March

12, 2013 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVII No. 75

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order

regarding a question posed to me yesterday during Question Period. Mr. Speaker,

the Leader of the NDP had a question yesterday with respect to the budgetary

process in the House of Assembly.

I quote

Chapter 11, page 505 of O'Brien and Bosc, "All questions relating to

the internal and financial management of the House of Commons fall within the

statutory responsibilities of the Board of Internal Economy . Such matters do

not fall within the administrative responsibilities of the government. That is

why responses to these questions cannot be expected from the ministry."

Mr. Speaker, according to this

section of O'Brien and Bosc, government

ministries can only answer questions for which they are responsible. The Leader

of the NDP should have directed her question yesterday to the Management

Commission, of which she is a member.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that on the issue she questioned

yesterday, it was dealt with on February 28, 2013 in a meeting at which she was

in attendance. Furthermore, I understand that when the vote was taken regarding

to the cut to positions, there were no dissenting votes. So the Leader of the

NDP knew the decision, agreed with the decision, and voted for the decision.

This was a management decision that she made as part of the Management

Commission, not one that I was involved in as Premier of this Province.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule on the point of order,

according to the

section of O'Brien and Bosc,

Chapter 11, page 505, which

clearly indicates the question was inappropriate and outside the realm of

government responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: No, I am rising on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will address the point of order first.

Our Standing Orders are silent on this issue. There are some references in

our Standing Orders, Standing Orders 51 to 56, dealing with written questions

and the appropriateness of some types of written questions and that some may be

ruled out of order.

With respect to Oral Questions, though, the Premier's point of order and the

issue that she has raised with respect to whether or not questions posed by

members of the Opposition to members of government can, in fact, be out of

order, we have not had, in my personal recollection, any circumstance where

questions have been ruled out of order, but, in fact, citation reference of

O'Brien and Bosc does deal with the issue of appropriateness of certain

questions within the House of Commons. As we have said many times here, when our

Standing Orders are silent on an issue, we refer to our past practice of the

House, and in the absence of guidance there, we will would look to O'Brien and

Bosc for guidance.

There is a point of order, a valid point of order, that the question was

obviously well beyond the administrative responsibilities of the government, and

further a reference to O'Brien and Bosc with respect to where such questions

might be directed, because we are all aware in this House: the House has a

Management Commission. It is our Management Commission that is akin to the

Internal Economy Commission referenced in O'Brien and Bosc in the House of

Commons.

We have, as a Management Commission, the same responsibilities to this

Legislature and to its members as would the Internal Economy Commission in the

House of Commons. All matters with respect to the administration of this House,

whether it is financial or other related matters with respect to how we function

as MHAs, and the administration of the House of Assembly Services, which include

the supports for us as members, all of those administrative issues and the

budgets associated are dealt with by the Management Commission; and the

representation of that Commission is made up of members of all parties. As the

Speaker, I Chair that.

Collectively, we as members in this House manage our own affairs through that

Management Commission. It is only ourselves who are responsible for and

answerable for the issues that the Management Commission takes under

consideration and decisions that it makes. It is not the responsibility of

government.

There is a valid point of order and I would ask members to be guided, because

as a Speaker, in future the Chair will rule questions that are not appropriate

and beyond the responsibility of the government's administrative

responsibilities; such questions will be ruled out of order.

The Leader of the Third Party, on a point of privilege.

MS MICHAEL: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I am raising this point at the earliest opportunity of the issue being

brought to my attention. On December 18, 2012, I asked the Speaker for a point

of order due to hearing accusations from the government side of the House that I

was falsely accused of cursing and swearing during the debate on Bill 53,

An Act

to Amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act and the

Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. I was unable to identify who made the

comment I heard as I spoke while recognized by the Speaker on this very

important piece of legislation that we were debating at the time.

The Speaker investigated the instance; on Thursday, March 7, 2013, his first

opportunity after this incident, the Speaker gave his ruling that no

unparliamentary language, either written or audible, had been made by me. The

Speaker noted that Hansard did identify the accusatory comments of

unparliamentary language made by a member and on March 7 the Member for Mount

Pearl North, on prompting by the Speaker, identified himself as the person who

had accused me of using unparliamentary language and apologized for his comment.

Unfortunately, on March 10, 2013 I was made aware of comments made on Twitter

on March 8 and continuing on more than one occasion on March 9 by the Member for

Mount Pearl North, restating his unparliamentary accusations

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: that I had cursed and sworn in the House of Assembly, in

spite of him having stood in the House two days before saying that he meant no

ill intent and apologized to the Speaker and the House.

Mr. Speaker, you made a previous ruling on May 9, 2012 regarding

unparliamentary language used on Twitter. In that ruling you talked about the

standard of conduct which we, all elected members, should expect of each other.

sitting so as to escape being sanctioned for unparliamentary language while

still making an accusation. You said you would consider that a breach of

privilege of the House.

The Member for Mount Pearl North has shown great disrespect, Mr. Speaker, for

your ruling on March 7, 2013 and also for the previous ruling on March 9, 2012

by repeating on Twitter this weekend the words for which you ordered him to

apologize. His behaviour undermines the authority of the Speaker and the dignity

of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, you made the ruling May 9, 2012 regarding an accusation made on

Twitter against a member saying, "Here is a point I would ask you to keep in

mind, or one of the points I think it is significant to be guided by: had this

accusation of lying been sent while the House was sitting so as to escape being

sanctioned for unparliamentary language while still making the accusation, I

believe it would be a prima facie case of privilege. I remind all members of the

privilege they enjoy as members of this House, and with that privilege comes a

responsibility that all of us have to maintain the integrity of this House."

Mr. Speaker, these words of yours were very sage advice to all of us who sit

here as parliamentarians. It is possible that today's situation is graver than

the occasion in May of 2012. Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Mount Pearl North

apologizes to you in the House of Assembly on Thursday and then proceeds to

retract his apology by repeating his accusations on Twitter over the weekend,

reveals that the member was not at all serious about his apology. The Member for

Mount Pearl North is, in fact, mocking the dignity of all of us as members of

this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The Member for Mount Pearl North has negated the apology he

made to the hon. Speaker and to the House of Assembly, and is breaching his

privilege. He is trying to do through the backdoor that which he cannot do in

the precincts of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you investigate this matter, and in the event that

the actions of the Member for Mount Pearl North are found to be a breach of

privilege, ask him to absolutely and unequivocally apologize and withdraw his

remarks.

I do have copies here of this point of privilege for both of the other

caucuses, Mr. Speaker, and for yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker acknowledges the point of privilege that has been raised, and the

fact that the redress required was an apology from the Member for Mount Pearl

North, I consider the matter dealt with.

Today we have in the public galleries; I want to welcome the Mayor of the

Town of Botwood, Mr. Jerry Dean. He is accompanied by the Town Manager, Mr.

Steve Jerrett.

Welcome, both gentlemen, to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the

District of Bay of Islands, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North,

the Member for the District of St. John's North, the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl South, the

Member for the District of Bellevue, and the Member for the District of Lake

Melville.

The Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a special annual event

in the Town of Cox's Cove.

On February 1, I attended the opening ceremonies of the Mark Baldwin Hockey

Tournament. This annual three-day event is in recognition of the late Mark

Baldwin, a young man from Cox's Cove, an avid hockey fan, who unfortunately died

in a tragic vehicle accident in Alberta in 2002.

Over sixty players took

part in the tournament, and this weekend also

included various competitions for the children. This year's tournament was

especially significant as it also recognized Tommy Buffett, who was instrumental

in organizing the event every year. Unfortunately, Tommy passed away this past

November after a courageous five-year battle with cancer. In his honour, the

organizers have renamed the tournament the Mark Baldwin/Tommy Buffett Memorial

Hockey Tournament.

All money raised over the years has been used to fund a scholarship

established at Templeton Academy in memory of Mark. Proceeds from this year's

funds will now also include a scholarship in memory of Tommy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in recognizing this event which

honours these two great individuals, the volunteers, the town and participants

who keep their memories and dreams alive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the Grade 6 classes at Elizabeth Park Elementary

for completing the DARE program.

The DARE program is an international program designed to teach students to

abstain from participating in illegal activities, using drugs and alcohol, as

well as other violent activities. It is taught in partnership with the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary, and Constable Patricia Stanley played a key role in

delivering the program to the classes at Elizabeth Park.

By completing the program, these students are learning valuable skills that

are essential for their personal development. I would also like to thank the

teachers, the administrators, the parents and the RNC for their contribution to

this program. This is a great accomplishment for these young students and

hopefully what they have learned through the program will be an asset to them

for years to come.

I would like to once again congratulate these students for graduating from

the DARE program and ask that all members of the House of Assembly join me in

congratulating them as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead, please.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken me a couple of minutes because I needed to verify a

few things and I had my own point of privilege to raise. I am raising a point of

order with regard to the minutes that were quoted by the Premier.

The meeting that the Premier is talking about on February 28 was an in camera

session. I know that we in the Management Commission continue in camera sessions

as private sessions that we do not talk about outside of those meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order with regard to the

Premier who is not a member of the House Management Commission quoting from

minutes of a private in camera session of the House Management Commission. I am

not sure I have seen those minutes yet, and I am a member of that Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure that I see a point of order being raised here. I very much see

a double standard that the member opposite stood in Question Period and raised

an item that was discussed in a private meeting, yet feels that it is not okay

for a member on this side to raise a point of order respecting that.

I do see if there is any merit to raising that question, that it is not for

this House of Assembly but it is for the Management Commission. The member

opposite clearly, clearly initiated this discussion when she raised the topic on

the floor of this Legislature, a topic that was discussed in private by the

Management Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the question

I raised here in the House and I accept your ruling earlier that it should not

have been raised here in the House. The question I raised was based on the fact

that the members of the Public Accounts Committee had been notified that the

researcher who had been working with them was released. That person was no

longer going to be working for the House of Assembly.

