PDF Version

May 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 12

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I call for the Order Paper, Motion 1, the budget.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It's certainly a pleasure of rise this morning to

speak to Budget 2017 . Over the last

couple of days, we're heard from a number of Members, certainly a lot on this

side, in regard to Budget 2017 .

Before I speak to that, I just want to take a minute

to recognize that last week was volunteer appreciation week, and I just want to

recognize all the volunteers all across the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador on the great work they do, but certainly in the District of Ferryland,

my region, from Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, the Goulds region which is part of

the City of St. John's, south to the small community of St. Shott's on the

Southern Avalon, and all the great organization groups and the work they do to

drive our communities, to drive our regions and to sustain our regions.

That's everything from school councils to volunteer

fire departments to municipal leaders, either municipalities, local service

districts, and everything in between. They do tremendous work in our communities

and our regions and it's certainly a great week to recognize them for all the

activities they do and the contributions they make to, as I said, our

communities. Most of them don't get remuneration. They do it because of the love

of their community, the love of the province and the fact that they want to give

back. I think it's extremely important.

The other side that is quite interesting we see

today, seeing more of it, is young people being involved in various roles and

various opportunities, various avenues in terms of giving back to their

community. A lot of that certainly starts at the school level, in high school.

You see youth now that are involved, as part of the curriculum, to give back

volunteer hours, to get involved with their community and to get started at a

very early age. I've seen it first-hand with youth from our schools who get

involved with various activities. It starts that process of civic duty and

giving back to your community and it's certainly good to see.

I congratulate our youth, our youth groups and those

who get involved and the work they do because it is so important, starting at a

young age. As we know, most people who get involved in activities like that, if

you get involved at an early age, it's something that becomes a part of your

life, a part that you allot time for as you go through different stages of your

life. It's good to get started early and see that giving back to the community.

I certainly congratulate them as well.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we're undertaking, over the

last couple of days and into the next few weeks, to talk about

Budget 2017 .

Obviously that flows out of

this administration's first budget, the budget of last year and some of the

issues that they dealt with and how they dealt with them.

I guess

the biggest one last year was looking at the balance sheet, looking at

expenditures, looking at revenues. This government chose a route that wasn't

very balanced and I think everybody, far and wide, since that time has assessed

it, seen the results of some of those decisions and what it meant in regard to

effects on the economy, effects on individuals, effects on seniors, effects on

middle-class families. Then there's a trickle-down effect in terms of the

overall economy and what it means for young students, I mentioned earlier, in

terms of decisions they make in regard to staying here in the province, will

they go elsewhere; middle-class families, young families just starting out

having children and as well those who do have kids that now may be in the school

system, depending on job opportunities, things like taxation, their ability to

stay here and what they can return to, the kind of life they can build with

their family.

All of

that rolls into decisions they make in regard to whether they stay here in the

province or what they would do. That's driven and those choices are strongly

connected to the choices made by any government in budgets in terms of economic

or social policy and how that effects directly those people who live in the

province. It's all interconnected.

I think

it was yesterday, maybe the leader of the Third Party, when she spoke, she

talked about economic indicators. Those, indeed, are a snapshot of what's

happened in the past year and what's predicted to happen in the future year to

come in regard to the opportunities. The economy, is it going to bounce back?

What's the plan of the current administration and how do they plan on getting

there and getting through a rough period in regard to things that have affected

our fiscal situation, particularly related to oil and the dramatic reduction in

oil price and the loss of revenues? That's one component of it.

That's

all interconnected and it's important that people have confidence. When they

look to government, they can say okay, we're dealing with a particular set of

circumstances, this is the way forward, we can see it and, at the end of the

day, we see a result of where we're going to arrive at or to.

I think

most of the commentary we've had over the past 17 or 18 months, since last

year's budget, has been that clear path or that plan hasn't been articulated.

It's not understood. Somebody would even say we're not even sure if there is a

plan, and that caused grave concerns for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Because overall, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are an optimistic people,

certainly very innovative over 500 years of our history here in this province,

prior a country of Newfoundland, we've always been innovative and we've always

been able to adapt whatever the circumstances, and that's in our history.

And the

optimism comes with that, I think, because whatever the challenge, we're always

able to seize the opportunity, take advantage of whatever challenge it is and

turn it into something positive for the province. So we are optimistic.

Unfortunately, with Budget 2016 , I

don't think it relayed that optimism tied it to a plan and said based on the

current circumstances, here's the way forward, there are opportunities, we need

to see our way through a difficult time and here's a balanced approach to see us

through.

We did

see, I think, over 300 in terms of new taxes and fees which stifled many of

those indicators I talked about earlier, which is the budget documents, I think

The Economy 2017. It looks back at

2016, what transpired there in regard to indicators and what we're predicting

for 2017.

That's

where the optimism and the plan comes in and you have a balanced approach in

terms of dealing with it, that all comes together to be able to articulate a

vision for the province and see us through whether it's two years, four years or

10 years out.

I talked

about optimism and opportunities that exist in our province and some of the

things that we've built on in terms of our administration over the past 12 or 13

years, you have to take advantage of opportunities as they exist whether that's

intellectual knowledge, technology, natural resources, innovation, the IT

sector, film industry, tourism industry which has been so important to this

province that we've grown significantly to almost $1 billion obviously we've

been recognized nationally and internationally for the program we had started in

regard to the development, the advertising campaign and how effective that's

been. We need to continue to build on that, but that's a part of what we have

and what we've developed.

So we

look at some of these in regard to opportunities and how we continue that

optimism our natural resources, certainly with our fishery, some of the

challenges we're dealing with today have been coming for a while especially when

you look at the transition that's well, not started in regard to shellfish and

going to a ground fishery. We need to be ready and prepared to do that.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're ready and prepared as we should be. Because

when we went through a process a number of years ago and the EU wanted to get

involved in a trade agreement with North America and with Canada, they saw the

opportunity and so did we in regard to that huge market in the EU and the

ability to trade, to import-export. If you go back and look at our history in

terms of we've been an exporting nation and an exporting province as part of

Canada. It's a huge part of who we are. Certainly with our commodities and

natural resources it's extremely significant.

within that process there are many opportunities; overall procurement, IT, oil

and gas, all kinds of areas. The one I'll talk about now is the fishery and what

that means and what it will mean in terms of driving economic activity. There's

a huge market in the EU; big consumers of fish, even traditionally going back to

Spain and Portugal and the salt fish trade many, many years ago. It's still

sound today in regard to salt fish, but obviously other commodities too going

into that market.

Especially in the UK, look at the amount of shrimp that's gone into that market

over the past decades and decades. What's coming off with the EU, the trade

agreement, is that those tariffs would come off and make it obviously much more

beneficial to get in. Now there's a cap. You can put so much resource in and

then it's capped and you're hit with a tariff. Obviously, from a business model

point of view, that causes concern once that tariff is done. So that would be

removed under the new trade agreement.

One of

the elements of the trade agreement that we recognized well along was in regard

to the ability to promote and help the transition of the industry, which we're

facing today. Back then in 2014, that's why we agreed, along with the industry,

to relinquish minimum processing requirements. That was one of the provincial or

sub-regional authorities that was available to the provinces in regard to

national or international trade agreements. So the federal government could go

ahead and make a trade agreement, but there are still areas of provincial

jurisdiction that the province still has the authority of the whole of that

regulatory framework.

When the

EU started with Canada and wanted to engage in a discussion on trade, the EU

wanted the subnational or provincial issues resolved because they didn't want a

trade agreement put in place after the fact. Where if a provincial jurisdiction

still upheld the regulatory framework for trade, that there would be a trade

dispute and it would have to go to some kind of trade tribunal where there'd be

a challenge made, and if that challenge was lost or won, depending on what side,

there would be a monetary possibly penalty and there would have to be a payout.

The EU

wanted all that done. They wanted those to be resolved and all those regulatory

frameworks to be done, whether it's dairy in Ontario, wines in Central Canada,

whether it's whole logs exported out of British Columbia, all of that. They

wanted all of those dealt with.

In the

process of being part of that discussion and the bilateral discussion between

the provinces and Canada, we talked, and I talked about the fishery. We talked

about how we could take advantage of that. Certainly we have unprecedented

access, over a three-year period once the agreement is signed, to get into those

markets and to allow that unfettered access for all fish species for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

That's

the other component. Traditionally we talked about a couple of species, maybe

groundfish, shrimp, crab, but there's a whole range of other species that we

need to look at. I know there's some work going on at the Marine Institute and

others to expand that, but in the overall fish supply of the world and protein

from fish, we're very small, maybe a couple of percent of what goes into the

world market. There are more opportunities for us. We need to explore that, and

that's the optimism and opportunity we have with the fishery.

negotiating Canada with the EU, in regard to the overall trade agreement and the

bilateral discussions we had with Canada in terms of before they went and had

overall discussions on the international trade agreement, we recognized that

what was being said in science, what was being said by those involved with the

industry, some of the quota cuts and what was going on with shrimp and crab, we

recognized there was a downturn coming in the shellfish industry.

Because

of that, and after meeting with industry, we said if we relinquish the MPRs we

would engage in a process of five pillars with a $400 million fund that would

help that transition; that would start that process. That should be started

today. We should be well into it with that fund and started that process of the

transition, and we recognized it.

In the

five pillars, there were things like research and development, innovation, a

marketing component looking at if there was any loss in some of that discussion

in regard to MPRs. So all of that would be considered, but the thing was to

transition in and make sure we could take full advantage of the market, the new

market, but also recognize that if we have to transition into other species,

there's technology, innovation, research. All those things need to be done. I

talked about other species. That would be one part of it, and what else you

could put in to those new markets and elsewhere around the world. All of that is

part and parcel of that transition and being ahead of the curve.

What we

have now, we're in the middle of all of this, the current administration we

were criticized for not having a commitment from the federal government. In

actual fact, the federal government bilaterally control the rules. To the best

of my knowledge, there was no agreement signed with any province, but we did

have, and we ensured we had, 200 to 300 pages of documents that clearly

indicated the discussions over a period of time with the federal government,

what the end result was. We laid all that out for people to see. Here's the

documentation. Here's what was agreed to. It was quite clear what it was. It was

a $400 million fund, five pillars to look at exactly today what's happening and

the transition to have support to allow it to do that.

