PDF Version

April 18, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 9

The

House met at 10 a.m.

Admit

strangers.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The Deputy Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, that this House

Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to also congratulate the

volunteers of my district which spans over St. John's and Mount Pearl. Both

communities are held together by those volunteers which contribute to the fabric

of community and helping out each other. Most of those volunteers are taking

time away from their families and contributing to the better good of the youth,

the seniors, the ones who are less fortune and I think everybody in this House

are very thankful for volunteers within their communities.

I'd like to bring your attention to an initiative which the

City of Mount Pearl has undertaken. It's part of the Smart Cities Challenge

which is a federal government program. I think this type of initiative is what

we should be encouraging all our communities throughout our province to

undertake.

I think our population has matured to a point

to realize that government is

not responsible for everything. They're responsible for creating environments;

they're not responsible for taking individual initiatives. Mount Pearl is a

prime example of this. They've recognized that their demographic is rapidly

changing. Their average age median rate is increasing every year.

Right

now, in Mount Pearl, the age median is about 46. They've outlined targets to

reduce their median age to 43½ by 2023, increase their population by

5 per cent to 24,104 and double the technology-based companies from eight to 16.

Mount Pearl itself is unfortunately – well, I can't say unfortunately, but it's

challenged with the fact that within Mount Pearl there is not a lot of physical

natural resources. Their resource within Mount Pearl is their people.

Part of

– it's open up to communities of all sizes including municipalities, regional

governments and indigenous communities. The challenge encourages communities to

adopt a smart cities approach to improve the lives of their residents through

innovation, data and connected technology.

I think

this type of initiative shown by Mount Pearl could go throughout our whole

province. We really could become not just what I'd like to say the silicon

valley of the east coast but the silicon political jurisdiction of North

America. It's something that we've invested in, we as a people, we as

governments from one administration to the next. We are educational facilities.

While, yes, we do have infrastructural challenges, they're second to none

throughout the whole continent.

For the

longest period of time we have not been the primary benefactors of those

educational institutions. Far too often our other jurisdictions, other economies

are making good on our investment in our education. We need to find more ways to

keep our educated people here, create industries around those, because people

with jobs create jobs. People with good stable livings create stable livings for

others.

personally, wish Mount Pearl the ultimate success on their initiative and will

be doing everything I personally can within this House to advocate in any way

possible to guarantee their success, but Mount Pearl, their existing council led

by Mayor Aker and, I guess, chief administrative officer Steve Kent, who most of

us all know very well, they are the ones who are going to be able to lead this

challenge. They got great councillors backing them up. Hopefully, we'll be able

to replicate their example of initiative throughout the province to provide a

stable future and opportunity for economic diversity throughout our rural towns

and centralized locations.

Mr.

Speaker, in 2015, I like to joke and say I was retired. I was working and I

didn't consider it work. I loved being a farmer, but it came to my attention –

and no disrespect to any individual within this House, especially the Member who

I ran against, but he was successful. I was concerned that, once again, the

electorate throughout the province was going to do a wholesale change of

government. Democracy just can't work that way when it's a wholesale change. We

need an Opposition. We need a strong government, and we also need a strong

Opposition. Collectively, all together, we have to work towards the same

direction but we're human; we all make mistakes.

Why I

decided to run in 2015, I was afraid that there was not going to be an execution

of democracy. Another thing I didn't really see at that time was I didn't see a

real, strong economic plan. I'm not an economist. I'm not a mathematician but

when the price of oil goes from $100 a barrel down to $30, I know there's

trouble on the horizon. That's something that we were all aware of.

People

say you can't base our economy on oil, but guess what? We're a province of

resources. We're a resource-based province at this point. We rely on commodity

prices for our revenues. If we have to rely on tax dollars that we basically

take out of one pocket and try to put it back in the other, each time we do that

there's less money coming in front of us because someone else is dragging it out

of the province. We need to concentrate on making the maximum use of our

resources.

A lot of

the strategies which the current government has put forward in

The Way Forward documents, they were

done in good intent and with consultation with industry representatives and the

citizens of the province. I commend them for that, but what's happening is I

don't see – granted, it's a short period of time, but I don't see the

fulfillment coming out of that like it should be happening. We need to bring

some of those high-level theories to the ground and get our industries and the

economy going again.

I hear a

lot about Muskrat Falls, just like everybody else does. I'm concerned about it

too. The reality is when the decisions were being made, they were made on the

best possible information at that time. I don't mean to point anybody out but

I'm pretty sure Cathy Bennett, who I have a lot of respect for, she was the

chair of the –

AN HON. MEMBER:

No names.

MR. LESTER:

Oh, sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER:

The Member for Windsor Lake.

MR. LESTER:

I apologize for that. My

rookie mistake.

The

Member –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Windsor Lake.

MR. LESTER:

Okay. Thank you.

The

Member for Windsor Lake, who I have an extreme amount of respect for, made the

best decision at that time when she supported it, as did Minister Osborne, as

did Minister Hawkins.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Did it again.

MR. LESTER:

Oh my gosh, I did it again.

AN HON. MEMBER:

The Minister of

Transportation and the Minister of Finance.

MR. LESTER:

The Minister of Finance and

the Minister of Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Put him in the corner with a

book on his head.

MR. LESTER:

I guess I'm going to be put

in the corner. I apologize.

We had

concerns about it but when we looked at our energy deficit, we had to do

something about it. There's a big concern about methylmercury in that lake, but

I can guarantee you that climate change is going to have a lot greater effect on

everybody else.

When you

look in Holyrood, that is still one of the top 15 producers of carbon into our

atmosphere, one of the top 15 biggest polluters in North America. That's going

to have a much larger effect. I'm not trying to diminish any risks of

methylmercury because it is a concern, but I'm also a big proponent of right now

we have to make the best decision with the least effect.

This

leads me into my next topic which is agriculture. We often hear that by 2050

we're going to have to produce twice as much food as we do today. I've said this

before, as a provincial jurisdiction at the end of the food supply chain, it

won't matter how much money we have in our pockets, we're going to be the ones

to go hungry.

Most of

our population increase is going to happen in the Third World countries. Over

the past five or six decades, our food production has moved out of our own

backyards into the Third World countries. I'm really troubled with the fact that

I'm sure the people of China are not going to allow food to come here to North

America while their own children are starving. We'll be the ones to be hungry.

Industries such as agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, they're not as readily

accessible or developable – if that's a word – as mining, for example. The

mineral resources are there in the ground. But in order to harvest a living

resource, be it through agriculture or forestry or aquaculture, it takes

decades, absolute decades and millions and millions of dollars of investment in

order to make that industry profitable.

That's a

concern of mine because I see there is a bit of a shift within the Department of

Natural Resources from planning and business development to streamline programs,

to streamline departments, to reduce costs. But I really think that is not the

situation we should be looking at. We shouldn't be looking at cutting planning.

We shouldn't be looking at cutting resource management. Those decisions that we

make to cut those management positions today are going to affect the

availability and profitability of those resources 10, 15, 20 years down the

road. We need to keep up to date. Even if it is a bit of a knock on the chin

right now, we need to continue to manage our natural renewable resources,

because they're the ones that are going to provide the paycheques down the road.

addition to the opportunity that's there in the agriculture industry, there are

several different directions it can go when it comes to spinoffs. Agriculture

basically creates jobs, not only in the activity of producing food or

agricultural products, it creates service industries. There's no reason why we

can't build our industry to a critical mass where we can get infrastructure

placement, such as fertilizer plants, larger dealerships of equipment, larger

dealerships of input such as chemicals, packaging. All those things can be

produced right here in our own province.

It's

estimated that for every one job that agriculture creates, there are two more

jobs needed to back that production up. So it's a great driver of the economy,

and I would suspect, while my knowledge is fairly limited, that the same ratios

could go for aquaculture and forestry as well.

We often

hear about this 64,000 acres of land that's highlighted as areas of agriculture

interest. That has always been there. We've always had an opportunity to produce

more of our own food. The factor that's kept us from doing that has been the

economics of doing so. Because we're such a small portion of the retail grocery

trade throughout Canada, we account for less than 4 per cent of the food

consumed in Canada. Back to my first point about being food short, we'd only

need a very small reduction in food and we're going to be hungry.

Because

of the nationalization –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Can I have some order,

please!

It's

getting difficult to hear the speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. LESTER:

And I'm pretty loud.

MR. SPEAKER:

You are.

MR. LESTER:

Back to my point about 4 per

cent of the market. Because of that and our nationalization of our food supply

chain with the big corporations, the opportunity to get into these food supply

chains is becoming increasingly challenging. While it may not be popular with

other provinces, as a provincial Legislature we need to put parameters and

legislation in place that local first. We need to make sure that food that's

produced here is able to be filling a market that's devoid of local product and

in short supply.

In our

recent budget, I had one little concern – a very small number that creates a

very big concern, and that's the amount of limestone that is budgeted. It's been

more or less stable for the past 10 years, the amount of limestone consumed.

There was a bit of a jump in it a couple of years ago when there was additional

agricultural land being developed.

Agricultural land development is great but productivity is more important.

Limestone is the key element to agricultural productivity. For every basis point

that you're below optimum levels, you're looking at an 8 to 12 per cent decrease

in production. I would challenge the department to do another survey of pH on

existing agricultural soils. I'm sure they would find that through the addition

of limestone, an increased budget of limestone, we would be able to increase our

production significantly without the development of additional agricultural

land.

We have

to start making better on what we already have. If we look to increase and

double our production of horticultural goods in less than four years, we have to

look at the land we already have. Land I will clear this fall or this summer,

I'm not going to get maximum production out of that for at least four to six

years. That's beyond our target of production. We need to look at the land that

we already have, make the best of it and use it for where we can get the most

food produced. That is, of course, in horticultural production.

I can

bring in on my – again, speaking to my experience as a farmer. I can bring in

one tractor-trailer load of supplies and I can produce 10 tractor-trailer loads

of food. That's what I call tractor-trailer economics that we need to look at.

The same

thing with Labrador, you can bring in one tractor-trailer load of food. There's

lots of land in Labrador, lots of opportunity, far better soil than I have in my

jurisdiction and you could produce much more food for the people of Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LESTER:

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER:

We got a lot to think about.

MR. LESTER:

A lot to think about.

Well,

see the time for thinking is now passed, we need action. We need to start using

that land. We need to put the economic factors in place that enable people to

consider agriculture as a viable livelihood and a viable means of supporting

their families.

I love

being a farmer and I'm slowly liking to be a politician. It's just a different

kind of material that you're having to deal with, but –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) rewards.

MR. LESTER:

Yes (inaudible) rewards.

I think

this is something – the agriculture industry in particular is going to be an

industry that's going to be passed from administration to administration and

it's something that's going to be passed from generation to generation.

