PDF Version

April 23,

2013 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVII No. 8

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I stand today to speak to you about a ruling I made on Tuesday, April 16,

2013. Since making this ruling, I have become aware of considerably more

information regarding the complexities and the nuances of this new evolving

particularly the manner in which individuals may find themselves attached to a

group without their explicit consent.

I have found that there is a lack of law and regulation in this area in the

members, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to be aware of those pitfalls

and the implications for them.

Consequently, my finding of contempt in this situation was erroneous and I

offer my own apology to the Member for St. John's Centre for the position for

which she was placed as she was asked to apologize to this House of Assembly.

Today we are very pleased to welcome to our gallery, from the Town of

Musgrave Harbour, Mayor Raymond Stokes, together with Councillor Watson Mouland

and Town Clerk Kim Osborne.

Welcome to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

the District of Bonavista South, the Member for the District of Bellevue, the

Member for the District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, the Member for the District

of The Straits White Bay North, the Member for the District of St. John's

East, and the Member for the District of St. John's South.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to

recognize the successful collaborative efforts of six communities on the

Bonavista Peninsula. By working together, these communities are forming a new

hiking trail network, sure to attract many hikers and tourists to the Bonavista

Peninsula. The towns include King's Cove, Bonavista, Elliston, Trinity Bay

North, Port Rexton and Trinity.

This new network will be comprised of the King's Cove Lighthouse Trail, the

Cape Bonavista Trail, the Klondike Trail, Murphy's Cove/Lodge's Pond Trail, Gun

Hill Trail and the Skerwink Trail. Each of these trails is unique in their

terrain, landscape and history. The project will require repairs and upgrades to

enhance these existing trail ways, and will provide employment in the area for

the completion of the work.

Deemed as a hiker's paradise, the Bonavista Peninsula's hiking network will

certainly be a hiking destination, drawing people to the Province and attracting

visitors to the region for a longer period of time. This will generate increased

revenues to businesses, non-profit organizations, and provincial and federal

tourist sites.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in recognizing the continued

joint efforts of all those involved in the creation of this hiking trail

network.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This being volunteer week, it gives me a great pleasure to rise in this hon.

House today to recognize the many volunteers throughout the District of

Bellevue.

Volunteer and non-profit organizations are not only important contributors to

social development but also to the economic development of communities and towns

throughout the district.

Municipalities, LSD's, youth based groups, fire departments, recreation

committees, co-operative organizations, along with many others are on the

ground, addressing local needs and supporting the local communities and the

economy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking and congratulating

the volunteers, those who give up their time to make a difference throughout the

Province and hang on to the legacy that plays an important role in the existence

of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a constituent of mine who truly needs no

introduction. Andy Jones is one of this Province's best-loved and best-known

actors and writers.

Most recently, on March 30, Andy was awarded the prestigious BMO Winterset

Award for his book Jack and Mary in the Land of Thieves . This delightful

Jack tale was illustrated by Darka Erdelji and published by Running the Goat

Books and Broadsides a small press also based in the District of Signal Hill

Quidi Vidi.

The BMO Winterset Award was established by journalist Richard Gwyn, in honour

of his wife Sandra Fraser Gwyn, and named after the house on Winter Avenue in

which she grew up. Its $10,000 prize is the largest literary award in Atlantic

Canada.

This has been a big year for Andy Jones. His adaptation of Moliere's

Tartuffe was a huge hit last summer at the New World Theatre Project in

Cupids. I was delighted to hear that it will be remounted to open the National

Arts Centre's theatre season this September.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain Andy Jones has many more great things in store for

us. Today, I congratulate him on winning the 2012 BMO Winterset Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to welcome Habitat for Humanity to my District of The Straits

White Bay North. Since 1994, Habitat for Humanity has built thirty-nine homes

for low-income families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Their flexible model of building partnerships with community groups and

municipalities, and incorporating volunteer labour, and donated supplies and

financial resources is one that has found success worldwide and I was happy to

hear Habitat for Humanity is coming to St. Anthony to offer four affordable

homes for families in the area.

Right now, Habitat is looking for the four partner families. These families

must be in need of sound, affordable housing, may not already own homes or

property, must fall within a specified income, and must be willing to partner

with Habitat Newfoundland and Labrador. St. Anthony, like so many areas of the

Province, faces an affordable housing crunch, and this is a welcome project.

The build will commence this summer. I am certain that the community spirit

of the Great Northern Peninsula will ensure that it is successful.

I ask all hon. members of the House to commend Habitat for Humanity for the

good work it does in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a constituent of mine on a milestone

celebration. Stevens Norvell turned ninety years old this year and while he

officially retired from working in 1992, he continues to research and contribute

to the academic world.

Dr. Norvell was born in the United States and immigrated to Canada in 1950.

He worked as a general practitioner, then did his surgical residency and worked

as a surgeon here in the country. He went to Dalhousie University in 1961, where

he taught surgery in the medical school until his retirement, and still holds

the position of Emeritus Professor.

His interests as a medical professor were malignant melanoma and the

examination methods for assessing the surgical knowledge of med students and

surgical residents.

Stevens moved to St. John's to live with his son and is enjoying life in what

he describes as his new home, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

He maintains an active interest in his principle hobby, Esperanto, the

universal language, which was invented in 1887. Dr. Norvell has published more

than 140 articles in Esperanto, on topics ranging from melanoma to poetry, and

has helped edit several dictionaries.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Stevens Norvell for a

lifetime of accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask all members to join me in honouring Mr. Alex Street.

Sadly, Mr. Street passed away earlier this month, but he will always be

remembered for his dedication and involvement within his community.

This outstanding gentleman was the recent recipient of the Queen's Jubilee

Medal. He served with the Engineering Division of the Canadian Peacekeepers in

Germany and was an active member of the Veterans Association. Mr. Street was

also extremely active in the community of Blackhead, advocating community

improvements, and was instrumental in helping to restore the one-room building

that served as the community's schoolhouse and chapel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in paying our greatest

respect to this outstanding peacekeeper, activist and Queen's Jubilee Medal

recipient, Mr. Street.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in this hon. House to recognize the life and

passing of a distinguished Newfoundlander and Labradorian, who, as

representative at the Commission of Government in the Dominion of Newfoundland,

participated in a very significant era in the history of our Province.

Mr. Morley Bursey's life of public service to the Dominion of Newfoundland

and later as a member of the Canadian Diplomatic Service is an example of the

spirit of service and adventure, and the work ethic that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have been known for throughout our history all over the world.

On behalf of the people of the Province, I extend heartfelt condolences to

the family of Mr. Bursey. His long life and outstanding list of accomplishments

must certainly be a source of comfort and pride, even at this time of loss and

grief.

Mr. Bursey spent twenty-seven years in the Canadian Diplomatic Service,

posted throughout the world in various capacities. Upon his retirement, he

represented the Canadian Automotive Parts Industry for fourteen years and helped

frame the automotive portion of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

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

native son of Newfoundland and Labrador, who distinguished himself around the

world for more than a century.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and express, on behalf of the Official Opposition, condolences

to the Bursey family. After living 101 years, you get an opportunity to do many

things in your life. Mr. Bursey is an example of that. He had a distinguished

career actually, when you look at it, many careers as a distinguished

Newfoundlander and Labradorian. He lived through some difficult times in our own

Province, but then went on to do many other things at the Canadian Diplomatic

Service. Then went on again and participated in the North American Free Trade

Agreement.

There is no question that he provided great leadership in everything he did,

in everything that he touched. As we celebrate his life of 101 years, we are

pleased to know that we have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have a

tremendous impact on many areas, not only of our country but internationally as

well.

As we celebrate his life, we pass on our condolences to the Bursey family and

I am sure they are left with many special memories of a wonderful life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I, too, thank the Premier for the advance copy of her statement.

I am very pleased to stand with the Premier and the Leader of the Official

Opposition as I express condolences to the family of Mr. Bursey on behalf of our

caucus, and also words of celebration for his brilliant career. We need to thank

the people who have gone before us, as he did, for the services that he

performed for us, for us as a Province, for us before we were a Province.

I think it would be very good for young people in the Province today to look

at the life of people like Mr. Bursey, to look at his career, so that they can

see what a person is capable of doing when they work hard and believe in what

they are doing. He is an inspiration for the ages, for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to advise the people of our Province that a

Triple A rating has been assigned for the financing of the Muskrat Falls Project

by credit rating agency Moody's Investors Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this is the highest possible credit rating and

is based on the strength of the loan guarantee that our Premier successfully

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Triple A rating has important value for

the people of the Province when it comes to the raising of debt financing as it

will result in lower borrowing costs. By reducing the cost of the financing for

this project, the loan guarantee represents a projected one-billion savings.

These savings will be passed on directly to the ratepayers of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the rating solely reflects the unconditional, the irrevocable

will be issued by the Nalcor funding entities for the Muskrat Falls Project. Mr.

Speaker, our government did its due diligence to ensure we attained a guarantee

that provides maximum value for the project and for the ratepayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker, is an essential one for our Province.

Through our energy company Nalcor, which is owned by the people of the Province,

we are building a world-class hydroelectric resource that will be a significant

economic driver and will diversify our economy. It is the least cost source of

electricity to meet the growing needs of Newfoundland and Labrador families and

businesses.

