them

to make better use of the finances we have, the limited tax dollars we have, in

the best interest of children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

are significant changes coming to busing in September. I've received emails and

calls all morning. While the minister may consider these concerns nonsense he

just talked about small children. Small children will be put out in the dark in

the winter months.

Minister, one parent wants to know: When are you going to stop messing with our

children, and how is this a stronger tomorrow that you promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the cost of

busing in Newfoundland and Labrador skyrocketed under the previous

administration. That was something they presided over: making changes that

resulted in skyrocketing costs. We'll spend millions more in the next school

year than we did in the current one because of skyrocketing operating costs. We

know that there's going to be difficulty in making changes for people.

already have double bus runs in this province and many children are already,

under the previous administration, bused over a great distance to get to school.

That's the challenge that we're trying to meet and we are, again, providing

additional millions of dollars this year for busing. So I can't see how the

Member can say that. That's not nonsense; that's a fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, what is

nonsense, he won't listen to the parents' concerns. No listening, that is what

the nonsense is because parents do have concerns. Parents are concerned about

the change in the bus schedule. One parent wrote that her son babysits her

younger daughter after school and the changes happening will cost her $100 more

a week.

For a

government that expects families to pay additional costs on top of all the new

taxes and ridiculous fees, why are you changing these schedules at the detriment

of hard-working families with school-aged children?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, here lies the

sort of contradiction in what the Opposition is saying. This Member says he's

concerned about additional costs that he alleges is going to be borne by

parents. The Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island who spoke about

full-day kindergarten, now wanting to cancel that, has no consideration

whatsoever on the impact of parents who planned for that over the past two

years; does not care at all. Those parents are emailing me saying thank God the

government is continuing along with that initiative.

We know

the busing changes are difficult. There is no question about that. The school

district is going to continue to work with school councils to come up with

reasonable solutions to our problems, but basically we cannot continue to pour

money into busing the way that it has been done. We need to make changes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, what I'm hearing

is absolutely ridiculous. Will you listen to the parents? Will you listen to a

parent that has to put a young child out for a bus at 7:20 in the morning in the

dark? That's terrible small children and changes that are being made.

Mr.

Speaker, we're getting many calls about this bus schedule. I'd like to ask the

minister: Can he inform the House

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I've

asked Members for their co-operation. I'm restarting the clock for the Member

for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking on behalf of the parents in my district. That's what

they elected me to do, to ask the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Their questions are not

nonsense. They're good questions that they're asking because they're concerned

about their children. You mightn't be. We're getting many calls about the bus

schedule.

I'll ask

the minister: Will he inform this House which schools will be impacted and will

he table these changes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the school

district has communicated this information to parents. If the Member wants that

I can certainly give him the number or I can call the school district and ask

them to send it over to me or I can get it from my office. He can easily get

that information. He doesn't need it tabled here in the House of Assembly at

all.

I say to

the Member he stands up there and he gets on this diatribe. How many students is

he aware of today, before these changes, that have to go to school at that hour

and get picked up? Does he even know?

He has

no idea that this exists in communities across Newfoundland and Labrador today.

So why are those children that he's alleging he is concerned about why is it

that he is not concerned about the others? I never, ever heard that Member get

up here and complain about that before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Before I

recognize the Member for St. John's Centre, I ask the Member for Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune counting down the clock is interjecting in another Member's

speaking time. I've got a stopped clock here. If you have any questions about

the timing, you can get them from the Clerk.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and

minister keep saying their levy is temporary; cold comfort for those who have to

scrape together the money to pay for it.

I ask

the Premier: Why didn't he come up with a temporary, fair tax rather than his

temporary unfair levy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

implications on this budget has been, as we know, because of revenue that was

obviously trying to offset some of the significant damage that was done by the

prior administration when it comes to debt servicing and paying interest, of

course. So what we've seen here are a number of measures.

The levy

is, indeed, a temporary levy. It is in place, offset with a Newfoundland and

Labrador Income Supplement program of nearly $76.4 million. This will help

seniors, it will help low-income families and it will help individuals with

disabilities.

Mr.

Speaker, like most people in this province I, for one, want to see this levy

gone as quickly as possible; that's the commitment that we've made to residents

of Newfoundland and Labrador and that's the one that we will keep.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, saying the levy

is temporary does not make it any less unfair than it really is. In the Liberal

platform government promised to simplify the tax system with a complete,

comprehensive independent review. This review must also look at fairness.

I ask

the Premier: When will government start this independent, fair tax review?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The tax

review that we have committed to will be undertaken as part of the 2017 budget.

We will be looking at the taxes as a whole, including everything that people of

the province are expected to pay right now, with the objective of making sure

that we remain competitive.

It is

worth repeating, that the taxes we have in this budget this year still are quite

competitive within Atlantic Canada. Certainly that tax review is something that

we are very committed to and I look forward to the work that we're going to do

on that in the next fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I have taken up

the minister's offer for a technical briefing on the budget and how it affects

all income levels.

I ask

the minister: Will her briefing include the effects of all the extra taxes, such

as gas, home and auto insurance, taxes on books, increased personal income tax,

increased HST, the increased fees and new fees, the cancellation of the Home

Heating Rebate, the Adult Dental Program, the provincial portion of the HST

rebate, the over-the-counter drug program cancellation and other (inaudible)?

Will she help us with the real facts, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, people are

afraid and need answers, the real facts.

I'm

having a town hall this evening. I know it is short notice, but I ask the

minister if she or someone from her office could attend and work with the people

to help them figure out with all these extra fees and taxes, can they help

them figure out how the budget will affect them?

That

would be a good thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I know it's short notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I would

certainly be willing to support the Member as she is dealing with constituents,

but I certainly have my own constituents that I'm supporting as well and have to

spend some time continuing to talk to them.

I would

mention to the Member opposite that, as I said earlier, we have over 400,000

different tax filers and, quite frankly, to be able to provide the specific

details on every individual is going to be very difficult for her as well.

The

challenge that we have and I want to remind the Member opposite that the

situation with this budget requires us to take action. It required us to make

some very difficult choices that nobody wanted to make. I'd ask the Member

opposite maybe she could tell us exactly what she would have liked cut.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

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

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

WHEREAS

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

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

countries; and

WHEREAS

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

schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

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

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

eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation

principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador

provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Finance if somebody perhaps from her

office or herself could come to my town hall this evening, that is an honest and

sincere invitation. I fully realize how busy everybody is and how last minute it

is, but it is about dispelling the fears. My whole town hall is about trying to

figure out what this budget means for people. It's not about telling gruesome

stories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

It's about getting people

together in tables. It's about getting people together to talk about what's the

reality of this budget? What are the real rollout effects and what can we do?

What would people like to do? So it's not an ambush. It's not an insincere

invitation. It actually is one I will give her officials. People are sitting at

tables talking about specific issues. They can have a separate table where

people will go up to them one by one for concrete information.