What we

have, which is not that fund, we've got apparently a $100 million fund. We don't

know what the ratios are. I think in Estimates a while back, my colleagues tell

me, the current minister responsible said it could be 70-30; it could be 60-40.

We're not really sure. The fund hasn't started to flow. There's no indication of

the administration of that fund, what programs it would be or anything of that

nature. So we're not where we need it to be.

The

other point was the current prime minister, when he was leader prior to the last

election, the prior premier of the province wrote, asked him to clearly indicate

where he stood in regard to the $400 million fund. He clearly articulated in a

letter back to the current Premier of the day that he would support it and

Newfoundland and Labrador should receive what they were promised; but, as we've

come to learn, in actual fact what happened, we didn't get it. We got rumours of

$100 million, and how we leveraged that we don't know. It's not active today or

nothing has been done with it.

In the

budget, I think there's somewhere in the range of $10 million to help leverage

that. So it's a far cry from the $280 million commitment that the federal

government had made, that the province would use their $120 million to leverage

that and to move forward.

Now, we

also heard two explanations. Well, we're getting money for small crafts and

harbours. We're getting money for search and rescue. Well, that's a different

envelope of money. As Canadians and part of this federation, and being a coastal

province on the East Coast of Canada, we get our fair share of every envelope of

money. We get that anyway. Don't tell us be happy, you're getting some money

from the fund that other coastal province and other communities get. We get it

anyway. We should get it and it should be improved. We should continue to get

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Don't say to us, well, you're

getting enough, be happy with that.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are never happy just to get a share. They want

to get their rightful share just like the rest of Canadians. This fund was

agreed to. The current administration both here and in Ottawa has failed in

terms of delivering on what they said they would deliver on. Today, with the

transition going on in the fishery, we're no further ahead and we don't have any

help for that.

The

budget was certainly disappointing in that regard, in looking at the amount of

money that was put there to leverage, a far lesser amount of $100 million.

Hopefully as we go through the budget we'll get some more insight on where

that's to and how we continue to see what the details are, even though it's much

less than what was originally planned for.

The

other issue, I'll quickly mention is, I'm very disappointed again in this year's

budget that an educational infrastructure in my district that was approved in

2015 was cancelled last year, and this year again there's no reference to it,

and that's the new middle school for the Witless Bay Mobile school system. In

2015, based on concrete evidence, based on good analysis, based on a

consultant's report, it was very clear that the best option was a middle school

for the region. Last year it was cancelled. This year again there's no reference

to it.

There's

some plan. They came up with nine classrooms to build on the high school in

Mobile. To date, there's another consultant hired, spending money on it, and

they can't figure out whether they can even put it on the footprint or not. The

word I'm hearing is they can't. We have no idea where this came from.

We met

with the Minister of Education. He questioned, I think even to the families, why

people would want to continue to move to the region, which was somewhat

insulting to the parents and to the community. We know there has been

significant growth over the past 10 years. Again, we've asked questions. We've

because they never voted on the new nine classroom extension but have voted on

the new school, and those are issues that are still important under the budget.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure for me to rise this morning and to have my say on the

budgetary process that we're going through. I guess it's time we cut through the

rhetoric and the mantra that's out there that this budget is bad; it's the same

as the last one. We have no plan. We don't know what we're doing. We're not

accountable and all this good stuff.

Well, I

guess if anybody is following the news this morning they would have seen that an

institute by the name of C.D. Howe released a report on Newfoundland and

Labrador that gives us all kinds of kudos for being accountable and having

numbers that we can trust, and basically saying that we as a government and the

Finance Minister, the Premier and the Cabinet have done a great job in getting

us out of this financial mess that we found ourselves in back in 2015.

The

report, Mr. Speaker, is evident of that. Allow me the time to go to a few brief

highlights of what the report says. The title in itself speaks volumes. It says

the

summary of the C.D. Howe report of Numbers You can Trust?

AN HON. MEMBER:

What?

MR. LETTO:

Numbers You can Trust

that's a big word and, The Fiscal Accountability of Canada's Senior

Governments, 2017.

I'm not

going to go through all the provinces obviously, but I am going to highlight

Newfoundland and Labrador and try to paint a picture that the sky is not

falling, the chickens aren't gone to roost and that we are doing things right.

We are being fiscally responsible and trying to deal with the mess that was left

to us by the previous administration. It's not all doom and gloom like the Third

Party would lead you to believe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

This report, Mr. Speaker, is

government financial reports. The report analyzes three principal financial

documents: the budget it presents at the beginning of the fiscal year, the

Estimates legislators vote to approve specific program spending and we've all

been through the Estimates. We know how the information comes out in Estimates

that really, really tells a story that we are being fiscally responsible, and we

are putting forward a new philosophy that some people are finding very difficult

to understand, and that's the zero-based budgeting. It's very difficult for some

people to grasp that and that it's actually a good way of being financially

accountable and the audited financial statements in the public accounts that

report the year-end results.

The

approach of this report is to locate the spending and revenue totals displayed

prominently in budgets and in Public Accounts and ask several questions about

them. So this is what's being done. These questions are mainly focused on the

revenue, spending and balance figures of the budget, whether the Public Accounts

present a comprehensive set of revenue spending and balance figures and the

overall quality of financial reporting.

So, Mr.

Speaker, C.D. Howe, they've been around for eons. You've heard of the C.D. Howe

Institute. They are a renowned institute in Canada that are well respected for

what they do. So let's bring it closer to home.

Improvements, that's the first thing that comes out in this report is

improvements in the Newfoundland and Labrador accountability. We're heard from

the other side how we're not being accountable. We're not being transparent.

We're putting out numbers that don't make sense. We're trying to hoodwink

people; all that good stuff, all that mantra.

This is

the message that the Opposition is trying to put out there. I note that some

people on the other side have acknowledged that there are some good things in

this budget. They won't go as far as to say it's a good budget. Basically, the

mantra is that it's a continuation of 2016, the 2016 budget. It is institutes

like this that really, really shows that that's not what this is all about at

all.

Let's go

back for a few years. We'll go back to, probably, '08, '09. We all know who was

in power at that time. In the 2012 fiscal accountability report, Newfoundland

and Labrador was ranked among the provinces that do not, do not, present

straightforward or comparable figures in their budgets or Public Accounts.

AN HON. MEMBER:

When was that?

MR. LETTO:

In 2012.

AN HON. MEMBER:

2012. Who was in power then?

MR. LETTO:

I think I know, but I'm not

sure.

The lack

of fiscal accountability was constant. The lack of fiscal accountability was

constant in Newfoundland and Labrador from 2011-12 to 2015-16 where Newfoundland

and Labrador was consistently the lowest ranking among the provinces in Canada.

Now, can

we wonder why we were left with such a mess when they weren't even accountable

to their own figures, to their own budgets? To compare that, in 2016-17

Newfoundland and Labrador notably improved the consistency of its headline

budget and Public Accounts figures. In fact, in 2016-17, Newfoundland and

Labrador received an accountability grade of B, marking a significant

improvement from the failing grade of let's see of E E as in elephant in

2015-2016.

Mr.

Speaker, we've been saying it since we took office in December of 2015 that we

were left with a mess. It's no wonder when you talk about the lack of fiscal

responsibility the Opposition was trying to put forward a deficit of $1.1

billion and we took office, the first thing that we saw was a $2.2 billion

deficit. If we had done nothing in 2016-17, it would have been a deficit of $2.7

billion.

So you

wonder why that happens. You've got the institutes like C. D. Howe confirming

what we been saying since we got elected, that we were left with a mess and this

province was on the brink of bankruptcy. If nothing had been done it would have

been I don't know what's the word to use

AN HON. MEMBER:

Devastating.

MR. LETTO:

That's one word.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Crisis.

MR. LETTO:

It would have been a crisis.

There are several words that we could use.

Mr.

Speaker, they go back a few more years, and I want to highlight a few more

because it's not only 2015-2016 that they failed miserably, not only then. In

previous reports, inconsistent figures in its budget and Public Accounts

resulted in a failing and consistently low accountability grades. You wonder why

our Finance Minister stands on her feet in this House and argues every day, day

after day, that the job that she was faced in December, 2015 was daunting.

Now, C.

D. Howe, the report has found that those same numbers to be consistent and

resulting in higher financial accountability in the province. This is not just

some ordinary group out there saying it is. This is C. D. Howe Institute we're

talking about, one of the most renown, prestigious financial institutions in

this country, Mr. Speaker.

The one

area in which the report marks potential improvement is with consistency,

consistency in the preparation of Estimates. So, Mr. Speaker, we are doing

things right. They go on to say the difference in budgeted and actual

expenditures, which is, of course, always an issue you budget and what do you

actually spend; do you spend more than you budget; do you spend less than you

budget; and how accurate are these figures that you budget or are they just

factious numbers.

The

report gives a historical examination of the percent of announced spending

change and actual spending change. The result calculates percent changes in

revenue and in spending from two key documents; one from the headline figures

presented in budgets and the other from the figures in Public Accounts.

Now,

they didn't have a lot of figures in Public Accounts, because they did none. At

least now Public Accounts is something that we're doing consistently. The

figures present annual budget target misses. For this measure, a smaller number

is better the smaller the number, the better it is, and reflects more accurate

financial forecasts.

The

difference in expenditures for Newfoundland and Labrador is documented for the

last one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight years. It goes back to for

instance, in 2010-2011 there was a 10.9 per cent difference. In 2011-2012, 8.6

per cent difference; 3.8 in 2012-2013; and up to 2016, it was 0.9 per cent. So,

Mr. Speaker, we're actually making budgets that we stand by, they're realistic,

and they represent the economy of the day.