From jobs and business contracts during both the construction and the

operation, to stable electricity rates and additional provincial revenues, the

benefits of the hydro project at Muskrat Falls will accrue to the people of the

Province today and for many generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his Ministerial Statement.

Of course, this today is really an extension of what we heard in December. It

is not new news. It is what we anticipated from the sanctioning announcement in

December, but it does come with many conditions.

As we know, the federal loan guarantee is conditional on many things. It is

capped and certainly do not include the cost overruns. We know that through this

whole project we will see cost overruns. The federal loan guarantee will not

protect us from that, and this rate extension will not be included for that.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that was not mentioned in this statement is

that there is no doubt the Triple A rating does not express the merits of the

project itself because without the power purchase agreement, which is a

commitment from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to commit to a fifty-year power

purchase agreement and the total cost of the project, this triple loan guarantee

would not be in effect.

Even though it will reduce costs, we recognize the negotiation in itself, the

Muskrat Falls Project is conditional on the power purchase agreement committing

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to the cost of the whole project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

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

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that since this government was hell bent on

developing its Muskrat Falls Project it is a good thing they secured the loan

guarantee because we would not be having the message that we have here on the

table today, as I think the minister himself is acknowledging in his statement,

by the way.

I would like to remind the government that it was a federal NDP who pulled

for the loan guarantee in Ottawa, on the belief that when provinces agree

together, the federal government has the responsibility to help the provincial

governments that are involved to develop regional projects that benefit the

nation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, as has been said, there are

many conditions in the federal loan guarantee that have to be met before

December 31, and we will be following very closely those conditions because that

is our responsibility as an Opposition Party in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, for more than two decades, the provincial

government has been consulting with Aboriginal organizations on land and

resource development decisions in Labrador.

In May 2012, government announced plans to update and publish its Aboriginal

Consultation Policy to guide and facilitate consultation with Aboriginal

organizations.

I am pleased this afternoon to announce that we have finalized this policy

and have made it publicly available on the Intergovernmental and Aboriginal

Affairs Secretariat's Web site.

This new policy helps to clarify government's expectations and requirements

during Aboriginal consultation processes and clearly establishes the roles and

responsibilities of all parties including the provincial government, Aboriginal

organizations, and project proponents. The ultimate goal is to help ensure that

resource development decisions minimize, or where practical eliminate,

potentially adverse impacts on asserted Aboriginal rights.

Governments have a duty to consult Aboriginal organizations whose asserted

Aboriginal rights might be negatively affected by land and resource development.

This new policy will aid us greatly in continuing to respect this obligation and

in giving Aboriginal organizations a meaningful voice in the process.

Industry will also benefit from this policy, Mr. Speaker, as it will ensure

potential impacts of development activities are understood and addressed in a

timely and transparent fashion.

Mr. Speaker, the Aboriginal Consultation Policy was informed by consultations

with Aboriginal organizations and industry stakeholders, and a draft policy was

made publicly available. All feedback was considered in finalizing the new

policy.

Model Aboriginal consultation guidelines will be developed to provide

practical, step-by-step guidance to regulatory, industry and Aboriginal

officials on how consultations shall be conducted.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few decades, we have seen considerable advances

with respect to Aboriginal consultation. Through this policy, we are making

further advances in ensuring that potential negative effects on asserted

Aboriginal rights are addressed during government's decision making on land and

resource development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, this

consultation policy is long overdue. Many consultations have happened over the

years that could have benefitted from such a policy. Many more consultations are

still required, especially with NunatuKavut. Hopefully this policy will get

those consultations on track.

I find it ironic that this new policy is supposed to help government respect

their obligation to consult when Nunatsiavut has clearly demonstrated their need

to consult on the environmental impacts of Muskrat Falls and the mercury levels

affecting their land. This government continues to ignore that request.

The Premier made an announcement on Vale and the plans to go underground at

Voisey's Bay. It will probably require another Impacts and Benefits Agreement

with the people of Nunatsiavut and the Innu Nation. The government has already

cut their royalty payments to both Nunatsiavut Government and the Innu Nation, a

major factor in the Land Claims Agreement with the Nunatsiavut Government.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, that this government start practising what they

preach. The consultation policy outlined today should guide them in any future

consultation process. I am hopeful this policy will also benefit all Aboriginal

groups in the Province, including Innu, Inuit, Metis, and Mi'kmaq.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

statement. The policy was informed by consultations with Aboriginal

organizations and industry stakeholders. I hope that the government consulted

with all First Nations, including NunatuKavut, in devising this draft policy

because all Aboriginal groups have a legitimate stake in decisions about

resource development affecting their lands.

I also would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I hope they consulted with other

communities that are out there, for example environmental groups, rather than

more so taking most of their input from industry stakeholders. That was the

disturbing part about this draft policy.

I hope the draft policy will be made available widely to everybody, including

not only to those people on the Internet but as well those people who do not

have access to the Internet. I know there are a lot of regions in Labrador, of

course, that do not have access to it. So I hope government will be making that

readily available, and we will also be taking a closer look at this document.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Several times last week, I asked the Premier to defend her cuts to education.

Instead, these questions were deflected to the Minister of Education.

Given the strong and compelling arguments against these deep and senseless

cuts, I ask the Premier: Will you extend the term of the current school boards

for one more year to allow for greater consultation and public debate on this

issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly hearing from trustees that

make up the existing board and some former trustees. We are going to put in

place a transition team very soon, very shortly, and I would encourage those

trustees to make representation to that transition team so that we have a smooth

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to their input, I truly do, because all of us

want what is best for the students in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister mentioned previous trustees; he did not talk about previous

school administrators. There are lots of people who are giving serious feedback

and are seriously concerned about this decision.

What the minister also said is you have consultation into one board. What is

the point if the decision is made? What we need are consultations to review the

overall process, Mr. Speaker. The consensus is that these cuts will jeopardize

the education of our children. Government, clearly, is not ready as they have

made no provision for legislative change.

I ask the Premier: Are you intending to introduce legislation in this session

of the House of Assembly to dismantle those school boards?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that this is the same process

that happened in the last amalgamation. Through the regulations under the

Schools Act, Mr. Speaker, we can transition from four to one. He knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the question should be a yes or no.

My question is: Do you plan on introducing legislation in this session of the

House of Assembly to dismantle those school boards, yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is not required.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping the member is not asking us to ignore the fact that

we have 14,000 less students in this Province. For the betterment of education,

Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the money goes to the right place where we as a

government decided front line services, students, teachers, our number one

priority. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping we can have the trustees who are present,

working with the transition team to ensure that the education system in this

Province continues to be top-notch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gather there will be no legislation. Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned

about and what we are hearing about trustees, and we are hearing from school

board administrators, we are hearing from families and parents who are attached

to this, they are concerned. All we are asking is listen to the concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier once again, in the interest of the children's

education: Will she acknowledge the severity of these decisions and open

discussions immediately about the existing school boards? Will you at least do

it? Give the parents, the school boards a chance to put forward their compelling

arguments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage him, if he is getting e-mails

and whatnot, the reason we are going to put in place a transition team is

exactly that. The trustees who are in place presently, we as a government, we as

a Province, want the best education system that we can for our students;

therefore, I would encourage him to look forward to the announcement of the

transition team and then ask the people who are contacting him to put their

points forward to the transition team, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that will happen, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, there are 70,000 applications in the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First

Nations waiting for processing but little has happened since December. There

were over 100 people in Corner Brook at a protest with no new information

coming.

I ask the Premier: As a new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, what

specific representation have you made to the federal government and the Qalipu

Mi'Kmaq First Nations Band on this issue, and what is causing the continued

delay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the registration process of the Qalipu First Nations is the

jurisdiction of the federal government. It is strictly a federal government

process. It is a process between the federal government and the band, and the

provincial government has no input into that.

We have done everything we could, Mr. Speaker, to help expedite applications

and to give people direction, tell them where to get information. As a matter of

fact, our Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador has done extra effort

to make sure that birth certificates and all these things are processed so that

the applications can be processed in time.

Mr. Speaker, that is all we can do. The rest is between the federal

government and the band.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, back in 2003 the very

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs sat at that table. As a matter of fact, there was

a press release, right here on November 21, 2003, of which there is actually a

statement right from that minister.

The federal government agreed to the process for the applicants to register

for the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First Nation but they stopped the review in December,

leaving 70,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in limbo.

I ask the Premier: What will you do to ensure that these 70,000 applicants

waiting to review will get the same criteria on their review as the 30,000 that

has been approved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has reiterated in his

answer, this is a relationship that exists solely between the Qalipu Nation and

the federal government. Upon request of the Qalipu Nation, we have done

everything we can as a government to facilitate the registration and we will

continue to be helpful in whatever way we can.

Mr. Speaker, if we are requested by the Qalipu Nation to lobby or advocate on

their behalf, that is something we will take under consideration; but we are not

going to assume that in the face of the legitimate authority of the Qalipu

Nation to manage their own affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Premier, she might consider

the petitions by those people that I have presented for them in the last several

weeks asking that very question.

Mr. Speaker, the FFAW has reportedly asked for approval from the government

to allow fishermen to sell up to 1 million pounds of crab to buyers outside the

Province as a pilot project.

I ask the Premier: What is the Province's stand on this request for

processing exemption?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we value the contribution of both harvesters

and plant workers to this Province. Our history speaks of it and will, well into

the future, Mr. Speaker.