That is

what I'm offering, Mr. Speaker. I'm offering that on behalf of the good people

of St. John's Centre and whoever might come to the town hall, because people are

asking for information and people are afraid. If, as the minister says, people

need not be afraid, then let's get that information into their hands.

I am

willing to help provide an opportunity for the minister, or any officials from

her department, to be able to do that. It's a sincere and an open invitation.

It's not grandstanding. It's not anything but that. I would like to be able to

because I've been offering people, we'll do the best we can to give you the

information. We don't have all the information. We don't know all the rollout of

this particular budget. So if there's any way the department could help us, I

guarantee you

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

I will ensure that it will

be taken with great respect.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll do

a petition again. I've lost count of how many times I've done this petition, but

I'll continue to do it.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

policing is vital to the protection and service of our province's communities;

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

of Assembly to urge government to increase the presence of law enforcement in

the Conception Bay South area.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I've

presented this petition numerous times because I have a lot of them, Mr.

Speaker.

The

other day it was brought to my attention I was going to take a little break

from them because I have presented quite often. The hon. the Minister of

Justice, I think I'm not sure, I may be wrong. I thought part of what he said

was the petitions that's been presented, there's no change in the policing in

CBS last year to this year.

He is

100 per cent right. I wasn't the MHA last year, but I am this year. Last year,

the MHA was one of his colleagues who also lobbied for increased police

presence. Both sides of the House are in agreement with it. The former MHA was a

Liberal MHA advocating for the same thing I am. I am the MHA on record today,

not last year, and I will continue to lobby.

It is

27,000 people. I hear this every single day. The amount of crime in CBS we

don't have a police office up there. We have two cars that float around. We're

being treated like a little municipality where you get a satellite fellow fly

through every now and then. We're the largest municipality in the province,

outside of St. John's, arguably, and all we have are two cars.

I'll

keep presenting these petitions because people actually want more of them. I

just want to continue on down the road representing the people because they want

more police presence and I'll continue on.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave

to respond to the petition if the Members (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) Question Period.

MR. A. PARSONS:

You don't want answers. I was going to give you answers but, sorry, no leave. Okay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has

all the time to get up, but there's only a couple minutes left now for me to do

a petition that's important to our people.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis on a petition.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament

assembled, the petition of

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I can't hear.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Can you ask the minister to

be quiet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Deficit Reduction Levy, as introduced in Budget 2016, unfairly targets the

middle class; and

WHEREAS

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

share instead of increasing taxes to higher income;

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

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

temporary levy as a reduction in the levy.

Mr.

Speaker, everywhere you go people are talking about this budget. No matter where

you go to anywhere. I know that the people in the province were hoping for

better. I know they were hoping for better. What they were promised and we see

it on the ads every day, that people matter. You can't lead unless you listen.

Well,

listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know some ministers think

it is nonsense, another minister says it is what it is, but the people of

Newfoundland are talking. Every one of the people over there in those districts

knows what I'm talking about because they hear it every day too.

While

the ministers get up and say we're getting emails that are positive, read them

out here in the House of Assembly. I have them here, look. I have them right

here that's showing what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador think of your

levy. I can read them out all day long. They're from your districts.

Please,

I'm asking you on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to listen

to the people that put you in this House of Assembly. You're just not listening.

That's why you were voted here. Your bosses are the people in the districts.

Ministers, you have districts also, so listen to the people in your districts.

This is what they're telling you. They don't like the levy. They don't like the

burden you're putting on them. It's too much too fast. You're not listening to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that elected you. Please listen to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and make changes to this ridiculous budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

We have

time for a very quick petition.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

To the hon. House of Assembly

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 introduces over 50 new fees and over 300 other fee increases; and

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 asks the people of this province to pay more for decreasing

government services; and

WHEREAS

the fee increases negatively impact the financial well-being of seniors, youth,

families, students and individuals;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately reverse the fee increases as

introduced through Budget 2016.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned, over 300 fee increases are going to have a dramatic

impact on people's lives here. We've talked about not just the levies, we've

talked about not just the other tax increases, but the fee increases around

post-secondary education, about Adult Basic Education, about fees and services

for insurance and for other relevant things that drive our economy here. We do

implore the government here to review these fees and cut these as quickly as

possible.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

It being Private Members'

Day, I call on the Member for Mount Pearl North to present his private Member's

resolution.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

begin by reading the motion into the record here in the House:

BE IT

RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the introduction of legislation for the

recall of elected Members of the House of Assembly, similar in principle to the

legislation in effect in British Columbia, where a registered voter can petition

to remove from office the member of the assembly for that voter's district

provided the voter collects signatures from more than an established percentage

of voters eligible to sign the petition in that electoral district.

Today,

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should set up an all-party committee of this

Legislature to study the implications of recall legislation and to determine the

details thereof. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do believe this is

a topic that deserves to be considered. It deserves to be explored. My desired

outcome today is to have support from all three parties to work together in a

committee to develop recall legislation that's perhaps similar in principle to

the Province of British Columbia.

Today's

debate won't be about the details of how the legislation would work; time

limits, percentage of signatures and those kinds of things. Rather, it needs to

be more like we all agree that times are changing, that voters want more

accountability from their elected Members. They want to have more involvement

than simply voting once every four years.

This

resolution recognizes this and is suggesting a path forward so that the details

of recall legislation can be explored and considered for this House. The details

are important and I believe we can all agree that the details can't be worked

out in a single afternoon here in the House of Assembly. That's why I think it's

important for a committee of the House to explore the option of recall

legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is about giving more power to voters. This is

about increasing accountability for MHAs.

Some

people may be wondering what is recall legislation. There's actually a really

good

article in the Canadian Parliamentary

Review . It was in 1994 by Peter McCormick. It gives a good overview of the

arguments for recall legislation.

I should

say it's not a new idea. It was on the books in Alberta in 1936 and in Oregon in

the States in 1908. Secondly, it's not a rare idea. Most US states have had

recall at some point of their democracy. In Canada, Alberta has had it in the

past, and British Columbia has an enacted it and has recall legislation today.

Third, it does not destabilize a democracy. Many would argue that it strengthens

a democracy.

There

are two general models of recall; one is a three-stage process. The first step

is a petition has to be signed by a certain percentage of the electorate. The

second step is that there's a vote in the district on whether to recall the

member. The third step is that if the vote is yes, then the seat is vacant and a

by-election is triggered.

The

other method is the one that BC has which is only a two-stage process. The

first, a petition must be signed by a specific percentage of the electorate; and

the second, if the threshold is reached, then the seat is vacant and a

by-election is triggered without an intervening vote on whether to recall the

member. The petition itself triggers the by-election.

Now, in

the three-stage process the petition threshold is usually lower because it won't

trigger a by-election, but it will trigger a recall vote. The percentage may be

as low as 15 per cent of eligible voters in the district, but in the two-stage

process that petition threshold is higher. It may be two-thirds of eligible

voters or 40 per cent or 50 per cent; now BC uses 40 per cent.