In this

time period, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador again consistently ranked

among the least accurate provinces in Canada. Again, we wonder why we're left

with such a mess that we were left with. Mr. Speaker, it's also not surprising

that provinces who are more dependent on natural resource revenue, thanks to

buoyant prices over the oil and whatnot, would have more changes.

Mr.

Speaker, we go back to 2011-2012 again with the grades, and I don't want to

stand up here like a school teacher or a professor or anything like that. These

letters because it's not numbers; it's graded in letters are indicative of

what the past administration, the lack of accountability, the lack of fiscal

responsibility that the previous administration exemplified over the past number

of years. I gave a brief outline of the factors that are being considered for

these grades.

2011-2012, the administration that was in place at that time was given a grade

of F. Now, when I was going to school F did not mean fantastic. It did not mean

fantastic, it meant fail. If you got an F, boy, I tell you, you were in trouble.

You failed. So, Mr. Speaker, in 2011-2012, the PC administration failed in their

accountability and the responsibility regarding their fiscal responsibilities.

2012-2013 they got up, they made drastic improvements. They got up to a D, a D +

to be exact. It was that bad in 2013-2014 that we have an n/a which is not

applicable. So I guess they didn't grade at all.

2014-2015, which was not so very long ago, when they had it and these were the

times, by the way, when they had the $25 billion, they had all the money to

spend. They brought it home from Ottawa b'ys, we got it.

Well, we

got it all right. We know where we got it. We got it and they blew it because

AN HON. MEMBER:

Look at the roads.

MR. LETTO:

Yes, just look at the roads

is right.

2015-2016, as I mentioned earlier, they fell off the cliff again because that

was the year that they saw the last year of their mandate when they spent like

drunken sailors with no accountability and just trying to buy votes. That's all

they were doing. There was no accountability and they came up with a big, fat E.

AN HON. MEMBER:

What?

MR. LETTO:

E, which does not mean

enough.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Not exceptional.

MR. LETTO:

It's not exceptional.

2016-2017, Mr. Speaker, the year that we took government and the year we had to

make all the tough decisions and yes, they were tough decisions. They weren't

very popular decisions, they were tough ones but we had to do it.

This

report, the C. D. Howe report, proves how irresponsible and fiscally

irresponsible they were during their time in office, Mr. Speaker, a time when

they had $25 billion in oil revenue to put around this province and they

squandered it.

AN HON. MEMBER:

How much?

MR. LETTO:

$25 billion, and here we are

trying to get by on the measly dollars we got left in our coffers and we get a

rating of B in the first year. In the first year we took office, when this

government, this Cabinet, this Premier, this Finance Minister had the tough

decisions to make to save our province from bankruptcy, we came up with a B.

Mr.

Speaker, the mantra from the other side is exactly what it is. It's rhetoric;

it's mantra. It's not indicative of what we're trying to do here as a

government. Yes, we had to make some tough decisions, and we'll discuss that

today in the PMR, I'm sure, with all the fees and everything.

There

were tough decisions, and people were hit hard. We did not feel good about doing

that. We took no joy in doing that, but when you see what happened over the past

number of years, Mr. Speaker, we had no choice. We had no choice.

When you

go back and talk about the Estimates, one of the things I attended the

Estimates last night for Municipal Affairs and Environment. If you remember back

to the debate on last year's budget and the $30 million contingency fund that we

put in that we were, I guess we were chastised for, and people decided to call

it a slush fund a slush fund. Remember the slush fund?

Well,

the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi and Cape St. Francis asked questions

on that. They were asking questions around why there was such a difference in

emergency spending and funding, why we had to spend so much that wasn't budgeted

for. If you recall back in October, Thanksgiving weekend, we had quite the

storm. There was a lot of damage done around this province. Guess where the

money came from to accommodate municipalities, private individuals for loss of

property and damage. It came from that contingency fund, Mr. Speaker.

It shows

that we were prudent, that we were thinking ahead. These things, we don't know

when and if they're going to happen but they are happening more frequently and

it's something that we have to do. So the slush fund that the Third Party was

especially rampart about, and even the Opposition as well, that we could take

that out of the budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a good thing we left it in there

because many people are seeing the benefit from that today.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a lot of good things in the 2017-2018 budget, and we will be

true to the budget. We will do what we said we were going to do. We have a plan.

We hear that all the time, that we have no plan. The plan, Mr. Speaker, is

called The Way Forward , and

The Way Forward is a plan that shows

we are responsible and we are going to get this province back on track. We have

a Finance Minister, a Premier and a Cabinet that is working very, very hard to

make sure that we get there.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to get up here this morning and to put a new

light on this of where we are, and that people and organizations, like the C.D.

Howe Institute, recognize us for what we are doing, and that what we are doing

is right. We will see the benefits in years to come and we are on the right

track.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question on the sub-amendment?

All

those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

I declare the motion

defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Division has been called.

Call in

the Members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the Whips ready?

All

those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (Barnes):

Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Petten, Ms.

Michael, Mr. Lane.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against the motion,

please rise.

CLERK:

Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr.

Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Trimper, Ms.

Dempster, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Holloway, Mr.

Warr, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dean, Mr. King.

Mr.

Speaker, the ayes, 8, the nays, 19.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

declare the motion defeated.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we'll

continue speaking to the budget.

believe there's a non-confidence motion which I'm sure the Opposition would like

to speak to.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yeah,

we'd like to speak to that, of course. Any opportunity we can get to get up in

this House and speak about issues that are important to the people of the

province, and this budget obviously is a big issue that's of importance, no

doubt.

When I

spoke on the sub-amendment, Mr. Speaker, I made reference to and I just

listened to the Member for Labrador West speak about how great the budget is and

all that. That's fair game, and if he feels that way, that's his own

prerogative. I don't know if everyone on this side really agrees with what he

said, or the people in the province.

This

budget that was just brought down, it's a continuation of last year's budget.

There's been no change. We've had an adjustment, and like I said yesterday, the

gas tax was adjusted and a few small little tweaks, but we're still faced with

those taxes and fees. There are still 300 one was reduced, but we're

still faced with 300 taxes and fees that

were brought in last year. I think it's safe to say it's crippling the

economy. We see it every day. We see it, we talk to people in our communities,

we talk to people we know. Our economy is struggling.

You can

look at certain economic indicators and whatnot and they're all pointing in the

wrong direction. The budget documents themselves actually stated that. We're not

in a great place in our economy where we stand today. A lot of that is a direct

result of this budget.

Another

interesting point, as the Member opposite was saying just now, speaking the

virtues of the budget and all the good things. I was at a loss to where he's

been living for the last 12 months, the last 18 months because two weeks after

the swearing-in ceremony or less than two weeks after, the Premier and Minister

of Finance sat in the media centre and they threw a black cloud over the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that's never been thrown over it before.

There

was a lot of hope and optimism and the people had a bounce in their step. That

day when they got up and they told us everything, they did actually tell us the

sky was falling. Contrary to what the Member for Lab West is getting up and

saying now that we're the ones, we're not the ones. We're trying to tell them

that the sky wasn't falling. We've never believed the sky was falling.

This is

a rough patch in the road. Everyone knew that. We knew that. The former

administration told everyone we were heading for a few rough years with oil

production and oil prices. We knew it, they just dipped lower than anyone, any

of the experts around had figured, but everyone knew this was coming. This was

not a surprise. I've talked to a lot of people and they say the same thing. It

was that one given day that was a black cloud and it's not been lifted.

To say

anyone else is responsible for bringing gloom and doom to the province, that's

not accurate, Mr. Speaker. This government opposite are the ones to put the

gloom and doom over the province, and right now today, 18 months later, it's

still there and it's on them. It's totally on them. They're responsible.

To be

pointing fingers this way to be the cause of that, if anything, we tried to be

the voice of those people that have concerns. We experienced that last year in

the filibuster. We read emails. We were criticized somewhat but a lot of people

were very thankful because their voices were finally heard. Their voices finally

got to the floor of this House of Assembly. Their views, their thoughts, their

concerns, we brought them to the floor of the House of Assembly like never

before. We read their personal messages.

Unless

Members opposite had the volume turned off or earplugs in

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

they would have heard it loud and clear what the people of this province

thought of that budget and their views have not changed.

Mr.

Speaker, it's become pretty evident to me that you're getting less uprisings now

because a lot of people on the street now, they throw their hands up. What's

new? What's new? Here we are again. There's nothing that surprises me with this

government. The same show, it's a different day, it's a different date on the

calendar, a different time on the clock, but the same issues happening.

I spoke

to people and someone the other day said to me

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They say

the amount of issues, the amount of material that's being generated, the

mistakes, and the missed steps being generated by this government is too hard to

keep up with. It's a very accurate statement because I say that every day. It's

unbelievable. We have 25 minutes in Question Period; we could be going for days

on the issues. You don't seem to pay justice to the proper issues because there

are just so many of them. There are so many missed steps. There are so many

mistakes. There are so many questions that no one can put an answer to. The

government opposite, when they come back and give us their responses, you're

left shaking your head.

Mr.

Speaker, there's one issue there are a few, of course I'd like to just

revisit. It was a decision that was made a few weeks back. All the while adult

dental care is cut, funding to youth organizations is cut the Girl Guides

groups, the Boy Scout groups, the Boys and Girls clubs, their funding is cut

because we're in a tough, fiscal financial situation. We have to make drastic

measures, we don't have the money, and we're counting every penny. Okay, that's

fair.

We cut

snow clearing last year. That was a public uproar that we all witnessed last

winter. That was a savings of $1.9 million we know it's a lot less than that,

but that's what they articulated. Plus, we still have 300 new fees and taxes.

Nothing has changed, it's still there, just year two of them.

So you

get the picture and the gloom and doom is painted over the province and everyone

is saying when are we ever going to get out of this. Everyone looking at the

price of oil wondering when is the light at the end of the tunnel. Then, all of

a sudden, the MHA for Corner Brook, the Minister of AES gets up at the Corner

Brook Broad of Trade and announces free skiing in Corner Brook; Marble Mountain

free-for-all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

I do hope that the lady who

protested in front of this building for dental care I don't know if she is but

I'd like her to be watching this now and listening to that, Mr. Speaker. She

doesn't feel too good. She's home eating pureed food because she can't afford to

get her dental work done, and the Minister of AES is over here patting his chest

and beating his chest when he went and made an announcement in Corner Brook that

none of the rest of his government knew. They had to pick up the pieces.