There is a proposal before government, it is currently being assessed, and we

will report back to the FFAW when that assessment is completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a Nova Scotia Conservative senator wrote to the

federal Minister of Fisheries stating the fleet separation policy allows for the

acceptance of massive EI fraud and the stunting of personal development for

thousands of Atlantic Canadians who choose to leave school for the falsely

seductive life of seasonal work.

I ask the Premier: Does she agree with this statement? If no, will she demand

an apology for this appalling statement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where this member comes from,

from time to time. I honestly do not know where this member comes from.

I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, our support is for the harvesters and plant workers

of this Province, Mr. Speaker. We, as a government, respect the jobs that they

do and every opportunity that we can get to work with them, we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, last week the Fisheries Minister released a

statement saying that the 2012 cod survey results from the Celtic Explorer

will be released at a press conference at the Marine Institute. The survey

results were not released.

Given the intense interest in the state of our cod resource, I ask the

Premier: Will she table this research so we are better informed on the health of

our cod stocks?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful investment by this government

to have the research capacity of the Celtic Explorer .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: What a wonderful investment. Because of that research, Mr.

Speaker, we have found that the cod stocks are rebounding.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not here today. I am not quite sure of his

intention, but I certainly will pass along the request that the member has

asked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was reported last week that the sea ducks in the Change Islands area has

been coming ashore covered in oil. Environment Canada's Enforcement Branch has

opened an investigation into the matter and confirmed an oil slick near

Baccalieu.

I ask the minister: What role has your department had in this investigation?

Can you provide details to this House on how severe the oil spill actually is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the member's question from the other side, basically it is a

federal responsibility to ensure the safety of the seabirds and so on and so

forth, as well as offshore spills. As a department, we are aware of the

situation; we are monitoring it closely, and offering any help that we can to

the federal government in investigating and carrying out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I question it is because where the oil slick is spotted is on

prime fishing grounds, adding to concern in the area.

I ask the minister: Will this spill have any effect on the fishery in the

area? If so, what steps have you taken to help mitigate these effects?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I share the member's concern. Any type of a situation that is developing on

the offshore, be it oil spills or whatever that can have any effect on the fish

that are in that particular area, is a concern for us and, I hope, the federal

government as well.

As I said in the previous response, Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring it. We are

there to offer any type of support that we can to ensure and we will await the

results of that analysis so then we can speak with more authority on it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, Budget 2013 announced a Paid Family

Caregiver pilot program. On Budget day, government staff was unable to provide

any details on the program.

I ask the Minister of Health: Will you please provide details here and now on

how the pilot program will work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our commitment to provide services to the seniors and others who

are in need of any family care or any sort of protective care in our

jurisdiction is very evident in the hundreds of millions of dollars that we have

invested. In Budget 2013, we announced $6.1 million for a new program called

paid family care. When we announce that program, then the details will be

released.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this was announced in the Budget 2013, which

was brought down on March 26.

I ask the minister: Is there any idea or timeline on when you will be

announcing this program, which has been expected since the election of 2011?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this member has continued to ask this question and seems to

suggest this is something that can be done fairly easily within the Province. He

still refuses to accept, Mr. Speaker, that there is no template for this. There

is nowhere in North America that we can find a program that will be anywhere

near as robust as what we intend to offer. What we will do with that $6.1

million, we will put in place a program that makes sense for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I invite him, if has the solution as to how to put these details

in place, I invite him to share them with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is this government that made the promise

back in 2011 that people have been waiting on and it is this government that

announced $6.1 million for the pilot project. I am simply asking questions.

If there was $6.1 million allocated for this project, when are you going to

put it out there? The people simply want to know when they can expect it and

what to expect.

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 am really happy to see he acknowledges that it was this

government that came forward with the idea, that it is this government that

committed the $6.1 million, and that it is this government that will implement

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it was this government that announced $6.1

million, which is a prorated amount given that it is $8.2 million for next year.

So, if the government actually took the time to put this into the Budget, I

simply ask the minister: When can we see the details that you promised two years

ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, again, he is right. We committed to this in

2011 and said that over the course of this term we would implement a policy. We

will do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I say to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, we

know we have a right to see that your money is invested properly. We are taking

every concern, every caution to see that we do that. In the interim, I can

assure the people of the Province that we will have a paid family care program.

We have allocated $6.1 million to it for this year, Mr. Speaker. That money will

be spent this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, an access to information request on poverty

reduction tells us that the director position has been vacant since September,

2011; moreover, the job competition has been cancelled and two of the three

policy positions are vacant with competitions put on hold.

I ask the minister responsible: How do you intend to get us to the lowest

poverty levels in Canada in eight months time as this government promised?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, this government is lauded across Canada for its

Poverty Reduction Strategy. The Poverty Reduction Strategy is annualized at

almost $150 million a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: The Poverty Reduction Strategy of this government is not about

the number of people we have working in the department. It is about the programs

that are offered and delivered, and being able to support the people of this

Province who are vulnerable and who need these services, Mr. Speaker. That is

what our Poverty Reduction Strategy is, the services that are received by the

people who need it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this government committed to developing a

new poverty reduction action plan in 2011-2012. This plan is now two years late.

I ask the minister responsible: You said in November the action plan was in

the final draft stage, when will you release it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable work that goes into being

able to transform the Province from a Province that has the highest rate of

poverty to the Province that has the lowest rate of poverty over a ten-year

period. Where this Province was ten years ago and where it will be in the future

has changed significantly.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest thing we need to do in Newfoundland and Labrador at

this time with our economy is to be able to have strategies and ideas that

attach people to the labour market. Never before have we had the opportunities

that this Province has to offer the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

development of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills was specifically

to put a focus on that and to ensure the people of this Province have every

opportunity to share in our economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is the action plan without action, by the

sounds of it.

The Adult Literacy Plan is now six years late. Last March, the minister

committed to releasing the plan by the end of 2012-2013. It was actually stated

here in the House of Assembly.

I ask the minister: Long promised but never fulfilled, when will you release

the Strategic Adult Literacy Plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Again, Mr. Speaker, as we look at the present economy in

Newfoundland and Labrador and where it was a number of years ago, where it is

today and where it is going to go in the future, we need to ensure that the

people of this Province are prepared for the economic opportunities we have in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the new Department of Advanced Education and Skills was

developed specifically to look at the opportunities that are available to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and ensure the policies and the programs that

are offered by that new department meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to that process and that review, and

we will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds into

huge mining, oil, and energy development projects. No amount of money seems too

great for these endeavours. At the same time, government has not looked at a

plan for publicly administered, universally accessible child care, early

childhood education, or home care. In fact, Budget 2013 takes back necessities

that people have not even had time to get used to, such as the Adult Dental

Plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Has this government ever done a cost benefit

analysis of social programs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. When we came to government in 2003, we had some of

the highest poverty rates in this country. We made a commitment to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that we would do something about that, and we have.

We have in our Poverty Reduction Strategy; we have in terms of our diversity

and gender clauses in all of our agreements, not only in the offshore, Mr.

Speaker, but also in mining and every other opportunity where government invests

money, we expect a return to the people of the Province and part of that return

Mr. Speaker, every investment we make, whether it is in human capital,

investments in social programs or economic investments bring tremendous returns

to the people of the Province. This government is very proud of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: I do not see the proof of what the Premier is saying, so I

want to know: Has this government even bothered to study cost-benefit analysis

of social programs such as child care done in other jurisdictions, for example

in Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

We look at child programs right across the country. We look at provinces who

are under equalization and ask the question why they are able to afford some of

the programs that do not seem to be available to people who are not on

equalization.

I encourage the Leader of the NDP to further her analysis and she will find

that in this country sometimes things are not always fair and balanced and where

dividends are sometimes held that can sometimes advance people's aspirations

because universal daycare is something we all aspire to. Who could be against

universal day care? We have to be able to afford it. Sometimes projects like the

Upper Churchill Project contribute to some people doing more than we are able to

do in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the Premier that in this Province things are not fair and

balanced.

Mr. Speaker, government has squandered the people's money because of lack of

planning. For example, the Adult Dental Health Program was set up in January

2012 with a budget of $6.7 million, when the actual cost of the program last

year was almost $21 million. The caps on basic dental service and denture care

will ensure that the preventative health aspect of the program will be lost.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why does she continue to put out programs so

poorly planned that she is forced to cancel them when people try to access them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Adult Dental Program has not been cancelled. We continue to

invest millions of dollars in dental health for adults in this Province, as we

do with children.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP constantly refers to the squandering of

money in this Province. She is going to have to get better examples than the

Adult Dental Program; home care, where we invest tens of millions of dollars;

payment of our public service, which the last raises added over half a billion

dollars a year to our bottom line.

We continue to invest in the people in this Province. We continue to invest

in infrastructure in this Province. We continue to invest in business for the

people of this Province, Mr. Speaker. None of it is squandering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This year's Budget is based on a so-called 10-Year Sustainability Plan, the

purpose of which appears to be little more than a plan to slash jobs and

programs. Year two of the plan calls for a review of health and educational

systems. What is needed are reviews based on the principles of good health care

and educational program delivery that will efficiently meet the needs of the

people.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier assure this House that the reviews will involve

all stakeholders in a true consultative process, not a continuation of the

ill-thought-out sham that led to this year's Budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are given the responsibility when we form the governing party

to be good stewards of the public purse. We have a stellar record to point to in

the last ten years in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

We have rebuilt the Province in terms of infrastructure. We have made

tremendous investments in people in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That return is

visible everywhere you go.