It was based on that information and that information only that I asked the

question. It was not based on any knowledge from an in camera session of the

House Management Commission. It was because the MHA for The Straits White Bay

North, who was on the Committee, was notified by one of the co-chairs that the

researcher was gone. That was the basis for my question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the point I would make here is that the trail of events

is what is most important here. The member opposite asked a question in this

House which she says was a direct result of a press release being issued, which

she feels, based on her statements today, gives her the right to step outside of

the role of the management committee and try to hold the Premier of this

Province accountable for a decision that she had nothing to do with. It was a

decision taken by the Management Commission.

The point of order raised by the hon. Premier in this House today was simply

challenging the authority of the member opposite to try to hold the Premier of

the Province and the government accountable for a decision in this public

Legislature for which we had no input in, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard the point of order raised and has heard

a couple of interventions with respect to it. Very reluctantly, to be frank with

you, those of you who listened to my ruling with respect to the Premier's point

of order would have heard me describe the role of the Management Commission, its

function, who sits on it, and the distinction between government and the

Management Commission.

That Management Commission has a responsibility to all of us individual

members. The Commission has a responsibility to all the individual members in

this House. The composition I will repeat again of that Commission is made

up of equal members from government, as with Opposition. I sit as the Chair of

that Commission.

I think we do the Commission, this Legislature, and us as individual MHAs a

grave disservice if we continue to debate the function of the Management

Commission and try to undermine the function of that Management Commission and

how it acts on behalf of all of us as members.

There is no point of order because it is inappropriate to be discussing

within the Legislature issues with respect to the Management Commission. If

members of the Commission, or members of this House, in fact, have an issue with

the function of the Management Commission, I invite them to write me and express

their concern. It will be on the agenda of the next Management Commission, and

we can have a full discussion as Commission members in a televised debate around

what the Commission is doing or not doing and how it functions.

I will not entertain any further comment with respect to the function of the

Commission, and I consider this issue having been dealt with.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North, with a private member's statement.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate two students from Leary's Brook Junior High.

Rita Huang and Tiffanie Hayter walked away from this year's Model Bridge Day

competition as the 2013 Master Bridge Builders.

The Model Bridge Day competition is an annual highlight of National

Engineering and Geoscience Month. Junior high and senior high students from the

greater St. John's area design and build model bridges. The only materials they

can use are Popsicle sticks and white glue. The bridges are then tested with a

hydraulic actuator. Basically, they are subjected to increasing amounts of

pressure until they break.

The bridge that Rita and Tiffanie built, the winner of the junior high

division, did not break until the pressure it was facing reached 771.1

kilograms. Now, to put that in perspective, that is nearly 1,700 pounds, the

average weight of one fully-grown male polar bear or nine fully-grown male

Members of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

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

Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador for

sponsoring this annual competition, and congratulating Rita and Tiffanie of

Leary's Brook Junior High for winning this year's challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this hon. House to

congratulate the Mount Pearl Soccer Association on their fortieth anniversary.

Since its inception in 1973, this tremendous organization has been teaching

youth in Mount Pearl the value of hard work, endurance, wellness, and teamwork

and is responsible for many experiences and friendships that will last a

lifetime.

In recognition of this significant milestone, the Mount Pearl Soccer

Association held numerous events including a kick-off luncheon, a dance, several

tournaments, a forty-hour marathon game, a family fun day, a closing dinner, as

well as a number of initiatives to recognize sponsors and volunteers. They have

also embarked on a legacy project in partnership with The Rooms, which will see

the establishment of a permanent archive to capture the history of the

association over the past forty years and into the future.

I would ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the

Mount Pearl Soccer Association on achieving this significant milestone, and

thank the many volunteers and community-minded sponsors for their continued

support of youth in our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. PEACH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to extend

congratulations to Tricentia Academy Timberwolves of Arnold's Cove for winning

the gold medal in volleyball in the C division, eighteen and under juveniles.

There are ten girls on the team: Keisha Temple, Nicole Seaward, Amber Ryan,

Hilary Reid, Natalie Throwbridge, Kayla Mulroney, Jessica Warren, Joanne Fry,

Jasmine Hiscock, and Kayla Hollett. The girls' victory is attributed to the

valuable coaching of Ms Crystal Penney. The young ladies who participated were

Grade 11 and 12 students. There were sixteen teams involved in this tournament

and it took place in St. John's on February 23. They battled through from 8:00

a.m. to midnight to make for a long day, but it was well worth it in the end.

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

congratulations to the Tricentia Timberwolves for capturing gold, and wishing

them the best in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the athletic achievement of several individuals

from my district during the Labrador Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, Rick Burden of Churchill Falls single-handedly represented his

community of Churchill Falls. Rick competed in six of the seven mandatory events

of the games, achieving more points than many communities who had full rosters.

He did it with a smile and a spirit so enjoyable that the athletes chose to

honour him with the award of Most Spirited Athlete.

Mr. Speaker, Rick Kennedy and Cathy Jong also showed the grit and

determination of true Labradorians and were successful in their events. These

two individuals were chosen as the Top Male and Female athlete from the great

District of Lake Melville.

While, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the achievements of these athletes, I must

say, all of the athletes from my district gave it their all during the games,

entertaining us with nail-biting events such as the ball hockey final, where

Sheshatshiu came out victorious against Cartwright, or when Joseph Tuglavina

from Northwest River won the men's snowmobile race.

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

the athletes who competed in the 2013 Labrador Winter Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of visiting

students and staff at Brother Rice Junior High for the opening of their annual

science fair, which coincides with the recognition of March as Youth Science

Month in schools across Newfoundland and Labrador.

As it turns out, the school is holding its annual Heritage Fair at the same

time, so I was fortunate enough to view a wide range of high-calibre projects in

both the science and heritage fields. I commend the students at Brother Rice, as

well as all students from across the Province, for their hard work and

innovative thinking in preparing for these events.

Mr. Speaker, each year students compete in school and regional science fairs

during the month of March. These fairs stimulate curiosity, provide motivation

for learning, and encourage our youth to develop an appreciation for science. As

in past years, several students from this Province will attend the Canada-Wide

Science Fair, which is taking place in Lethbridge, Alberta in May. I have no

doubt that students from Newfoundland and Labrador will once again represent us

well.

In today's classrooms, Mr. Speaker, students learn about the fundamental

principles of science and how to apply this knowledge to the world around them.

Recognizing this, in recent years science laboratories in schools have undergone

a major refurbishment, with investment of $5.6 million in lab safety and science

equipment. We have also renewed curriculum, so that the entire K-12 program is

aligned with the pan-Canadian framework for science.

I invite my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in congratulating

students across the Province whose hard work results in some top-quality

projects. Join me as well in thanking the many teachers and volunteers who spend

countless hours mentoring our students, and for organizing science fairs and

other events which complement the education curriculum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: I thank the minister for an advance copy.

One of the defining characteristics of any government is its education

system. A great education system produces healthier and happier citizens,

effects that trickle down for generations to come. Well-educated people are

healthier people, better able to make positive lifestyle choices, and generally

they perform better financially. Well educated citizens are empowered citizens,

better able to access government services. They confidently

navigate the world around them.

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, should we be satisfied with a good

education system or should we insist on the best education system? Don't we want

the best schools? If we were at the Olympics wouldn't we strive for the gold

medal? Of course we would. So why don't we apply the same standards to the

education of our children? That is the potential that is the possible.

What is the reality of our education system? The reality of our educational

system is this, in spite of this government investing 51 per cent in K to 12 on

17 per cent fewer students since 2003, our education outcomes have declined over

ten years. The government can dismiss this claim but clear objective proof of

this decline can be found in a review of PISA scores.

The Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, was developed by

the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. PISA is an

assessment tool that tests how well fifteen-year-olds around the world perform

in literacy, numeracy, and science. In all three divisions, our Province's

scores have declined from 2003 to 2009. It is objective proof that this

government does less with more, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We are all proud of our teachers and youth who are engaged in pursuits

related to science and technology,

like Rita and Tiffanie from Leary's Brook, who I mentioned earlier in my

statement. All of our students should be provided with an opportunity for a

quality high school experience regardless of the subject, whether it is science

related or not.

Since there are no class size caps for Grades 10 to 12, I continue to

encourage the Minister of Education to turn his attention to correcting the

problems created by his flawed and outdated teacher allocation model.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this hon. House that March is National

Nutrition Month. The month's theme, Best Food Forward: Plan Shop Cook Enjoy!

encourages consumers to make healthy choices when grocery shopping.

To assist consumers in navigating the grocery store, the Affordable Healthy

Eating Guide has recently been made available through the Department of Health

and Community Services. Based on Canada's Food Guide, the Affordable Healthy

Eating Guide provides helpful meal planning and grocery shopping tips and

recipes. This resource was developed as part of the Eat Great and Participate

program in collaboration with regional nutritionists from the four regional

health authorities. The guide is now available on the Department of Health and

Community Services Web site.

Mr. Speaker, Nutrition Month is an initiative of the Dietitians of Canada,

the association representing registered dietitians across the country, with more

than 100 members in Newfoundland and Labrador. By visiting the organization's

Web site at www.dietitians.ca, people can access fact sheets that feature

helpful tips to help them plan, shop and cook; an iPhone app that will send

users a tip-a-day on the Nutrition Month theme; and, a list of Nutrition Month

activities that are taking place throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we know that good nutrition is a key component of overall

well-being. Our government recognizes the importance of living healthy and

promoting wellness. Each year we focus on programs and projects that further the

goals of the Provincial Wellness Plan.