There is

usually a timeline to collect signatures. In the US, it's 60 days; that's the

limit in BC as well. Mr. McCormick, in his paper, goes on to reject to some of

the criticisms of recall. First, he doesn't believe that a failed candidate or

party will use recall to get a second shot at the election. Second, he doesn't

believe that voters would be discarding their members every other week. In fact,

in BC, there can only be one recall petition in a district between general

elections.

Third,

he doesn't believe that premiers and Cabinet ministers would be particularly

vulnerable because they have to take unpopular decisions. He said these members

carry extra weight in the political process and that sort of balances the

scales.

Then he

gives arguments in favour of recall. He says elected members of all parties

would have to take their voters more seriously between elections, not just in

the lead up to a general election. Second, it actually empowers backbenchers and

makes them feistier. Since their caucus leader knows that they could be recalled

for not standing up for their constituents, the leader cannot treat backbenchers

and their constituents as pawns to be manipulated at will.

Mr.

McCormick says: I see recall as a device not to limit private members, not to

reduce their role, but to increase it. I think a lot of private members would

welcome the chance to have a second master to play off against the caucus master

they now clearly have and that they would benefit from that opportunity.

In the

longer run, I think the only real road to a more effective Parliament is a

feistier set of backbenchers, and I value the recall for the chance that it

might contribute to exactly that outcome.

Now, BC

has certain restrictions to keep the process from being abused. The person

petitioning for recall must be an eligible voter in the district. A person can

petition for the removal only of the person's own member. The applicant must

provide a street address, pay a processing fee and provide a reason in writing

for the recall initiative.

Everyone

who signs the petition must also provide a street address and a signature must

be witnessed. Only a registered voter in the district can canvass for

signatures. A recall initiative cannot be commenced until 18 months after a

general election and there are other restrictions as well, Mr. Speaker. There

are financing provisions. There are consequences for those who fail to comply.

There are provisions on advertising; sponsors must be registered and so on.

There are all sorts of provisions to ensure the process is not abused, and

naturally there are penalties for defined offences such as boat buying,

intimidation, wrongful canvassing or wrongful advertising and so on.

Today's

private Member's resolution is not the legislation itself. It's simply a motion

to support the development and introduction of such legislation. So perhaps our

current government would consider striking a committee to examine the

legislation that's out there, to look at alternatives, to tailor the legislation

to our own province's needs and circumstances. It could then be brought back to

this House for a debate on the actual bill, and it could even be further amended

at that point. This is merely a discussion today on the principle of recall

legislation.

Now

not been a key plank at party platforms? Why didn't you do it when you were in

government? Well, the fact is that no political party in our province has

brought this forward before now.

Frankly,

I think the public appetite for recall is whetted only in certain circumstances.

Those circumstances arise when people are frustrated that their Member is not

representing their wishes but fighting against them instead of representing

them. All governments, Mr. Speaker, have had those moments. They usually happen

when a government has introduced an unpopular budget or unpopular legislation.

Mr.

Speaker, there are two general ideas about how a democratic jurisdiction like

ours should work. One says that you elect a representative to serve on your

behalf and you trust that Member to make the decisions that are in your best

interest and the best interest of society. That Member will have more

information than voters may have and can therefore, in theory, make a more

informed decision. That Member in theory shouldn't be held hostage to the will

of the mob, so to speak, or should be free to make difficult choices that may be

unpopular or leave a bad taste in your mouth but that are good for you.

A second

general idea is that people are more informed now than ever and they want a

greater role in telling their Member how to vote on their behalf. The second

idea has been gaining strength in Canada, especially with advances in the flow

of information through traditional media, newspapers, TV, radio, the Internet,

computers, smartphones and so on. The second idea is behind the push for more

free votes, more referendums on major initiatives, more citizen town halls and

public forums and the like.

All of

us realize that people want a stronger role in how they are governed. Some see

this as a bad thing, and that's unfortunate. Some believe that people will

usually behave like a mob and demand choices with short-term benefits that may

have terrible consequences down the road,

Ironically, perhaps the 2015 election in this province is a case in point.

Voters bought a red book that was based on fantasy from a party that denied them

the details throughout the campaign and then threw out its shiny but unrealistic

promises once elected.

Ironically, the Liberals, who sold people a fantasy in 2015 and placed a prudent

restrained budget that we delivered, are now telling people to accept what's

good for them instead of listening to what people have to say. So wouldn't a

government have to be more honest with voters, both during and between

elections, if the voters had more power to cause real consequences for that kind

of behaviour?

Is it

good enough for a government to be free of direct accountability to the people,

except every four or five years? I don't think so. Not in this day and age.

Mr.

Speaker, government Members in recent weeks have stood in this House one by one

to say how they disagree with some of the choices in this budget because they

will hurt their own constituents. Yet, they're going to vote for those choices

anyway and they have voted for those choices anyway. That also, Mr. Speaker, is

rather unfortunate.

So why

not create the circumstances that compel Members to be led by their

constituent's wishes instead of being led blindly by those on the front benches

whose choices may sometimes be flawed? What if the public is right that some of

these choices are really going to hurt people and better choices ought to be

made to make the budget stronger?

Maybe

the government ought to be more open to suggestions from the people and from

Opposition parties. Maybe introducing recall legislation is a way to make our

system more responsive to the public and more adaptable. Recall legislation will

shift the balance in favour of the people.

I say to

hon. Members in this House: Does that worry you as a Member? Does it give you an

unsettled feeling in the pit of your stomach when you think about it? Perhaps

that unsettled feeling is what it feels like to lose complacency.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

Perhaps you ought to embrace

that feeling as increasing sensitivity and attentiveness to the will of the

people who elected us.

None of

us ought to believe we are so smart that we are incapable of being shown better

choices by the people who elected us. Even those among us with stellar

credentials and certificates on the wall, and letters and titles before and

after our names, ought to be more humble and open to the possibility that wiser

choices are there to be made. How arrogant it would be to believe that a Member

is wiser than the voter who elected the Member.

Over the

years, we have taken all sorts of shifts in favour of giving the voters greater

control over the way things work in this House and in government. There were

referendums on constitutional change regarding education. There have been free

votes in this very House from time to time. We now have fixed-term election

legislation that restricts a government's power to call an election when it is

most politically advantageous to the governing party.

We have

whistleblower legislation that gives public employee protection when they

disclose perceived wrongdoing. We have the strongest ATIPP legislation in the

country to give people access to the information they need to understand about

what government is doing.

The Open

Government Initiative, which is now at risk, is all about getting people

actively engaged in the process of governing. We've taken many steps towards a

different style of democracy and I'm suggesting, Madam Speaker, that this can be

the next one.