The

minister went and announced free skiing. Now, all of a sudden but I'll back up

a second on that, Mr. Speaker, because that's one Question Period can't give me

an opportunity to

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Question Period doesn't give me the opportunity to really articulate what I

thought of that.

I did

spend years in tourism with the former minister. I know the department. I knew

the way Marble Mountain worked. I know the struggles, the challenges Marble

Mountain faced.

The

Minister of Tourism, the current minister today responsible for Marble Mountain,

when they shut down the mountain, he supported the board. I support the board,

their decisions. No problem, I'm with you; I agree. We're losing money. It's

doesn't make sense to keep it open. I support you.

Days

later when the minister goes, the MHA for Corner Brook, the Minister of AES, and

gets on his high horse and looking after the champion for Corner Brook,

announces the free-for-all, then the minister responsible for the department is

scrambling. All of a sudden, he fires the board fires them. They're gone. No,

their decision was horrendous. We need new people there. Totally against their

decision, no, no we're going to give free skiing to Corner Brook.

Nobody

knew it was happening only the Minister of AES on his high horse out there, and

then everyone is left to pick up the pieces. That happens when you have people

who do reckless things.

So to

get back to it; $11,000 a day, that was articulated by the MHA for Terra Nova

when he got up and answered questions because the minister was unavailable. He

answers and he tells us: No, it's not $5,000 a day; it's $11,000 new

revelation, so now we have an $11,000 loss a day.

Then all

the while, guess what ski resort is in his own district? What ski resort is in

that Member's district? White Hills. White Hills is actually out in his own

district. No free-for-all out at White Hills; you pay for your ski rentals and

you pay for your passes, but the Member for Terra Nova is out beating oh, no

he supports this decision of Marble Mountain. No, forget my own district, White

Hills.

I'll

guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, if I had a ski resort in my own district and one of

the my colleagues was given a free-for-all for the ski resort in his district,

do you think I would stand in this House and speak the virtues of that decision?

No way, never, ever, but he did that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

He got to go back, Mr.

Speaker, there such thing as elections, when people go and actually mark their

X. So he has to go back and face his own people, the same people that use White

Hills. The same people who saw that their own ski resort was snubbed because the

powerful ministers on the West Coast wanted to open it up for the Easter

weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

I do hope that those people

actually, I hope a few Girl Guide leaders and children are watching this today

and seeing their funding cut; I hope they're seeing the mockery that's happening

across the way today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Order, please!

I'm

having a job hearing the hon. Member who's been recognized to speak. I'd ask for

co-operation from all Members in the House.

Thank

you.

recognize the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

the truth does hurt, and I understand that. I would not want to be sitting over

there listening to me giving them say what I'm saying about them because it

does hurt. A bit of an ego goes on, I understand that. That's fine.

I'll

just refresh, and I'm not going back there. I will not go back there but I have

to say, I don't know if the Member was there in last year's sitting when I said

he was auditioning for the Trinity Pageant. He's still the top candidate but I'm

not sure if they're ready for him yet or not, but he don't have to he can rest

assured, he's by a mile top of the heap over there. I'm not going back there but

I just wanted to remind him, he's the guy. He's next in line if any openings

come up. He's doing a great job of that every day, Mr. Speaker. You just got to

sit there. Just listen to it; it's theatrics at its best. As long as there are

theatrics in here, he wrote the book on it.

I want

to go back and finish off on the Marble Mountain point; $33,000 for a three-day

ski weekend. They're all out there. Now, I've been around the workings of

government, I'm not so sure even the minister can get into the cashbox of any

Crown corporation, but the Member for Corner Brook was out there telling us the

amount of money they made and how much it cost. They had a very successful

weekend. He was actually like, I thought I was talking to you wouldn't know

but you were talking to the banker.

I'm

listening to it and thinking, does he have any what's he out on the cash? He's

out giving out ski passes to people. Is that what he's doing? He must be out

working in the kitchen too. I don't know what he was at. The Premier apparently

was out shaking hands on the hill too. See, where I come from, Mr. Speaker, I

call that a bit of damage control because it was a terrible decision. It was one

that they had to wear, and it's one it is what it is.

Speaking

of Corner Brook and I'm not picking on Corner Brook but it might seem that

way. Corner Brook decisions and I've been to Corner Brook many times. The

Member for Terra Nova needs to start going to White Hills more often, Mr.

Speaker.

Crown

Lands moved to Corner Brook. No one is opposed to having a government office in

Corner Brook or anywhere else in this province, Mr. Speaker, but

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. PETTEN:

See, Mr. Speaker, they sit

down, they listen to us and they catcall. A scattered one of them might get up

when they're told to get up, other than that they just sit there and listen

because they just don't want to a scattered one will get up and spread the

virtues of this wonderful budget.

There

are 500,000 of us living here and I think outside the 30 across the way, I don't

really know there are a few others I suppose, give them probably a couple

thousand would you say, that might probably agree with this but I haven't found

them. I live in a community of 26,000 people, I didn't find anybody that's over

praising up any decisions they make and I'm totally sincere when I say that. If

I did, I'd tell you I found a scattered one. I didn't find anybody. Now there

still may be supporters of them, but they're not too proud of the decisions. I

don't know, they can go out and beat their chest.

One

final point, you hear the cheers and the heckling and the laughing. They take

great humour in it, but that $33,000 that was so freely given for Marble

Mountain, that's a pittance to an $8 billion budget. It is not pittance to the

groups that had their funding cut. That's the point that's being made here. That

lady who's looking for that dental work, those Girl Guide groups, those people

are looking at that and they're saying, what? Do you mean to say we're a

province that's faced with a fiscal crisis and that's what we're doing with

extra money? I know it's a small amount but it's the principle of the matter,

Mr. Speaker, and it's not defendable.

On the

Crown Lands moving to Corner Brook, so we're in May now, we found out that the

move is happening July 1 but we don't know the workers still do not know who

is moving. The move is happening July 1 was all they're told. We don't even know

if the move is going to happen July 1. I don't know if they can do it that

quick.

Again,

I'll go back, those people have families, they have homes. Their husband or wife

is working in St. John's. They have to uproot everything and move to Corner

Brook, if they have to move. There's not enough compassion or sincerity shown by

the government opposite to give those people a heads up, you will be moving.

It's

going to take time to clue up if they have to move, to sell their home, to

relocate their children, get them in schools, their wife or their husband to get

another job or take leave. It's a family situation. You're not moving from St.

John's to CBS or Torbay, you're moving to Corner Brook. It's like moving to

another province when you look at this, it's a seven-hour drive. That's the

reality.

It comes

back a lot of times when I say this, Mr. Speaker, I say this honestly and in

all sincerity. We get in this House and we debate back and forth and we have our

banter and whatnot, but I'm a believer in people, issues that affect people. We

can talk high-level stuff all day, and a lot of people don't understand some of

the things we talk about. I like to keep it to people, things that affect

people.

I'm

talking of snow clearing, I'm talking about the dental care, I'm talking about

Girl Guides. I believe in that. That's not words out of my mouth, that's right

from here. I do believe that's who I am, and I'm not changing who I am. That's

why when I go up to my district I can talk all level stuff if people want to

talk that, no problem, but I do like talking to the average person on the street

and what really affects them. It's the people issues, and that's where this

government has lost their way.

When you

get the heckling and laughing, when I say about a move or the cost, or people's

lives being moved from the Crown Lands office, it's insulting to people. I find

it insulting that they'd find it humorous, but how do the people feel? What's

the humour? What game is being played here?

Forty of

us are brought in this House of Assembly to represent the people of this

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Every district in this province is

covered. We're here to represent the people, but somewhere along the way, Mr.

Speaker, that's the biggest point that's lost in all of this, the people.

People

do matter. We were told that. That sounds familiar to me. People matter. You

can't lead if you can't listen. A stronger tomorrow, we heard all of that. A lot

of people believed it. Based on the results of 2015, a lot of people believed

it. I don't think they believe it today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

I really don't think they

believe it today, because a lot of people are lost to what happened. What about

the stronger tomorrow? What about people matter? People make plays, makes pun on

those words because it's insulting. They are insulted by those words now.

As a

member running for the PCs back in 2015, I saw the slogans. I knew people were

buying the message. I didn't know if they were going to deliver or not. I worked

like a dog to get elected in my own individual riding. I'm not saying I believed

what they were saying or not, but coming back to the people issue, Mr. Speaker,

I'm one of those people who live in this province. We all knew there was a very

good chance the Liberals were going to form government. A part of me was hopeful

that those words were going to mean something.

I have

two daughters, 21 and 17, that I'm hoping are going to create a life and stay

here. Me and my wife, the four of us live here. I have a family. I'm a person in

this province, and to be totally sincere with Members opposite, we can do all

the mocking we want, I was hopeful they would do a better job. Forget about your

stripe, as a person who lives in this province, we all should feel that way

regardless who is in government, regardless.

We have

a government in Ottawa, Justin Trudeau, a Liberal government. I wish them well,

because if they do well, we do well. It's just the nature of the beast. We can

have our political differences. We have different ideologies. We do things

differently than the government opposite. That's what politics is about, but at

the end of the day, all the decisions you make, every decision this government

opposite makes affects me and it affects everyone in this House, all our

families, everyone in this province. That's the moral of this debate and this

back and forth we get into all the time. That's where it comes down to.

So when

they're making these decisions of the Marble Mountain and the Corner Brook moves

and then on top of it, I won't go down, because I talked at length about it

yesterday, but the Bernard Coffey issue. There are a lot of smart people in this

province, a lot smarter people probably than sitting in this House of Assembly,

and even people that don't really understand the fiasco. They're saying what in

the name of God, what's happened, what's gone wrong here.