In 2012, we provided grant funding to thirty-seven community-based

organizations through the Provincial Wellness Grants program. Projects funded

under this initiative included community gardens and kitchens, and a program

that brought youth and seniors together to learn how to prepare healthy,

low-cost meals. We are currently reviewing applications for the 2013 program.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to strengthen our community

partnerships and encourage residents to take an active role in their health and

their wellness. We all have a role to play in implementing the actions required

to improve wellness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy diet is a key determinant of health and will save our

health care system money down the road. We have been criticized for getting the

worse bang for our buck in the country with regard to health care, so investing

in these preventative measures, like a healthy diet, is certainly imperative. We

have issues in this Province like the high obesity rate, as well as the highest

rate of type 2 diabetes. So we still have a ways to go.

Distributing information on healthy eating is only one step. Sadly, access to

healthy eating is a luxury for some. People on income support cannot afford to

eat by the Canada Food Guide. I understand the challenges of living in this

Province that we have when it comes to our geography and when it comes to

transport, but we still have the highest food bank usage in Canada. Too many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians cannot afford to make healthy eating choices.

We deal with food insecurity in Labrador, where a case of baby formula that

costs $35 here in St. John's costs $79 up in Labrador. A pamphlet is nice but we

need to do more. I would note the irony and the fact that the JCPs that were cut

just before school started, one of the programs they delivered was a healthy

lunch, a school lunch program. So there is irony there. We cannot just educate,

we need to facilitate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The role of dietitians in promoting healthy living and promoting wellness is

crucial. Good health is a vital aspect of our personal lives and a vital aspect

of a viable health care system. The old expression: an ounce of prevention is

worth a pound of cure.

We applaud the government for the Wellness Plan and hope through layoffs and

cuts that the government will at least have the good sense to spare these

programs. To our dieticians in the Department of Health and Community Services

who have done such important work and continue to do so, bravo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Four years ago today, seventeen people lost their lives while travelling to

the offshore in the crash of Cougar Flight 491. There was one survivor. Almost

two years after the Wells inquiry recommended the establishment of an

independent offshore safety regulator, there has been still no movement. At the

time, the Premier supported this recommendation.

I ask the Premier: You have said in the past that amendments would have to be

made to the Atlantic Accord to set up the safety regulator, so what have you

done to make this happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government accepted all of the recommendations of the Wells

inquiry and we stand by that commitment today. We do support an independent

safety regulator, but we are only half of the C-NLOPB. The federal government

has responsibility and would have to agree with the recommendation for that to

take place. We continue to press the issue with the federal government, but

concurrence has not happened up to this point. We firmly support the

establishment of an independent safety regulator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, of course, what is being done to make this happen;

what I would look to hear is what the holdup is. What are the outstanding

issues? Mr. Speaker, we did ask the minister. We asked Minister Penashue about

that and he is wondering where the Province is, by the way.

Mr. Speaker, in the 2010 Throne Speech, her government promised to establish

a memorial to the victims of Flight 491. Now, three years since that commitment,

no location and no design details have been set.

I ask the Premier: When will we finally see this memorial and why is it

taking so long to honour the lives of those who died working in our offshore?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in regard to

that was a terrible tragedy. Four years ago today, seventeen people lost their

lives. This government made a commitment to the families of those particular

people and there were seventeen of them. There were a lot of people involved and

their lives were changed forever, forever and a day.

We have entered into consultations. We had to contact those particular

families; some of them are outside of the Province. We consulted with them. Now

we have a consultation report in our possession and now we will move forward. We

want them to participate in regard to what that memorial is going to look like.

I remind the hon. member as well it took three years before a memorial was

actually established in regard to the Ocean Ranger. You cannot rush these things

because as I just said, people's lives were affected forever and a day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last month the Government of New Brunswick released their regulations about

hydraulic fracturing in that Province. It was a 106-page document that outlines

the rules for the industry to ensure responsible environmental management.

Meanwhile, our Province, there are no established regulations around fracking.

I ask the Premier: Why are you dragging your feet on setting government

regulations for the industry to follow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government supports economic development in this Province.

We support the development of the oil and gas industry, including in Western

Newfoundland. We support the forestry industry. We support the mineral industry.

The only way to have prosperity, the only way to receive revenues, is from

economic growth which provides jobs and provides resources that we can use for

important things like health care and hospitals, and progressive social programs

that we can afford.

We support this development. We have legislation. We have the Petroleum Act;

we have regulations under that act dealing with environmental assessments that

deal with oil drilling onshore. We have the C-NLOPB that regulates the offshore.

Through an MOU, our government, with the C-NLOPB, regulates onshore to offshore

wells.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In recent weeks, we have heard that the NDP, of course, promote a job-killing

moratorium on fracking. Government has failed to establish clear regulations

putting our environment at rest and suppressing industry investment. Industry

wants clear regulations, but this government has not been clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: I ask: Will this government put in clear regulations? Where do

you stand on the shale oil plan on the West Coast that has a potential over 20

billion barrels of oil?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: I am glad to see somebody on that side supports economic

development and prosperity for the West Coast of Newfoundland in addition to the

East Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we support economic development, but at the

same time, we also support robust environmental regulation. You can have both.

It is not a matter of banning one and having the other. You can have both.

It is about finding a balance: a balance between economic development on the

one side and a balance between environmental protection and regulation on the

other side. It can be easily accomplished, and we will proceed with development

in all fields and I like the one on the West Coast in particular so that we

can have more prosperity for the people of the Province, especially those in

Western Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I believe there is a way to promote the industry, and there is a way to

do it and our environment is kept safe.

What I ask the minister is: Will you commit to bringing in regulations so

that this industry can be developed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have regulations. We are all concerned

about the protection of our workers and safety of our workers in the offshore.

We are concerned about protection of the environment, whether it is on land or

whether it is on our shore. We have an environmental process. If economic

development, if certain projects are to proceed, there is a process that has to

be followed. The Minister of Environment, my colleague here, he certainly looks

after that.

We can have economic development that delivers prosperity to the people of

this Province, at the same time having robust environmental regulation that

protects our environment and our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, yesterday in Question Period the Premier said that $245 million has

been transferred to Nalcor in Budget 2012.

So I ask the Premier: Before we actually officially sanctioned Muskrat Falls,

there was $45 million sent to Nalcor. So are we to assume now that in the last

two and a half months you have sent $200 million to Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the parties opposite refer time and time again to the fact that

$600 million was earmarked last year for transfer to Nalcor for Muskrat Falls

and for our equity investments in the offshore, when in fact, approximately $245

million was transferred.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked how much money had been spent

on Muskrat Falls since sanction, and that number is $103 million, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, government originally budgeted, as I said, the $664 million to be

transferred to Nalcor. We know there was $245 that has been transferred, so

there is a considerable amount of money that has been left over here.

Will the remaining over-$400 million be transferred to Nalcor, or will we use

it to cover some other costs in this year's Budget? Indeed, will Nalcor get it,

or will we take that money back to use in other programs, such as the Adult

Dental Program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I again have to implore the members opposite to stop pretending

that you do not understand the fiscal structure of the Province. The $600

million that was earmarked in the Department of Natural Resources was not

contained in the current budget, Mr. Speaker. That was contained in investment.

There is a difference between a capital budget, the investment budget, and the

current budget.

Muskrat Falls has nothing to do with the deficit we are experiencing this

year. It has nothing to do with the projected deficit for 2013-2014. Mr.

Speaker, I offered a briefing to members of the media with regard to Muskrat

Falls in the budget last week. I now offer it to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I remind the Premier, I think I can understand that we write

cheques. I also understand that there is a bank account that you wrote that

money from. Somewhere there is an extra $400 million. As a matter of fact, the

Minister of Finance, just a few months ago said that we were flush with cash and

that we had surplus. We had a surplus of about $2.3 billion, actually.

There is another thing that affects our deficit, Mr. Speaker, and the

co-managers I will refer to this of the Tory election campaign are senior

bureaucrats in government and they were eligible for a bonus program, a secret

bonus program that the Premier just suspended.

I asked this question last week. I did not get the answer. How much money did

Ross Reid and Len Simms collect under this bonus program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the Leader of the Opposition's

preamble before I

get to his question.

He clearly does not understand the difference between capital, investment,

and current. I truly, sincerely invite you to a briefing where we can explain

the difference or you will stop pretending that you do not know the difference,

because it is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador to be subjected to these kinds of false arguments.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a bonus system in place for a number of years for

all deputy ministers within government. That is not new. The only thing new is

that program has been suspended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I find it interesting that the Premier today wants to give

lessons on fiscal management when we are entering a $1.6 billion deficit

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: a forecasted $1.6 billion deficit for the following year and,

incidentally, forgot that there was a $44 million surplus that was forecasted in

year three. That was just this week.

Mr. Speaker, senior bureaucrats at Nalcor had this similar bonus regime to

the one that was just suspended by this government.

I ask the Premier: Why are we allowing the officials at Nalcor to continue to

receive bonuses while you are suspending all others?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition continues to demonstrate his

ignorance with regard to the financial structure of this Province. There is no

surplus of cash, Mr. Speaker. Every asset this Province owns, whether it is in

buildings, whatever the type of infrastructure, or cash on hand, is taken into

account when we talk about the fiscal situation of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, stay tuned in terms of Budget. This Province is in better shape

than it has ever been in the last fifty years, Mr. Speaker, and that is due to

good progressive management on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we did not get the question answered. It seems that the Premier

does not want to answer this question today.

Will the Premier please tell us, or just tell us if you know or not: How much

did Len Simms and Ross Reid get from the bonus program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reid and Mr. Simms do very valuable work for the people of

the Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, both of them have been lauded at various

times by members of the Opposition for the quality of their work and their

contribution to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, all ADMs are eligible or have been eligible for a bonus,

depending on their performance in the workplace - all deputies, Mr. Speaker -

and as their assignment is as a deputy minister, both of these gentlemen were

eligible for those bonuses. All of that is accounted for, Mr. Speaker, in our

Estimates.