We have driven the economy. We have negotiated the best terms for benefits

agreements for the people of this Province than ever before in our history, Mr.

Speaker. I only refer the Leader of the NDP to the front page of today's

Telegram if she wants to know how Newfoundland and Labrador is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, a recent memo prepared by school administrators

from across the Province ask government to reverse the staffing reductions and

school layoffs that are planned for September. School administrators say they

fear that schools will not have sufficient resources to deal with bullying and

children who may be under threat of violence.

I ask the Premier: Does she believe that this is a sufficiently compelling

argument against her education budget cuts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for this question from this

member.

Mr. Speaker, when a member puts out a piece of information that is not

correct and has not seen fit to say it was a mistake or a misunderstanding, then

I think people should question his intent sometimes in his questions.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question posed, we, as a government, decided

and I can remember the day we sat down, when the Premier said: We are not

touching caps. Mr. Speaker, that meant we invested in that very front line

service.

The services this member mentions and references, that we were going to cut

services to autism and these types of things, are incorrect, Mr. Speaker. We

invested right where it is needed, in the students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons on misinformation from

somebody who said he would keep the Marystown fish plant open if he got elected.

This government's cuts will deprive principals of the resources they need to

keep our students safe. The Minister of Education will not listen to any reason

here.

Will he agree today to take full responsibility if his misguided cuts to

schools result in personal harm to one of our school children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Wow, Mr. Speaker. Personal responsibility to bring harm to

the children of this Province that is shameful. That is totally, totally

shameful.

Is he saying there are some people on this side who are looking to bring harm

to the children of this Province? Mr. Speaker, I am not, nor is any member of

this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, NAPE negotiated a four-year contract on behalf of home

support workers. Home care agencies agreed with increases of seventy-five cents

in the first year and fifty cents for the next three years, bringing pay from

$11 per hour to $13.25 by July, 2013. At the time, government indicated its

support for the agreement; yet, it is now not matching those increases.

I ask the minister: Will she commit to matching the cost negotiated in the

collective agreement so agencies can continue to provide this necessary service?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we invest more in home support than any other government in our

history has invested in home support in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the numbers will speak for themselves.

We invest $160 million of new money in home support, the previous government $38

million.

In terms of long-term care in this Province, Mr. Speaker, the previous

government invested $120 million; we have invested $600 million. We are talking

about an 80 per cent increase in terms of what we are investing in this Province

through home support, other community supports, long-term care, and so on; in

our personal care homes, $21 million. Mr. Speaker, we are firmly committed to

this particular area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Four thousand and five hundred home support workers are employed by agencies

across the Province. Agencies are warning, clearly, loudly warning, they cannot

continue without increases from government to match the four-year collective

agreement. This government still has not developed a publicly funded and

publicly administered home care program. Without these agencies, vulnerable

people, mostly seniors, will have to arrange their own care, trying to find

someone, scheduling, and training them with no supervision or monitoring of that

care.

I ask the minister: What is she prepared to do to ensure we do not lose these

home care agencies?

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, home support agencies negotiate privately, not with government,

but with the people they employ. That is totally within their prerogative to do.

This is private business. That is what private business does.

Our commitment to home care in this Province, Mr. Speaker, has been

substantial, as I just outlined when I addressed the previous question. There is

no question in the minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that home care is

an issue of concern. That is why we continue to address it. We address it in a

number of different fashions, from our personal care home support, to our

long-term care support, to our community support, to our home support programs,

et cetera. We continue to invest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I, on Wednesday, will be moving the following private

member's motion:

WHEREAS the well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador depends on

their ability to use reliable transportation links, whether by road, air, or

water, to access employment, government services, and business, as well as to

foster cultural and social benefits; and

WHEREAS after ten years in power this government has failed to properly

develop and maintain vital highway and ferry services in many parts of the

Province; and

WHEREAS this government has failed to follow its own ferry strategy; and

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to suffer from an

unacceptably large inventory of unpaved gravel roads, aging bridges, culverts

and highways; and

WHEREAS this neglect has resulted in the Canadian Automobile Association

listing five of the eleven worse roads in Atlantic Canada as being found in our

Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon government to

develop an advanced transportation strategy for road and ferry users.

This motion is seconded by the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, this motion, of course, will be read, with

leave, tomorrow as part of Private Members' Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: 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 the 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 is in excess of 100,000; and

WHEREAS the reported number of applicants now registered as members are

approximately 22,000; and

WHEREAS the agreement between the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the

scheduled to end on March 31, 2013; and

WHEREAS 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, somewhere in the order of a month or so, I have been presenting

petitions on behalf of individuals; this is the same petition by a number of

individuals. They keep coming in; they keep showing up. People keep distributing

them, signing them, and sending them to my office.

Earlier today in Question Period, I heard the Premier say that government

would not interfere unless people requested assistance. Well, Mr. Speaker, what

is a petition if it is not a request for assistance? What is a petition

presented in the House of Assembly that calls on the House of Assembly to ask

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take part, to assist and to

intervene, if it is not a request for assistance?

Mr. Speaker, clearly, this must be the most basic, the most fundamental, and

the original request for assistance that one would ever find in the Western

World in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, these people who are signing these petitions

from all of these communities generally, the ones that I am presenting are

from St. Barbe district, but people are from all over, and they are absolutely

concerned that their request will not be reviewed; they will not an opportunity

to be fairly assessed as others have.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, if the individuals who are affected are requesting, by

way of a petition, assistance through this House of Assembly that must represent

a request for assistance. I urge the government, on behalf of these people, to

intervene and ask the federal government to extend the deadline.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS students of the Adult Basic Education program at the College of the

North Atlantic do not wish to attend privatized educational facilities; and

WHEREAS College of the North Atlantic has the most accredited Adult Basic

Education program in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS students are concerned as to the availability of private institutions

and whether or not they can accommodate additional students;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to reverse this damaging decision to

students and reinstate Adult Basic Education programming at the College of the

North Atlantic.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the Clerk who signed off on the 112

pages that are here in this petition. There are over 1,500 petitioners from

across Newfoundland and Labrador, and I understand there are additional

petitions that are coming. This is not just noise, as has been suggested. This

is certainly a compelling argument in itself.

Students have the right to attend a private training institution if they

chose, but this decision denies Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the right to

chose to complete Adult Basic Education in their own public college and that is

disservice to some of the most vulnerable Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Government's rationale for this decision has been at best unclear,

inconsistent, and bordering on incoherent at times. Government has suggested

that the cost of Adult Basic Education at the College of the North Atlantic is

too expensive compared to private training institutions; but I note, Mr.

Speaker, that in the Business Transformation Report that was recently released

by the Department of Advanced Education and Skills the cost of Adult Basic

Education is just less than $5,000, contrary to double that, which is the number

that the Premier has used here in the House.

There are a lot of outstanding questions about this. People are very

dissatisfied with this decision. Government should at least provide a more

clear, consistent, and coherent rationale for this decision. This is a decision

that denies Newfoundlanders and Labradorians their right to choose to attend an

Adult Basic Education program at their own public college. I urge members of the

House of Assembly to urge the government to overturn this foolhardy decision.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have 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 the residents of the community of Fox Roost Margaree, of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, must use Route 470-10 on a regular basis

for work, medical, educational and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Route 470-10 is in a deplorable condition, such that the shoulders of

the road continuously wash away and there are huge potholes on the road; and

WHEREAS the condition of Route 470-10 poses a safety hazard to residents and

visitors to the community of Fox Roost Margaree; and

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works is responsible for the

maintenance and repairs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the local division of the Department of Transportation and Works does

make periodic repairs to this route but these repairs are only temporary

patchwork and this road needs to be resurfaced;

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 470-10 in their request to have Route 470-10 resurfaced.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a similar petition I had for a number of roads in my

district, which unfortunately are not in great condition. It is funny because

Fox Roost Margaree is actually a fairly small community. I am willing to bet I

have just about everybody in the community signed on a petition of some sort.

I know this is something the minister deals with on a daily basis, which is

complaints coming in for roads, but I am duty bound and I would be remiss if I

did not bring this one up. This road is in absolutely terrible condition. In

fact, it is washed away to the point that at certain junctures there is one

lane.

I have had complaints brought to me, not just by the residents of this

community, but by business owners and people who service that community. I have

one gentleman who runs a bus route, as well as taxis in and out of the area. He

tells me himself: Look, this is terrible and somebody is going to get killed.

Somebody is going to get hurt because of this route.

I feel I need to put this forward to the government to have some

consideration. I know the Transportation Budget Estimates will be taking place

tonight and I am hoping this is something that will be discussed at that point.

I am hoping the Provincial Roads Program is something that will be discussed. We

need to have something done.