Changing

the way the House works to give private Members greater roles in assessing

legislation and proposing bills is another step towards a different style of

democracy, and all parties in this House have called for that. It's a

decentralization of government power, a limitation on government authority, a

shift toward greater power in the hands of the people. It's the end of the world

as we know it and we feel fine.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Are you going to sing?

MR. KENT:

I'm not going to sing, I say

to the hon. Member, not today.

Recall

legislation is yet another step in that direction. Although it may seem to have

come out of nowhere in this session with this resolution, in reality it is the

natural progression of things and something we believe the public would welcome.

As we

listen to the debate this afternoon, I encourage people to think about what is

the fear, what is the downside? You'll hear various arguments. The

waste-of-money argument doesn't wash. Since 40 per cent of voters really don't

want their Member to continue being their Member but want a by-election, then

surely money is not a good enough argument for denying people their right to

vote.

The

open-to-abuse argument, which you'll hear this afternoon, doesn't wash either

because there will be checks and balances to ensure that only the rightful

voters in the district can be involved in the process. It's hardly an abuse for

voters to be active in holding their Member accountable.

You'll

also hear the destabilization-of-democracy argument. That doesn't wash either,

Madam Speaker. A government whose stability is grounded on Members who do not

have their constituent's support is not really stable at all.

The

Premier talks about confidence votes. Yes, it is true that the government must

have the confidence of a majority of Members in this House in order to govern.

That's fundamental in our system. But those Members should also have the

confidence of their voters. If they are afraid that they do not have their

voters' confidence, then what business do they have propping up a government's

agenda?

Surely a

government that has lost the confidence of the people should not continue to

govern. Surely, there should be a way for people to express their lack of

confidence in a way that makes a difference. If Members of this House are afraid

to give people that power, they ought to think about why they are afraid of

that.

Some may

make the argument that it's actually Opposition Members who will be vulnerable,

that voters would mobilize to throw out an Opposition Member in favour of a

Member on the government side. That, too, could happen, but Oppositions have a

role to fill. Sometimes when a government is extremely popular, an Opposition

Member's role may be very unpopular. We have to give the public credit for being

wiser than that.

Madam

Speaker, I have more to say. My time is running out. I look forward to the

debate and I look forward to speaking again later this afternoon.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The hon. the

Member for Stephenville Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First,

I'd like to thank the Member for Mount Pearl North for putting the motion

forward and acknowledge them in Opposition and the important role that they play

and bringing the unique ideas to the forefront for discussion.

I just

want to refer back to the motion for a moment for those who may have missed it.

I'm just going to cut a piece here. Essentially the idea is: where a registered

voter can petition to remove from office the Member of the Assembly for that

voter's district provided the voter collects enough signatures from an

established percentage of voter's eligible to sign the petition in that

electoral district.

So it is

a little vague and again understanding that it is essentially just a private

Member's motion, the idea presented by the Member for Mount Pearl North would be

to have some type of all-party committee to further review that motion to come

up with some ideas. But in the vague nature that it's in, it sounds very

grassroots; I'll give you that. It sounds very democratic in theory, but I do

believe it is very impractical.

I think

a recall is purely political in nature. I don't see any other way around it. It

actually lends itself to instability, dysfunction. It really deters unpopular

decisions, even if they're the right ones. Hence the timing of this motion, I

would gather, given our budget, which is unpopular and that's known to us and

that's certainly known to you and certainly known to the electorate. But just

given an unpopular decision doesn't mean that it is not necessarily the right

one.

If we

had to recall a government every time we took an action that citizens opposed

MR. K. PARSONS:

(Inaudible).

MR. FINN:

Well, we're not going to

recall the government fair enough for the Member for Cape St. Francis for

bringing that up, recall a member. Sure, and you could recall every member

perhaps if you wanted to, if you had the legislation to do it.

But

again, every time a specific interest group or lobby group had a bone to pick

with us, whether it's a union or any form of matter, the opportunities are

endless for every time we make a decision. I don't know how we'd be able to

long-term plan. How do you long-term plan if you can't make any decisions that

wouldn't be very popular? It is just in excess of democracy, adding bureaucracy

to what's already bureaucratic process as it is.

The

Member referenced BC and BC is the only province in Canada that currently has

this legislation. I believe in the United States there is close to 29 or 30

different states that support this legislation, and they do it in various forms.

Whether that's at the state level or the municipal level, you can recall mayors,

judges, lawyers. There are a number of things you can do in the US.

But in

Canada, in BC in particular, their legislation essentially only has a

200-word-or-less statement in which their opinion why a member should be voted

out or recalled. It's very subjective. Essentially any action that no one likes

by a member maybe a voter in my district doesn't like my family so they want

to recall me, I'm not sure. Maybe someone in my family does something that's not

very popular and then someone wants to recall me. Well, that's not an accurate

reflection of me and the representation that I provide my constituents.

Therefore, I don't believe it would be a justifiable reason why I should be

recalled. However, without any specific information there this is very

subjective in nature.

BC,

again to reference that example, former Premier Gordon Campbell was going to

increase the HST in the province of British Columbia. Then, in doing so, there

were threats and looming of a recall. So he essentially, in order to avoid the

recall, held a referendum on HST and the electorate obviously voted the HST

increase down. Now that government did not make that tough decision and they

will not benefit from any extra revenue as a result of that.

Some

other areas where, again, very vague, there was a mayor in Colorado this one

is very interesting. He was recalled in a small town in Colorado over a plan to

switch parking from diagonal parking places to parallel parking places. If you

can recall someone over something as simple as that, I don't know how you

essentially no matter what all-party committee you put together could find a

happy balance in between to determine what is particular for a recall.

A recall

also does not change the resources which we have as a government to work with.

In fact, it does nothing but tie up resources. We'd have to hire people to the

Elections NL office for how long, to review what? You submit an application,

you're stating here's my recall, now we have to go through and review how many

signatures. A number tossed about was 40 per cent, so 40 per cent of your

electorate would have to sign this petition. How much time would it take to

verify that and for what benefit, for what gain?

I think

we have people in Elections NL that could find a lot better use of their time

than going through different recall legislations every time someone has one

issue with a member of their district. Once initiated, this process will be

cumbersome no matter which way you look at it.

What

about a decision by the federal government? What if that wasn't popular? What if

the Liberals in Ottawa right now did something very unpopular that poorly

reflected my district or my colleague's district? Would that be justifiable

reason enough for someone to recall me as a Member of the House of Assembly?

How

about, for example, industry? Let's say the Abitibi mill closure is a great

example. The member of the day in the District of Stephenville Port au Port,

formerly St. Georges Stephenville East, was unable to help resolve the Abitibi

situation and that industry leaves town, leading to a number of job losses. So

because you weren't able to save an industry from surviving is that justifiable

enough for a recall, even though we have no influence over how industry reacts

and the ebbs and flows and commodity prices and everything else that comes along

with it?