All of that is out there and transparent to the people of the Province, Mr.

Speaker. There is no secrecy. We make very clear what is happening in terms of

our salary vote, Mr. Speaker, and anybody who checks the minutes of Estimates

would know that is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in 2011 the government accepted all the

recommendations of the MOU on fisheries marketing, yet we have no progress in

this critical policy. Fisheries commentators attending the Boston Seafood Show

state that one of our Province's glaring shortfalls is the lack of branding of

our seafood products.

I ask the minister: When will your government show some interest in fisheries

and help us compete in world markets with a strong branding and marketing

campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, our government, through the process of MOU and

beyond, fully acknowledges the importance of marketing, and acknowledges with

the industry the challenges that we have to compete in the global marketplace.

Some of the initiatives we have engaged in as a result of the MOU and the

request from industry is that we would put money forward to develop a seafood

marketing council, in which we did. We would put money forward to work to

develop a seafood council and sales consortia, where we would provide inventory

financing to help with the industry to make them more sustainable and viable,

and, Mr. Speaker, we did.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, industry uptake has been very slow on that

initiative. It has been very measured, but we continue to work with industry. We

continue to support them in their marketing needs, Mr. Speaker. This goes back,

we have a long history of supporting the marketing needs, when our government

offered to buy the marketing arm of FPI and industry rejected it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with private ambulance

operators should have started in 2011. After saying the ambulance review would

not interfere with negotiations, government is now refusing to negotiate until a

review is complete.

I ask the minister: How do you explain this gross miscommunication?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a hard job some days trying to figure out which way the

Opposition is going to go. It was not very long ago, Mr. Speaker, they were in

the House and they were saying when is the ambulance operation review going to

start? Now, Mr. Speaker, I think they want me to ignore the ambulance operation

review. Which is it, Mr. Speaker? It is hard to figure this out.

We are doing an ambulance operations review in this Province, Mr. Speaker,

because we need to do a review. We need to ensure the efficiencies that can be

brought to bear on the ambulance operators in this Province are something that

benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the operators, the ambulance attendants, the general public,

RHAs, were all invited to be part of that process, to voice their opinions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the ambulance operators are wondering out

there too how come the government seems to flip-flop on what they say. They say

one thing one day and then they change it the next day.

The contract with private ambulance operators expired one year ago. The AG

criticized the program two years ago. This is a government that consistently

misses its own deadlines.

I ask the minister: What took you so long to initiate the review and

negotiations, knowing it would force operators to work without a contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the fact that we have hired Fitch &

Associates to do this review for us. We spend $56 million a year on ambulance

services in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We are happy now to have the opportunity

to review those programs and to see again how the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador can be better served through that particular program.

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of in that. The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have all had opportunity to contribute to that, Mr.

Speaker. In the end, we hope to have a better program. I do not see any reason

to criticize what it is we are doing here when it is about finding efficiencies

and doing a better job. You asked for the review; we complied. We saw the reason

to do a review, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

In his report on offshore helicopter safety in response to the loss of

seventeen people on the Cougar helicopter 491, Judge Wells recommended the

creation of an independent offshore safety authority. The Premier has on more

than one occasion, and she did it again today, told us that she and her

government are absolutely committed to it and that there is an impasse between

the provincial government and the federal government.

If she is so committed to it, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to tell

us: What is her strategy and plan for breaking that impasse?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in playing political games around offshore

safety, particularly in the face of this anniversary. We fully support the

recommendations of Justice Wells and the Wells inquiry. We have stood by that

report from the day that it has been released. We continue to advocate on behalf

of the establishment of an independent operator, I suspect in the same way

members of your party do in the federal Parliament. We will continue to do that

until such an entity is established.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think it is fitting on the anniversary of the tragedy, by the way, to show

that we are trying to get actions in place to bring hope to people who work on

these rigs.

Mr. Speaker, despite hundreds of offshore workers signing petitions stating

they do not want night flying and Judge Robert Wells also saying no to night

flights, it is astonishing that the C-NLOPB is still considering allowing them

to resume.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: On the anniversary of the Cougar helicopter

tragedy, will she and her government take a strong stand in favour of the

workers and recommend to the C-NLOPB that there be no return to night flights?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Leader of the Third Party that the

C-NLOPB is an independent body that operates arm's length from this government.

I also want to say that while we support the establishment of an independent

safety regulator, we have confidence in the C-NLOPB.

All of us are affected by danger at sea. We have been profoundly affected in

this Province by the loss of the Ocean Ranger and Cougar 491, Mr. Speaker

plus hundreds of lives that have been lost, particularly through the fishing

industry.

This is not an issue that we take lightly, and it is not an issue that we are

going to play politics with, particularly on this day, Mr. Speaker. We have

confidence in the C-NLOPB and we will continue to press the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Wells recommended that no worker be forced to take a night

flight as a term of his or her employment.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she and her government make it known

to the industry, speak to them and to the C-NLOPB, and make their thoughts known

that government considers night flights to be hazardous and employees have every

right to refuse them without fearing for their jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me state again for the record, there is no higher priority

for this government or for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador than personal

health and safety, especially in the workplace.

We have confidence in the C-NLOPB that they will make recommendations that

are in the best interests of the people who work in the offshore, Mr. Speaker,

because what is in the best interests of the people in the offshore is in the

best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and of the businesses that

operate here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier once again said it is her intention to develop a

ten-year plan to reduce the Province's per capita debt to the national average.

Yet, researchers at the federal office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer tell

us that a national average cannot be accurately calculated, as debt is

calculated differently in different provinces.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is her government developing a

ten-year strategy based on a target number that experts say does not exist? What

really is she aiming at?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our Province has made significant progress in reducing debt and

we have reduced the net debt from a high of $11.9 billion to a projected $8.9

billion in 2012-2013.

Net debt per capita is something that is used; we look at it across the

country, and in 2004-2005 it was $22,976 per capita. In 2012-2013 it is down to

$17,328. The Premier, last year in the Budget, announced a plan to get closer to

the Canadian average, so I really do not know what the member opposite is

talking about. It is a standard that we use, it is one that is acceptable, and

it allows us to set a goal that brings us on track with the rest of the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, students with disabilities in this Province still

face too many roadblocks in trying to access and complete school. As The

Telegram newspaper has recently documented, the ordeal inflicted upon the

Maytum family of Mount Pearl by the Department of Education is nothing short of

shameful.

Will the Minister of Education stop forcing stressed parents to go public to

get help and come clean on how many other children he has removed from schools

this year by cutting their transportation funding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly make no apologies for any

investments that we have made in education to this Province. Our record, I am

willing to stand here and say, will compare to any other province in this

country, and in fact, will exceed many other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the case that has been referenced is an unfortunate situation.

There is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. Efforts were made to accommodate this

particular individual. Mr. Speaker, we do our best to accommodate students; it

is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, here we have another incident where a student is

clearly being discriminated against because of a disability. To make matters

worse, we have another already stressed family being forced to bring these

matters to the media instead of a mediator.

I ask the minister: Why the secrecy? Why won't he create the transparent

appeals process for parents that were recommended in the ISSP and Pathways

Commission over five years ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have invested quite heavily in the ISSP

process. That team approach is used in every instance where incidents arise,

where challenges are faced. It is no different in this particular situation, Mr.

Speaker. I am not and will not speak to specific examples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, government is dropping rural from the

Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development with cuts to RED

Boards, Employment Assistance Services, and no real plan for creating jobs from

the ground up. Megaprojects create boom and bust economies, force migration, and

tears away at the social fabric of our economy. Rural jobs warrant real

attention from an economy looking for answers, but has been ignored.

Will the Minister of IBRD get serious about rural job creation and prevent

further mass out-migration, which is decimating the rural landscape?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, there has never been a government in our

history that invested in rural Newfoundland and Labrador like this government

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, there are record levels of investment.

Investments in telecommunications, investments in small and medium-sized

enterprises, investment in transportation, hospitals, schools, you name it

across the board. Most of our infrastructure investments have gone to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We continue to invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador small and medium

enterprises. We work with them daily. The RSDF $42 million we have invested in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador working with our non-profit groups on the

ground, building infrastructure that drives economic activities in rural

communities. That has leveraged another $110 million. That is all in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, in the hon. member's district, in all of our

districts around this Province that represent rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are driving rural Newfoundland and Labrador

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, government has invested $23 million since

2003 into aquaculture, including six biosecure wharves. Without it, this

investment, some 1,000 jobs and $400 million would be lost. The forest industry

on the Great Northern Peninsula impacts more than 150 workers and can prove to

provide significant returns.

When will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to provide a needed wharf

to the Roddickton port to sustain an industry, jobs and rural communities, as

well as put needed money back into the Provincial Treasury?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our government, under the Forest Industry

Diversification Program, has placed millions and millions of dollars into

helping the woods industry, the sawmill industry, in rural Newfoundland. Up on

the Great Northern Peninsula, I can think of $10 million invested there to try

to help them kick-start that in the Town of Roddickton. The Mayor of Roddickton

I am meeting with him on Friday to discuss that further.

I know we invested in the Town of Hampden in Burton's Cove in Hampden to

support their operation; Sexton Lumber in rural Newfoundland and Cottles Cove in

rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to economic

development in all parts of the Province, especially rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White Bay North, a quick

question without

preamble please.

MR. MITCHELMORE: When will the Minister of Natural Resources act on

promises to create a pellet industry in Newfoundland and Labrador that works

like other provinces in Canada?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, for a quick

response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we work with the private sector, we work with

investors, people who want to create opportunities. We invested heavily,

millions and millions of dollars, into the Great Northern Peninsula to help

them.