A field

that I farm, that's been producing food for the people of the St. John's region

for over 200 years. Then I'm farming other fields that, for the first time, will

become a resource that's going to produce for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

closing, I would like to restate my commitment to advocate for the people of my

district. As I said, we have an aging demographic and there are going to be

challenges as we can all experience throughout our province but we can't lose

sight of the future in taking care of the problems that are happening today. We

still have to put the resources and forthright thinking into planning for down

the road.

Yes, we

need to take care of the problems at our door but once we close the door on

those there'll be more that will show up if we're not thinking ahead. Yes, it's

great to think but, again, we need to go with action. That's what I'd like to

see a little bit more of on the ground. I'd like to see more proactive work and

not see our research and planning divisions of our resources in any way

compromised and continue to invest in that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak on the budget of 2018

and the people of the great District of Exploits.

Before I

go to some of my points, which will be more generic this morning – I'll be a

little bit more focused on the district when I get to speak again hopefully

later. Before I go there, Volunteer Week, all of the speakers thus far have

raised and acknowledged with accolades, all of our volunteers throughout the

province.

Exploits; certainly we're not shortchanged when it comes to people,

organizations and different groups. I'm not going to go down the road of

individualizing them because whether they're individuals or service groups or

firefighters – and the list goes on and on and on – each and every volunteer in

the District of Exploits, I'm sure, knows who they are.

It's

like I've often said when I was mayor bringing greetings – and I've heard it

said here – the volunteers in my district and throughout the province, what they

do and what they've done for decades for our people is pick up, I'll call it,

the slack or the shortcomings, in a lot of cases, of government services, what

we probably should be expected to bring forward. Our people have always been

good. Regardless of the party in power, our volunteers have always had the backs

of successive governments. They need to be congratulated for coming onside and

doing what, in my opinion and in most cases, is really government

responsibilities. Without our volunteer sector, I think we'd find ourselves

lost.

Mr.

Speaker, in December 2015 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were facing an

unprecedented $2.7 billion deficit. We inherited a fiscal policy guided by no

realistic plan to return the province to surplus, long-term plans based on the

belief that oil would always be at $100 per barrel and a promise of only $3

billion equity investment in Nalcor Energy that was expected to generate $12

billion in revenue. We were also told the investments in Muskrat Falls would be

returned in just eight years.

Mr.

Speaker, we have reduced our deficit from a projected $2.7 billion to a little

more than $800 million today. We are on target to return to surplus despite the

volatility of oil prices. We are moving forward with a strong commitment to

creating conditions for businesses and employment growth.

We also

cannot take such severe actions as massive job reductions and cuts to services

as they would have far-reaching consequences on our already challenged economy

due to the winding down of major industrial projects. As our economy stabilizes,

coming off these projects, employment remains one of our key challenges and we

are addressing this head-on. Our approach is focused on creating opportunities

for job growth across sectors and retaining our youth by supporting them to

pursue career opportunities right here at home.

Building for Our Future

addresses our province's economic, social and fiscal challenges. It is a way

forward that is methodical, fair and responsible. This is the approach that our

government will be taking. This is the approach that our government will

continue to take.

We are

driven by the goals of managing our fiscal situation, delivering valuable

programs and services, getting better outcomes for our investments, creating an

environment which supports economic development and job creation and creating

opportunities for residents to excel in their careers.

important part of our approach has been our relationship with the federal

government and the ability to leverage available funds for a maximum benefit.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That's right; we don't tear

down flags (inaudible).

MR. DEAN:

That's right.

For

municipalities, we have partnered on initiatives that have improved clean

drinking water, waste water systems, along with road and community

infrastructure. We have also advanced projects that support the growth of

tourism, ocean technology, aerospace, defence, film, television and

manufacturing, along with many other industries. We will continue to identify

opportunities where we can join our federal partners in realizing the full

benefit of our considerable investments and help create opportunities for

economic successes.

Mr.

Speaker, within departments and government organizations, we are carefully

examining how programs and services are delivered in order to secure the best

possible outcomes. This reflects the principles of our way forward to advancing

a smarter, more accountable approach to managing government's operations.

Our

approach to health care is addressing increased demand for long-term care and

creating economic benefits. Through The

Way Forward , we are continuing to action initiatives that help to improve

government efficiency. Over the next year, we will implement initiatives to

build on the progress achieved to date. Examples of these would include

consolidating government's vehicle fleet under one department, which will result

in the reduction of the number of vehicles by 10 per cent, saving taxpayers

hundreds of thousands of dollars over the long term.

Consolidating collection activities to reduce redundancy and standardized

collection processes – this will provide a single approach to managing

receivables owed across multiple departments; creating an asset management

framework to guide how we assess and dispose of assets in a way that enhances

service delivery and ensures the maximum financial return; adopting a strategic

sourcing model that leverages the consolidated purchasing power of the

government to secure better prices for goods.

We will

take steps to make it easier for citizens and businesses to access services

online which will improve the overall experience of interacting with government

and, ultimately, result in greater efficiencies and savings. We are working

towards a single government ID that citizens and businesses will use for all

services accessed through a single portal.

Mr.

Speaker, our approach focuses on reducing spending within government while

advancing programs and services to citizens. A truly balanced approach involves

many different areas of improvement. In the past two years, we have eliminated

795 positions within departments while maintaining service delivery and

protecting a vulnerable economy.

recognize there is an opportunity to expand attrition across the entire public

service, as there are more than 5,000 public service employees who are eligible

to retire. By carefully conducting workforce planning, we will be able to reduce

the size of the public service and spending in a more gradual way, without risk

of disrupting service delivery and the economy. Longer term, we continue to look

for savings within all areas of the public service, including reducing

discretionary spending and working with management and unions to address such

issues as overtime and sick leave.

Mr.

Speaker, health care spending represents the largest portion of our provincial

budget. Annually, the cost to deliver health care programs and services in

Newfoundland and Labrador are the highest in Canada and has increased by 130 per

cent since 2001.

It's no

small undertaking but we are carefully changing how our health care system

operates. We are shifting focus from treatment to preventative care, providing

care in the home and community where possible and appropriate and strengthening

primary health care options. We are also using $72 million, secured from the

federal government, to improve home and community care and mental health and

addictions services.

More

specifically, we will develop a Home First Integrated Network with wraparound

services for clients and an extension of available services in the community

beyond traditional work hours; initiate a province-wide palliative care approach

with greater training for clinicians, service providers and caregivers who

provide end-of-life care; and increase access to home care supports for people

with dementia. Our government has placed a spotlight on transforming how mental

health and addiction services are delivered, breaking down stigmas and removing

barriers to treatments.

Mr.

Speaker, we have made progress by using federal funding. We are better able to

support those experiencing mental health issues. We will develop a province-wide

mental health service delivery model for children, youth and emerging adults to

address existing systemic barriers and gaps; expand e-mental health services;

improve access to addiction services; and improve the community-based services

to replace hospital care.

This

year, we have allocated $6.1 million to advance a value-for-money assessment for

a new mental health facility to replace the Waterford Hospital. The new facility

will be a focal point of our community-centric approach to mental health and

addictions.

Budget 2018 we are allocating more

than $115 million for operational funding for community groups, as well as

support for projects and programs that they deliver to our residents. A

multi-year approach for community grant funding will announced in the coming

week.

Mr.

Speaker, our government recognizes that we have responsibilities to support all

of our citizens regardless of age, gender, ability or geography. It is our

responsibility that we take very seriously. Today, we are continuing to provide

these valuable programs with the total investment of $121 million. In 2017,

47,000 seniors and their families received the Seniors' Benefit and 155,000

families received the Income Supplement.

Mr.

Speaker, we believe that safe, stable and affordable housing is fundamental to

the social and economic well-being of individuals and families in our

communities. Our government is working closely with our community partners to

help improve access to affordable housing and to make it easier for first-time

homebuyers to enter the marketplace.

This

year we are increasing the Rent Supplement Program by an additional $2 million

to increase the number of rent supplemented units and to support the portable

rent supplement pilot program. We will also invest $10.2 million for

maintenance, repair and upkeep of public housing properties to ensure safe and

quality homes are available for our tenants. To modernize and renovate public

housing, $3.6 million has been allocated, which will help ensure we continue to

provide good, affordable housing.

Mr.

Speaker, our $8.6 million investment in the Supportive Living Program and the

Provincial Homelessness Fund will allow us to partner with the community sector

to prevent homelessness. An additional $2.7 million will be invested to leverage

federal funding under the Investment in Affordable Housing Agreement which

enables Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation to partner with affordable

housing developers in the private and non-profit supportive living sectors.

partnership with the federal government – we've got good partnerships with the

federal government – we anticipate building new housing units, as well as

upgrades to some of our existing social housing units to reflect the present day

family size and needs of seniors. The focus will be on providing additional

housing to those who need it and reducing wait-lists for social housing.

Mr.

Speaker, our government is making it easier for home buyers to purchase their

first home. We are doing this through two new programs, which are: The

First-time Homebuyer's Program, which will include financing for a down payment

and a $2,000 grant for eligible first time home buyers to purchase a new or

existing home.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing commission is also increasing the average

household income maximum for eligibility from $65,000 up to $75,000 for full

benefit and up to $85,000 for partial benefit. The program will be extended to

March 31, 2019, with available funding of $1.25 million, and will assist an

estimated 100 households secure home ownership.

Our new

Home Purchase Program will provide a $3,000 grant towards the purchase of a

newly constructed or never sold home under $400,000, including HST. These are

innovative programs that will stimulate new home construction, economic activity

and job creation.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) some builders are

mentioned.

MR. DEAN:

That's right, maximum.

Mr.

Speaker, through the Independent Appointments Commission, government will

appoint a committee of experts to undertake a system-wide review that will

explore how our post-secondary education system compares to other jurisdictions,

and to recommend options to achieve better outcomes in post-secondary education

in a more cost-efficient manner. Memorial University and the College of the

North Atlantic will play key roles in this undertaking.

Mr.

Speaker, the provincial and federal governments are finalizing agreements that

will provide additional funding to support employment and training programs.

Through these agreements, our government will strive to increase participation

in the local labour market for under-represented groups, including women, and

assist them to achieve gainful employment.

Under

the three-year $100 million municipal infrastructure program, we are investing

approximately $10.6 million in 2018-19 through the provincial Municipal Capital

Works Program. In addition to this, we are providing $18.8 million to leverage

an additional $12.7 million in federal funding under the Small Communities Fund

of the New Building Canada Fund.

Mr.

Speaker, our government is proud to continue the presumptive cancer coverage

benefit that career and volunteer firefighters now receive. This year, we are

expanding support for first responders by introducing a new Search and Rescue

Volunteer Tax Credit that will allow eligible search and rescue volunteers to

claim a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit starting on January 1, 2019, on their

provincial income tax.

Mr.