This

type of legislation would essentially delay important decision making, I would

suggest not dissimilar to that of the important decision making the PCs didn't

make for the last 12 years. It kind of influences their idea of kicking the can

down the road again, really, and you can only hold on to your seat when one is

popular. I mean, even if you had to wait 18 months because that was another

number thrown about into your term before you could be recalled, well, I'd

wager to say that 18 months is not enough time to give anyone an opportunity to

run on a mandate. We've only been in power for five months right now, and we

have another three years and seven months to go.

In that

three years and seven months that is going to follow from now, we're looking

forward to delivering on our mandate. Recall legislation would essentially deter

that from even happening. Myself as a young politician I'm new, I'm young and

I admit I have a lot to learn. I'm learning lots every day, and I'm really keen

on learning. I'm also keen on delivering to the constituents of my district, and

I would not be able to do so if recall legislation was introduced and I, as a

Member, was recalled simply because we made some unpopular decisions in a budget

process.

Making

decisions with keeping people in mind and keeping the electorate and giving the

power back to the people and those are points the Member for Mount Pearl North

made. We make decisions every day, and we do it within consultation, unlike some

of the decisions that were made by the Members opposite when they were in power

and did make decisions without consulting with the public.

I'll

give you a prime example. In my district, the West Coast Training Centre was due

for closure in fact, the Liberal government in the early 2000s were looking at

closing the West Coast Training Centre, and in doing so what they did is the

Liberal government came out and they consulted with the town council and they

said help us come up with a plan to keep this institution open before we look at

closing it.

So the

town council of the day came up with a plan and they worked with the Liberal

government now, ultimately that government did not look at introducing that

plan and then a number of years later the PC government just two or three

years ago came out and said, well, we're going to close it on 48 hours' notice,

with no consultation at all.

What

then ensued was a lot of kickback from the public and a consultation process

occurred, at which time we came up with a plan and now have one of the best

facilities on the Island in the West Coast Training Centre that stands in my

town today.

consulting with the public is something we're doing often, and it's something we

continue to do. Stating that it would give the backbenchers a more feisty

position and greater opportunity to represent their constituents and speak out

on their concerns we speak out on their concerns every day. The Members

opposite know this and they've read the media to understand it as well. We

always challenge our Cabinet ministers on the decisions they make, and so we

should, and we continue to do that.

When we

look at checks and balances that we have in place to keep us intact I can

understand recall in situations if someone committed some crimes, or a felony,

but that's what our Member's Code of Conduct in the House of Assembly is for.

That's exactly what that's for.

Also,

when we look at long-term planning; I don't know what kind of lending

institution's appetite would be if they had no idea going forward in terms of

what government's going to be in power. What about industry, business,

investors? How can they look at making an investment maybe a business wants to

come in and say, look, I want to start a business here in this area. The

government in power is in full support of this but the Opposition ran completely

contrary to that, so I'm not going to go ahead with my investment in this area.

Also,

the subjectivity of such of these reasons as I listed from something as foolish

as parallel parking, which happened in Colorado, to something as foolish as

somebody doesn't like someone in my family for that matter. This type of

subjective language I'll give you an idea. In Tennessee, there was a mayor in

Tennessee and he had six recalls put up against him in a short period of time.

He ended up filing lawsuits which he won, because the subjectivity of such of

the language. You can on and on for hours in a day, what justifies a recall?

Again, I

think our folks in the Electoral Office would benefit from using their time more

wisely. I also believe that if we were to look at an all-party committee, we

could have all-party committees doing much better things than sitting around

talking about recall legislation.

The

Opposition in this would be essentially the beneficiary. If there even were

rules for spending, how do you control rules for spending in recall, I would ask

the Member for Mount Pearl North? I don't understand how you would introduce

spending, because they could have lobby efforts everywhere in every district and

have people funding campaigns to recall someone.

What

about voter apathy? People are tired of going to the polls. We just had a

federal election. We just had a provincial election. We're going to have

municipal elections coming up again. We constantly have elections. So, voter

apathy, I think, would be a huge consideration when you look at people who are

tired of going to the polls.

What

about the cost of a by-election? Even if the Member, as he had suggested, said

well, maybe if you looked at a recall and in some instances there's no

by-election. Well, if you have no by-election your constituents are left in the

lurch, for one; and for two, if you did have a by-election there's a significant

cost that would be incurred. People don't want to go to the polls over and over.

When we

look at the opportunities the former administration had, this was an opportunity

they had to introduce this legislation at that time. I think if they did, there

would have been a number of things questioned. There are some real better ways

to spend money instead of tying up resources and looking at legislation of this

nature.

I'm

willing to bet, as well, there's some irony in the fact that we're looking at

recalling Members who are elected, when the former administration actually

appointed individuals to elected positions for which they were not elected and

then further would not run in by-elections.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Who?

MR. FINN:

I believe there was an

appointment to a Cabinet position for someone who wasn't even elected, but now

the idea is we're going to recall individuals who have been elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. FINN:

In terms of recall, there are

a number of things we could recall.

I recall

the former administration decreasing taxes to our highest income earners and

decreasing the HST. It would be really nice to recall that right about now. We'd

have about $4 billion just in the tax decreases alone that we'd have in our

coffers.

How

would we recall Muskrat Falls? How would we look at recalling the Muskrat Falls

fiasco and the billion-and-a-half dollars you put behind the budget with no

oversight and no plan?

I don't

think there's any individual here that would like to put the time and energy

into looking at recall legislation. It has a time. It has a place.

BC went

ahead and did this. In 1996, I believe, they introduced the legislation.

Twenty-six different individuals have been recalled. All have failed miserably.

In one instance, someone ended up resigning. So there was never a point in time

where it has even proven effective in the Province of British Columbia.

If we

are to go down this road and follow the pattern of the US, what are we going to

do then? Are we next going to have municipal councils recalled as well? Are we

then going to follow suit there? We're going to tie up Municipalities

Newfoundland and Labrador and every municipality for a recall. Maybe a town

councillor makes a tough decision or makes a remark. Maybe there's a decrease in

a budget or an increase in another budget. I mean, the list goes on and on.

Unpopular decisions are made by governments every single day. It does not make

them popular by doing so, but sometimes you have to make decisions for the right

reasons when you're looking at future interests. Just because every time you

make an unpopular decision you have an opportunity to be recalled, I don't think

that's a very good consideration.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North also just said we ran on a platform this fall and

we sold the electorate a fantasy. I struggle with that statement because we ran

on a platform of which we had an understanding of the financial situation which,

actually, that was the fantasy, was the financial situation. It was a fantasy

world they lived in when they overspent at times of high oil revenues and at

times of surpluses. I have great difficulty to sit here and listen to that

rhetoric from the Member opposite.

The

shift of balance would only put this in the favour of the Opposition. It would

certainly only put this in the political interest for them. It would do nothing

to benefit the electorate. We'd have a high increase in voter apathy, and the

list goes on and on.

closing, I just want to say I applaud the Member opposite for the unique motion

here, but, unfortunately, this is something I don't think I can support at all

and I don't believe any Members on my side will be supporting today.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member his time has expired.