Mr. Speaker, the operation is idle right now; the operation is facing

challenges. I have met with that company and we are prepared to certainly work

with them and other members of the industry to try to see that industry go

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled; the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there has been an agreement between the Federation of Newfoundland

Nation Band; and

WHEREAS persons submitted applications with required documents for

registration in the Band up to the application deadline of November 30, 2012;

and

WHEREAS the reported number of applications received by the Qalipu Mi'kmaq

First Nation Band are in excess of 100,000; and

WHEREAS the reported number of applications now registered as members is

approximately 22,000; and

WHEREAS the agreement between the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the

scheduled to end on March 31, 2013; and

WHEREAS the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Chief has requested but has not

received an extension to the agreement to process the remaining applications;

and

WHEREAS to date there is no decision on how to deal with the remaining

applications;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work

provide a fair and equal review of all applications.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this matter is not strictly a provincial matter, because the

Indian Act is federal legislation; however, in this Province historically we

have had a past dealing with native peoples that we have nothing to be proud of.

We have not treated native peoples appropriately, so much so that most of the

population literally went underground and went unrecognized for generations,

even went unrecognized for more than 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many people in this Province who have native

ancestry and this is a step forward for people to be recognized. In addition to

and it behoves the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to take whatever steps

are necessary to facilitate the Federation of Newfoundland Indians registering

all people who are eligible to be registered under this federal program.

This is on behalf of people primarily from the Great Northern Peninsula;

however, they are from all over Western Newfoundland generally. I submit this

petition on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Western School District is considering a multi-year plan to close

Bayview Regional Collegiate at St. Lunaire-Griquet in June 2013; and

WHEREAS it has been proven from students

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: who have graduated from Bayview Regional Collegiate,

they have excelled in their studies to prepare them to move ahead and achieve

their career choices; and

WHEREAS teachers and staff at Bayview Regional Collegiate are qualified and

continue to provide a strong academic program with a full curriculum to all

students attending; and

WHEREAS Bayview Regional Collegiate has developed a playground, library,

drama club, Kids Eat Smart lunch program, school council, and other activities

with exceptional community support; and

WHEREAS Bayview Regional Collegiate housed a K-12 school in the past with

200-plus students who have had access to a science lab, cafeteria, art room,

computer lab, gymnasium, and extracurricular activities; and

WHEREAS the parents, business operators, social groups, concerned citizens,

and students of the municipality of St. Lunaire-Griquet request to rescind this

proposal;

Since Bayview Regional Collegiate has met and exceeded all aspects set forth

for a viable school, we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge

the government to ensure that the Western School District is provided with

sufficient funding to keep Bayview Regional Collegiate at St. Lunaire-Griquet

open.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this was a decision that was made back in 2008. It is evident,

despite what the Minister of Education had said, that they will stand on the

record of government spending in education. Well, not everyone is satisfied with

the way things are being expended and how the school system is being operated.

To close down this school and bus students up to an hour and a half, forty

kilometres to forty-eight kilometres each way, will have a significant impact on

the quality of education and safety of these students when there is another

school in the community, Truman Eddison Memorial, just a few minutes away, which

could also house these students. It is not about keeping two buildings, Mr.

Speaker. The common-sense solution when you are looking at consolidating would

be to close down one and make a K-12 or a K-9 school, as has been done in the

past.

Schools are pillars of a community and they need to be so. They can be

drivers for sound economic policy, especially in rural areas. I put forward this

petition on behalf of constituents in my district raising this concern; the

minister and the Western School District have failed to even engage, listen, and

respond to various concerns on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I rise to enter a petition.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents Humbly Sheweth:

WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the South Coast of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the communities of Burgeo,

Ramea, Grey River, and Franois use Route 480 on a regular basis for work,

medical, educational and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 480; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 480 require cellphone coverage to ensure

their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of IBRD recently announced significant funding to

improve broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 480 feel that the Department of

Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also invest in cellphone

coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support

the users of Route 480 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in the House three days and this is my third time

entering a petition on cellphone coverage. I am only hitting my district right

now. I have just done Route 470. Today I have done Route 480.

Route 480 is a 150 kilometre stretch of roadway. The residents of these

communities that I named off, not just residents in my district, residents in

the district of the Member for Fortune Bay Cape la Hune have to use it on a

daily basis to access health care, to access employment. To access anything they

have to travel this highway.

Anybody who paid any attention to the news over the first two months with our

weather conditions saw the bad road conditions on the Burgeo Highway. The road

had to be closed on a number of occasions. In the winter months it is a constant

issue when you are travelling along not knowing, having that uncertainty that if

something happens you cannot call in. It was only last year we had an accident

where an individual from this side of the Province was in a serious accident, no

cellphone coverage. Thank God, there was somebody in the area who could call.

Now, the fact is I had to put this one in today because I have already done

Route 470 with all of those communities. We talk about the nice apps that the

government has put out to talk about affordable eating or healthy eating. Well,

the fact is many places in this Province cannot use those apps. They cannot use

their cellphones because there is no cell coverage and it is 2013.

I understand the Province is working as hard at they can but we need to do

better. We need to force these providers to come to the table some way. I know

we can have success because the minister has had success in broadband. It is

time to make sure that we can get this done for cellphone coverage. I am sure we

will cover off the rest of the Province as the days continue on and hopefully, I

can enter one of these everyday when I get the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2.(

a) Resolution and Bill 62,

Respecting the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and

the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the

resolution.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are considering the related resolution and Bill 62,

An Act For Granting To

Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2014, And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service.

We will resume debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, I am going to pick up on a couple of topics that I referred to

yesterday. First, I am going to talk about debt reduction and debt management,

Mr. Chair. I am going to outline the impact of debt on our Province, not only in

relation to our bond rating agencies and our credit profile, but also the very

practical cost of debt, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Before I do that, I just want to distinguish the approach

taken by our government and that of the NDP. I am going to refer specifically to

an interview given by the Leader of the Third Party on December 14, 2012, when

the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi was asked about debt reduction and our

emphasis on that.

The member stated that in 2011 we had a $755 million surplus actually, $756

million and all of it went down to pay off the debt, when we already have a

really good debt reduction plan in place. They did the same thing in 2007; $881

million surplus, and this went down towards paying the debt. I have never agreed

with their paying down the debt by surpluses as they have been doing. This is

the economic platform of the NDP. They do not agree with paying down debt.

Then the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi goes on to state: when you are

in the situation we are in Newfoundland and Labrador, where no matter what our

current moment is, we are still doing we are making up for decades of not

having money, which is what we have been saying for the last number of days;

slow down paying off the debt. You still pay it. We have our plan, a plan that

the creditors like.

Mr. Chair, she goes on to state: but this paying down the surplus every time

they have a surplus, putting it on the debt, I think, has been a bad fiscal

plan. This is the leader who wants to be Premier of this Province and who

maintains that it is not important to pay down debt.

Let us look at what the bond rating agencies say about paying down debt and

the importance of paying down debt. As I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Chair, debt

costs us approximately even though we have not borrowed in years, we are still

paying down debt; debt costs us over $800 million each year. That is what we

have to pay. That is the debt servicing charges on outstanding debts in this

Province.

What the Leader of the NDP is saying: do not take that money and spend it on

services. Do not take that money and spend it on health care and education. Just

do not pay down the debt. That is basically what they are saying, Mr. Chair:

debt is not important.

If you were to run your household or your business like that, what is going

to happen to you? What is going to happen very quickly, Mr. Chair, is you are

going to become bankrupt. That is what their plan for this Province is: to

bankrupt the Province.

Let us look at what the bond rating agency said. Moody's, Mr. Chair, the

first I will refer to of three, says that, "the reduction in debt" now listen;

it is important to listen to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: " The reduction in debtover the past several years has

enhanced fiscal flexibility materially." At page 2 of the report it talks about

strong expense growth in 2006 to 2011, but states that, "the requirement to

boost services and public sector wages to remain competitive withCanadian

provinces and thento help stimulate the economy," especially during the

recession. At page 3 they state that the volatility in our resource sector

"highlights the importance of maintaining fiscal prudence to ensure the

continuation of sound fiscal outcomes."

Mr. Chair, that is what Moody's had to say. Let us look at what DBRS rating

agency had to say, their report of August 20, 2012. Page 2: "The expected

deficits are manageable, in light of the Province's credit profile." That the

spending restraint required for program expenditure growth is averaging more

than 8 per cent over the last five years; that Newfoundland and Labrador

continues to post robust economic indicators; that we have low debt burden

relative to our rating.

They talk about the challenges we face, Mr. Chair, such as declining oil

fields and the unfunded pension liabilities, Mr. Chair, which make up close to

70 per cent of our debt. On page 5, it talks about our Province not having

incurred any debt since 2007, and that is a notable accomplishment, especially

in light of the 2009 recession.

Standard & Poor's deals with the issue of debt in some detail, Mr. Chair, and

they state that their ratings on Newfoundland and Labrador reflect the view of

our Province's strong economy, our positive financial management, our low-debt

burden, and very positive liquidity.

They go on to talk about Newfoundland and Labrador's vibrant resource-based

economy, that our positive financial management also supports the ratings, that

we have the third-lowest debt burden among Canadian provinces, and that our

dependence on federal transfers is less than all of our peers', being Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, and Quebec.

They go on to talk at length about the positive financial management which

stems, to a great extent, from paying down debt, Mr. Chair. They talked about

our allocating large budgetary windfalls to lower debt, stockpile reserves, and

improve tax competitiveness, the object of lowering net debt per capita to an

all-provincial average over ten years, one-third of any budget surplus being

directed towards unfunded pension liabilities.

All of the bond rating agencies talk about our sound fiscal management and

the importance of paying down debt, but what does the Leader of the NDP say?