Speaker, in addition to our industry development, our commitment to advancing

infrastructure throughout the province will help stimulate economic activity and

job creation, while providing access to services in modern facilities.

Last

year, our government launched a five-year plan for new and existing schools,

health care facilities, post-secondary institutions, roads, bridges, justice

facilities, affordable housing and municipal infrastructure. This year, we will

continue to build on this momentum and action a plan that includes a total

investment of $619.7 million. The five-year infrastructure plan will generate an

average of $540 million in economic activity and 5,300 person years of

employment per year.

Mr.

Speaker, Budget 2018 includes

investments which ensure health care infrastructure can meet the demands of

residents, including the $6.1 million for the value-for-money analysis to

replace the Waterford Hospital, as well as $4 million to support the 20-bed

expansion of the protective care unit at the Dr. Hugh health care centre in

Botwood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

If I may – this probably

would be a good time – I would like to advise all hon. Members and staff here in

this House that the wife of former Health Minister Dr. Hugh Twomey passed away

about three days ago. I've been talking to her son, Sean, and conveyed to them

our deepest sympathies.

Sean is

totally aware of the extension to the Twomey centre in Botwood. I know he feels

strongly that his father would be nodding his head in approval; a great doctor,

a great minister, a great MHA and a great friend of mine. He died several years

ago. Unfortunately, his wife passed away recently. Condolences are extended to

all.

Mr.

Speaker, $3.75 million for the ongoing development of the new long-term care

homes in Gander as well as Grand Falls-Windsor.

In 2017,

we introduced a five-year plan to improve the province's roads network. It also

allows us to take better advantage of our short construction season through

early tendering, which leads to more competitive bidding. By the end of last

season, more than 500 lane kilometres had been paved and 360 culverts were

replaced. This fiscal year, our government will match last year's Roads Plan

budget of $77.2 million. Tenders for many projects have already been issued,

while the remaining tenders will be issued in the coming days.

Mr.

Speaker, our government continues to make substantial progress in improving the

transparency and accountability at Nalcor Energy. In collaboration with the

Crown corporation, we have created greater certainty on the cost estimates and

timelines for completion of the Muskrat Falls Project.

Under

the terms set by the previous administration, we are once again required to make

an equity investment in Nalcor. This year, that investment totals $723.9 million

and will support the completion of the Muskrat Falls Project, which is close to

90 per cent complete.

Budget 2018

allocates more than $20 million and an additional $13.7 million in 2019, and is

led by Justice LeBlanc. The inquiry will provide a greater understanding of what

led to the previous administration's sanctioning of the project and why budgets

increased from $6.2 billion to the $12.7 billion projected today, as well as why

the

schedule was consistently underestimated.

While we

cannot change the past, we can learn from our mistakes. Addressing electricity

rates has been, and will continue, to be our priority. Continuing to purchase

and import less expensive power via the Maritime Link and Labrador Link;

exporting surplus recall energy from Churchill Falls; bringing surplus power

across the Labrador-Island Link for use on the Island in 2018; finding ways to

use energy more efficiently, reduce peak demand, to free up capacity for export

and domestic customers; and expanding customer base within the province.

Mr.

Speaker, our vision for the province does not include the doubling of

electricity rates. We are focused on ensuring that electricity rates –

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

MR. DEAN:

– are competitive with other Atlantic provinces.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

pleased to stand this morning and to speak for the first time in the budget

debate. There's much to be said – not much in the budget, but much to be said.

This is

a budget that is continuing a pattern that was set by this government with its

2016 budget. So in order to really understand the impact of this budget, one has

to understand where this budget comes from.

In 2016,

we had an austerity budget –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

– put in by this government.

They knew it was that and they've made, in their words: they make no excuses for

it. They knew it was going to be hard, they said. They knew it was going to hurt

people, but they had to do it. We know they didn't have to do it; they chose to

do it. They chose to take that route of an austerity budget.

This

budget continues everything that was in that budget –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

– except for the few changes

that happened because of protests from the people and protests here in this

House from us as Opposition. For example, the 2016 budget had a levy in it.

Well, we still have the levy. We still have it. They made changes to it. Now it

starts with the individuals with incomes over $50,000. That's a whopping lot of

money and the levy is still there. So that levy hasn't gone. While this

Budget 2018 may not mention the word levy, the levy is still in

place.

Now,

when it came to something like the closing of the libraries, we certainly know

the impact that had and the reaction of the community, the reaction of people

outside of our province and our reaction caused that to change. So we did have

in this budget – and I did have yesterday in Estimates from the minister – a

commitment that libraries are staying open. But it's not because they wanted it.

It's because of the fightback from people in this province that caused that. Day

after day, we stood with petitions from people in this province demanding that

they make the change, so they made it.

When

we're dealing with 2018, we're dealing with what they're calling this is staying

the course. Well, the course they're staying is hurting people on a daily basis,

and that's what they don't say. The people who, since 2016, have lost hours of

home care, that goes on. The seniors, since 2016, who've lost dental care, that

goes on. The people who are paying levies, because they have whopping incomes of

$51,000, that goes on. All of this continues.

So it

may be a stay the course for them in terms of their so-called fiscal policy, but

it's not a stay of course for the people of the province because with every year

that they're being affected by what happened in 2016, their lives are getting

worse. The senior who hasn't had dental care for two years will now not have it

for three years. It gets worse for the people. So it's not a stay-the-course

budget for the people of the province. It's only a stay-the-course budget for

the government and the direction in which they are moving.

Now,

government likes to say that we stand up and we talk about what's wrong and they

act as if we are the only ones who do that, Mr. Speaker, who look at their

budget with an eye that says an austerity budget is not the way to go. Let's

face it, this budget in 2018 is still an austerity budget because it's based on

2016 and what happened in 2016.

In June

of 2016, when we, in this House, were talking about a private Member's motion, I

made reference to comments from the heads of the teachers' associations in

Canada who were actually meeting here in the province at the time. The reason I

brought them in is because this was a belief statement and call to action. It

was actually signed by the presidents of the Canadian teachers' organizations of

the whole country. They were here in St. John's.

They

were dealing with governments, not just here, but other Liberal governments and

other governments in this country who were starting to look to austerity

budgets. These heads of the teachers' associations of the country said that they

developed a belief statement and call to action because of overwhelming concerns

on the educational system on inclusive education because of austerity budgets.

So they were concerned about austerity budgets.

Let's

listen to what the presidents of the teachers' associations of Canada said and

their belief. I think these are people who are pretty well-educated people, who

certainly know the impact on children and families of government's budgets.

Let's listen to what they're saying: “WE BELIEVE… that austerity budgets

undermine the strength of our public education system as students and their

teachers lose out, and families are left out.” So this is in general; this is

just not from an education perspective. This is the effect of austerity budgets.

“WE

BELIEVE… that publicly funded public education must be fully funded to support

student learning.” So they're talking about learning, but they're still talking

about the impact of austerity budgets.

“WE

BELIEVE… that a successful inclusive education model requires sufficient

funding” – not austerity budget – “and teachers/educators to ensure student

needs are addressed.”

“WE

BELIEVE… that fiscal deficits must not be solved at the expense of the public

education system or on the backs of our children.” And I would say fiscal

deficits must not be solved at the expense of vulnerable people in this province

and on their backs.

This

comes from the presidents of the teachers' associations in Canada. So it may be

wise for this government to open its eyes and its ears and to listen and pay

attention to what people, not just the Opposition in this House, not just my

party, but economists, educated people, academics, the people on the street,

what they all say about austerity budgets.

So when

I look at Budget 2018 and I hear what

my constituents are saying to me, one of the things they picked up on – and I've

had a number of my constituents who've said this – is the fact that, once again,

there is no plan for a child care program. That we have no plan by this

government to look forward and to pay attention to what a child care program

would need.

The

minister yesterday, in responding to me, indicated that he really did care about

an integrated system from the time children entered regulated child care right

through to their graduation, and he and I are in agreement on that. The problem

is: What about the children who come into the regulated child care? How many of

our children are coming into regulated child care?

Basically what he was saying, and it's true, that as the Minister of Education,

that's what he is responsible for, for the time they come into regulated child

care right through. Our problem is we don't have enough children coming into

regulated child care. We have children who are coming into the system on an

unequal basis. We have children who have been in child care maybe since they

were three years old, maybe two, and these children have such an advantage over

children whose parents have not been able to afford to put them into regulated

child care.

My issue

with the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development is not the job

that he's doing for the children under his mandate and under his care, my

concern is what this government is doing with a fiscal policy that is keeping

children an unequal basis and it has a long-term effect. There are many studies

that would show that having an early childhood education, being in regulated

child care and having a foot up before going into full-day kindergarten, that is

something that makes sure that we have more children who are graduating out of

grade 12. It lowers out dropout rate. It also increases employability of

students coming out of our schools. Getting more children into child care should

be this government's goal, Mr. Speaker.

What I

want to do today is to point out some of the ways that this can happen. I'm not

saying it should happen overnight. I'm saying the plan needs to be put in place,

and government is showing no sense of the need for a plan being put in place.

We have

22,695 children under five in this province. That's the 2017 number. Most have

working mothers. Sixty per cent, according to our stats, have working mothers.

That's the Federation of Labour statistics actually. We have 22,695 children

under five but we have only 8,521 regulated spaces in centres and family

daycares in September 2016.

We may

have a few more now. Since 2016, we do have some more children in regulated care

because of a Capacity Initiative program which provide start-up grants to

community organizations. By 2016, we did have 28 CI centres. The minister told

me yesterday in Estimates that there are four more since then in the past year.

We are

not meeting the need. We do not have children coming in. We're not doing what

they do in Europe, for example, where from the time they're six months old –

there's care in many European countries and Scandinavian countries. Why? So that

parents can continue working and so that children are also getting good

development – development is the word here – they are getting wonderful

development.

The

parents are able to work; the children are being cared for. Development for

those children is going on and all children are receiving the same care. All

children are being taken care of because of public child care, because of a

publicly funded, a publicly regulated child care program. It's a given in those

countries, Mr. Speaker – a given.

Besides

that, why should we want to have early childhood for every child in our

province? That should be enough, knowing that our children are going to be in

safe places where their development is going to be assured, where they are in a

good social environment with other children their age, where the people who are

working with them are trained and are well paid.

All of

that should be something we want for our children but there are also economic

reasons, and that's part of – there some of the social benefits. Social benefits

are extremely important, but the social and the economic go together. There are

also economic benefits, and that's been recognized here in this country, in

Quebec for sure, and in PEI.

Now

we're getting in Ontario, with their election coming up, we're getting both the

government and the NDP there putting out proposals with regard to a public child

care system. This is what we should be looking at, but economically we should be

looking at it. Not just for the social benefits but also for the economic

benefits. That's something I want to talk about here now is the economic

benefits, Mr. Speaker.