Again,

it comes back to the point of do you think people don't see through this? Again,

it's back to the people. It's almost insulting their own intelligence to be

doing stuff like that and then defending it to the province and everyone are

left scratching their heads. It seems like every decision that's made; the

outcome is left as everyone is in just total confusion.

I thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases

to amaze me the foolishness you got to listen to on a Wednesday morning. He

talked about the lead role in the Trinity Pageant. Well, I think he's got the

lead role in the Trinity Pageant, Come

From Away and Maudie with that

performance over there just then.

talked about the poor old woman in his district that's got to eat her meals

through a straw. Now that says more about his ability as an MHA than anything

else to have our government do it. I challenge him, if he can't get the job done

in getting that woman some dentures pass her name along to myself and my CA,

Wanda Tremblett. We've had pretty good success in getting people their dentures.

talked about us laughing and finding it funny. Well, on this side we certainly

don't see anything funny about facing a $2.7 billion deficit last year. We got

that down to approximately $1 billion last year. We don't find it funny that we

had $25 billion wasted over a 10-year period.

Do you

find that funny, Mr. Speaker? Because I certainly don't; I don't find it funny

when we've got 118 political patronage appointments put forward by the PC

government in the fall of 2015 prior when they knew they were going to lose

the election, 118 political appointments. You had 13 in Labour Relations; six in

Municipal Affairs; 40 in Health and Community Services in one day, one day. That

was on October 29, 2015.

What

else do we have? We have Advanced Education and Skills, we had another 19; BTCRD

was 4; Environment and Conservation, 8. Fisheries and Aquaculture, we had

another 14 there.

So when

they talk about political appointments and patronage, they loved it. They

couldn't get enough of it. They couldn't wait to get their buddies a position on

a board or some paid position. That's not funny, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if

you find it funny because I certainly don't, and I'm sure our colleagues on this

side don't find it funny either.

This is

my first opportunity to speak on the 2017 budget, which I think is a great

document, a lot of good things for the District of Bonavista. I was taking some

notes while the Minister of Finance was reading the speech and six things jumped

out to me, but I'm just going to talk a little bit first about the multi-year

infrastructure plan that was announced back on March 17, which was applauded by

the construction association of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's $3 billion over

five years, which is going to be the equivalent of 4,900 jobs each year. Mr.

Speaker, do you think that's good for the province, 4,900 jobs based on our

infrastructure plan every year? I think that's great. The District of Bonavista

is going to see some of those jobs as well, Mr. Speaker.

What we

also have in that infrastructure plan is our five-year roads plan. Now, these

guys never had a plan for anything, a lot of pork-barrel pavement. We saw it

rolled out in the fall of 2015, but we they couldn't get it done because they

rolled it out in October and we had to come back and say it's not fair to not

honour their promises.

So we

actually honoured their promises. We didn't have to but we did, because it

wasn't fair for them to make a promise and not have it delivered to the people.

We honoured that last year, Mr. Speaker, and we saw some good work in the

District of Bonavista; however, some of the worse roads in my district for

example, Trinity Bight and Smith Sound going up to Harcourt-Monroe-Waterville,

up to Burgoyne's Cove.

They had

a senior Cabinet minister for 15 years, Mr. Speaker, and the way they were

throwing around pavement when they were in power, it was all pork-barrel

pavement. That senior Cabinet minister, the former Minister of Finance, couldn't

scrounge up a bit of pavement for Trinity Bight or Smith Sound. I can't believe

it.

Down in

Ferryland they put new pavement over good pavement, but that former minister of

Trinity North couldn't look after the good people in the Trinity Bight or the

good people of Smith Sound. Now, we have a tourism industry, especially in the

Trinity Bight, where you have tour bus operators threatening to pull out of the

area. We have 14 fishing enterprises in Bonaventure where trucks are hesitant to

go up over the roads. That is neglect.

I'm

thankful that the Minister of Transportation and Works took a meeting with me to

discuss those concerns because it's important to me, it's important to him.

That's the type of communication that we have. We have to work through those

issues.

This

year alone, we have $77.2 million allocated for road infrastructure. So what

you're going to see in the District of Bonavista now it is carry-over work

from last year is Route 230A which stretches from George's Brook to the

Bonavista highway.

Before,

you had the former Member, a senior minister in their Cabinet, fight with the

former Member for Bonavista South about who owned the road. Me, and the current

Member for Terra Nova sat down and I said: MHA, do you agree that this road

should be paved? He said yes because it benefits his district. They couldn't get

that done, Mr. Speaker. That shows co-operation between myself and the Member

for Terra Nova.

Another

thing that couldn't get done over the years, you couldn't get a bit of brush cut

up in the Bunyan's Cove to Port Blandford area. That was another senior Cabinet

minister; the former Member for Terra Nova couldn't get that done. He was too

busy taking the fire truck from the good people of Bunyan's Cove and moving it

to Eastport to try to save his skin in the 2015 election.

That

didn't work out too well because we got the current Member for Terra Nova, and

I'm glad we got him couldn't get a bit of brush cut. Last year, we got the

brush cut going from Musgravetown to Port Blandford.

AN HON. MEMBER:

We did a good job, didn't we?

MR. KING:

That was us.

The road

between Musgravetown and Bunyan's Cove is in terrible shape. What's going to be

done next year? We're going to resurface that road so that the people in that

area have a decent road to drive on. That's a high-traffic road that goes to

Port Blandford which people in that area take to get to Clarenville.

What is

also neglected is Point Road in Canning's Cove. This Member was in for how many

years? Six years? And four of those in a Cabinet post I believe. The way their

Cabinet ministers were throwing around pavement, he couldn't get those roads

done. He couldn't get the road in Canning's Cove. So another conversation I'm

going to have with the minister is to see can we get a bit of slippage to try to

get that Canning's Cove road done next year, and hopefully we can we'll see.

We do have the 25 per cent availability, the 50 per cent the 75-75 I believe,

that's the way that works with the amounts that are able to because it's a

living document.

Now, I

also talk about the good work that myself and the Member for Terra Nova have

been able to do because of the co-operation we have. When the Member for Terra

Nova said to me: Do you support getting work done on the Port Blandford bridge?

I said: Yes, I do, because it helps my district and it helps the people in my

district. Because we were able to work together, we're able to get things done.

Instead

of a lot of self-interest like you had on that side of the House, we've got

people working together for the betterment of not just my district but for the

District of Terra Nova as well, because what's good for Terra Nova District is

good for the District of Bonavista and vice-versa.

I have

about 11 minutes left, so I'm going to get to some other things I liked about

the budget. I'm going to get one, maybe two more opportunities to speak.

brought up a number of different things when I spoke to the Chamber of Commerce

for Bonavista-Trinity Regional Chamber of Commerce the week before last. A lot

of the comments that I got from that group was that it was a good budget, a good

step forward. The fear mongering that was put forward by that side of the House

didn't come to fruition, they said, actually. It was a tough budget, but it was

a budget that was needed.

For the

first time I'd say in about five years there were absolutely no complaints about

the delivery of health care at the Bonavista Peninsula hospital in Bonavista.

One and two, every year, was always the Bonavista hospital and the College of

the North Atlantic. Now, there's a bit of work to do at the College of the North

Atlantic because that crowd had no focus whatsoever on the College of the North

Atlantic, but our current Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour has

put a focus on the College of the North Atlantic. I'm proud to say I'm going to

be keynote speaker at the college tomorrow night for their open house, to talk

about the good programs that we have there, the commitment that we're making to

the communities.

When you

get the fear mongering by the Third Party and their buddies about colleges

closing down, that's absolutely not true if you look at the announcement that

was made last week, they're going to reinvest in the college. They're not like

MUN. They're not afraid to look at their own books. They're not going on $700

dinners. They're not insulting students by saying go eat a peanut butter

sandwich.

The

College of the North Atlantic is actually standing up and saying we can do

better. They're looking at within. They don't want to close campuses. They want

to provide regional hubs such as the campus in Bonavista. We've got some great

programs there, a number of them being close to filled. We have some work to do

on our plumbing and cooking courses but the other ones are full, and we can

utilize our campus as a regional hub. It is the heart of the talk of the

Bonavista Peninsula. So I'm proud to go there tomorrow night and speak and talk

about the good things, the investments that we're making the College of the

North Atlantic.

When I

talked to the Chamber, I spoke about a number of different things and we

recognize it was a tough budget last year. No one on this side liked it. No one

liked it because we faced a $2.7 billion deficit. If we borrow like the NDP

would have us borrow, we'd be bankrupt right now. They like to compare oh well,

the NDP government in Alberta is borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. Well, they had

savings in the bank and they're just on their line of credit right now while we

blew through $25 billion, we blew through our credit cards, the low-interest

ones, and then we blew through the high-interest Canadian Tire card, and now we

had to borrow where our position was next to junk.

We got

ourselves in a position where we don't have to borrow every two or three months.

When we borrow now, we are borrowing for the year and next year, Mr. Speaker. We

don't have to borrow to pay our bills. Just imagine, the first time in the

history of this province that we never had to borrow to pay our bills, not pay

our employees, and not keep the lights on. That's a huge step forward.

This

year, we got our deficit down from $2.7 billion which we faced going into

Budget 2016 down to $778 million.

That's not much to brag about but given the reality that we faced, that's a

significant step forward, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you would agree, and the

good people of Baie Verte Green Bay would agree as well.

One

thing that I have to let people know, we made a promise. We didn't like to have

to put this in place, but we had to put it in place to get our fiscal footing

back on track. Now that we have our fiscal footing back on track, we're able to

reverse some of the things that we had to put in place, such as the gas tax.

On June

1, you're going to see a reduction in the gas tax by 8.5 cents a litre. That is

significant. On December 1, you're going to see that further reduced by another

four cents. Then the other four cents is going to be reviewed with the fall

fiscal update. We made a promise that this would be a temporary measure and

we're keeping our promise.

We have

to thank the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I thank the good

people in the District of Bonavista, for bearing the brunt of the poor

management that the PC government put us through for 12 years. Twelve years, Mr.