That is a poor strategy or it is not a strategy that she would adopt. That is

$880 million a year that we are paying that she is simply saying: do not bother

with it, and see what happens.

We know what happens if we do not pay down debt, Mr. Chair. In the pre-budget

consultation document that was posted on-line, there is a chart that outlines

our consolidated surplus deficit versus net debt. In 2003-2004, when we took

over government, Mr. Chair, our net debt was around $12 billion. We have managed

to reduce that approximately 25 per cent and we continue to put any surpluses

which, unfortunately, we are not going to have for the next couple of years on

debt. We will put down, I think it is, approximately another $200 million on

debt this year.

So, if we do not deal with the deficits that we have, then net debt, the

projected deficits which are in the pink in this document, if we do not deal

with those projected deficits, then what will happen by 2015 we could be back to

where we were in 2003. Again, debt costs money. We are paying on debt; the more

debt, the higher the cost.

Let us just look at $800 million in servicing charges. If we had $800 million

to divide in this House between all of the members for their districts, that is

a lot of money. If we look at what we can do with $800 million, look at the

schools. At $25 million, you could build more schools; recreational facilities

at $20 million to $25 million, you could build a lot of recreational facilities.

You could build health centres anywhere from $30 million to

AN HON. MEMBER: Corner Brook.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, you could even build Corner Brook hospital with the

money we save on debt. Mr. Chair, look at the pavements you could lay down. Look

at the water and sewer that you can put in. That is why paying down debt is

important. It is because it not only saves money but it influences the credit

profile and all of the bond rating agencies are very positive today about what

we have done here.

When the Leader of the NDP says do not pay down debt, she is essentially

saying do not worry about deficits; it is all going to work out. Well, that is

not a plan. A plan, Mr. Chair, is what we are trying to do. This is the amount

of money we have, this is our expected revenues in the next number of years, and

this is how we are going to get us back to a balanced Budget a surplus would

be great, but at least to a balanced Budget. You cannot do that if you simply

continue to spend, spend, and spend, which seems to be the mantra of the NDP,

especially.

I have to say, I am not only picking on them. As I said yesterday, if I were

to say, well, what would you not have us build? Would you not have us finish the

Trans-Labrador Highway? Would you not have us build hospitals and pave roads?

That is not the way it works, Mr. Chair. What it is, is a situation where we

have to pay down debt as best we can to ensure that we save money and use that

money to pay for services.

In this particular interview, the member of the NDP said we do not have a

plan. Then, she said: What would the NDP do? Well, that is the question I pose

to the Leader of the Opposition, a businessman who understands the fiscal

framework. What would you do? I say to the Leader of the NDP: What would you do?

Help us out here. We are all in this together. Tell us what you would do here to

reduce the debt, or is debt not important? I would be very surprised if the

Leader of the Official Opposition were to say that paying down debt is not

important. We already know the position of the NDP.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chair, it gives me pleasure to get up and speak to

Interim Supply, and to answer some of the questions from the Minister of

Finance.

I know that he has a difficult job, as regards to dealing with the Province's

debt. I do not think there is any question as regards to dealing with the debt

that he has his hands full. Whether they caused that or not remains to be a

matter of debate.

Some people in this Province, of course, they look at the numbers and they

see $1.6 billion worth of debt in one year, followed in the next year by another

$1.6 billion. I heard the Minister of Finance earlier yesterday I think it was

talking about the possibility of four years that we were going to be in debt.

I do not know if anybody else heard that.

Mr. Chair, the way I see it is that you do not necessarily have to take the

money that you have to put down on your debt. There are other ways that

government can be creative when it comes to handling a debt situation. They

could have creative ways of investment in some programs so that they can

generate savings.

Let me give you a good example of that let me give you a really good

example of that. Diabetic test strips, when the motion came across the floor

here what was it, about a year-and-a-half, two years ago, when it came to

diabetes test strips. There is probably not a member in this House right now who

is not affected by diabetes. There is probably not a member in this House whose

family is not affected by that, and it is a drastic disease.

When the motion came forth in the House, and when we talked about it in the

House when other members talked about it in the House, because I was not in

the House at the time the whole idea behind the diabetes testing strip was to

make these things free so that we would be able to prevent disease from

happening, prevent a burden, an extra added burden to the healthcare system, for

example. So, we could be talking about people controlling their diabetes and at

the same time preventing other diseases from happening. I mean, look at what is

related to severe cases of diabetes: kidney failure and heart disease the list

is almost endless.

Still, the reasoning at that particular time and government came forth at

that particular time, I think it was two years ago, and said that they will see

in the next Budget whether the costs for diabetic test strips would happen, but

they did not. So now, that is one way, potentially, for government to be saving

money in the future. The government cannot literally turn its head and say, no,

they have to have the money, and they have to generate the revenue in order to

do that. There are other creative ways of doing it; that is just one.

I sat down the other day, sitting about this particular debate when it was

coming up let's talk about municipalities. Let's talk about municipalities,

what they could be doing, for example, with municipalities but the lost

opportunity, in this case, for municipalities.

The minister would certainly be first and foremost to think that he would

love to see a municipality, a city or a town, go ahead and generate its own

revenue by having feed-in tariffs, for example, if they wanted to generate

electricity. I am pretty sure that the minister would agree with me in seeing

the opportunity for a municipality, for example, to expand on its own base,

being able to expand its own revenues by having a feed-in tariff program or

something like that, in order for municipalities to generate revenue.

It does not necessarily have to come from government, from the provincial

government, to pass down to a municipality. It could be an opportunity for a

municipality itself to generate revenue outside of government. It does not have

to be like that.

For example, when we are talking about electricity feed-in tariffs, when they

are talking about the ability to sell the electricity in the Newfoundland and

Labrador market an opportunity, by the way, that was taken away by this

government in the Muskrat Falls deal when they locked it up and gave it all to

Nalcor. We cannot compete in that market. Government moved in and took away that

opportunity from municipalities, so that is just one.

We are still waiting, by the way, on the part of municipalities for that new

funding formula. I get it from municipalities every day; they are still waiting

for it. The potential right now in a deficit position is that we are probably

not going to see it in this particular Budget, and that is disturbing to me.

At the same time, when municipalities are being forced to see a shortfall in

revenue, potentially, this time around, the pressure now all of a sudden has

fallen on the taxpayer. We recognize that an increase in property taxes can

probably be a positive thing for some, but for some others it is an

affordability issue. Here we are, talking about trying to keep people in their

own homes, and at the same

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I would say to the minister, Mr. Chair, that we suggested,

for example, part of the gasoline tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does that come from?

MR. MURPHY: That comes right from the consumer. We all know that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: It is just that government ends up calling the shots and they

decided to divvy up the pie their own way, not give a solid commitment for

funding to municipalities. We are still waiting for it.

At the same time, getting back to the taxpayer, it is the taxpayer in the end

who gets dinged for it, because the provincial government fails to meet the

needs, the financial needs of municipalities. Then we have the taxpayer coming

back harassing their own councils and everything because they feel the pressure

of it. Again, I say to the minister that it is an affordability option when it

comes to that.

I want to come back to AES, because everybody thinks about AES and EAS as a

strictly rural issue. Mr. Chair, it was kind of upsetting to me over the last

little while that while the provincial government was instituting these cuts, I

found out that twenty-one of these cuts to EAS are happening right in the

District of St. John's East. Nobody would have thought of that, but it is

happening in St. John's East. We have twenty-one positions that are going to be

gone, we have twenty-one families that are going to be affected, and twenty-one

potential homeowners who are going to be faced with an additional financial

burden.

Mr. Chair, it is not for the simple fact only that they were out there doing

their jobs as regards to finding employment for people; these people were also

doing the work of social workers at the same time. They were taking people off

the street, for example, who needed education, taking them out of a troublesome

environment in some cases, giving them an education, and setting them up with

employment. They were not just job counsellors; they were part-time social

workers at the same time. I commend them for the job they were doing.

At the same time, what cost is that going to be potentially, I say to the

Minister of Finance, to additional programs, for example, like in the Department

of Justice? What is it going to do to their budgetary issues in the future,

because the needs are not going to be met by AES workers? It is a question we

need to sit down and we need to ask ourselves: Were these cuts right? I still

say, no, they were not.

Let us talk about the growth in rural opportunities, for example, with the

loss of some of these EAS workers. Let us look at Trinity Bay. Let us look at

the Town of Hant's Harbour now that just lost its crab plant. Some of the

workers there are faced with a bus ride now to go down the shore about an hour

and half or so, down to the next crab plant down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they are lucky.

MR. MURPHY: If they are lucky, there may be a job for them. Now we have a

town in trouble, a town that at last count when I was there, I think, was

somewhere in the area of about 800 people. Quote me if I am wrong. It is

probably a little bit less now.

Hant's Harbour is a beautiful little town on the shores of Trinity Bay, now

without a plant. It was the first town in this Province; it was the founder of

the crab industry. There was not any opportunity offered when it came to, for

example, a co-op operation. I will say that. At the same time, we lost AES and

EAS workers down there, down along that coast. Now the employment opportunity

was taken away.

We have a town that is failing, a town at the same time that is in trouble

when it comes to municipal issues. How are they going to go back to their own

taxpayers to fund the municipal needs of that particular town? We know that

Hant's Harbour has municipal needs. It has a small fire hall, like other small

communities. I am pretty sure they would appreciate a fire truck. That is, if

there is going to be anybody left in that community in a few years' time.

We have troubles in this Province when it comes to AES workers. It is going

to be coming at a much more substantial cost, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, what I

say when it comes to debt and debt management, it does not all have to come as

one lump sum of money from something like oil. We do not have to lose our

natural environment because of the pressures of needing revenue in our

treasuries. We can slow down and we can take a look; the oil is always going to

be there in the ground. So, we need a cautious approach here, and it is not all

the time that debt management has to come from your immediate bottom line. It

can come from investments in the future.