The

economic and financial benefits are immense. I think the government and the

people who are sitting opposite me right now should be looking at, again, other

people who are saying this, not just me, not just our party but what other

people are saying, just like I pointed out what the presidents of the Teachers'

Associations.

As early

as last month, March 13, 2018, the head of the Bank of Canada in a talk, in a

speech he gave on that day he used Quebec's affordable child care model to show

how Canada could unlock some of the considerable untapped potential in our

labour force. He is so impressed by what has happened in Quebec that he's done

an analysis that showed that if we were to get an injection into our job market

of 500,000 people, that's all, and he's looking at women and young people and

indigenous people, recent immigrants, Canadians living with disabilities. If

people in those groups could enter the job market to the tune of another 500,000

people, by his estimate – this is the head of the Bank of Canada – that kind of

workforce injection could raise the country's output by $30 billion per year or

1.5 per cent.

Now

that's really important information. He goes to the Quebec situation and points

out how in Quebec – and we all know this because Pierre Fortin, the great

economist did his own analysis – how the economy in Quebec was so improved

because of having their fully subsidized child care program in Quebec. I think

it costs $7 a day per child, and it goes down with the number of children from

one family.

What has

happened in Quebec – and this is what he's pointing to – because of the

participation rate of prime age women going up, that's why the workforce

increased and that's why the economy increased. He says we could add almost

300,000 people to our country's workforce by doing what was done in Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Now, I just don't want to

talk about what was done in Quebec. I'm using this as the information with

regard to the economic benefit. Having a public funded, a public regulated and

fully accessible child care program makes for a larger workforce, makes for a

healthier workforce and therefore makes for a healthier economy. That's proven.

It's proven over and over again. We don't have to look for the proof it's there,

and this government seems to ignore that proof.

This is

why you should be planning. This is why they should be planning, Mr. Speaker.

They should be planning for this. It's not going to happen overnight. So they're

not planning yet. I certainly got a lot of good stuff yesterday in Estimates but

one thing I didn't get, there certainly isn't a plan going in this direction.

This

government says it's concerned about the economy and concerned about revenue.

Well, I just don't understand why they don't see this. It's proven. It's been

spoken by everybody, including the head of the Bank of Canada. So why can't they

start putting a plan in place?

When you

look at PEI; PEI has exactly the same kind of program that we have, Mr. Speaker.

PEI also had a patchwork quilt. They had private child care. They had

community-based child care. They had not-for-profit child care. When PEI decided

they were going to put in place a full public system, what they did, they put a

plan in place, they gradually worked through that plan and the idea of that plan

was to move everybody, to move the for-profit sectors as well as the

community-based centres all into the public system.

What

happened is that many of the-for profit centres did join the program. Some

joined right away with a publicly managed system, and if they didn't join, they

still had to adhere to the new provincial early childhood education curriculum.

That was an incentive for them to do that. I think the government also put in

place a timeline that was a point at which they needed to think about joining

the full system.

The

gradual transition happens by existing the network that we have, the network of

not-for-profit, community-based and institution-based. Expanding that network,

encouraging private operators to become part of it – look at what they did in

PEI. Maybe not everything they did there was perfect. We need to analyze that to

see what fits us.

It can

be done, but, Mr. Speaker, it won't happen unless we plan for it. It won't

happen unless we recognize the benefit of doing it. Until we do that, until we

make sure that every child – we decide on the age, it could be two, it could be

six months – at the same time has the right and the ability to be part of a

publicly funded and publicly regulated child care program, our children will not

be going into school on an equal footing.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Health

and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise in this House to speak to the budget. This is the first of what

I will hope will be three opportunities to deliver some comments. Similar to my

colleague from yesterday, I'm going to try and break them down into those that

relate to my district, those that relate to this particular budget in general

and also those that relate to my own department. I did have some prepared notes

but I have to say the

preamble, or the first 10 minutes of my predecessor's

talk, left me wondering if we were talking about the same budget.

Essentially, I'll start with a quote, or at least a kind of slightly butchered

quote from Charles Dickens. Mr. Micawber basically said that if your income was

19 shillings and 6 pence and your expenses were 20 shillings, you would be

happy. If, however, your income was 19 shillings and 6 pence and your outgoings

were 20 shillings, you would be in trouble.

You have

to live within your means was the message of that. If I buggered it up, I

apologize. I apologize if that's unparliamentary language. I withdraw it

completely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

Essentially, it's a failure

to grasp the fundamentals of finance.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. HAGGIE:

That's very good.

You

either increase your revenue, you borrow money or you reduce your expenditure.

It seems to be impossible for the Third Party in either of its leadership

incarnations to grasp that principle. They keep on using labels – I would refer

to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that economy has been called the dismal science for

years for many a good reason. It has failed dismally or repeatedly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

So let's do what Margaret

Thatcher did – and if the conservative group opposite will apologize for me

stealing one of their icons for a moment – run it like it a household. If you

spend more than you have, you're going to be in do-do. If you don't, you'll be

happy.

The

facts of the case are we inherited a situation that was not of our making, but

we were in a colossal fiscal hole. There was a possibility that by December of

2015 this province would not be able to make payroll. That's been said and

repeatedly said and repeatedly ignored by the Members opposite. So how do you

deal with that?

The

Members opposite are obsessed with a budget that we found ourselves in a

situation where we really didn't have many options. The reason we didn't have

any options is the hole we were in was so deep that borrowing was barely an

option, barely an option. So what do you do?

If you

can't borrow to keep the lights on, you either tax or you cut, or you do both.

The fastest way was to pull, as my colleague of the day said, to pull all the

taxation revenue levers that you could at the time.

The

Member opposite keeps on referring to taxation and the levy. She keeps on

forgetting that by legislation that drops off the books automatically with no

debate and no fuss and no great fanfare this year. It goes. It goes.

This

budget, Mr. Speaker, is a triumph of compromise. It is the best that can be done

in a balanced approach to what is still a dreadful financial situation.

I've

spoken in this House in previous years about the analogy of haemorrhage. We had

to stop the haemorrhage. We were bleeding money by the day; $4.8 million a day.

We are still bleeding, but only at the rate of $2.3 million a day. That is a

significant achievement given the fact that there have been no mass layoffs,

there isn't chaos on the streets, as the Members opposite would have us believe.

They

talk about investing. I found this on my desk in the caucus room and I read it

before and put it on one side. It's a five-year, multi-year plan for

infrastructure investments. The first page, $2.5 billion over five years in new

spending. That is not austere by my books; $619.7 million this year alone in

infrastructure.

addition to that, we're still managing to spend $2.99 billion in my own

department. One of the things the Members opposite will fail to point out is the

changes that have happened within that department in the last three years. We

have kept health expenditures steady. Everyone says: So what? Well, so what, CPI

is over 2 per cent.

We have

beaten that. We've beaten inflation and we've beaten the costs of the service

that we are providing. We're getting a better value for the dollar that we spend

to the point now where nationally, within the last 10 days, a report has come

out that shows this province leads Canada in having the shortest wait times in

seven areas of national recognition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

Seven!

You

don't hear them coming out and mentioning that, Mr. Speaker. We lead the country

with the shortest wait times for radiation therapy, for hip replacement, for

cataract surgery. We lead with cancer surgery for all but lung cancers. We lead

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. HAGGIE:

The heckling from over there

was bad enough, shut up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

You don't hear those

celebrations. We spend over $800 million a year in education. You don't hear

that from the Opposition. We have with our infrastructure alone in Health – in

Health alone, we have new infrastructure on the West Coast, we have the new

long-term care facility, we have the request for proposals out for the

acute-care facility. In Central Health, my colleague here stole all of my

announcements from the last few weeks and bundled them up, except for one. The

beautiful District of Green Bay –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

The new centre in Springdale

will move ahead this year. We couldn't do it in 2016, and we've been beaten to

death because of it. We had no money. Ask them why. We had no money; $25 billion

in 12 years and we were broke. The cupboard wasn't just bare, Mr. Speaker,

they'd sold the damn cupboards as well. There was nothing.

We hear

about how we need to listen to people. We hear about how much consultation we

have to do. Well, in case they've forgotten, we did it. In June of this year, we

released Towards Recovery . It is the

single most comprehensive review of mental health care and addiction services in

this province and a 54-point action plan – 54 points.

Eighteen

of those are short term. Every one of those short-term targets will be met by

the deadline of the middle of this year, Mr. Speaker – every one of those 18. Of

those 54, there are only three that haven't been started. One of those is the

replacement of the Waterford, which was announced very recently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

We, again, have had national

experts from the mental health council of Canada, from the Centre for Addiction

and Mental Health in Toronto come to this province and say we are an example for

the rest of Canada with what we are doing. We are leading the way.

You

don't hear that from the Opposition. I understand it is their duty to oppose,

but it wouldn't be a bad thing if for once they actually celebrated some of the

things that Newfoundland and Labrador actually does better than anywhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Won't be done.

MR. HAGGIE:

Won't be done.

Mental

health and addictions: $6.1 million – we're supposed to be talking about the

budget and I may have digressed a little bit and I apologize, relevance and all

that good stuff. Mr. Speaker, $6.1 million to replace the Waterford. That

project will unite, for the first time in this province, physical health and

well-being with mental health and well-being. It will, in a single stroke,

remove one of the biggest hurdles for mental health care and addictions care in

this province, which is stigma. We do not, as a society, want to talk about it.

Now it doesn't matter. You go to a building just down the road and nobody knows

whether you're going to have your bunions done, your piles done or have your

depression fixed. Nobody knows, and that's the way it should be – I can't read

this; oh yes, there we go. My eyesight, I need to go and see an ophthalmologist.

We won't go there either.

Mr.

Speaker, $1.7 million for a mobile crisis response system across the province.

This was pioneered in Memphis in the States after a tragedy involving someone

with mental illness and an encounter with an armed police officer. It works. It

has worked for them. What this does, again, is recognize a fact of life, which

is law enforcement have become de facto first responders for mental health

crisis in urban areas and rural areas, but it's more predominant in urban.

What we

will be doing in partnership with the RNC and what's already started rolling out

is plainclothes law enforcement, a mental health worker, an unmarked police car.

These teams will attend those calls that dispatch feels would fit in their

mandate. No obvious sign that it's a legal issue, it's a judicial problem. A

mental health situation automatically, in no circumstances, starts to

de-escalate because the prominence, the visibility, the fear of being foul of

the law, for want of a better term, disappears. The officers have gone and

received training to train their colleagues.

Over the

course of this year, this program will roll out. It started in St. John's; it's

now been expanded to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's going into Labrador

with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and we've engaged with the other law

enforcement office, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to put this in areas

where they have jurisdiction. This will roll out over the course of this year.

There's $1.7 million there.