Speaker, where they had $25 billion to work with in oil revenues. It's unheard

of.

They

were planning their luxurious lifestyle based on $112 barrel oil, Mr. Speaker.

That was going to go on for years. What happened last year? We saw it drop down

as low as $26. So when you put all your eggs in the one basket, that's what

happens.

They

always get up to pontificate and say, well, you have no plan you have no plan.

A bit of a diversification plan that we actually have and I talked about one

thing is our infrastructure plan which gives the equivalent of 4,900 jobs a year

over the next five years. That's not minimum-wage jobs, Mr. Speaker. That is

good-paying construction jobs.

If you

look at the focus on the fishery which there's been some controversy surrounding

the fishery, we are sending a clear message to Ottawa that we want better

control over our fishery. We want better management; we want better science. We

can't go out and fish everything until it's gone; we need to have proper

management. One of the key economic drivers, as stated in our Throne Speech, is

the fact that groundfish is going to be one of the key components of our economy

coming forward.

We have

a shrimp fishery and a crab fishery that is in decline but we see the cod

fishery coming back. So we want to work with the federal government to grow and

support the groundfish industry. That $100 million, the Fisheries Innovation

Fund that we have, that's going to go a long way in helping us.

They'll

talk about the $280 million phantom fisheries fund that they had. They'll write

letters to the editor about it; they'll brag about it. Not one person from the

federal government showed up. When they threw the big party down at The Rooms,

no one showed up. They never did get the $280 million first or last. They never

delivered a cent of the $120 million that they promised from the provincial

government. So we're going to use that money to invest directly into our

fishery. We want to grow this industry.

Now,

another big thing, talk about diversification. One of the most important

industries we have in the District of Bonavista is the tourism industry. I know

the great District of Baie Verte Green Bay has a great tourism industry as

well; you've got some great things going there. I'd say the District of

Bonavista is second to none when it comes to tourism. The hospitality you get

there, the sense of welcome that you have, the amount of things you can do

there, the amenities we are focused on growing that industry in the District

of Bonavista.

We are

one of the few growth centres in the province, Mr. Speaker. We are growing, and

we see new businesses come in. We see record numbers of tourists come into the

District of Bonavista. They enjoy the experience.

Now, if

they had a decent road to drive over in the Trinity Bight area, that would be

all right, but because the former Finance Minister didn't care about that part

of the district, we've got roads that we've got to try to get some good

maintenance on.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KING:

Pardon?

MR. JOYCE:

That where Trinity Pageant

is?

MR. KING:

That's where the Trinity

Pageant is, and I think the Member for CBS is going to be the star there all

summer.

But

getting back to what I was saying about the tourism industry, we're focusing on

doubling the amount of tourism dollars that we have coming into this province to

$1.6 billion, and the District of Bonavista, Mr. Speaker, is going to be front

and centre for that.

If you

look at the agriculture and I've only got a minute left, and I'm going to have

a couple of other opportunities to stand up and speak, and I love standing up

and speaking in the House and talking about the beautiful and historic

District of Bonavista, but our agriculture industry is booming. The provincial

government held a livestock production seminar at the College of the North

Atlantic the week before last.

It was well turned out. There were about 20 interested

people there, learning about all aspects of livestock production. It's not very

prevalent in the district right now, but there's enough interest that we had the

seminar there and we've got enough interested people who want to see this and

make a go of it. So that's one thing I look forward to, plus we have Growing

Forward 2 and PAAP adding additional funds to the agriculture industry, and the

number of young farmers that we have, I'm excited about that industry. The next

time I get up to speak I'm

going to speak a great deal about that.

Thank

you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to get up and speak again to the budget and to address the

people of this great province of ours in the House. It's only 18 hours ago that

I got a chance to get up and spend 20 minutes outlining my view on the budget,

particularly my concerns about where it's not meeting the needs of the citizens

of this province and acknowledging some of the things that are positive there.

I have

no problem acknowledging that, but also acknowledging the fact that the whole

concept here was about having a plan and a way forward. I still see no vision of

that. I see no version of how that can work. I see no way of implicating how

people can find a positive process out of this budget line. I'm going to get a

chance to talk to that and a few things from yesterday.

I'll

revisit last year's budget because you can't, in isolation, talk about 2017-2018

budget without referring to 2016-2017 because there has to be a transition. When

you cut the bottom out of something, somewhere along the way you have to start

to fill it in again if you want water to stay in that, and you haven't done

that. So now not only are we having spillage where you got so much to come, what

you're doing, there's full leakage. You're still hurting people. People are

still worse off than they were before.

I want

to correct I very diligently listened to my hon. colleague for Bonavista. He

got up and he is very diligently fighting for his district and outlining the

issues. There's no doubt, I agree, there are a number of roads up there in

horrendous condition. I know, I spent three days travelling all over that part

of the area as Minister of Transportation, and knew with the minimal amount of

money for infrastructure, and my colleague, the present Minister of

Transportation and Works, will outline we'd need billions more to do it, but you

tried to pick what you thought was, at the time, the most necessary because of

traffic flows or for safety reasons to address those needs. No doubt, we could

continue to do it.

The hon.

Member for Exploits is right. It's not only in that area. It's all over

Newfoundland and Labrador. It's in parts of my community. If it's Portugal

Cove-St. Philip's, Paradise or if it's on Bell Island, we've had those

challenges. But we did, over the years, try to outline how we could invest in

particular areas. We had regional staff who would come in and tell you things

that needed to be done. No doubt, it always didn't get done in that fashion and

you'd have to go back and say: Well, what you're proposing is $15 million. We

have $1.5 million for that area. What can we do? What are the immediate things?

So you made choices.

wasn't always popular with citizens. It wasn't even popular with staff. It

wasn't popular with the politicians of the day, but you try to do what had to be

done. So I think the onus here, and the acknowledgement by all of us, is that we

do have some big challenges here nobody disputes that in every sector, in our

infrastructure particularly, in our roads, in our water and sewer, in our

wastewater and all the things that are pertinent and important to people in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We all try to do our part. There's no doubt, the

ministers there will try to do that. But to make sure and to ensure that these

communities also survive, you have to instill in people the faith that things

can move forward.

I have

to correct the Member for Bonavista on a couple of other things too. He had

talked about next year will be the first time in our province's history that we

had a balanced budget; that's not true. We had four or five balanced budgets and

surplus budgets, which were used to go back in towards the deficit or invest

back into infrastructure to ensure that we had equity across this province,

ensure that we had stability, but also ensure that people felt there was a

reason to stay in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and in urban Newfoundland and

Labrador and in any other areas that there would be business investments so they

could be productive and they themselves could grow what they felt was their

commitment and their contribution to their respective communities. So I have to

clarify that.

The

Member is also right. We did have, in a 10-year period, during the tenure of the

previous PC administration, $28 billion in oil revenues; it was a great time.

The money came in; oil prices were up more than people thought. Great deals were

negotiated around royalties, so we were getting more we thought. Productivity

was up because we had managed to develop new platforms. Exploration had

identified new areas.

So all

the partnerships nationally and internationally had been developed; we'd had

come a long way. Part of that $28 billion went back in to support and service

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was their money. They deserved it.

They had worked for it, but particularly they had sacrificed over years and

years of having to rely on Ottawa to give us a few pittance every now and then

when we were desperate for something, they had to rely on not being able to

sustain certain industries, not having enough money to put into the fishing

industry, as the Member had talked about, a very valued industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

So we

were fortunate, but we were fortunate because of design, because of what went on

in the '70s and the '80s and the negotiations and the contracts that were put in

play around the oil industry and the royalty regimes that said we weren't giving

away things anymore; those days are gone. These are going to be ours. The people

of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to benefit from them.

How do

we do that? We ensure that we're open for business and we're open for

partnerships, but partnerships that benefit everybody involved, not just the big

oil industries or not just the Ottawa tax receivers but the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That's what we ended up doing here and that's why $28

billion it came in, no doubt we'll never argue that; we'll never dispute

exactly the amount of money that came in here.

I have

to note, too, that all the money that came in went out, and where did it go?

Back in to improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in different

forms. Some of it was direct, some of it was indirect. Some they're now starting

to see the benefits. Some of it was to be proactive in certain areas. Some of it

was by being proactive you were looking for the future gains and the future

benefits of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I just

want to note some of the monies that were put back into an investment for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the years. Let's talk about some of the

things; $6.28 billion has been spent on provincial infrastructure. That was to

catch up on bridges, health care infrastructure, transportation infrastructure,

municipal infrastructure, roads and buildings, education infrastructure.

There's

not a person in this province who would argue, particularly educators and when

we talk about the challenges and I know we also have challenges in education and

we probably will forever and a day until we get enough money and enough

resources to be able to do exactly everything that's perfect, but we'll always

have challenges.

None

will tell you now the issues around mould and health issues within the school

system. In particular, heavy safety things have been improved dramatically. Do

we still have a ways to go? Of course we do. We still have six or eight schools

that are in the queue now that are being built. So they'll improve the quality

of education. That's one small example of the investments in infrastructure.

We're

still looking for one up in the Southern Shore area because there's a big

demand. When you have it in growth areas you need to be able to build what's

conducive to the needs of the people, and have some vision that the future will

obviously be attractive enough so you don't rebuild after and rebuild after,

that you have an attraction that people will come for. We need to get to that

point again.

We've

got other ones that are still on the delay queue that need to be done, but I'll

discuss that that's another day for another discussion. What we're talking

about here now is responding to where the money went. I want to outline, the

money went back for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians where it always should.

That was one of the other things we did.

Another

$3.7 billion went into gross domestic products. We invested back into what we

were doing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We went back in to ensure that our

products and that here were competitive and that we were doing things in the

right vein.

Mr.

Speaker, $2.7 billion in labour compensation. Don't forget, for a number of

years Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the civil servants and the people that

work, the teachers, the nurses, the doctors, the professionals, the civil

servants, the plow drivers, the inspectors on the wharves, all the people who

are part and parcel of keeping the services and ensuring that our province could

move forward, were underpaid. They were the lowest paid in the country in most

cases. They weren't given an opportunity to be engaged in other types of

training, to be able to ensure that they were the best at what they did.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Lose their specialists, let

them go.