This road has not had any monies allocated for some time; very patchwork,

small repairs. You get a number of complaints. I know the minister gets them

from constituents and from people who have had damage sustained to their

vehicles. I am not worried about the damages sustained to vehicles; I am worried

about the lives of people, and their safety and well-being. If somebody gets

hurt, then it is going to be a very serious situation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS transgendered people face high risk of discrimination, violence,

underemployment and lack of access to housing and other services; and

WHEREAS a recent EGALE Canada survey found that 90 per cent of transgender

youth hear transphobic comments regularly from other students, and one quarter

hear such comments from teachers; and

WHEREAS the Public Health Agency of Canada reports that nearly half of trans

youth seriously considered suicide and one-fifth attempted it in the previous

year; and

WHEREAS all individuals should have equal opportunity to live their lives and

meet their needs without being hindered or prevented by discriminatory practices

based on gender identity or gender expression;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to amend the Human Rights Act to include

gender identity and gender expression in the list of prohibitive grounds of

discrimination.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy once more to stand in this House to bring this issue

before the House. Last Thursday, the Premier, our own Premier in a media scrum

accused me of constantly presenting this petition and talking about trans

rights, gay rights, and lesbian rights.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to stand in this House to push for the

rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, particularly now

when the budget of the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission has

been cut by 50 per cent in the past two years, the very agency that is

responsible for not only protecting the rights but doing public education.

Obviously, there is still a need for this public education.

Our Human Rights Code act must be changed, as is the general thinking of

human rights Legislatures all over the world. It is happening across the

country. It is shameful at this point that this government and this Minister of

Justice will not see fit to do the right thing to protect some of the most

vulnerable people in our society. They are not only the most vulnerable; they

are our brothers and our sisters. They are our doctors, our lawyers, and our

teachers. They may even be our politicians. They sweep floors. They wash

windows. They have babies. They raise families.

These are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who not only deserve but

have the right to this protection, and it is shameful how this government and

this Premier even to accuse me of constantly standing up and advocating for

their rights. I will stand up every day if I have to, to defend the rights for

this.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, 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 there is no cellphone service in the Towns of St. Paul's, Cow Head,

Sally's Cove or Trout River, all of which are enclave communities in Gros Morne

National Park; and

WHEREAS there is either very poor or no cellphone service in most of Gros

Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,

expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous

travellers, hikers and others in the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;

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

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

with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne

National Park and the enclave communities within the park.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that came in a little late; however, it is

not so late because the service still is not provided. It is a real irony that

the people in Gros Morne National Park in the enclave communities which are

not actually park communities, they are communities that are on provincial land

that was reserved for residents so that people could continue to live in the

general enclave area.

We see a big hullabaloo about people who are really concerned about economic

development, drilling, fracking, and they have all sorts of concerns about the

park and no concern for the people. The people in these enclave communities will

clearly benefit from economic development and that economic development would

include benefits such as cellphone service, high-speed Internet that many of

them do not have, better schools, better services generally.

It seems like there is a situation whereby it is okay if you live in the park

and the park enclave communities, you can do without these services; but if you

want any economic development which would generate these services for you, then

outsiders will say no, no, now we do not want those services, do not go anywhere

near the park with economic development because we want to leave it a wilderness

park.

Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to turn it into a wasteland, but clearly, people

want the services, people need the services, and it can only come through

government assistance or through economic development.

The people who signed this petition are primarily from Cow Head, Parson's

Pond, Sally's Cove there are no Trout River names here but they are really

pressing for cellphone service, for the reasons stated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of AES, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, Bill 4, and I

further move the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this bill be now read the

first time.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2", carried. (Bill 4)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2.

(Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, that

this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this Budget and speaking

specifically to the deficit that is proposed and the services that are proposed

to be cut in this Budget, we need to go back to where the seeds of this Budget

and this proposed deficit were sown. It was not in the last year or last couple

of years; it was in the last five or six years.

Five or six years ago when revenue spiked, government had more money than

they realistically imagined that they could have. When they took more

conservative estimates as to the price of oil and then the price of oil spiked,

they reaped a windfall.

Mr. Speaker, instead of being prudent with that windfall, they increased

spending; they accelerated spending. They also failed to spend in areas that

were important and were critical. Some of those areas, even though we hear

ministers congratulating themselves on doing such a job with fiscal management,

they did do things like repair buildings that were owned by the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, buildings that are held and managed by Transportation

and Works. Such that, when this government came into office, the deferred

maintenance on buildings that have a replacement cost of approximately $2

billion was approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and that actually has

accelerated to more than a half a billion dollars.

The genesis for the deficit and the Budget that we are looking at today came

about in the order of five or six years ago when the government had more money

than it reasonably expected to have. Now, Mr. Speaker, approximately three years

or so ago, various individuals and government began to warn that our spending is

unsustainable our spending is unsustainable and more repeats that our

spending is unsustainable. Warnings were made by the former Auditor General.

Warnings have been made by the economist Wade Locke, who consults with

government. Sometimes government takes his advice when they like his advice,

such as Muskrat Falls. Sometimes when he gives advice for the pharmacists and

they do not like that advice, then they do not listen to the advice. Even though

I have no reason to dispute Mr. Locke's credentials, and he is entirely

credible, government only accepts his advice when they like the advice that they

receive.

Approximately three years or so ago government began to say, and the current

Premier began to say, this spending is unsustainable. We cannot keep spending

like this, but government did keep spending. Mr. Speaker, who were they warning?

Were they warning the people? I suppose they were warning the people, but the

people were not the ones with the cheque book. Were they warning the Opposition?

Maybe they were warning the Opposition, but the Opposition is not spending the

money. It is the government that is spending the money.

The government has been spending money. It has been on a spending spree for a

long, long time, five or six years at least. With warnings of the

unsustainability' of the spending, which I agree with, then we came to the 2011

election. Governments do not like to cut spending in an election year. They were

holding a massive majority and wanted to maintain that massive majority. They

continued to spend and to spend and to spend. They were successful in the

election.

Immediately after the election, they warned more than a year ago that this

spending is unsustainable. Everybody listened, everybody believed. A figure in

the order of 3 per cent was tossed as this is the most that we could expect for

increases. We have to look at ways to save money. Government gave the warnings

but they did not heed the warnings. The only one who had the ability to be able

to do something about the spending was the one who gave the warning and was the

one who did nothing about the spending.

Mr. Speaker, a year or so ago when we were going into the last Budget, I

think it is a fair assessment to say that people were expecting cutbacks, people

were expecting retrenching, people were expecting shrinkage of government by

attrition, all of the reasonable ways that government can shrink spending, but

that did not happen. I remember last year speaking to the Budget and saying that

I felt it necessary to do a DNA test on the Budget because I knew the then

Minister of Finance, I have known him for a long time. Last year's Budget was

not a very conservative Budget. It was, in my view, a very spendthrift Budget.

Last year when the warnings were given and it is almost like the story of

the boy who cried wolf, you cry wolf so many times and after a while nobody

believes you. Last year, undoubtedly, the spending was unsustainable. Government

issued warnings. They did not heed the warnings themselves and they kept on

spending.

This year, immediately before Budget time, we had warnings that were even

more extravagant, warnings that were even more outrageous. I would go so far as

to reference what I will call the $1.6 billion hoax or the $1.6 billion

boondoggle. Government, in what appeared to be an attempt to maybe threaten,

scare, or intimidate public employees coming up for contract negotiations time,

talked openly about a deficit of $1.6 billion this year, $1.6 billion next year,

and another $1 billion or so the year after, and essentially, Mr. Speaker, lost

all credibility. It is a very bad thing when government loses credibility

because if people do not believe any more, then they do not comply.

If government issued warnings last year and did not do anything, and issued

even bigger, more extravagant warnings this year, and then all of a sudden,

instead of the $1.6 billion shortfall, we are looking at a shortfall of a whole

lot less than that, less than half that amount. Now people are in a position of

ridiculing government because they say, well, your spending has been out of

control for a long, long time. Three or four years ago you started to warn us

about this when you are the one with the cheque book. Last year we believed you

when you were re-elected. You could easily have put the brakes on spending last

year, you did not do that. This year you say it is even more extravagant, an

even bigger deficit. So why should we believe you this year?

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that this spending is out of control. However,

when spending is out of control you cannot treat government completely like a

business. With a business, Mr. Speaker, you might have to take severe corrective

action or a business would go bankrupt. Although balancing the books is

important, there is more to government than simply collecting money and

balancing the books. There is the human cost and a social cost that has to be

considered.

This government went in an absolute freefall in public opinion polls, was

extremely concerned about the level of spending, and they panicked, Mr. Speaker.

They panicked and they took action, which I would say was not corrective action.

It was more like corrosive action because they went so far. The items they

decided to slash were critical items to the proper functioning of our economy,

the proper functioning of our government, and the proper functioning of our

society.

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a situation where a government that claims to be

a law and order government would cut the number of sheriff's officers at the

courthouse in St. John's by 50 per cent? People who work for the Sheriff's

Office were already heavily loaded up with work. I have spoken with many of them

in years gone by and some of them in other areas as recently as this year.

To cut the number by 50 per cent, sheriff's officers who provide security

not just in court. They provide escort services from the Penitentiary to court.

These individuals are guarding people who judges have said are too dangerous to

let out. If a person is too dangerous to let out, they do not get out on bail.

They are retained in custody. Bail is denied and sheriff's officers have to

escort them from the Penitentiary, from holding cells to court.

When you cut the number of people who provide that level of security, there

is something drastically wrong. We also saw the number of prosecutors slashed.

We also saw the number of legal aid lawyers slashed. Mr. Speaker, that is not

the way to reduce the amount of spending of government.