Then, to

back that up, we are working with the regional health authorities to expand

mental health services. We have rolled out already across the province a program

called Doorways. Again, validated in a crisis situation in a part of the

province where they experienced an upswing in suicides and suicide attempts. We

have shown very clearly that for those folks who go to Doorways, 50 per cent of

them will leave a single one-hour session regarding their problem as having been

resolved completely. We have those now in 17 locations across the province and

more to come.

For

those people whose problems are of a greater magnitude who need counselling, who

need further assistance, we have the availability now of technology to defeat

geography. We can put in place therapist assistance online. Eighteen thousand is

the capacity of this system. On a referral from a walk-in clinic, this can be

organized. A therapeutic relationship is established via Skype or phone or email

or a mixture of those to suit the clinician and the patient to manage their

problems over a series of counselling sessions.

For

those for whom that is not sufficient, we're working on building up counselling

services. Finally, for those people for whom in-patient care becomes crucial,

we're going to put mental health beds in every region in the province. There are

beds allocated for the Big Land too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

Which brings me back to the

Waterford replacement; again, a rather iconic building for good reasons and bad.

It will be seen by many as the hallmark of the system transformation but, in

actual fact, it is the tip of the iceberg.

It is

the pinnacle of the roof, but we're building this building from the ground up.

We've put the foundation in first. Not as glamourous as anywhere else but a

house without secure foundations, as various books will tell you, will not

survive. It's built on firm ground.

The

Waterford and its replacement is the visible piece. There are always going to be

those folks for whom that level of service is necessary and, indeed, vital.

We've recognized that already.

We have

funded renovations to the Health Sciences Centre already and put in place an

eating disorders unit dedicated to the needs of a very small, but very

significant and complex group of individuals. These people will have physical

care and mental and psychological care and their families will also receive

support and counselling, all in one location from a team dedicated to dealing

with this problem, and this problem alone.

anything will exemplify that integration of physical health and mental

well-being, it is those four beds on the Eating Disorders unit. Their location

again is representative of the breaking down of the barrier between physical and

mental, between family and patient, and between provider and patient. It is

situated within the Health Sciences Centre.

When the

plan comes to fruition over the next three or four years, they will have ready

access to a broad range of mental health services which will be co-located, and

they will be physically situated in a place which will deal with their

significant nutritional and metabolic needs. This is, if you like, in microcosm

the whole concept of integrating physical and mental health. The Eating

Disorders unit opening got delayed owing to some plumbing issues and a flood,

but that hopefully would be remedied and we should be back on track in the

not-too-distant future.

Again,

in terms of capitalizing on what revenue we can have – and I'm conscious that

the clock is ticking – we have generated and leveraged federal dollars to

increase the financial resources. Again, a window opened where our interests and

needs coincided with what was seen as a federal priority as well, and we've been

able to bring in money through bilateral agreement to address mental health and

addictions particularly.

We've

started spending that money from the get-go. In actual fact, some of that was

allocated in last year's budget. Again, you don't hear that from the Members

opposite. It's being used in an integrated way to fit the needs of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not simply thrown in a knee-jerk way at the

latest fad. Within that pile of money is a separate pot for community care and

for end of life care.

If I use

my last minute or so to highlight the fact that what I've described through

mental health and addictions is in actual fact indicative of a shift through the

whole of health care. We're moving health back into the home, back into

communities, back at a very low level with low barriers and low tech, and that's

where it needs to be. No longer will the centre of excellence be a building on a

hill or somewhere on the Parkway. It has to be focused around the home, and this

federal money will help us kick start that process, particularly in relation to

our other area of need, and a personal pressure point of mine, which is

palliative and end of life care.

I can

wax lyrical further, but I see I'm down to my last 32 seconds. So I would use

that simply to state that some of the misinformation, some of the doom and gloom

that comes from the opposite side of this hallway is actually simply fear

mongering. It is simply there to serve a lack of ideas and a lack of

intellectual rigour that comes from over there because they have nothing else to

offer except criticism, absolutely nothing except negativity, and on that, Mr.

Speaker, I'll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What an

excellent segue for me to start my speech, but before I do, Mr. Speaker, I too

would like to join my colleagues here in this House and recognize all of the

fantastic volunteers of Newfoundland and Labrador. The volunteers who are the

very fabric of our community's well-being, the volunteers who keep everything

going, the volunteers who shape our children, who care for our seniors and who

provide so many invaluable services to each and every one of us in our

communities. We thank you for that. Certainly, I know from our side here in

government, anything we can do to support your endeavours we're there to do it,

and I believe every Member of this hon. House is there to support volunteers in

any way we can.

colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, ended by saying all we

do is talk about negativity. Well, Hansard

is a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker, because

Hansard is proof of everything that is said in this House of

Assembly. For the first two years, from 2015 to – actually, we've only noticed

the change in their messaging and their notes in the last few months, Mr.

Speaker, because they're finally starting to realize that their message of doom

and gloom and the sky is falling is not working. It's actually making the

situation worse.

You can

look at any speech by any Member from government opposite and you can see the

negativity that was entailed in all of their speeches for the first two years.

You will also see that it was Members on this side, including myself, who stood

up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who stood up and said we believe

in you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

I think it works, because

they're changing their message, Mr. Speaker, and they're finally talking about

the positive things. That has had a positive impact, and I'm glad to hear you

finally talk about the wonderful things, the wonderful potential and the

wonderful people in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we here in this House of

Assembly are put in place to try and do what we can to support their efforts to

make Newfoundland and Labrador a place that we can live in, we can encourage our

children to live in and that will be a place that offers a decent quality of

life.

Over the

last two years a lot of people I know have moved. They've left Newfoundland and

Labrador because they can't afford to live here anymore. The tax burden is so

high that they sized it all up and said if I'm going to have a decent future for

myself where I'm able to afford a decent quality of living, than perhaps this is

not the place for me.

I will

say, Mr. Speaker, 2019 is only a year away, don't give up on Newfoundland and

Labrador yet. We, the people, will decide the fate of this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador and we the people are the strength and fabric that

will ensure this province continues to thrive.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to return back to speaking to some elements of the budget

but, again, in terms of relevance, people will notice – anyone who's watching –

relevance won't be called during a budget debate because the budget debate is

actually what we call a money bill. For a money bill, any Member of the House of

Assembly can get up and speak about anything. We can talk about issues in our

district. We can talk about issues in departments. We can talk about issues that

affect us as politicians. We can talk about how the House of Assembly itself

works. We can talk about anything we wish during a money bill that we feel is of

importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

To that

end, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a few minutes for the people of

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune and talk about the new school which has been promised

for the people of Bay d'Espoir. I will say now, Members opposite can't bully me

into voting for the budget because I have to vote for the budget as a whole. I

will say that the residents of Bay d'Espoir, although we are absolutely

thrilled, we are thrilled that we're finally getting a new school which is long

overdue – we should have had one 20 years ago to be honest because –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MS.

PERRY:

should have had a new school but the Liberal government back in 2001 put us back

into a 60-year-old building, but that's okay, we're going to get our new school

now which is good. Too bad it had to come by way of tragedy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

PERRY:

It's very unfortunate that it had to come by way of tragedy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The noise level in the House is too high. I'd ask

Members to show some restraint to allow the Member to be heard.

Thank you.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly need a lot more of that in here.

I will say that we are delighted with the new school,

and we do thank the Premier and the ministers for their support in a new school;

however, no one was happy on

budget day. Everyone was devastated because it's going to take four

years. Our children have no lab. How would you feel if you had a child in grade

nine that you know has to go to university in three years and will never see

inside of a lab, and your child wants to be a pharmacist? It's unacceptable, Mr.

Speaker.

But

we're working on some solutions, so I do want the people of my district to know

that certainly we are working with government to try and at least address the

problem of the lack of science lab. We also don't have a computer lab, Mr.

Speaker. We don't have a cafeteria.

The

children are in a building that my father, who would be 100 if he were still

alive, was the principal of back in the '60s, and that's when it was built. And

that's the building they're in today.

So we do

look forward to having a new school, but given that we lost our school by

tragedy, everyone's very upset that it's taking actually five years. Because

we've been a whole year waiting to find out what's going to happen with our

school, and now we have to wait four years before it's built.

That is

a stressful situation for parents, and they do expect me as their Member, and it

is my responsibility as their Member to bring forward their concerns and ask

that government do everything within its means to make sure this process can be

expedited so that our children can be back into a decent school, a

state-of-the-art school, one better than we've ever had before in the Bay

d'Espoir area.

So we

are looking forward to that, Mr. Speaker. But just for purposes of explaining to

people how this works and why it's four years – and certainly the Minister of

Education or the Minister of Transportation, if there's anything I explain

inaccurately can get up and clarify how the process works.

From my

understanding, the reason why it takes four years to build a new school is

because in the first year there's a process – and anyone can log on to the

Newfoundland and Labrador school district website and there's a manual there

that talks about the process that has to be followed when there's a new school.

That process, Mr. Speaker, is in place because schools are built with taxpayers'

money and it is a responsibility of government to ensure that it's done properly

and in the best interests of the people. So that manual is in place and the

school board will follow that manual.

The

first process takes about a year or so, and a contract tender gets issued for a

consultant to do the design work, Mr. Speaker. Throughout that process, the

school council and the parents and the teachers in the community will be

involved in talking about what they'd like to see in their school.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm quite proud to say that the children of Bay d'Espoir are very

incredibly talented. They're talented musically; they're talented drama-wise. In

fact, we had a young girl, her name is Miranda Caley, who actually wrote the

drama play that our drama class participated in this year. So, fantastic talent

in the region. We would like to have a music room and a drama room, and a

science room and a computer room in our new school. Those are the things that

will happen during the consultation phase.

That

process takes about a year or so. Then, once the design is done, that design has

to go to tender for the build. From what I told, that build process can take

anywhere from 24 to 36 months. So, hopefully, four years is the long end of the

time frame and possibly, you never know, we might see it come on quicker. I

certainly provide the guarantee to my constituents that at every opportunity I

will encourage government to move as expeditiously as possible so our children

can get the education that they deserve, along with each and every other

Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

I'm

going to talk a little bit now about aquaculture. Someone was asking me to talk

about aquaculture. I see aquaculture as one of the bright lights of our

potential for the future in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

I live in a part of the

province that face some very hard times.

AN HON. MEMBER:

We built it.

MS. PERRY:

Yes, it was indeed the

Progressive Conservative government that built the Newfoundland and Labrador

aquaculture industry. It's actually the reason I ran for politics. I worked with

the Community Economic Development Regional Board and we were so frustrated. We

did four marine infrastructure studies before we finally got some movement on

wharf infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, and it was a perpetual loop. Working in the

economic development field, I felt that I needed to be on the inside of

government to really make a difference in the understanding of the urgency of

the investment.