MR. FINN:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

Indeed,

it's a pleasure to get up here again today to represent the beautiful District

of Cape St. Francis. I applaud the Member for Stephenville for getting up and

giving his points here in the House of Assembly, a good job that you did, hon.

Member.

That's

what this is all about. That's what this legislation is about. If you want to

make changes in the House of Assembly, we all have to work together. There's

nothing wrote down on this particular amendment. We're looking at things we can

do better, how we can represent our constituents, how we can represent people in

the province better.

As I say

every time I get up, the people that elected us are our constituents. They're

the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand exactly what you're

saying, but if someone is against your family, they didn't vote for you in the

first place, all right?

It's not

all about you; it's about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's about

the constituents. It's about people that had promises made to them that were

broken. That's what it's about. This is legislation that can come in place that

will make this place better. If you look at the legislation that we're proposing

AN HON. MEMBER:

It's in the policy

(inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's in the policy book. You

spoke out against your government. Good for you. I really think that a Member

a good job that you spoke out.

Do you

know what your problem was? Madam Speaker, the problem was that he didn't hear

about the libraries closing until the libraries board told him, so he wasn't

engaged. I was in the backbench too; I know where you're coming from. We all

should be engaged. By having recall legislation, it means that the people on

this front row will have to engage you.

You

never knew about the libraries getting closed, never had a clue until they told

you because they didn't let you know. That's what this legislation is about.

It's about making sure that we're all engaged. They have to answer not only to

the constituents, but they should answer to the backbenchers. It's

accountability.

I was

there. Let me tell you something right now, your government is not the only one

that did that. I sat on that backbench over there for seven years and there were

a lot of times I wasn't engaged. I was as mad as you guys are now. I was mad

because there was as somebody said, I would have liked to have known the

decisions. I thought that as an elected representative I should know, but that's

politics. Cabinet has a secrecy and they do what they have to do, but that's

politics.

If there

was recall legislation you'd be telling them, saying: listen here, my job is on

the line, I need to know, my constituents need to know. That's what this is

about. This is not about me. It's not about the Member for Stephenville that

just got up and spoke that could have someone against his family. This is about

representing the people.

We made

promises we all go around election time and we make promises. We stand, we

knock on a door and we tell the person we're going to represent them. I'm sure

every one of the backbenchers over there, ye did the same thing as I did. I told

them I'm going to work hard. I didn't make a promise whether I was going to

build a school or build a and neither did you, I know you didn't. But the

ministers along the front row and the Premier, and our party, the Third Party,

we all had platforms and these platforms were what people elected ye on.

Now that

we got in here and all of a sudden things change and there are things that

change. If you look at the price of oil, yes, it went down; our deficit went up.

Things change, but we all made promises. I made promises to work hard, you made

promises to work hard, but you need to be engaged. This is what this legislation

is all about, giving the voters the opportunity to be able to say listen here,

that's not why I elected you. I know the minister

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I know, the Member for

Harbour Grace, I understand

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the Member to direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, I understand what the

Member for Harbour Grace is saying. I'd be upset too if my library was getting

closed, if a school I promised people was going to be built is not going to be

built, if the courthouse is not going to be done. You should have been engaged

beforehand, and this is what this legislation will do, it will force everyone to

know what's on the table.

It's

important. Listen, I don't know how this is going to work, I really don't know

how this is going to work, but I think if we had an all-party committee together

and sat down and said okay, what's the best thing for the voters of Newfoundland

and Labrador, I'm sure we could come up I don't know if the BC thing is the

right way to go; I really don't know. I tell you one thing; I've got emails and

lots of them from all over this province, from every district in this province.

Do you know what they're asking me? What can we do? I said send emails to the

minister, send emails to your you may think that's funny, Minister of

Education. It's not funny because these people are concerned. You may think it's

funny. It's sad that you think it's funny. It's nonsense, I know.

MR. KIRBY:

I'm reading my (inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

Oh my, I tell you, I get

upset, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry, Madam Speaker

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I do get upset when I see

that.

People

are worried about this. They're sending emails. You're talking to families

everybody over there is talking to families too, but this is a part of

legislation that will make us more accountable, and make us more accountable to

the people that elected us. The Member across the way talked about oh, it could

be a union against you, it could be somebody against you, but that's not the

point. Listen, we're lucky in an election today in Newfoundland that we get 50

per cent of the people out to vote.

Now, I'm

a very lucky person because my district had the highest turnout in the province:

71 per cent. People are engaged in my district, and I've very proud of that

because 71 per cent got out to vote in the district. I worked hard, and I know

people that ran against me worked hard to get their vote out too, and we did a

good job. People were engaged. I'd like to see more Newfoundland and Labrador

voters engaged in the whole process. I think this will probably even make them

more engaged because they'll feel part of it. They'll feel part of the process.

They'll feel part of saying listen if you don't do what you told us you're going

to do, then we have a recourse. It would make us more accountable.

Madam

Speaker, I'm not saying it's the liberals, okay. It could be the PCs; it could

be the NDP. I'm sure that if you look back at history, you'll all see this. When

an election comes, you have no worries the first couple of budgets that are

coming down are going to be the hard ones.

Do you

know what every one of the ministers over there, I am sure, are telling the new

people that are here? I am absolutely positive that they're doing it. They're

saying now listen, it's going to be tough for a couple of years but the last

couple of years before the election comes, you'll see a bit of change. We'll

build that school in Coley's Point; don't you worry about it. We'll make sure

that everything is done in the districts that need to be done.

That's

the way it works. This recall legislation will stop that; you'll have to be

accountable right from day one. You'll work harder. We'll work harder as MHAs.

If the

people in Cape St. Francis say they don't want Kevin Parsons, b'y, listen, if

you have 40 per cent, I'll step down. I will step down and say if you didn't

want me, that's okay; I understand. If someone else can better do the job, so be

it, and I'm sure all you Members are the same.

People

vote for people because you're good people. You're good people over there; I

have no doubt in my mind you're good people. The election called last October,

they didn't vote for you because you're a bad person or anything at all or

because (inaudible). I believe that honestly you won. The people in your

districts thought you were the best person to represent them, just like the

people in Cape St. Francis thought I was.

All this

legislation is doing is making us accountable. It's making us accountable to the

people that elected us. What's wrong with setting up an all-party committee to

decide whether we can have and they decide what the rules are.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Bill 29 (inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

Bill 29 yes, Bill 29 is a

bad thing, isn't it? Why are we going back? This is about going ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

You're losing

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Do you know what? The hon.

Member across the way, if there was a recall in her district she'd be worried. I

know she would because of what happened here and I feel sorry for her. I really

do. I wouldn't want to be in her position. I really would not want to be in her

position.

understand where the Member for Bonavista is coming from. I'd be concerned in

his district too. I don't want to see any personal attacks against anyone. I

don't want that. I don't like that. I don't think it should ever be because like

I just said a few minutes ago

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the Member to direct his comments to the Chair.