I see that my time is almost up, here, Mr. Chair, so I will relent the floor

and pass it to somebody else.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, in these ten minutes, I am going to talk about a couple of things. I

want to talk about the have Province concept, Mr. Chair, where a number of years

ago I remember this clearly; it was the first stint I had as Minister of

Finance. It was around 2009 it could have been November or December 2009 and

I went to a federal-provincial-territorial Finance Ministers' meeting.

In the middle of the meeting, the Finance Minister for Canada, Jim Flaherty,

announced that Newfoundland and Labrador would no longer be receiving

equalization, that we were a have Province. We all, and the people of the

Province, jumped for joy. From a pride perspective, it was great. Everyone said:

Well, look, we are finally there. After fifty years of being seen as Canada's

poor cousin, we are no longer dependent on equalization.

Being a have Province, Mr. Chair, means we can pay our own way. It means that

we make our own decisions, as I stated yesterday. Also, as I stated yesterday,

Mr. Chair, being a have Province can mean that we have less money, because right

now and I outlined this yesterday if you look at where our revenues comes

from, in 2011-2012, midyear, 35.8 per cent of our revenues came from offshore

royalties. You go back to 2004-2005, 34 per cent of our revenues at that point

came from federal transfers.

Now, the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer we get anyway,

but what we have gone, over a period of seven or eight years, is from 34 per

cent of federal transfers to 10.9 per cent. In 2012, the $536 million for the

Atlantic Accord ended. We have reduced taxes by $500 million since 2007, and

that is not just income tax

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: that is seniors' benefits and that is the tax on energy.

So, it is easy to see why we have gotten to the situation today where the

deficit has arisen. We have spent wisely building infrastructure, building

schools, but what has happened is that our federal revenues have decreased.

Being a have Province, while being a source of pride socially and while

meaning a lot to us as a people from an economic perspective, it means we have

less money. That is one of the arguments you can put forward, so what we have

had to do is to adjust our revenues. We have a very volatile economy. It is

dependent on oil.

As I indicated yesterday, Mr. Chair, if the price of oil goes up a dollar, we

make $25 million. If the Canadian dollar goes down a cent, we make $25 million.

If we get 10 million extra barrels of oil, that could be $500 million to $600

million in terms of production. The production numbers we rely upon comes from

the C-NLOPB. It is very volatile. The price of oil can up and down, as we have

all seen. It has been from $90 this year, I think, to $124. It is averaging

right now for the year around $111 a barrel.

What we have is a situation where we are dependent on our commodities. Iron

ore has gone up. It could be $150 down to $100, I think, in the last year. What

happens in China again, as I have said so often, determines what is going to

happen in our Province.

What we do, what we mean, by being a have Province is that we make our own

decisions now. We generate our own revenues. I think there are only three

provinces in Canada right now that meet that criterion. It is very important

from a social perspective, but from an economic perspective, I am not sure that

it means so much.

The second point I want to deal with and there has been some confusion over

this and it is a confusion that has been deliberately planted by critics of

Muskrat Falls and the Opposition parties, is that Muskrat Falls somehow or other

contributes to our deficit.

We have said on numerous occasions that Muskrat Falls is an equity

investment. We will get our return on the money. It is a good investment, but we

always keep coming back to those two basic questions one, we need the power,

and that Muskrat Falls is the cheapest alternative. That is why we built Muskrat

Falls. We needed power and it was the lowest-cost option, as we went through in

great detail before Christmas.

The money, it is an investment that will return great rewards for this

Province. It is an example of diversifying our economy so that we are no longer

as dependent on the volatility of the commodity markets. It leads, as it now

stands, without new discoveries, Hibernia will take us out to 2040. Hebron will

come on approximately 2016-2017 and go until 2037. White Rose is declining, but

even Hibernia is declining.

Each year, we are dependent on such things as production. We are dependent on

rigs going down, like we saw last year. We are dependent on the price. We are

dependent on what goes on in the Middle East. We are dependent on what goes on

in China.

So, we looked at Muskrat Falls; not only did we need the power but it is a

good investment for our people and for our future. Once we got beyond the

sanction argument, and every argument was thrown at us in that, now it is

Muskrat Falls has caused the deficit.

Well, the Premier has stated, and I have stated, and the former Minister of

Finance has stated, that there is none of the operating money gone to Muskrat

Falls. Then, if you look at our revenues and our expenditures, you will see that

we have spent on social programs. We have spent on hospitals. There was a $500

million raise for the public service in 2007. It adds $500 million annually to

our budget. We have spent to reduce the debt.

What I referred the members opposite and the Premier offered everyone today

the opportunity but our House reporter for The Telegram , James has put

out a blog on the issue of Muskrat Falls and going to the deficit. It appears to

be fairly clear. He certainly outlines in great detail. I am not sure about the

toilet paper analogy, but other than that. I think electricity is perhaps more

of a necessity.

In any event, he outlines in great detail how he when he sat down with

senior officials at Finance it was explained to him. He outlines in his blog

very clearly that the deficit is not related to Muskrat Falls in any way. Why do

members opposite keep saying that? One, they want to fear monger as they have

done with Muskrat Falls from day one; or two, they do not understand.

Now, I know the Leader of the Official Opposition knows better. Now, whether

he will admit it or not, that is another point. As for the NDP, I do not expect

them to know better, to be quite frank with you, Mr. Chair, because they do not

believe in equity investments. They do not believe in debt management. They

believe in spending, and that is why they continuously call for the spending on

universal health care, universal home care, universal pharmacare, and universal

child care.

What we have, Mr. Chair, is a situation where it is pretty clear in basic

accounting principles, Muskrat Falls is an investment in our future and it has

nothing to do with the deficit. Do you know something else, Mr. Chair? Even if

we had a balanced budget, some of the steps and moves we are making we had to

do.

This has actually been a good exercise, this budgetary process, this core

management reviews. It has caused all of our departments to look really deep

into what is going on to determine whether or not the programs that are being

offered are the ones that are relevant today. What I am saying is that a program

could have been developed ten years ago; it may not be as relevant today as it

was then. There has to be a continuous review within government of the programs

and services that are being offered.

We stated clearly, Mr. Chair, that we are trying as best we can to avoid

reduction of front line services in health care and education. We are striving

very hard to try to ensure there are no layoffs of teachers in the classroom,

Mr. Chair. We are striving very hard to protect the services that we have worked

so hard to provide to the people of this Province, that we have taken the money.

Again, I must emphasize that this Province and all provinces have

challenges, no question, but we live in such a large Province with so many small

communities that are oftentimes separate. Do you know what the reality is? Is

that people demand and have a right to services.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs may be able to put this out at some point,

but the number of communities in this Province where taxpaying residents live as

opposed to local service districts and unincorporated communities is quite

significant. As I indicated yesterday, I think it is 15 per cent of our revenues

come from personal income tax, and out of that 15 per cent most of the taxes are

paid by 20 per cent. That means we have shielded those who are not as fortunate

from the significant taxes.

We could tax. We are trying not to do it. We are trying not to raise people's

taxes. We are trying to deal with this in a way, Mr. Chair, that allows for a

bright, prosperous and sustainable future. That is why it is time to stop the

foolishness about Muskrat Falls being related to the deficit.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my first opportunity to speak to this Interim Supply bill. I have

listened to quite a bit of it yesterday while working in the office of course.

One of the things about that, I guess, I want to discuss of course the basic

principles of accounting can get very difficult. I am not a CA, but there was no

question today that the Minister of Finance talked about debt, and how much debt

is it fair for a province, on behalf of its residents how much debt would a

province carry?

I think everyone realizes that no matter what we do in our life we will

always have if you want to grow a business, for instance, you will be required

to manage debt. You will require debt. Typically, you will go out and you will

borrow money to if it is financing your inventory, financing the fixed assets

or even your buildings, whatever it is, typically you use that with debt. As a

matter of fact, there is an old saying that people quite often use, that you

really do not use your short-term money; you can actually get that into

long-term debt whenever you can because it is a great way to manage cash.

One of the questions that has been raised and we have been accused

sometimes of talking about the deficit versus debt. There is one other term that

I will raise today, which is where the area is that I should do a better job of

explaining.

As you know, when we look at our deficits on an annual basis, typically you

take your revenues. As the minister has mentioned, the revenues would come from

a number of different sources. When you look back at the sources of our

revenues, there is no question that the offshore royalties have had a huge

impact on where we get money. This money, of course, this government in the past

has used to pay for like anybody would, any government would do this. It would

not matter if it was a Liberal government or if it was a PC government. Whatever

the government would be, they would use their access to revenue for instance,

from oil royalties to pay for services for the people of the Province.

When you look at your deficit and you look at the revenue, you look at your

expenses and therefore you generate your deficit at the end of the year. It is

kind of like an income and expense statement that you would see in your normal

day-to-day business. Then you look at your debt and your net debt. That is more

complicated where you actually bring in other factors. You would bring in your

pension liabilities, for instance. You would bring in the cash that you would

have in your bank account. You typically would not see this in an income and an

expense statement.

The one thing we have not discussed is where Muskrat Falls impacts the

overall financing of the Province, of course. That can be dealt with in one of

two ways. That is our change in cash value. We understand in last year's Budget

there was an excess of $2 billion that was available that we would actually be

using. Actually, I did look at the blog, but it was in last year's financial

information that was put out at Budget time anyway. You would see that in your

changing cash position, it would have been around $1 billion last year. Even

though I have not asked the question yet, it is one that I thought of: where we

would be, for instance, and what would we have in that typical cash reserve

right now? I think last year it was around $2.3 billion at Budget time.