MR. BRAZIL:

That's right, exactly. That

was the problem.

Our

people, the people who work for the citizens of this province were noted

internationally as being the greatest workers around, but it was hard to keep

them because people have to survive themselves. They want to have a better

quality of life for themselves and their children. To do that, you have to have

a sustainable income. It's got to be something that's of value, and you have to

be seen that you're valued within your workforce. It wasn't valued with the

value of the amount of money we were paying people.

doubt, people respected what they were doing, their bosses, the civil servants

and the politicians of the day, but to really reflect that you had to give them

a proper wage that was competitive. It didn't have to be the highest. They

weren't looking for that. So it was competitive so that they couldn't be drawn

away from Newfoundland and Labrador, the place where they had honed their

skills, the place they loved, the place where they had developed partnerships

and had taken a leadership role in communities.

The

administration of the day felt, you know what; we need to do that, because

investing money there saves us money in the long run. It keeps our qualified,

trained people here. It gives them a reason to be more engaged in their

communities. It keeps our own skill set here and it develops the industries

we're doing. That was a great investment there and it made sense.

We also

invested billions into other infrastructure. We invested into additional health

care, forest access roads. Let's talk about forest access roads and things like

this; foreign animal disease laboratories, things that might seem small. Four

million dollars out of $28 billion might seem small but you add up 20 or 30 or

those, not only do you have services that uniquely meet all the needs of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but you also have industries that can grow.

Everything is not about big oil industries, fishing industries, forest

industries and the mineral industries. We understand that.

That's

why I liked last year, when I heard what was coming from the Liberal

administration, like diversification. I've said it 100 times, I was bought in. I

was in on it. I was sold. I was just waiting for the detail. The old clich, the

devil is in the details. I was waiting for it, because I thought there was a

master plan. I thought it was going to be wonderful. I said, I'm in. Let's take

it. Let's go for the next you'll deserve the government for the next 10, 12,

15 years if you have that plan in place. Unfortunately, the plan never

materialized. It was never there. What continued to happen was about the $28

billion that we had.

I'm

going to explain again where some of that $28 billion went; education and

infrastructure, for example, arts and sciences; Grenfell, $27 million one

institution, $27 million, and rightfully so. It's a great area of Newfoundland

and Labrador, a good investment, needed. No doubt, the Members out there saw it.

I know the citizens thought it was a proper engagement; core science facilities,

$9 million; again, another investment there, something that was stuff that

would also generate other particular industries and give other people a sense of

pride of investing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

College of the North Atlantic, $21.7 million; that's Labrador West, one

community, Labrador West and those two communities up there, very necessary

because an industrial area that should be serviced, very necessary. A great

investment and I think it's going to pay off dividends tenfold tenfold. Again,

that's not wasted.

New

residence at Memorial University; as things were booming here we knew the cost

of students coming here and housing. Newfoundland and Labrador had a boom on the

Northeast Avalon, particularly around housing and the cost. It wasn't fair for

our young students from Baie Verte or Twillingate to have to come in here and

spend all their savings or not have enough in student loans because everything

was going solely to housing. What did we build? Beautiful housing; $65 million

in housing, residences for university students.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Who were they for, students?

MR. BRAZIL:

Students from all over

Newfoundland and Labrador, international students, all over Canada to sell the

wares of a great institution, Memorial University, and we did that.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

That wasn't wasted, though.

MR. BRAZIL:

Apparently, some people

believe it was on that side. I don't think the people who live in it. I know the

university don't, and I guarantee you the parents who felt that their kids were

safe and were cared for in a great environment right next to the university,

what a great ideal process to have $65 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Let's throw out a few other

schools that were replacing old dilapidated, outdated schools. Laval High

School, Placentia, another great area in Newfoundland and Labrador, $13.5

million; French Shore Academy, Port Saunders, $13.2 million. Another great

investment for the people.

You're

seeing a trend here, you're seeing a trend. It's not political. It's all over

Newfoundland and Labrador. Investments are everywhere. It was never about the

political part of it. It was never a stamp of what party was doing it. It was

about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Everybody had to earn that $28

billion. They were going to get their part back. Rightfully so, and that's what

we did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Labrador Straits Academy,

L'Anse au Loup, another great part of this great province, $15.6 million.

Another great investment, it's well deserved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Lobbied for by their MHAs and

delivered by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador from the PC administration

because it was the $28 billion that was owned by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and they got their monies back for it.

Riverside Elementary extension and site improvements, Shoal Harbour, $7.4

million only part, we're missing something there but I won't get into that.

That will be for a debate again; $7.4 million there. We're still waiting on the

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

The hon.

Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

There are a few other schools I'll get to another time about ones that we had in

play. A number of schools we had in play but got cancelled.

There

may be a few Members over there who know about the schools that are cancelled

right now, but we'll go back to it.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I know.

MR. BRAZIL:

You know about it. There may

be a few other Members there who may know about that, but we'll talk about that

another time.

Let's

talk about transportation infrastructure examples. Placentia Lift Bridge,

another great part of our province that, as you know in that whole area, what's

going to be developed down there, what impact that's going to have on the

fishing industry, on the oil industry, on the tourism industry what a great

opportunity; a fair, substantial investment, $51.9 million, but the right

investment for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to replace a 50-year-old

bridge and do it in such a way that it's professional and it draws business

investments.

The Team

Gushue Highway, $61 million, to be able to make sure that the largest municipal

infrastructure area has the proper transportation infrastructure that we draw

the Outer Ring Road was a great idea. A former Liberal administration started

it, finished off by a PC administration, then another connecting road all made

sense; the people's money. It didn't make any difference what party was in power

or who were the Members for it. It was all about giving to the people. It was

their money. So everybody gets to earn from that. Anyone who comes into the

Northeast Avalon for health services or education services or employment

services have an opportunity to access those infrastructure facilities.

Bonavista community care residence: $2.6 million, again another investment to

take care of the needs up there.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Good investment.

MR. BRAZIL:

Without a doubt. Called for

the by the municipal leaders up there who worked with the MHAs of the area. Do

you know what? We even had partnerships with federal MPs. It didn't make any

difference what party they were because and they bought into it this was

about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It was about giving them back their

money and making sure that everybody got their fair share. Their fair share was

based on what their priorities were, and their priorities were done. All their

priorities were done. Money was spent all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

Money

was spent on all parts of Newfoundland, including the North Shore of the Bay of

Islands, all kinds. Everybody approved for it. Everybody could address and

access services that were done.

Let's

talk about health care infrastructure. Boat Harbour community clinic: $2.5

million, small rural communities but still deserving of the services, in need of

services and delivered on the services.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. BRAZIL:

Labrador West I'm glad the

Member for Labrador West noted that because it falls right in line. Labrador

West Health Centre, great facility.

AN HON. MEMBER:

How much?

MR. BRAZIL:

$90 million, what a great

investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Well deserved; $90 million

gone, great, well spent. No doubt, well deserved and well used up there as

(inaudible).

Let's

talk about some of the other equipment because we've talked about

infrastructure and building facilities, but if you build facilities, you have to

make sure the box is not just the thing, it's about making sure that the quality

of the people are in there. So we've taken care of that because we've made sure

we give proper salaries to attract the best, to keep the best Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians here, the best trained, to give them ways to be retrained,

upgraded, fit into a system of better qualifications. We've done all that, so

we've gone through that. This is where our $28 billion has gone now.

Then we

get into health care equipment. We've got to have stuff properly. People have to

have it. It's no good being good at what you do if the equipment is not

conducive to you being able to do your job properly.

Mr.

Speaker, dialysis equipment: $8.2 million for dialysis patients, and we all know

the challenges around that an investment to ensure people's quality of life.

The challenges that they go through on a daily basis, we want to

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Around the province.

MR. BRAZIL:

And around. You're right,

around the province.

It's

unfortunate that the one in Harbour Breton no longer exists because we wanted to

make sure everybody in rural areas had that. But this was about providing

services to people, particularly those who may have some challenges around

health care.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Where would they have gone

to?

MR. BRAZIL:

Oh, they would have just to

give you a couple of examples where they may have gone: Labrador, double

dialysis investment up there, Gander, Burin, Carbonear, Happy Valley-Goose Bay,

Harbour Breton unfortunately, the Harbour Breton one no longer exists

Bonavista, St. Anthony, Labrador City, Port aux Basques and Fogo Island. Great

investments all about proper health care, quality of life for people.

MRI

equipment: $10.5 million, a necessary piece of equipment for proper health care;

X-ray machines, $10.5 million; monographic equipment, $13.9 million; ultrasound

equipment, $14.7 million. These are all investments in health care.

Linear

equipment, $15.9 million; CT scanners, $20.8 million we're up to $125 million

just in side equipment for an institute. That's side equipment. That's just

diagnostic stuff. Additional treatment centres that we've done over the year:

Tuckamore Centre.

We're

talking about challenges we have in this province and we're seeing it now as it

materialized even more and more. Imagine what state we'd be in if we didn't have

these and we weren't proactive to put these in place. Tuckamore; Happy Valley

centre; Grand Falls-Windsor; Humberwood addictions treatment, $3.6 million in

Corner Brook; adult addictions treatment centre in Harbour Grace, $6.9 million.

Hundreds

of millions of dollars will all add up. I'll finish off the $28 billion when I

get a chance again, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER:

I remind the hon. Member his

time for speaking has expired.

The

Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

It was

indeed an absolute pleasure to stand here again today and represent the

beautiful District of Cape St. Francis for the beautiful people of Cape St.

Francis.

Madam

Speaker, just listening to my colleague speak I was writing down a few notes and

stuff like that and trying to think about the different things because we all

get an opportunity to speak on the budget. The other day, I had 20 minutes and I

spoke about different things. It was very positive about things that are

happening in my district and the great things that were announced last week. I

spoke about volunteers.