Thank

you.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I think you're good people

over there. I think the decisions that you're making are bad decisions, but I

think overall you're good people.

People

are more engaged today. I got two kids that I have to give them the Blackberry

or the computer. If I need to buy something, I usually ask the young fellow to

go get whatever it is because they're so engaged. Our young people are engaged

and you all have to admit it. I never saw it before that we see so many young

people engaged in politics. It's because of technology; it's because of what

they see on Facebook and Twitter and everything else. So people are engaged.

The

funny thing too, Madam Speaker, I look at some of my friends on Facebook and

they're elderly people. I never, ever thought that computers back 20 years ago

were like, wow, they were scary type things and when you look at the people who

are engaged today. People are more engaged.

The

House of Assembly 20 years ago wasn't televised. There are people watching this

all day long. Things have to change so why not change. This is all part of it.

We have to change.

Some

people were against it last year when we changed the number of Members in here

and there were a lot cried that it was a big change and all this stuff.

Actually, my district was one of the largest in the province and it got reduced

and I kind of like it, to tell you the truth. But it was good changes. There's

nothing wrong with changing policy.

Again, I

have to go back to the Member who just spoke before. You talk about

consultations. People got out and I applaud them I went to them; I went the

consultations that you had. But do you know what the problem was to the

consultations that you had? You didn't listen to the people that made them. The

1,000 people that stood up, you didn't listen to them. That's the problem, you

didn't listen, and that's why people are mad today.

Madam

Speaker, people are mad in this province and there's a reason why they're mad.

There were promises made and they are not kept. They went out and they said

okay, we're going to consult. The one I went to I never heard one person mention

a levy. We all spoke. I was at a table that had a really good the Minister of

Transportation is there now. Do you know what the biggest suggestion I never

thought about it either but I'm after getting a couple of emails, Minister, is

that the people said turn off the lights here in the nighttime. Why are you

paying the light bill? I'm sure you're all after hearing that. We're all after

hearing that. That is true. Those were the things people were talking about.

People

weren't talking about 15 per cent on their home insurance and their property

insurance. People didn't talk about a person who is making I came up last week

with a lady that was making $36,000. People never talked about taxing that

person so she'd have to come up with $3,000 or $4,000 more a year to live.

That's not what you talked about.

While

you can get up and say you're learning as you're going, so am I. I've been here

for eight years and I learn every day when I get in here. There's something new

that strikes me every day that I come to the House of Assembly, and I try to

react to it. I do it at the utmost respect to every individual that calls me or

emails me or whatever it is. I try my best.

I hope

that when I'm finished someday someone will say he was a good MHA. Just like I

said about the former MHA that was here, Jack Byrne, that represented our

district for 16 years. He was a good MHA. I hope that's what every one of ye

wants.

If the

people in your district, 50 per cent now only 50 per cent are going to get out

to vote. We'll just say 50 per cent; BC has 40 per cent. If 50 per cent of the

people in your district think that you should be fired, guess what? They're your

bosses; you should be fired.

Give the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador credit. They're not stupid. Everything they

say is not nonsense. Statements like that, what are you saying to the people of

Newfoundland? The more we can engage our people, the better off this place will

be. The better off Newfoundland and Labrador will be.

We need

to engage people. This is not something that a Member said, oh, it was only a

short little thing, 200 words. We can make up our own rules. We don't need to be

guided by anyone else. We can set up an all-party committee and by the way, an

all-party committee usually has a majority from the government side. That's the

way an all-party committee works most times, I do believe. So what's wrong with

that? Why wouldn't you vote for a committee that can make this place more

accountable to the people that elected us? I don't understand that. I don't

understand why you don't want the constituents of Stephenville to be able to

have a say.

It's not

a family that's against another family. That's not going to get it. That's not

part it's not a union against this. This is about 40 or 50 per cent of the

people that are in your district. I think the last election 52 per cent of the

people got out and voted. It's not like you're just going to pick 20 coming down

the road and say b'y we're going to get rid of you now. That's not the way it's

going to work.

Let's

sit on a committee together so we can make this place work better for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it will work better for the backbenchers.

I was a backbencher for seven years and I wanted more say in my government. I

did. We were the PC government at the time. I wanted more say, just like every

one of you over there wants now.

Don't

tell me you don't because when I hear a Member saying that he didn't know his

library was closing until they called him or another Member down in Gambo area

said he didn't know when his library was going to close you should have

known. You're an elected representative. They should have had the respect to

notify their Members this is what's happening in their district. That's all this

is about.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member his time is expired.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

welcome the opportunity to stand today to respond to the private Member's motion

put before us by the Official Opposition. I thank all the Members who so far

have spoken, and I thank the Member for Cape St. Francis, and I echo his

comments that I think we all hope here in this House to walk away from politics

someday and have the people who elected us look back and say he or she was a

good Member. He or she served us well and represented our interests. From

everything that I've heard from people who live in his district, I think the

people have well received the Member for Cape St. Francis, and I congratulate

him on being re-elected because it's a true testament to what he's offered his

district. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he had to say, Madam

Speaker.

I'm

certainly glad to hear Members opposite are interested in furthering

accountability and I'm glad to hear Members opposite are interested in seeing

the voices of our citizens are heard, and I am glad to hear the Members opposite

that they've had an epiphany and now hold every virtue and every answer they

didn't have for the last 12 years, Madam Speaker.

I'm not

one bit surprised that the Members opposite are bringing this forward, because

they've had experience with recall. Let's not kid ourselves, this province does

have a recall provision, and it's called a general election. The crowd opposite

were recalled by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for over a decade of

waste and gross mismanagement of the public purse.

Everywhere we went, Madam Speaker, during the election, all we could hear is:

Where did the money go? What happened to the money, the $25 billion? Out the

window, out the door, where did it go?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Humber Valley.

MR. BROWNE:

Humber Valley Paving's a

great example of that, Madam Speaker, but we'll get to that, don't worry.

Let me

also point out, Madam Speaker and I think this can help inform the debate here

today that we have fixed election dates in this province where MHAs are held

accountable every four years. This is a concept the Official Opposition might

not like, because they tried their very best to outmaneuver and circumvent and

sidestep the scheduled election dates last year as long as they could. They

would have tried to push it into this year, no doubt, but unfortunately they

couldn't find a Machiavellian way to do it. So here we had the election last

year and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador spoke and elected a new

government.

With

that said, do I believe accountability is important? Absolutely. Do I also

believe this province and our country deserves political stability? Absolutely.

How many people have we sat across the table from, how many business people and

potential investors have said to us: We want to invest in this province. They

value the political stability that a parliamentary democracy brings. That's why

they're choosing and considering to invest right here in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Recall,

Madam Speaker, is not a legal item. It's not a legal term. Removal of MHAs for

wrongdoings is already possible. Recall in this instance, what the Official

Opposition is presenting here today, is purely political and it's a matter of

gamesmanship. What would be the basis for recalling an MHA and who would decide

what that basis is? Would recall be allowed because they voted for an unpopular

bill, as an example?