I would assume now, based on the changing cash value, it is money we will use

to pay for, some of it, our operating, some of it to pay down debt, and some of

it to transfer to projects like Muskrat Falls. The money that we would have

available to us we now have to make a decision; for instance, do you now go

out and borrow this money to do the Muskrat Falls Project? Do you borrow to do

infrastructure programs, for instance, around the Province?

This is where I am referring to, that we transfer money. It affects our cash

balance. It has to, unless there are a number of bank accounts. I do not believe

that is the case. That is not the case. The AG would have made us aware of that

for sure.

What we have here is an account. Last year we had a surplus of cash, so from

that cash account, that kind of operating fund that is a very fluent fund,

too, by the way; there would be a number of things that actually impact that and

offshore royalties certainly would be one of them, or any revenue that we would

generate.

The minister has already said, and he has made reference to less money coming

from federal sources, but what does not get mentioned in all of this that

hopefully will clarify the three things that we talked about, your deficit

versus net debt and the change in cash position. I hope that we can put that

aside right now. It will affect our cash position.

The other thing that we talked about, of course, is the federal and the

provincial transfers. One of the things that came up was the Atlantic Accord. No

matter what you do in your business, you have to know that there will come a

certain time, a point in time when that cash that you would expect is no longer

available to you, or if there is a payment, for instance, that you have to

kind of like if your mortgage is due, everyone would be able to tell us: well,

my mortgage is paid off in 2014-2015. These are key dates.

We knew for quite some time, with the Atlantic Accord, for instance, with

that accord there would be a termination date. If you look at the original

accord back in 1985, the termination date for the Atlantic Accord and the

arrangement that was made was around 2017. As a result of the amendments that

were made in 2005, for instance, what happened was the termination date on the

Atlantic Accord changed. We want to stand here; I want to raise this point that

this was not something that is new to us. This was part of the negotiation, the

date was changed, and there were five years taken off the termination date of

2017 to 2012.

Anybody who is planning their business and you want to do it in a prudent

way, you understand that this source of revenue is no longer available to you.

We knew this. Regardless of what we say about the federal government, like them

or not, there is a lot we can say and there are a lot of areas that we would

have the opinion that we need to address with the federal government.

We already know about the EI changes they make this with. Obviously, it seems

to me there was not much negotiation into that. This was a decision that they

made. This affects, of course, the economy in the Province. There are the

unemployment rates, as we saw even just recently, where we have now slipped to

last again in the country, in the provinces, just slipped behind PEI. That was

an announcement that came out just a few days ago.

The Atlantic Accord, we knew that the Atlantic Accord money would be over in

2012, so this was not something that we did not even negotiate. It was part of

the negotiating team. We went from 2017 to 2012, and there are lots of documents

out there to support that going back, I think, as far as 1985.

Mr. Chair, when you look at the situation, when you want to talk about your

current deficit, they are all factors. One of the things about it is when you

make your predictions and you do your forecasts, you do this with the best

information that you would have.

One of the things I have publicly said on many occasions right now, when you

look at the difficulty around forming a Budget for this Province, it is

extremely difficult anyway. In the best of days you have to deal with currency,

you have to deal with volume, and you have to deal with the global price of oil;

three things that we really have no control over.

It is very difficult when you look at a royalty line in particular with oil

in this particular case, mining is another issue. When you look at the royalty

line that is a direct hit to your budget, we should not wonder why we can never

get the Budget right. When you look at our experience in the last ten years now,

when you look at the experience that we have with our Budget, we very rarely

make our Budget. I have a list of them that goes back right to 2003.

When you look at the variances in our Budget which is extremely important

because when people look at you as a Province they say: How are you doing with

your budgeting? When you see big swings, either high or low, there are a lot of

accountants, a lot of people into financing; they do not like to see those big

swings. We have experienced that over the last ten years with our Budget

process.

I can give you a few here. Back in 2004-2005, for instance, there was a

difference of we had budgeted on Budget Day $759 million and the revised

Budget came in at $492 million. Even in the early days we saw a swing back then

of $271 million.

I have a few seconds left on the clock. I look forward to getting back to

discussing this in greater detail, the difficulties of predicting, of actually

budgeting the way we budget in this Province right now with the liquidity and

how fluid we have it when you look at the issues around predicting oil pricing.

Last year, I know for instance, at $124 a barrel it was very difficult

because we never really did hit $124 a barrel. I think the minister said

yesterday it was around the $110 range or $111 range. It is extremely difficult,

but what you need to do is make sure that you can predict as accurately as

possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure to have an opportunity to have a few words here

this evening as we talk about Interim Supply and heading towards the Budget that

everybody eagerly awaits.

I notice lots of commentary back and forth between members who are sitting in

the House. Obviously, many different perspectives on how we arrive at a Budget.

In particular, talking about revenues and the dollar amount we use or the dollar

per barrel of oil that we use in projecting revenues.

Mr. Chair, it is not where I am going to focus my remarks, but simply to say

that Newfoundland and Labrador, as a number of us have said through pre-Budget

consultations is not unique in how we do that. We do not simply grab a number.

We are not sitting in a spot where we use a number different than other

provinces or other jurisdictions.

Mr. Chair, if you look at the economy across Canada, in particular, for

example, the Province of Alberta just brought down a Budget. Contrary to what

many people throughout Canada in particular would have perhaps anticipated, I

believe they had somewhere in the area of a $2 billion deficit. That is because

of the declining production of oil and the declining price per barrel of oil. I

say that just to offer some commentary back to the previous speaker.

The Minister of Finance, indeed, does have a tough job. There is no question

about it. That job gets complicated when the economies in the world and the

economies in the country change. Governments are subject to that unfortunately.

We are living in a situation now in Newfoundland and Labrador where the

economy of the Province is red hot. You look at what is happening and the number

of people working. In spite of some of the challenges government faces, the

economy is hot and there are good things happening. That same thing is not

applying to government at this point in time because we are subjected to the

volatility in the oil market, Mr. Chair. I thought I might just make that

comment because I think it is an important point to make.

Mr. Chair, as we are going through this, the other point that sticks out to

me, and I think I heard the Member for St. John's East talk about health care

investments and health care initiatives. It is tough, Mr. Chair, when you are

doing a Budget, when you have to make choices. We are in a situation now, as the

Premier and the Minister of Finance have said on many occasions, and I have said

myself as part of the pre-Budget consultation process, that we have a projected

deficit and we have to make some choices. We are in the process of going through

that.

I certainly understand and fully respect when other members in this House

bring forward suggestions on new spending and things we can invest in. I have my

own ideas, Mr. Chair, on that. I receive feedback, as I am sure you do, from my

district and my constituents.

I also think, Mr. Chair, if we are going to be fiscally prudent and

responsible in the process that we need to talk about what our options are. If

you are saying to the Minister of Finance that you need to spend more money on

home care, or on some other education or some other piece of the Provincial

Treasury, knowing that we are in the state of facing a significant deficit, the

responsible thing to do would be to provide the minister and government how you

would tackle that if you were sitting here in government and sitting in the

minister's chair.

In other words, we do not have revenues in this Province that we do not know

what to do with. We do not have excess revenues. We have a deficit. So, we are

trying to save money. When you are talking about finding opportunities to spend

money on new initiatives, the prudent thing to do would be to suggest how you

would do it differently if you were sitting here on this side of the House and

if you were sitting in the Minister of Finance's chair.

If you want to spend $1 million new on item A, where are you going to find

that? Tell the people of the Province. Because when the people of the Province

are looking at governments, they look at Opposition parties and they listen to

members speaking in this House, they hear all kind of different ideas, all kinds

of great ideas from members on all sides of the House. Just as they want to hear

the great ideas on where you think government should make investments on how

they should spend the money at least people in my district ask the question:

Where are you going to find the money?

If an Opposition member or Opposition Party has an idea on where new spending

ought to go, then I would ask them to lay out before the people of the Province

how they would deal with the Budget and the deficit. Where would they find

savings, or would they find savings? Or would they simply say no, fair enough,

if we are projecting a large deficit this year, rather than find any savings, we

will simply add to that deficit with further new spending.

Mr. Chair, that is not the approach that our government has taken. It is not

the approach that the Minister of Finance or the Premier has taken, and it is

not the approach you are going to see when we deliver the Budget because we are

going to take a responsible approach.

We have been going through a process now of reigning in spending where we

can, where it is responsible to do so. All departments in my own particular

case, the Department of Justice, for example, which encompasses correctional

facilities in the Province. It deals with Crown prosecutors, legal aid, and

civil lawyers within my department. It deals with policing services all across

the Province, including the RCMP and the RNC. We have gone through an exercise,

a very collaborative exercise, Mr. Chair, to try to look at ways that we can

find some savings.

There are going to be some tough decisions. We recognize that. I recognize

that as the Minister of Justice that there are some tough decisions that have to

be made, but there also are some very positive and good decisions that we are

making.

I think those who have been involved in the process in departments will tell

you that when the process is finalized, we are going to be making some decisions

that are going to be in the best interest of the people and are going to be in

the best interest of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the long

term.

It is indeed a good process and when we come on Budget day, the minister, as

he has said on any number of occasions, will certainly lay out for the people of

the Province our vision, where it is we see ourselves going, and where we see

the financial future of the Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KING: over the next number of years, Mr. Chair.

The minister has been very clear on any number of occasions that we are not

approaching this as a one-year option where we are going to fix all the ills of

the Budget in one year. The minister is going to talk about plans for the long

term. He is going to talk about, obviously, any changes that we are

contemplating as a government, any reductions in expenditures, and those sorts

of things.

The minister will certainly lay all of that out, but he will also talk about

how we see ourselves navigating through what I would call a rough period of

budgeting for us, if you will, Mr. Chair, because that is wher