What

happened? We created the Loan Guarantee Program, Mr. Speaker. We invested in the

aquaculture biosecurity wharfs. We invested in companies that created 1,000 jobs

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador – 1,000 meaningful jobs, at that, where

people – there's a community in my region where the majority of residents lived

on income support prior to aquaculture.

With the

advent of aquaculture, came wealth and prosperity unlike anything they've ever

seen before. They have new cars. They have new homes. Their children are being

able to go off to post-secondary education where they didn't have that

opportunity before. So the difference aquaculture makes cannot be understated.

That

being said of course, Mr. Speaker, it's still an industry that's in the growth

stage. I know in my region alone there's still a need for tens of millions of

dollars of investment to ensure that the industry is on stable footing, and to

ensure that we have maximum employment in our plants.

To say

that it's all good and there are no struggles would be inaccurate, Mr. Speaker,

because there are struggles. Struggles do continue. It is a farming industry

and, like any farming industry, there are challenges from time to time. At

present, we're facing a problem of shortage of work in one of our plants that

used to have work for 52 weeks a year.

These

are challenges that we will encounter from time to time, and we certainly expect

continued investment from government to ensure that the 2,000 jobs that are in

place now are protected and remain in place as we continue to grow the industry,

Mr. Speaker.

I want

to talk a little bit in terms of moving back to the budget as well. We spoke in

Question Period this week, and we're going to be speaking this afternoon, about

the changes that are coming with respect to the legalization of marijuana. In

our to and fro of Question Period and our debate, we were raising the point that

the Liberal government has given $40 million to Canopy Growth. Now, they said

well, we're not giving $40 million; we're giving a tax credit. Okay, but a tax

credit is money lost to the Treasury. So a $40 million investment is a $40

million investment either way.

It was

interesting to note that the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation, when he got up and spoke about the wonderful impact of tourism and

Maudie , he said the province was

earning $400,000 in taxes from Maudie .

That's $400,000 in revenue. It's $40 million in revenue we're going to lose from

Canopy Growth and we never even gave Newfoundland companies an opportunity to

bid. We never gave Newfoundland and Labrador entrepreneurs the opportunity to

become leaders in this industry. So that is very disappointing, especially in a

time –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker,

for your protection.

It's

incredibly disappointing in a time where we need every job that we can get, and

we need every entrepreneur that we can get. Because, at the end of the day, it's

not government who create jobs. Government creates the environment to support

the entrepreneurs, the risk takers, the people who are out there willing to risk

everything to start a business and employ people, Mr. Speaker. They are the

people who deserve our support each and every day.

Our job

is to support them, not to create the jobs, but to support the leaders and the

trailblazers who do. We have many of them here in his hon. House, Mr. Speaker,

and I'm quite proud that we have such fabulous entrepreneurs in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I'm

running out of time. I only have about five minutes or so in this speech, but I

will have more opportunities, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk a little bit, in my

last five minutes, about the change that's starting to happen in the world with

respect to women, and respect from women. I will say that I was incredibly

pleased to be a part of the private Member's motion that was moved last week by

the Member for Windsor Lake as we endeavour, as women who are few in number in

politics overall, to change the culture that permeates politics.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to be honest with you. As I started the speech, I could even

feel my heart beating a little bit because it's tough, tough world, politics;

it's even tougher for women. Politics is what it is and has been the way it is

for quite some time. I came into politics in 2007 when the Green report was

released, so I feel I was able to join politics at a time when there was more

attention being paid to obeying the rules. I felt really good about that, Mr.

Speaker.

But when

it comes to issues like women, when it comes to issues like decorum, bullying

and vindictiveness, they still exist in politics. For us as women to come

forward and fight it, it is not easy. What holds us back, probably what holds

men back too – I'm not saying it's just women who get bullied; I'm sure men do

as well. But what holds us back is often fear, fear of repercussions,

repercussions to yourself as a politician, repercussions to your constituents

because you dared challenge someone who did something that you felt was wrong.

I think

we all have a responsibility in this hon. House to raise that bar, to say no

more – no more, none of us are going to tolerate it, not women, not men. It's

unacceptable. If you have a male colleague that you see bullying a female

colleague, you should stand up to that male colleague. Each and every one of us

has that responsibility.

Mr.

Speaker, I was proud to stand with the women of this House and all the men as

well who supported us last week as we endeavoured to address the issue of

bullying. I will say again that I hope we go further than just a policy change.

I hope we go into legislation. I hope that we can find a way to hold the

perpetrators of bullying accountable.

It's a

struggle for us. We can't figure out how to do it without repercussions. We

can't figure it out. We need the support of legislation. We need people as

individuals to say we're not going to take it. We're going to support the person

who says there's an issue and we're going to put a stop to the culture that has

existed in politics of all stripes, of all colours, for all time, I would say,

Mr. Speaker. Some are worse than others. I'm sure if politicians across this

fine country ever really opened up about some of their experiences, the public

would be probably shocked.

The day

I hope will come when we don't ever have to talk about this again because it

doesn't exist anymore. Mr. Speaker, it does still exist. It's not going to stop

if we push it under the rug. It can't be pushed under the rug.

I'm

going to finish my first budget speech, which kind of talked a little bit about

everything. In the next two, I'm sure I'm going to have a whole lot more

heckling because I'll probably be talking more about the budget itself and how

this government has really let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador down.

They promised them a better tomorrow and they delivered a nightmare to us for

the last two years.

Certainly all of us on this side of the House, in our job, as Opposition, will

stand up and raise issues that are of concern to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I thank the people of

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for the opportunity

to once again stand here in this House and represent them. I promise I will

continue to try and do my very best to represent your interests and I also make

this pledge to try and do what I can to support women in this province who enter

politics, any colour, any stripe, we're all together in this. We want the House

of Assembly, we want politics in general, the House of Commons, everywhere in

this country, to be a place that's good for men and women to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's a privilege to rise here this morning and give

some comments about Budget 2018 and

some departmental

issues and things that we're doing as a government as a result of our budget.

start, Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on Volunteer Week and some activities in

my district. Just last night, myself, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Environment and MHA for Fogo Island - Cape Freels actually attended an event in

Victoria in my district to help celebrate Volunteer Week.

Mr.

Speaker, one part of that event last night – and I would remiss not to reflect

on it – is a vigil that was held during the event for Parker Tobin. Parker's

grandfather is from Victoria in my district and his grandmother is from Heart's

Content in my district. It was very fitting last night that they started the

event with a moment of silence and a reflection on the tragedy last week in

Humboldt, Saskatchewan. It really shows the ties that many people in our

province have with people who have moved away from the province with the fact of

one of his grandparents being from Victoria and the other being from Heart's

Content and our sincere condolences to the family.

Mr.

Speaker, just last week as well – and it was referenced here in the House

earlier this week – the Minister of Natural Resources did a Member's statement

and reflected on the life of Mr. Al Chislett. Mr. Al Chislett is actually a

former resident, born and bred in my hometown of Heart's Delight-Islington. He

also made a very valuable contribution to this province with his work around

Voisey's Bay and many other projects.

Mr.

Speaker, also last night when we were in Victoria, the fire department took an

opportunity to name their fire hall after their first fire chief, Mr. Vivian

Hiscock. He was the first fire chief in that town back in 1975, a very fitting

honour. They also took the opportunity to congratulate and to make Ms. Effie

Deering Victoria's volunteer of the year. That was a great event last night in

Victoria.

To all

the volunteers in our province and in my district and every district in this

province: Congratulations on the great work you do. We'll continue to celebrate

Volunteer Week in this province. Myself and the minister of child, youth and

family services –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Children, Seniors and Social

Development.

MR. CROCKER:

– Children, Seniors and

Social Development will be in Carbonear tonight to celebrate with the local food

bank and honour the volunteers in Carbonear that work and contribute to the food

bank. That will be another important event in the district this week.

Just to

reflect on volunteers and some of the different things that volunteers do in our

province, just a few weeks ago in my hometown in a show of humanity, we seen a

number of dolphins stranded in the Heart's Delight - Islington Harbour and they

were pinned in by ice. What we seen was a group of volunteers from our fire

department and other groups in the town come together and find a solution to get

those animals or mammals out of the harbour. It just shows the extent that

volunteers do in our province and some of the places they actually go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, again,

congratulations to all of our volunteers in my district and throughout the

province. Enjoy the week of celebrations and take the opportunity, let somebody

pat you on the back because the work you do is very important.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at my district, tourism is playing a much more increasing

role year after year. Just recently, we seen the Heart's Content Cable Station

be placed on the UNESCO nomination list. This would be a game changer for the

Heart's Content Cable Station which celebrated its 150th anniversary back in

2016. I thank the Minister of Tourism for his commitment to this facility as we

move forward with the nomination.

Mr.

Speaker, we see tremendous support throughout the district, whether it's from

different departments: Tourism; Children, Seniors and Social Development; Health

and Community Services; Municipal Affairs.

Just

recently, the Department of Health and Community Services continued its

commitment to U-Turn. U-Turn is a drug addiction treatment program in Carbonear.

Our government has maintained a strong commitment to U-Turn. U-Turn, as well, is

based around volunteers. So no matter what sector we look at when it comes to

funding through different government departments, volunteers are typically the

people making out those applications. For us as MHAs, no matter what side of

this House, I think it's one of the things that give us some of our best moments

is when we work with volunteer organizations to get them some support, and

supports they need and absolutely deserve.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I'll take some more time in my next remarks about budget to talk

about my district but, right now, I sort of want to move on and change the

channel and talk some more of departmental things and government.

The

previous speaker made some comments around a piece of infrastructure that we

announced. We announced a new school for Bay d'Espoir in

Budget 2018 . She referenced giving up and a Liberal government that

cancelled that school in 2001. Mr. Speaker, what she was remiss to talk about

was the government from 2003 to 2015, who had 12 years – her government had 12

years to replace that school in Bay d'Espoir and they failed to do so.

Mr.

Speaker, you look at other schools in our province. They talked about building a

school in Coley's Point for year after year after year and it dragged on. What's

the difference? This government, we're going to build that school in Coley's

Point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

We're actually right now

working with the architect, working with the designers to get the final tender

package ready. We are preparing to go to tender early this fall with a tender

for Coley's Point, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

It's interesting when you

think back to the previous administration. They talked about Coley's Point, and

there are lots of other Coley's Points. There's Corner Brook hospital. There's

all this infrastructure that they talked about and talked about and talked

about, but when we came to government what we found was what they did was talk

about it. There were no tender documents. There was no consulting. There was no

work done on these projects, Mr. Speaker.

For the

Member opposite to say it's going to take us four years to build a school, the

reality is we just can't go and pick a school off the shelf; it has to be built

to fit those needs that she outlined. That's fair. There are needs. We want to

make sure that we're building a school to fit the needs of those children. It's

important no matter what part of the province you are to ensure education for

our children, but we're committed to doing that. Yes, it will take some time to

build it but, Mr. Speaker, again, the previous administration had 12 years to

build it and they chose not to.