I just

had a message, Madam Speaker, from a constituent: I didn't elect anyone to be

wasting time on this nonsense. That was the message I received today. When

people look to me and say we can form an all-party committee on this, I should

suggest that there are a lot more important and pressing matters facing the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly the people in my district

that we could form an all-party committee on, more so than the political

hand-wringing for the Opposition. That's what this is. It's a pure political

maneuver. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are tired of the theatrics

that the Members opposite are continuing to put forward.

We've

heard the Members opposite bring forward the example of British Columbia. We've

seen them today herald this example, so let's talk about BC, Madam Speaker. It

has not been particularly effective in the one jurisdiction in Canada that has

this system. British Columbia has had 20 recall efforts so far: 19 were

rejected, dismissed outright by the government because they could not verify the

signatures; and the other one was cancelled when the Member resigned over the

recall effort. Since bringing forward that legislation in 1996 in British

Columbia it is has not succeeded once. It has succeeded, on the other hand, in

tying up resources but has never succeeded in its ultimate goal.

BC is

the only Canadian jurisdiction to do this, which doesn't surprise me that the

Members opposite would be going down a path where nine out of 10 Canadian

provinces would not have gone. We all remember Bill 29, Madam Speaker, another

piece of legislation that was unique to one province which was Newfoundland and

Labrador. Then we had to spend a million dollars to conduct a review by Chief

Justice Wells to get out of the same legislation that the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador were crying out against and didn't want in the first place. So we

had to spend a million dollars to get out of that and I don't think anyone wants

to go back to that place.

Madam

Speaker, the Member opposite also talked about accountability and open

government. I think there were some comments made in the media. Well, just let

me remind the Member opposite that he and his colleagues rose in this House and

defended Bill 29 to the hilt, and then shoved it through against the public

will. It was the same Member now today who was responsible for open government

this time last year and had the opportunity to bring forward these

considerations and changes, but didn't do so.

Today,

we have a debate in the House of Assembly where we could be debating any number

of measures. I think next week Members will see a private Member's resolution

brought forward that is productive and goes towards the betterment of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, we have one that's pure politics and games,

Madam Speaker pure politics and games.

I would

argue when we talk about accountability, Madam Speaker, that the PC government

was held accountable for all the moves they made in the last 12 years and that

was in the last election. The point here ultimately is that I'm not afraid to

face the voters. I welcome the opportunity to do that in four years' time. I

think each and every one of us will stand on our records and ask the people for

their support if we so chose to seek re-election.

The

Members opposite talk about the budget and the tough choices that had to be

made. Since the budget, Madam Speaker, I've travelled to a number of communities

in my district including Southern Harbour, Arnold's Cove, Parker's Cove,

Marystown, Bellevue, Long Harbour, Chapel Arm, Norman's Cove, Long Cove and St.

Lawrence. I almost run out of breath here trying to tell people where I've been.

The

point of this, Madam Speaker, is that I'm not afraid to face the voters. The

weekend after the budget I was out on the wharf with fishermen in Southern

Harbour debating the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWNE:

I'm not afraid to go out

there and talk to the people, hear what they have to say, and bring those

concerns back to Members of my caucus and my colleagues here in the government.

That is the role we've been elected to do. To hear the Members opposite stand,

who sat silent for the last 12 years, it's fairly rich, Madam Speaker. It is

fairly rich.

Why

don't we just go over a few things that happened in the last number of years? I

want to start with Muskrat Falls, the largest project in our history, Madam

Speaker. It saddled us down with costs and debt. In fact, we had to send $1.3

billion over to Nalcor this year. It's ballooned. Every time and time again they

come back with an updated cost. There was very little oversight when it was put

forward.

They

said no to the PUB. They said no to independent panels. I recall distinctly at

the time, Madam Speaker, that the former premier of the day, Ms. Dunderdale,

said that they'd have a private Members' debate in the House of Assembly and

that would be all. There wouldn't be a vote. There wouldn't be anything other

than that. Should we have had recall legislation on that?

What

about the CETA deal, Madam Speaker? The same former premier marched off down to

The Rooms to make the big

announcement, and even had the now Leader of the NDP accompanying her that day.

A $400 million fund for the fishery. What was the problem? They didn't even

invite that feds. Actually, it wasn't that they didn't invite the feds; they

didn't even tell them it was going on. Maybe we should have recalled that

government of that day for misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

How

about ferries? You want to talk about ferries being built in Romania for Change

Islands, Fogo and Bell Island. Should we recall the ferry? It's down there tied

up in St. John's harbour, Madam Speaker. They didn't do their homework.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BROWNE:

The work was taken out of the

province. No opportunity to do it in the province.

I have a

shipyard in Marystown that could have aptly done the work. We have a skilled

workforce and a fine facility. The opportunity wasn't even presented to them.

You sent it over to Romania. You didn't even do your homework. We would have

been slapped with a bill for $25 million. It's ridiculous, Madam Speaker.

The fact

of the matter is had we not elected a federal Liberal government, this province

would be on the hook for another $25 million when the work could have been done

right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BROWNE:

I say to the Members

opposite, Madam Speaker, maybe their government should have been recalled on

that. Really, in essence, they were recalled because the people in my area

certainly rejected what they did and many areas of the province. They forced

them out of office and elected a new government.

How

about Humber Valley Paving? You were up in the Department of Transportation,

weren't you? Let's talk about Humber Valley Paving. The company had contracts in

Labrador. The owner of the company, a private businessman, was going to step

forward for the PC leadership. He was the chosen one by their former leader.

Within a span of hours, the contract was, poof, gone, Madame Speaker $19

million.

I'm sure

we'll get back to this at a later point, Madam Speaker. Should the government

and the Member's opposite of the day have been recalled on that? I would argue

they were recalled in the last general election.

AN HON. MEMBER:

The minister stepped down

over that one.

MR. BROWNE:

The minister stepped down.

There should have been more who stepped down, but we'll get back to that at a

later date.

Madam

Speaker, what about Judy Manning? You wanted me to get back to recall. Here's a

substantive question on recall: How would recall legislation, that the Members

opposite are proposing, apply to an unelected Cabinet minister that refused and

refused and refused to run in a by-election to seek a seat in the House of

Assembly? How would that have worked? How would an unelected minister which

they broke constitutional convention and set a record in the country as to what

to do. How would that fit in?

They

went and erased the Department of Justice for a couple of days and then put it

back. How would that fit into their plan, Madam Speaker? Once again we've got a

resolution put forward that is ill thought out and ill planned which is a

hallmark of the government that they led for 12 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BROWNE:

Madam Speaker, I want to

respond to some of the comments that were made by Members opposite before I