Government took corrective action immediately when they saw how they had

overstepped. It was a big, big problem. The Minister of Justice, to his credit

and to the credit of government, realized they made a serious blunder. They

decided to put on the brakes and look at it more closely. I am not certain yet

the problem has been completely resolved but it is much better than what the

Budget would have been with the original projection. However, what does that do

to credibility? It makes it look like nobody is in control, nobody really knows

how much we can spend, how much we are spending, where do we need services, what

can we cut and so on.

The problem of cutting in the wrong area, cutting too deeply and cutting

without consulting and then having to have a complete reversal means that people

lose confidence in government. Confidence in government is absolutely necessary

for proper governing and proper functioning.

Other areas where the government went which show a very poor sense of where

the best dollars are spent were with Adult Basic Education. Mr. Speaker, if you

look at a service like Adult Basic Education and you slash that service and you

try to get off on the cheap nowhere has government said the service we are

providing is as good as it can be, the service we are providing will not be

downgraded. They say it is costing so much here, we can do it in the private

sector for cheaper; therefore, this is the way it is going to be. The amount of

uncertainty put into that system has been completely unacceptable, but even more

so.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at, I will say the client for the Adult Basic

Education dollar, the Adult Basic Education service, this is somebody who has

not finished their Grade XII education. They may have eight, nine, or ten. This

is someone who has not had the basic public education that we know is necessary

to get ahead. This is not for university. This is not for post-secondary. This

is for somebody looking to get on the first rung of the ladder to go upward to

improve themselves.

If such a person may have had a setback, may have had an illness, may have

had a death in the family, might have had emotional issues, may have had

substance issues, this is someone who has gone the necessary distance to get

back into the system, to stop working, to take a chance to go back to school,

which in itself is a huge change for somebody. When you say to that person, we

do not know if you are doing this right, we think you should have some company

do this or we do not really know where we are going with it, then that creates

uncertainty for the person.

If you look at the handful of years that it takes to invest in somebody for

Adult Basic Education, two years, three years, four years in some cases, more

I would say that the longer it takes to get somebody through Adult Basic

Education, the more desperate is that person's need and the more that person

will need supports through his or her lifetime.

In the case of Adult Basic Education, we may be able to get somebody from not

being able to hold a job or only ever able to hold a minimum wage job to be able

to go up the ladder, to become more productive, someone who will require less

support over time, someone who will earn more, contribute more, have a better

happy life and someone who is able to access government benefits on an easier

manner, someone who is no longer functionally illiterate, someone who can maybe

complete an application for a job, someone who can prepare a resume.

By slashing the most vulnerable areas, it is not a good reduction in spending

because the individuals who are being displaced we still have a responsibility

to look after for a long, long time.

Another area where government has been extremely short sighted is in the

manner that it has approached our public education with our school boards. Now,

clearly, being the Education critic, I have been keenly interested in this. Even

in the questions posed and the answer given, or not given today, shows that the

minister has a very basic misunderstanding about the Schools Act and about the

function of school boards.

Mr. Speaker, hearing the minister say today that essentially he can just do

it and he does not need to change the legislation means that either he has not

read the Schools Act or he has not had his legal department look at it, or he is

unless he is going to get a hold of different meanings for existing words, he

must change the Schools Act.

That means he has not bothered to consult the Schools Act. How else can it be

that under

Part IV it says deals with School Boards and

Part V deals with French

First Language Schools? If the French First Language School is separate and the

remaining is

Part IV, School Boards, school boards mean more than one. "Boards"

means at least two.

Section 52 says, "The province shall be divided into school districts as set

by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council may by order alter the boundaries or change the name of a school

district." It goes on to say, "Where there is a dispute as to the boundaries of

a school district, the minister shall determine those boundaries and that

determination shall be final."

Mr. Speaker, how can it be boundaries of school boards if we have only one?

If we have only one school board, there is no determination for boundaries. In

order to change all of our school boards down to one school board, we do not

have to worry about the boundary. This action by the minister to collapse the

absolute opportunity and is an invitation for somebody to submit an application

for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, for a

judge to have to determine whether the minister is violating the law. Clearly,

the government has an opportunity to introduce legislation, and I would say in

this case must introduce legislation in order to be able to collapse our school

boards down to one school board.

Section 54 of the act says, "For the purpose of ensuring that all parts of a

district are represented by trustees, the board shall divide the district into 2

or more zones and shall define the boundaries of those zones."

Mr. Speaker, if you are dividing into districts and if you are dividing into

zones, it must mean there is more than one school board. If there is only one

school board, then we do not have to worry about the act. The act is the law.

The law is in place. Anything that the minister does, which is pursuant to the

act, has to consider the act. If he is not going to amend the act, then he is

really setting himself up for a situation whereby somebody will have a school

board challenge and cause additional chaos throughout.

Mr. Speaker, the only logical course of action for this government and this

minister with respect to the school boards and authority is also provided in

the act is that the minister has the authority to extend the term of school

board trustees. He can extend the term past September and say we are going to

make certain changes. We do not really know what they are yet. He has already

acknowledged he does not know what changes he is going to make because he is

going to appoint a transition team.

Here it is almost the end of April, children will be in school in September,

and the minister has not appointed a transition team to collapse all of the

school boards into one board, apparently in defiance of the act. If he were to

say, and it might be viable to say, let us extend by a year, he might want to

reconsider. The amount of savings that he is considering is not very

substantial.

Other areas he needs to consider is how education will be delivered in

Labrador. Labrador is a very serious and special case. There are communities in

coastal Labrador that are not accessible by road; for a significant period of

time in the winter they are not accessible whatsoever, except when aircraft when

can fly, which is not always.

This move by the government, or the proposed movement to collapse all the

boards into one, is clearly in my view misguided. Even if a case can be made for

it, the government certainly should extend the time. Now, if they were to say,

boards are not working very well and it seems like the only area where the

boards are not working well is that the boards are not doing exactly what the

minister wants them to do, and this came about as the result of proposed school

closures.

Mr. Speaker, the boards are not supposed to be the rubber stamp of the

minister. School board trustees are elected by parents and they are elected to

be able to communicate with government and communicate with the minister.

Communication needs to be a two-way flow, not just a one-way flow, so to wrap up

all of these boards in this misguided action in this Budget seems like it is

premature, misguided, and it may well be against the Schools Act.

If he is not going to introduce legislation to change it, he is inviting a

summer long of individuals who will do applications for judicial review and

attempt to stall the process. Ultimately, a judge may well say, yes, the

government can do it but have to introduce legislation. Where are we then? Will

the government then introduce legislation in the fall, next fall? Will they have

acted against the law in changing the boards?

Mr. Speaker, I would say based on a simple reading of the Schools Act, the

government appears to be getting set if it is not going to introduce legislation

to amend the Schools Act, then it is going to violate its own law.

This, Mr. Speaker, shows some of the ways that government has panicked. They

have panicked because they realize spending is out of control. They are dealing

with discussions with our public employees for wage increases. There is a

significant and troubling pension deficit that we are were looking at. All of

this needs to be considered not in a hasty fashion, but in a reflective,

contemplative fashion, and get this right. The problem that we have with the

deficit is not just the government's problem. The problem with the deficit is a

problem for all of us, for all of our taxpayers, all of our families, all of our

old people, and all of our children.

Mr. Speaker, there will be other opportunities to discuss the Budget, but I

would urge the government in the Schools Act to slow up a little bit and

consider looking at the legislation, consider not making the changes you are

proposing right now because it will not be as beneficial and it may well be

harmful.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the listening audience out there, it is a pleasure for me, as this is my

first attempt to speak to the Budget during the Budget process. This morning, of

course, we had Estimates where we had a committee of the House of Assembly

members. Sometimes we talk about committees. Sometimes you will hear from the

Third Party that we do not have committees; that we do not have to respond to

anything.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you this morning we had a three- hour process

whereby I sat here with officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation. We saw both parties with unlimited questions that we went through.

It took three hours. They could have asked any question on any item as part of

the budgetary process. I just want to say it went very well this morning. They

had a number of questions; we gave a number of answers.

That is part of the parliamentary procedure, Mr. Speaker, that the general

public out there do not see. I just wanted to point that out. That is part of

the whole Budget process. In every department in government the same thing

happens, whereby committees are struck. In our case, it is the economic

committee. They appoint members, and questions are asked and answered. I just

wanted to point that out. It is part of the Budget process that, unfortunately,

people in the general public would not know. That continues on into this debate

which we are having now, into a total of seventy-five hours that we have to

debate the Budget. That is all part of this whole process.

We brought in the Budget, for those listening, and then the Opposition has

the right to an amendment and then a sub-amendment. What we are on now is a

sub-amendment of the Budget. That is what I will stand to speak to. Of course,

each member can speak as often as they like, only once on every amendment. I am

speaking on the sub-amendment. Hopefully, I will get a chance again later on as

the debate goes on to contribute more to the Budget debate that we are having.

Mr. Speaker, the sub-amendment, and some of this stuff can get a little crazy

really and a little technical but basically what we are debating now, the

amendment that was brought forward for your listening audience out there, this

is what we are debating right now. It is a failure to present a Budget that

reflects the possibilities which exist in terms of addressing the needs of the

people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that one would think that. Obviously, with the

demands you have on a government we have a significant Budget now,

expenditures exceed billions of dollars. Obviously, when you have billions of

dollars it is all about the choices that you make. Now, there are different

parties with different choices, but the bottom line is you only have so much

coming in and you can only pay so much going out, unless you are certain

parties. Certain parties do not believe in fiscal management. We are a party

that has prided ourselves on fiscal management. We have done very, very well.