Mr.

Speaker, in Budget 2018 we announced a

$619 million infrastructure plan for this year. That infrastructure includes

further work on the Corner Brook long-term care facility. We're actually getting

ready to go to the RFP stage for the Corner Brook acute care facility. As a

commitment, I think, of what we've done as a government in tough economic times,

we've taken an infrastructure plan and we've planned.

Just a

couple of weeks ago, we were able to go and announce a new mental health and

addictions facility. I know the Minister of Health this morning talked about the

recommendations coming out of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health. I guess

for once we took a report and we didn't put it on the shelf, we put the report

into action. That's something we've committed to doing in tough fiscal times,

but we realize that this infrastructure is needed for our province.

If you

look, Mr. Speaker, in Central Newfoundland, the Green Bay Health care centre in

Springdale; we have a commitment to long-term care in Grand Falls-Windsor and in

Gander. Those are commitments that we haven't seen before.

I'll

bring it a little bit closer to home again and speak of my own district. In

Budget 2018 we announced over $3

million to start the construction and the redevelopment of the third floor of

the Carbonear Hospital for a new ambulatory care unit, one that's been talked

about for a long time but, again, Mr. Speaker, we're going to deliver on it.

Just

last fall, we were at Private Josiah Squibb long-term care facility in Carbonear

to announce – along with the Minister of Health and my colleague from Harbour

Grace - Port de Grave – the opening of 28 more beds in the Carbonear long-term

care facility. This facility not only benefits the people in my district, the

people in the District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the District of Harbour

Main, the District of Placentia - St. Mary's. This is important infrastructure,

and we see this infrastructure happening all over the province, and rightfully

so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, and I alluded to this earlier, but in this year's infrastructure plan

we have school construction and planning starting in Paradise, Coley's Point;

work being completed in Mobile this year, and Baie d'Espoir. We've also

committed close to $16 million for school maintenance to schools throughout the

province. This has all been very important expenditures.

Mr.

Speaker, the other infrastructure committee that I think this government is

proud of, and so we should be proud of, is our transportation infrastructure. Do

we have challenges in our roads in this province? We absolutely do.

One

thing our Premier said long before he was Premier is that when it comes to road

construction and paving in this province, when we form government we were going

to do it with a plan. That's how we've changed how we do road construction in

this province, is we're doing it with a plan. This is the second year of our

five-year Roads Plan. We'll spend some-$77 million this year in road

infrastructure in our province on very important projects.

realize everybody in this House has important road infrastructure projects in

their districts, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a way we look at it now that's

criteria based. What we do – and I guess for people who haven't really looked at

our Roads Plan. What we do is our local engineers feed into our regional

engineers, who then feed into some of our senior engineers and they make the

determination of where our Roads Plan goes, along with consultation from the

general public. Mr. Speaker, there's tremendous infrastructure work happening on

our roads and we're very proud of it.

To come

back to the infrastructure needs and the infrastructure challenges in our

province, the Leader of the NDP yesterday afternoon in her speech talked about

there was nothing concrete in this budget. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you there

was lots of concrete in this budget – tons and tons and tons of concrete in this

budget. We're building hospitals, we're building schools, we're building bridges

and we're building roads. So I can assure you the concrete industry in this

province is alive and well.

Mr.

Speaker, I would be remiss not to talk about, in my district, the effects of the

fishery and the effect that has on not only my district but the entire province.

If you look at my district, in Bay de Verde we have the world's largest snow

crab plant. In Old Perlican, we have Royal Greenland. They're diversifying to

more species. If you look in Winterton, we have Green Seafoods. It's a plant

that actually, I think, could be a model for many processing operations in our

province, employing between 70 and 80 people for 37- or 40-plus weeks a year and

it's very diversified with species that once weren't seen as valuable –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

MR. CROCKER:

– but what happened, Mr.

Speaker, is they diversified their product lines and it has been very, very,

very successful.

Mr.

Speaker, as my time starts to wind down, I do want to address as well some of

the comments that would come from the Members opposite when they talk about

fiscal planning and where we are in fiscal planning. There's one thing I've

referenced I think almost every time I've spoken to a budget in this House over

the last four years, I guess. Yes, this is my fourth budget as being a Member of

this House.

In 2015,

the previous administration charted the course based on a $2.7 billion deficit.

That wasn't sustainable. There's nobody – and you can still find it, Mr.

Speaker. If there's people out there today that are watching these proceedings,

you can still go on government's website and find Budget 2015: Balancing

Choices for a Promising Future . That document was built on a $2.7 billion

deficit.

Just

think about it, when we came to power in December of 2015, we were faced with a

$2.7 billion deficit that was not sustainable. We had to take corrective

measures. And yes, those corrective measures were tough and we realize that.

It's not something that anybody would ever want to do as a government, but we

had to set the course straight. We had to get back to that concrete; we had to

put the province back on a solid foundation.

Mr.

Speaker, the previous administration gets up and talks about out-migration.

Well, the reality is that the previous speaker said that this mass exodus – it's

false, absolutely, categorically false. My seatmate, the Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour, can share with you the numbers.

From

2012-2016, we had about 60 more people leave in 2016 than we did in 2012 when

oil was $100 a barrel or $120 a barrel, Mr. Speaker. So they never fail and mix

the numbers with the facts. Because if they wanted to talk about real numbers,

they'd talk about the choices they made in 2015 when they issued this document.

You know, when they issued this document in 2015 I can remember – I was a Member

of the House – the former Finance minister standing in his place and saying I'm

going to go out and knock on doors and this is going to be my campaign

literature. That's what he said. The Finance minister of the day said this was

going to be his campaign literature. Well, we all know where that went. He was

Finance minister of the day and he moved on. He knew what he was leaving for us.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North got up earlier this morning and actually said he

saw it coming. He did. He stood in his place this morning and he saw it coming.

He knew; he saw it coming. And he's agreeing with me over there now, Mr.

Speaker. He stood in his place this morning and said he saw it coming.

Well,

unfortunately what you should have done was reached out your colleagues and told

them about it, because then they might have seen it coming. Because I tell you,

based on this document, they didn't see it coming. What they saw for this year,

where we've budgeted oil at $63 a barrel, they budgeted at $80.

So the

Member for Mount Pearl North, I wish he would have been around in 2014-2015

because he saw it coming. But, Mr. Speaker, as I can see, he was one of the only

ones over there that saw it coming. The rest didn't see it coming. Again –

AN HON. MEMBER:

They did not want to see it

coming.

MR. CROCKER:

Or I guess, yes, that could

be the point actually; they didn't want to see it coming. The Member for Fortune

Bay - Cape La Hune said she was elected in 2007. I think that's eight years from

2007 to 2015. Eight years to build a school. They had eight years to build that

new school back in 2007.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker,

and number 49.

The

Member is stating something that doesn't even make sense. Our school wasn't even

on the list in 2015. Our school burnt in 2017. Stop misleading the public.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd like to still continue to

hear from the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. Please complete your

remarks.

MS. PERRY:

I think that's misleading the

public and it's unfair, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, firstly, this

would be what you would normally term a disagreement amongst Members, but in

making your point of order, the Member opposite used unparliamentary language to

describe the remarks and said that the Member is misleading the public.

So I

would ask that that Member withdraw her remarks and apologize and then you can

make a decision on the original point of order.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I withdraw my comments, Mr.

Speaker, and I can assure the people that if we were in government, that school

would have been built by now.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would ask that the Member

make sure that is an unequivocal withdrawal, please.

MS. PERRY:

I withdraw my remarks, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

There is

no point of order. This is a matter of disagreement between Members.

Please

continue.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I see

through this; it consumed the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker. In the Member's

previous comments, she clearly said that the previous Liberal government took

the school off the books in 2001. They had 12 years to build a school. That

failed the people of Bay d'Espoir. They failed them (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

No more than the failed the people of Coley's Point. They failed, Mr. Speaker.

She failed; eight years in government, no new school. This government will build

a new school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member for Conception Bay South, please, to continue the debate.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was a

lot more pleasant where I just left than where I am right now, but I'll adjust

I'm sure. It's part of where we operate.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and speak on –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

It's a pleasure to get up to

speak on the budget, a sub-amendment I believe we're speaking on. It's always

good to get up and speak any time. As in the budget debate, we can speak about

anything we like, really, but I guess everything we speak about in our districts

ties back to the budget, ties back to the financial situation of the province.

Every decision government makes obviously affects our district, affects each and

every one of our lives, which we've seen over the last several years, since

2015, the 2016 budget.

I hear

Members opposite – I know I heard the Minister of AES yesterday say that 2016

was a tough year. It was tough and they didn't like the decisions they had to

make. That's fair game. It's good to see them acknowledge that, but I don't know

if there's anyone coming in and forgiving. There's not a lot of forgiveness out

there. People will acknowledge that 2016 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

People will acknowledge the

2016 budget was tough, no doubt, but I still don't see much change, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

I still

don't see a lot of change. We have an extension of the 2016 budget that really

goes into 2017, now we're into 2018. You could not bear another budget like we

had back then to go on. The province, the economy, the people couldn't sustain

another budget of that nature so it stayed the course.

believe the Premier had made a reference to the budget when it was upcoming:

it's going to be pretty well a non-event, it's staying the course and steady as

she goes, but there's no pullback from 2016, it's a continuation. People just

grow accustomed; it becomes the white noise or whatever you want to call it.

People acknowledge – they don't, they keep driving past it. People don't pay

attention to stuff. It's like the 2016 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

I will not tolerate any

further interruptions.

Final

warning.

Proceed.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

strange; I sit here most times and I'll be the first to say I make my scattered

comments, I don't deny that. But for the most part, when Members up opposite

speak; you try to be a bit respectful. I'm sure that for the rest of my time

here I'm expecting I'll get that.

To go

back to the 2016 budget, it's two years later. There's no doubt, this budget is

boring next to 2016. Probably 2017 was too, but that doesn't take away what's in

the budget. What still remains in the budget are taxes, Mr. Speaker – taxes,

taxes, taxes.

It's not

me propagandizing this stuff. I challenge, and I say this with sincerity, I say

this to my own colleagues: It's worthwhile to go to the Tim Hortons, to the

McDonalds and to the coffee shops. There's a lot of interesting commentary that

comes from that. These people are on the streets. They're retirees. They're

educated people. They watch the news. They follow the news. They shop. They buy

gas. They buy groceries. They talk to people. They are the people you have to

listen to.

I can

get in my bubble in the political world, we all can in here. It seems like we

shelter ourselves from reality. If you go in to those places and you talk to

those people – and I challenge any Member or welcome any Member to come with me

and have a conversation with a lot of these people. It's very enlightening.