We have run a number of surpluses over the last number of years, but the

reality of it is that there was a downturn in the amount of oil produced off our

shores, Mr. Speaker, which lessened our revenues, and we have done a couple of

other things over the last little while that has reduced our revenues. We are

hopefully going to be back in good shape again in a couple of years out, so in

this Budget in particular we had to make some adjustments. For example, I can

quickly tell you that we put half a billion dollars - $500 million - back into

the pockets of the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, to spend on anything

they wish, through tax reductions.

This is as good a time as any, I guess, to point out the difference between

this party and the Third Party, Mr. Speaker. We have to make adjustments right

now in our spending, but the Leader of the Third Party has just been asked, when

pinned down by the media: What would you do with a big surplus? The first time

it was asked, she was not really quite sure. She talked around it a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, when it was out, question after question, it was quickly

established that the Leader of the Third Party would raise personal income tax.

So, what that would mean is that the more you make, the more you would pay to

the coffers of this Province. That is the difference in this party's philosophy

and the Third Party's philosophy, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that is what the

member said and led to, that she would increase taxes.

I will say one thing for the NDP; they are one sentence away from promising

thirteen beers in every dozen and a chicken in every pot. Now, that is where

they are, they are one sentence away from that commitment. Mr. Speaker, they

want to be everything to everybody, which means thirteen in every dozen in my

world. A good friend of mine used to say that all the time, about some

colleagues on the opposite side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when pinned down, the Leader of the Third Party said, no holds

barred, she would increase taxes. We reduced revenue to the Province by $500

million because we put it back in the working people of this Province so they

could spend it how they saw fit to spend it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I will take you back, Mr. Speaker, to a district in Labrador

West, a very well to do district. People are working. They want work. They are

industrious people. They work hard for their money, and rightly so, they deserve

every nickel they will get.

Mr. Speaker, I remember one time during an election there were inroads by the

NDP being made because they are seen, they like to be seen, as supporting

labour. Now, I can tell them, I think it is $42 million in this Budget by this

government, Mr. Speaker, to support labour and labour initiatives. Aside from

that, they like to trumpet that they are the labour party.

People in that part of the Province, in Lab West were saying: Well, we have

to take a hard look at the NDP. They seem to be speaking for us. Somebody in the

community decided: Does anyone know what their take is on taxes? All right,

let's get the book out. Let's see what the NDP is on taxes.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in a vibrant area like Lab West they quickly discovered

that their policy was to increase taxes. What should happen? To the credit of

the people of Lab West, they quickly discovered, aha, if that is the party I am

voting for then it is more money coming out of my pocket to do the things they

want to do. So that is the difference, Mr. Speaker.

You know, maybe sometimes the NDP should be the TAS party, the tax and spend

party, like what happened, Mr. Speaker, in Ontario. The NDP became the TAS

party, the tax and spend. It is very easy to spend money when you are spending

someone else's, I can tell you that. The Leader of the Third Party knows it.

That is exactly what they want to do. They want to take more money out of the

people of this Province and spend, spend, and spend.

Mr. Speaker, they cannot tell you one thing, the hon. members opposite, of

where they would save money or things they would no. No, they are still on the

thirteen in every dozen philosophy. That is what you get when you get the Third

Party opposite. That is what you get.

Mr. Speaker, the Third Party talks about recently corporate welfare. This is

a government, through our Department of IBRD, we do not make any apologies to

anybody for investing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to

invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not be in looking for more

money out of their pockets, but we are going to invest in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador because people in this Province like to work. Whatever we can do to

create employment and invest in labour in this Province we will certainly

continue to do, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, two areas when I was going down this road I heard some noise

from the opposite, so I had to branch off a little bit. I can quickly give you

$1 billion of how things have changed. Of course, the income tax, we put $500

million right back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The

other piece that we have done is we have increased the wages by almost over 20

per cent, which I think is another $500 million over time.

Mr. Speaker, we have made a lot of investments in this Province over the last

number of years in issues where the Third Party likes to think they own. Poverty

Reduction, a $150-million strategy we heard from the minister this year. They

would like to think they own that issue. We are heralded across the country as

being one of the best in the country in how we deal with poverty reduction, so I

just wanted to point that out.

Mr. Speaker, the parties opposite like to continue to talk about the things

that we are not doing. Well, you cut this, you cut that, you cut something else.

These were difficult decisions. These were very difficult decisions. Let me tell

you, when you reduce payroll costs and so on, these things are not nice. When

you have to find efficiencies, well, let me tell you, we struggled with it. It

was not an easy decision, some of the decisions that we had to make.

Mr. Speaker, another point on this, we are not running a surplus here this

year. We still have a half a billion dollar deficit. The point that is lost on

some of the members opposite is that we have a half a billion dollar deficit. It

is not like we are running around with all kinds of surplus cash and just doing

this because we like to do it, quite the contrary.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get off on a little bit better note I think it is

important that we point out some of the things that we are doing, in my

particular case, in the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and

explain some of the good things that we are doing in that department. So, it is

not all bad news. We are still spending billions of dollars annually. I think it

is almost $7 billion our budget is this year, if I recall correctly. It is not

exactly as if we are spending nothing and we are starving everybody out, Mr.

Speaker. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to start with culture if I can, our cultural industry and our

cultural heritage sector in the Province. There was some talk recently, Mr.

Speaker, that the proverbial arse was out of her in the cultural industry. I

remind the members opposite that is not quite the case. This year alone, Mr.

Speaker, we are planning on spending $17 million in the cultural sector in this

Province $17 million. We have actually invested, since Creative Newfoundland

and Labrador, our cultural strategy for the Province, we are after investing $87

million in the cultural sector in this Province, so it is hardly something to

sneeze at.

Let me give you an example. When we took over the government a number of

years ago, the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council in this Province was

getting somewhere between $700,000 and $800,000 a year, if I recall correctly.

Last year, the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council got $2.1 million. Have a

guess how much they are getting this year: $2.1 million; no cuts from money

budgeted last year to money budgeted this year. This is a great organization.

They particularly look after the creative piece of the artists in this Province,

Mr. Speaker. I stand with them and support them. They are a good organization,

they work hard and they do deserve the support of government, and they do

contribute a lot to the economy of this Province.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Film Corporation again, the proverbial arse

was out of her in the arts community, Mr. Speaker. Last year, they got a budget

of about $700,000. This year, they were budgeted $700,000. To say that we are

eliminating spending in the arts, nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the annual allocation for the Art Bank, $125,000; the allocation

this year: $125,000. MusicNL a commitment of $350,000 in the previous fiscal

year - this year, a commitment again of $350,000, Mr. Speaker.

VANL, the Visual Artists Newfoundland and Labrador, recently held a public

meeting and they were very disappointed; however, Mr. Speaker, their

organization received money last year of $70,000 from the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. This year they will also receive $70,000 from the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WANL, the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador, received $80,000 in

the previous Budget the previous year. They are going to receive $80,000 this

year, Mr. Speaker. The list goes on. The Newfoundland independent film

corporation, Mr. Speaker the LSPU Hall, some would say the heart of cultural

activity in the St. John's, downtown core area of the Province received $100,000

last year, will receive $100,000 again this fiscal year. The list goes on and on

and on and on.

Sometimes when they like raising the flag and saying that the proverbial arse

is out of her, well, Mr. Speaker, it is like the old song, it starts off boy,

she is bad, but when you talk it right around, well it is not that bad after

all. It is not that bad after all.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is actually good.

MR. FRENCH: It is actually good. Yes, it turns out actually good.

Mr. Speaker, I talked to members opposite money that we spend in their

districts. We are not even political about some of this; we are not political at

all. I have money here for Gros Morne Theatre in Cow Head. They received money,

Mr. Speaker, in previous years and will receive money again this year. Rising

Tide received money previous years and will receive money again this year, Mr.

Speaker.

The Stephenville Theatre Festival I am always a supporter of the

Stephenville Theatre Festival. I have been for decades, Mr. Speaker, and will

continue to be. New World Theatre, the same thing; Festival 500, the same thing;

Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra, the same; St. John's international film

festival, the same; the Nickel Film Festival, the same; the March Hare literary

festival, the same; and the Writers at Woody Point, which happens to be one of

my favourites, will receive the same as they did in the previous year.

All of these, Mr. Speaker, are significant groups, significant events, in the

arts community that the other crowd likes to think is not on. Let me tell them,

Mr. Speaker, we have done everything we can to look after the creation of art in

this Province and, obviously, support it and promote it. We do put our money

where our mouth is, and that is evident right there with the list of things that

I just laid out.

Mr. Speaker, if I could talk about tourism for a minute and I know my time

is running by and there are a couple of points here that I would like to make

about tourism. There is no secret that this year we took a reduction in our

tourism marketing, because again we are not a tax and spend group, like the

Third Party. We are not going to raise taxes to spend. Because you can be

anything to anyone, if you have the cash. Fortunately and this is something

that we did not do lightly we realized the importance of tourism marketing and

that is why this year we are investing $9 million in tourism marketing. We are

outspending by the way

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. FRENCH: Nine million in tourism marketing. Our budget is upwards of

$16 million for tourism in general, Mr. Speaker. We are outspending places like

Saskatchewan. We are outspending places like Manitoba, people with much bigger

populations than Newfoundland and Labrador. We are outspending the Province of

PEI which was at one time the tourism mecca of Canada. All the while, we have to

be conscious and remind everybody that we have invested $94 million in marketing

for this Province since the Find Yourself Campaign and with the $9 million this

year, we will have invested over $100 million in marketing in this Province

since the Find Yourself Campaign in 2006.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I was asked earlier: Has anyone done an analysis

on what you put in and what you get out? Well, it is quite obvious what we get

out of it. It is quite obvious to me. We have invested $100 million since the

Find Yourself Campaign started in 2006.

Right now because of the hard work of the industry players out there who have

invested their money, their time, their education, their knowledge, their work

which in many cases is eighteen, twenty hour days in the tourism industry,

especially when they are in the busy seasons and the season extension piece that

we are doing, but right now because of the work of the industry and because of

the investment of $100 million in the marketing of this Province, we now have a

billion dollar industry in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, not that the tourism industry can ever replace

the fishery and I say this to people all the time when I speak. I remember a

few short years ago when the fishery became a billion dollar industry. People

were saluting it, taking their hats off to it, and celebrating it, and I agree,

but right now the tourism industry is a billion dollar industry in our Province.

That is something we should all be very, very proud of and celebrate. It is

because of the investment that government has made, led by some great

entrepreneurs and people in this Province. The people of the Province, of

course, Newfoundland and Labrador, there is nobody who is not a good ambassador

to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I always tell people, I give them a joke. I say walk onto some wharf in

Newfoundland and Labrador and look and find what looks like the crookest person

you can find on that wharf. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, by the time you walk

off that wharf you will be having a chuckle and a laugh with them. I can assure

you of that. That is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to clue up now. My time has come to an end,

but I certainly hope to speak again. I want to remind the people of the Province

before I sit down, it is an important point that I wanted to make here today. We

are not a tax and spend government. We have to be fiscally responsibly. We can

be everything to everybody by putting up taxes, Mr. Speaker. We choose not to do

that. Some parties opposite, when pinned down on how they would come up with

extra revenue, said they would look at increasing taxes.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the people of the Province know this is a

government that is against tax increases. Quite the contrary, we put half a

billion dollars back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We do

not believe in tax increases to find extra revenue, like some people opposite,

Mr. Speaker.

This Province is in better shape now than it has been in a long, long time.

We have lower unemployment, Mr. Speaker, higher wages. We are leading the

country in job creation and many, many other things. I think this is a

government that is on the right path. Sure, because of oil production and the

nature of commodities, Mr. Speaker, our Budget is reflecting it this year and

next year, but we will be better off.

I say to the people of this Province to be careful about some of the others,

some of the promises and commitments they are making to people across this

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

I recognize the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am very pleased to finally be able to stand and speak to the Budget that

was brought in on March 26.

Before I go into the main points that I want to make, I do have to make some

response to my colleague from Conception Bay South. He does not seem to

understand what government is all about, Mr. Speaker. He keeps talking about tax

and spent.

I would like to refer him to page ix of the Estimates booklet in which we

have a

summary of where the government revenues come from. We see it gets 10.2

have 5.9 per cent, Corporate Income Tax. You have 2.3 per cent, Tobacco Tax. You

have 2.4 per cent, Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. I wonder where

they get their money from, tax that people pay on the liquor they buy; Gasoline

Tax, 2.8 per cent; Sales Tax, 15.7 per cent; Personal Income Tax, 17.4 per cent,

and Offshore Royalties, 32.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of government. Government raises its money

through taxation in all kinds of ways, but it is always taxation. Why does it

raise the money? It raises the money to spend it on the Province and on the

people of the Province.

I find the insistence of my colleague on tax and spend very, very

disingenuous, Mr. Speaker. That is how government raises money. Government

raises the money to spend on the people of the Province. What this government

has forgotten, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - is that it is the people who are the focus. The people of

the Province are the focus of their programs. The people of the Province are the

focus of their planning. The people of the Province are the focus of their

services. The people of the Province are the focus of everything that a

government does, Mr. Speaker. What I find is that this government seems to

forget that, that is what they are all about is taking care of the people of the

Province.

I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, when this government says: Oh, we

spend so much money of our budget on education, or so much money of our budget

on health care, or so much money on the delivery of services. Well, Mr. Speaker,

that is what a government is supposed to do.

I am going to take just one area. I did a little bit of digging here, Mr.

Speaker. This government, right now, in the Budget that we have in front of us

I am just going to take one area where the money goes, which is on page x; 35.4

per cent of the money this year will go to health.

Now, I have heard members of the government talk about this exorbitant amount

of money we are putting into health. They quote the 35 per cent or whatever per

cent it is every year. This year it is 35.4 per cent. So I decided to look a bit

at some other provinces. When I did, I found out, well, Prince Edward Island

spends 36.1 per cent of their budget on health. I do not hear them in the news

saying, oh, we are spending too much of our budget on health. Nova Scotia spends

40.2 per cent of its budget on health. Alberta spends 45 per cent of its budget

on health.

Mr. Speaker, health is absolutely essential. Health is at the core of what

keeps our community going. If people are not healthy, then we have a real

problem. We would have a problem socially; we would have a problem economically.

If people were not healthy, could not work and could not support themselves, we

would have real problems. So it is not unacceptable that 35 per cent of our

Budget goes on health. It is a given that a large lump of our money is going to

go on health. Another large amount is going to go on education, just like we

have, Mr. Speaker, because it is government who pays for it.

We are in, here in Canada, a social democracy. We are. We are a country that

believes it is government's responsibility to deliver health. It is government's

responsibility to deliver education. We believe that as a country. We have an

expectation around government delivering. We, as a party, call ourselves social

democrats, and we believe that, but we also believe we are in a country that is

also socially democratic because of that belief.

This is what this government has to start doing, is recognizing that, lo and

behold, it is their responsibility to spend. Now, the big issue is how they

spent. The big issue becomes the priorities that they set, and I find those

priorities very interesting. I find, for example, that you have the Member for

Conception Bay South talking about taxation. I want to talk to him, Mr. Speaker,

about what this government has done in this Budget with regard to the increase

in fees.

They call them fees, but a fee is only another way to tax people so that when

they do their calculation of how much they may have increased taxes this year,

they are not going to show how much they have increased fees. Yet, when we look

at the backgrounder and I am very grateful for having this backgrounder on the

increases to fees because it gives us a lot of information when you look at it,

and you do not have to look at it too quickly to get that information. As you

look at it and I am going to go through some of it, Mr. Speaker you see that

a lot of the fees have to do with living in rural Newfoundland and that is where

fees have gone up. They are not going to say oh, we are taxing rural

Newfoundland, but they are. The thing is if they think that they are fooling

people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they have another thing coming

because people know the difference.

The people, for example, who have to pay for some of the services that are

here now, they know the difference. For example, farm veterinary services

currently it varies by service, but there is going to be a $10 increase from

current fees. Well, I do not think we have many farms in the heart of St. John's

or the heart of Corner Brook. I wonder where the farms are located.

The farm laboratory service, once again an increase from current fees, from

$1.50 to $50. That is a lot of money for somebody on a farm requiring laboratory

services.

We look at another one, Mr. Speaker. We come over to ferry rates. It is okay

to say well, expect some raises, 10 per cent is not that much, but when you are

living on an island and you are regularly on a daily basis going back and forth

and you are on a fixed income or you are in a job where you are not getting cost

of living raises every year, a raise of 10 per cent becomes a lot of money. We

cannot look at a raise of 10 per cent and look at it simply from the perspective

of an average salary, and so that is not that much money. You have to look at

the circumstances of the people.

When you look at the circumstances of the people, 10 per cent, when you are

paying that every single day, every single time you want to leave your island,

that becomes a lot of money. Living on an island should not be something that

people have to be ashamed of, but they are. People in the Province who live on

islands are made to feel that they are a burden.

Whereas I look at other provinces I look, for example, at British Columbia

where they have made it a part of their culture to live on islands on their

coastline. People in British Columbia feel really good about living on islands,

and they do not have governments that have said to them over the years, you are

a burden on us. No, they have the BC ferry service which caters to every kind of

island or out-of-the-way place where people live. People are proud to be there,

it is part of their culture, and it is seen to be a cultural thing. They have a

ferry system that works for people no matter where you live on the coast of

British Columbia.

That is not true for here, Mr. Speaker. People really feel, people on islands

besides the main Island of Newfoundland, and we all know that is not easy either

when it comes to CN, but people who live on the islands off the Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador, these people are made to feel they are a burden. That

is not what our Budget should be about, government making people feel that way.

Government is supposed to be there showing how they are enabling people to live

where they are.

Then there is another one, Mr. Speaker, another fee. I will not go through

all of them, but I want to go through some more that are specifically hitting

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the highway access fee. It is not

much encouragement to somebody who wants to build a business, a small business,

in a rural community if they have to pay $500 as a permit fee to access the

highway from where they are going to put their piece of real estate.

It is not much encouragement to individuals who want to stay in the

community, especially younger ones who want to stay in the community and build

their homes, to have to pay $100 for a