They're

not always complimentary of this side either, Mr. Speaker. You got to take your

knocks with that. I've stood there and took knocks because of what the PCs did,

but I respect what they say because me, and I'm sure others in this House agree,

if want to open up your mind and listen, you can learn. I actually listen to

them and take advice from them. I'm not afraid. I've never been one to not take

advice. That's my nature. I don't know everything and never will, I never

profess to, but I'll tell you what, I'll always listen to rational arguments,

whether I agree with them or not I listen.

When I

say that, the people in this province are still struggling. Families are still

struggling, Mr. Speaker. The gas tax is down to four cents but gas it still at a

really high, high rate. It's still an extra four cents over. Gas is going up

again tomorrow, I think. It's not going to break the bank. It's not going to

make a huge difference, but psychologically it may help people.

Insurance tax; we stood in this House and debated a private Member's motion for

the elimination of insurance tax. I've said it before and I don't mind saying it

again. Me personally – and I'm not into the high echelon, I'm not a

multi-millionaire or nothing – I pay $1,100 extra a year because of the

insurance tax. I got two daughters that drive, you have a home, you have your

own vehicle, your wife's vehicle. That's just me. I'm one person in this

province who pays that. Forget about the Liberal, PC, NDP, independent thing

here, look at us as a group. Others around this floor and on the opposite,

they're paying the same thing.

You do

your income tax; now, my background is accounting. I am an accountant by trade,

so I do taxes. I don't get into the forms, Mr. Speaker, I do it, I cheat. I got

my own program. That's something I do at home. I've done it for years.

I talked

to someone yesterday; they actually do the form process. With the form process,

they have to go down the line and find their income and match it up. When they

do the forms they realize, I got to pay an $800 levy. That hurts. When you see

it on paper it hurts.

Now when

I do taxes my way, like I said, us people who supposedly know what we're doing,

we kind of cheat. We don't really look at that until you have to go into the

forms, but when you're looking at the paper copy, you pick it up and you go down

the line, you have to pay $800. It's tearing the scab off the 2016 budget over

and over and over, and that's what everyone is telling me. I can see that.

To say

and to get up in this House, as the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills

did yesterday, and: Oh, but we had to make tough decisions. We're sorry now. Do

you know what, Mr. Speaker? People are not forgiving them. That's the reality.

You'll never be forgiven for taxing the economy into the state it's in right

now. I don't know if there are Members opposite who can argue with that point.

It's obvious, all you have to do is go out on the street and talk to people.

As we

get talking about budgetary things and whatnot, and I hear some of the antics

going on. Like the Minister of Transportation was just up there then and he was

on his soapbox about the Bay d'Espoir Academy and why we never done this, we

never done that. The school burnt down, Mr. Speaker. The school burnt down. It

was a very serious event. Criminal charges arose from that. The school burnt

down. You have $13 million in the budget for it.

colleague from

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, rightfully so, representing

her area: When are we getting our new school? The people want a new school.

Forget that she's the Tory Member for out there, she wants a new school. She

should do it. No matter what Member, that's our job. Pointing fingers and

blaming – you're asking questions.

You're doing your job as a Member, Mr. Speaker, to

advocate for this stuff, but the school burnt down and she should stand up and

speak up for her people. Whether you get that or not, you'll never go wrong by

speaking for the people you represent – never. That's what you're put here for,

Mr. Speaker. I continuously say that every time I get up, that's what we're here

for and that's what we should all continue and strive to do. That's our job as

elected officials.

On this note, again, as I say, of budgets, the

five-year Roads Plan is something that I continually muse about, I talk about.

The minister in Estimates the other day, we had a little bit of a – during

Estimates, a back and forth on the issue. I'm the first to say, and I've said

this publicly and I'll say it again. I support a five-year Roads Plan. I've said

that here in this House and I'll continue to say it. The minister is well aware

and the former minister is well aware that I never did oppose the five-year

Roads Plan. It gives more certainty to contractors. Overall, everyone was very

happy and seemed to be happy with that announcement.

There's one part of that announcement, part of that

program that I struggle with personally. It's taking the politics out of paving.

In theory, that sounds great. It does, it really does. If you're a person there

thinking, great, the politics is coming out of paving. It doesn't matter what

road, what district your roads fall in, you'll get paving based on the scores

and the – your five-year Roads Plan is based on scoring. It's not about

politics, it's based on scoring.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the minister pointed out to

me in Estimates, they don't have scores on the 10,000 kilometres. They don't

have the scores on those 10,000. They have scores – people go out and assess

roads. They pick roads in the area, basically, and then they assess them. They

score them and they go on the list.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know there was a lot of criticism

by the former minister that the former administration and the former previous

Liberal administrations always just did it by politics. They went out: this road

got to be done, that road got to be done, this road got to be done.

Well, when they drove those roads day after day in

their districts and realized these roads are in bad shape and their constituents

were calling them about it, they would reference this road should be paved. But

guess who'd go out and do the scoring then, Mr. Speaker? It would be an

engineer. As the minister has so rightly pointed out, engineers did it – after

you referenced to them that that road needed to be done.

We have

10,000 kilometres of road, a lot of Transportation and Works staff, who are

great by the way, don't get the opportunity to travel those roads to see what

really needs to be done in a lot of our areas, especially in a lot of rural

areas because it's so much to look at. But if you have people out reporting and

complaining and coming to their Members and advocating for it, you can call it

politics in or out of paving, but the bottom line is the roads were still done

on a needs basis.

doubt, there may have been some that probably could have been skipped, no

problem, but my point is you got to pick a case here now where you're taking the

politics out of paving. And I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don't really get it.

I can

tell you – I'll use a road in my own district and the minister can argue this

with me and we'd debate it, as an example. My colleague from Ferryland out

there, he's arguing constantly on the roads. I have other colleagues here: Cape

St. Francis got issues, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. We all have issues in our

districts. That's normal. That won't go away, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

just reference Route 60. I can give you numerous emails, times I've spoken

publicly, questions I've asked here in the House: Where does Route 60 land on

the list? Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity and all due respect to the minister, I

don't think that's a hard question.

Route 60

is the fifth busiest –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd wish he'd

answer those questions in Question Period instead of here trying to heckle me

now in my time up on the budget. It's so sad. This is really terrible.

That is

the fifth busiest road in the province – 20,000 vehicles per day. The minister

will tell us all the time: It's a local road and the town should take this over.

We got Peacekeepers Way, Route 1, and that's our responsibility, Route 2.

Fine, go

talk to the town. There are a lot of repairs got to be done to that road for

anybody who's taking over the road. This conversation has gone on forever and we

are making strides towards fixing it. But I'll remind the minister of one thing

right now, as we speak here right now, Route 60 is a provincial road. It's under

the province's responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

Yes, and when he fixes that

overnight, he can fix a lot of other things, Mr. Speaker.

So I'm

asking: Why can't I get the scores for Route 60? Why can't I get the scores?

I'll continue on that challenge, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's a fair

question. Why can't I get the scores for Route 60?

If you

have the fifth busiest road in the province, the most travelled road that really

has a depot – the Foxtrap depot is in the district, these people travel this

road every day, why can't engineers assess that road? What are the scores for

Route 60, Mr. Speaker?

What

about Witless Bay Line? What's the scores for that? Why don't he come and tell

us – why don't he go and fix Mutton Bay Bridge? That was supposed to be done

three years ago, now it's almost falling out into the river, and he's over there

heckling and telling me everything he has figured out.

I'm

asking a simple question: What are the scores for those roads? If you're going

to say the former minister heralded it on the five-year roads plan; we are

taking the politics about of paving; we have a comprehensive roads list; no more

will you be at that; this is the way it's going to be; we have a list – no one

complained about that, Mr. Speaker.

I stood

up in this House – you can look back in

Hansard , you can check – I complimented the government and the minister when

they came out with the Roads Plan, but I don't compliment them on saying one

thing and doing another. I don't think they took the politics out of paving. It

may appear that way. I do not think they took the politics out of paving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Sorry, Minister. When you get

an opportunity in Question Period one of these days, you might provide the House

with some decent answers.

Right

now I have a few minutes left and I'll speak. You can get up whenever you want

and rebut what I have to say but I have a few minutes left there to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Maybe he didn't score the

road.

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah, I don't think the road

has been scored because if you don't take the politics out of paving, you go

red, blue, orange, red, blue. That's the way it's done. We were criticized for

that. At least they can be a bit genuine –

AN HON. MEMBER:

That's politics.

MR. PETTEN:

That's politics. So the

politics is in the paving, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister just confirmed for the House politics is still in our paving. Thank you

very much, you finally assured – Minister, you finally told me.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order

49. The Member opposite just referenced that the minister said. I said I did not

open my mouth.

The

Member should start listening. At no point, Mr. Speaker, did I utter what the

Member just stated that I spoke. I did not. It may have been a Member on this

side of the House, but I can assure the Member opposite that I did not say what

he has just said I said, absolutely, unequivocally and I expect an apology.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if

cameras don't catch all this at home. Right now, I think I'm on camera. He has

not stopped, in the 15 minutes I've been on my feet, heckling me.

I'll

tell the residents of Conception Bay South and the town council: He just said

with a stroke of a pen he can put Route 60 with the town. He could do it. He

said that, Mr. Speaker, not me. I said about the politics in paving. He said

that's politics.

MR. CROCKER:

Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Folks, I would suggest that

this is a disagreement between honourary Members. I would say that it's not a

point of order. I'll allow the Member to please continue his remarks.

I've

asked the Member for Conception Bay South to please continue his remarks.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

move on now to a couple of other things that's very important to me. In my last

few minutes I want to go to carbon pricing.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to speak to a new point of order, Mr. Speaker, under

section 49; the Member got

up again and referenced comments back and forth across this House. He stands up

today and talks information about meet with the town – we've met with the Town

of CBS recently as last week.

MR. SPEAKER:

Please get to your point.

MR. CROCKER:

It's unfortunate that he

wants to get up and continue to play politics, Mr. Speaker, with this. We're

willing to work with the Town of CBS.

MR. SPEAKER:

There is no point of order,

please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd ask the Member for

Conception Bay South, please continue his remarks.

This is

a debate, please continue.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately more time's gone, but I got a couple of minutes left and I want to

talk about carbon pricing.

We stand

up in the House here day after day after day and people might say what are you

getting on with again, or some people may not be even attuned. I know a lot of

Members opposite are not clued in to carbon pricing. But it's not only them, Mr.

Speaker, a lot of people in this province aren't. When I referenced tonight the

initial comments about taxes people got to realize, that's another tax. Either

way you cut it, it's another tax.

I guess

one of the good examples, it was only recently, it was there last week – during

the Easter break, actually, I was meeting someone up in my district and this

other guy came in.