It's

interesting to listen to the debate when we hear on the other side of the floor

the wastage of money, the wastage of the $25 billion and stuff like that. Then

my colleague gets up here and he done a great list. The thing about it is, Madam

Speaker, over the last 12 years, and I've been only here for eight-and-a-half

years, I saw large investments in our province. I saw great investments in our

province and I saw a province with people with an attitude that we were the

best. We are a great province; we're great people and everything else. I always

go back to my days of working with a company that I worked with and I used to go

do all these training courses on the Mainland. You'd always go in and there will

always be one person in that class that wanted to tell a Newfie joke. He thought

it was always funny; it was a Newfie joke.

I can

remember in 2005, probably 2006, that the Newfie joke was changing because we

were termed as a proud people. We were a very, very proud people. When they did

the Newfie joke, I used to put the joke back on them but we're the ones that our

economy was booming. We're a province that is contributing to Canada and

everywhere else in Canada and we're a very proud people. Back then, their

attitude changed.

Not only

did our attitude change about who we were as people, the rest of the people in

Canada were looking at Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and saying, b'y, that's

a great province. That's a great place to live and they're great people there.

Over a period of time and I understand, for years, there was the doom and

gloom and we take the pittance from Ottawa to keep everything going because we

were lucky to get it. We were lucky to get our transfer payments and we were

lucky to get this good thing Canada is taking care of them down there or

they'd never (inaudible).

But the

whole attitude changed. Was it related to our money coming in from oil and stuff

like that? Yes, it was. Yes, it was. Was it the revenue coming in from I'm not

going to go back to the days when it was a Liberal government or it was a PC

government or whatever it was, but we never had the revenue in this province to

do the things that we needed to do.

When you

look around this province today, I look at a province that has a great future.

Our education level in this province is second to none. We have smart,

intelligent young people that want to live here.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Are you talking about me?

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm talking about everyone.

I'm talking about our whole attitude. The Minister of Education wants to know if

I'm talking about him. I hope you want to live here, just like everybody else

does.

I really

believe that we needed to make these investments. I don't care if they were in

Cape St. Francis or they were in Bonavista, there were investments that needed

to be done.

I'm

going to just give an example. I know the Member just got up and he spoke about

province wide and stuff like that, and I'd just like to speak of my district. I

look at things that were wrong in my district and again, not blaming anybody;

I'm not blaming anybody for mould in schools; I'm not blaming anybody for the

schools being old; I'm not blaming anybody for infrastructure being down. But we

had a deficit and the deficit back then was our infrastructure. We just never

had it and that's not to fault in order to be able to do anything, it's like

your home. It's like what's happening in our economy today.

You

cannot do anything with your home to improve home improvements unless you got

the money to do it. Unless you got money to be able to put the new windows in,

or you have to put that roof on you don't have the money, then that's it, you

have to live with it. You patch things up. Rather than get your shingles

replaced, you go up and put a bit of tar and fix a few shingles and stuff like

that. That's what happened in this province in the '70s, '80s and '90s, really.

wasn't until 2000 and fortunate enough, we were the government to be in power

at the time, because the revenue changed. The revenue in this province changed,

and there's no doubt in my mind mining played a major role. We're very fortunate

with the mining and everything else. And our natural resources, for years that

we had all these natural resources, really came through for us, and they came

through in a big way because there was money generated from these resources.

So it's

important to remember where we were to in Newfoundland and Labrador, where our

attitude was to in Newfoundland and Labrador, and where people's attitude about

us was to in Newfoundland and Labrador and we changed it. We did a great job

of changing and I'm not saying government changed it. I think the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador changed it, because the Newfie joke wasn't there

anymore. People were looking at Newfoundland and Labrador in a different

attitude, with a different attitude about our people.

Listen,

b'y, they're doing something right down there. They're doing good things. Here's

a province everyone will look at equalization, and today equalization didn't

pay off very well for us, because we look at other provinces around Canada

Quebec, $10 billion; Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, $1.7 billion, $1.8 billion.

If we had those revenues today, we wouldn't have the fiscal problems that we

have.

But do

you know what? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians took great pride in being taken

off equalization. Here we are, we're the smallest, youngest province in Canada

and we got taken off equalization because we did so well, because our leaders,

our people, are hard workers, because we work hard, because we have an industry

and our resources came to show that, listen, that's a great province to live

in.

We saw

people move. We saw everything come up from our population to back in the

'70s, '80s and '90s, if you looked at a nurse, for just an example, that came

out of Memorial University or came out of St. Clare's back then it was St.

Clare's nursing and then she or he had a decision to make: Will I stay in

Newfoundland for X number of dollars, or will I go somewhere in the rest of

Canada and make probably twice as much money?

It's a

huge decision for a person coming out with some debt and everything else and

willing to start off their life. I can move to Alberta and I'll just give an

example. I can make $40,000 in Newfoundland but I can move to Alberta and make

$80,000. I can move to Ontario and make so much more money. You wonder where our

money has gone.

Guess

what the nurse who comes out of these institutions today, where she wants to

stay? Right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The same thing as the doctors;

they want to stay right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you know why?

Because we're on par with the rest of Canada now and people will look at our

engineers and look at our professional people and realize that, listen, back in

the '70s and back in the '80s, I understand they couldn't be paid, but do you

know what? Today, we have more doctors. We have more nurses than ever before.

The

reason being because they're treated equal, just like they are in Nova Scotia,

as they are in Saskatchewan, as they are BC because it's just as good to work

here as it is anywhere in the country because we increased their wages. They

have the same opportunity to work as they did anywhere else, but now

Newfoundland is the attitude one time was: Listen b'y, if you chose to stay

home, that's the way it is. You're going to get less wages. But we don't have to

put up with that anymore, and we don't put up with it anymore. That's a great

thing.

Our

teachers, like I say, our professional people are getting paid similar to what

they are all across Canada. Our RNC, our young police officers that I look at

here every day I'm very, very proud of them are here because this is a great

place to live. It's a great place to work. But do you know what? That all came

at a cost and if you go back and that cost to me, I'd spend it again tomorrow,

because I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we're as good as any people in

this country and we should be treated the same way. Our professional people

deserve the same wages that they're given in any other place in the world

because this is a great place to live.

I tell

you, there's no other better place, as far as I'm concerned and again this is

my personal opinion. I can't see a better place in this world to raise a family

than here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

And I think everyone here

will agree with that. There's no doubt about it.

So there

are things we need to do to make sure our families want to stay here, we want to

stay here and it's important. Again, I go back to our pride in our people, our

pride in our province, so we have to make sure that we do these things.

The

Member again I want to get off to where I wanted to go to in the first place

but I'm after getting into it a little bit more. I really want to talk about my

district. I going to explain a few things that happened with investments that we

made. I tell you right now I don't know how much of the $28 billion it is, but

it was great investments.

The Holy

Trinity School in Torbay not the new one that was built last week that I'm

talking about, this one that opened in 2008 and I really want to thank the late

Jack Byrne; he did all the work on it. I was fortunate enough to be the MHA at

the time when it opened but I'll tell you one thing, Jack Byrne did all the work

on it. He was a great Member and a great man.

That

school then went back that was 60 years old; it had mould in it. You walk down

the corridors and you could hear people walking. The people underneath could

hear people going up and down the corridors in that school. It was a hard

school. There were pieces built on, it was fixed, there was a roof that was

leaking and stuff like that. Now they have a beautiful, new school down there.

The high school is a new school. We have an elementary school. These are

investments that we did in my district that I'm very proud of, what we did in

education.

At St.

Francis of Assisi over in Outer Cove, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, they had

an extension done to their school. It was $1 million worth of renovations. They

had an extension of four classrooms and it's a beautiful school, absolutely

beautiful top technology. I talked to one of the teachers there and she said;

Kevin, I'm teaching for 28 years, we're very fortunate here in Newfoundland and

Labrador to have the technology. She said she could remember back when I was

speaking about earlier, I guess the '80s and '90s, when there was only so much

resources.

They

don't use chalk today, Madam Speaker, but they use their whiteboards and SMART

Boards, whatever they're called, but you had to watch that chalk. You used every

bit of it until it got right down to the bitter end because there was no money

to buy more chalk. Our technologies today and everything else that we have, our

schools are better, our people are doing better.

I look

at recreation, and I'll give you a great example again. I'm going to thank the

former Member for Cape St. Francis. Again, I was the one who did the opening

ceremonies and I wish he could have done it himself because it's called the Jack

Byrne Arena now.

Just to

give you an example, back when the Jack Byrne Arena first opened, minor hockey

in the whole area had 167 children in it. That's 167 children that are playing

minor hockey. They used to go to St. John's every Saturday morning for their

practices. Their practices were from 6 o'clock in the morning to 9 o'clock.

They'd get a half hour each, and that's all they'd do, get their half hour in

each and they'd reverse around. So sometimes parents had to get up at 5 o'clock

in the morning to get their children out there, but that was what they had to

do; 167 children were involved in minor hockey.

I was

always involved in minor hockey. I always played hockey, coached it and

everything else. Today, the Jack Byrne Arena last year had over 800 minor hockey

players over 800 minor hockey players. Now somebody may say that was a waste

of money, the investment we made in the Jack Byrne Arena. I don't think it's a

waste of money. I think that those 600 or 700 children now have the opportunity

to play minor hockey.

We look

at the effects of sports and recreation that has on the health of people. Just

look at what it has on our children; we get them out playing hockey. Right now,

actually I met with the president of the Minor Hockey Association. They said we

have so many children next year, they don't even know how big it's going to get

because it's growing and growing and growing. We're all excited about it, and we

don't even have enough ice time at the Jack Byrne Arena. We still have to go to

St. John's, I think for 40 hours a week now just to cover it, but what a great

investment.

Any time

we can take our children from the couch to the hockey arena, to the soccer

field, to the ball field, whatever it is, not only is it an investment in our

children, it's an investment in our lifestyle and it's an investment in the

health of the children. We do have a big issue in this province. We do have

problems when it comes to the health of all of us really.

I try to

exercise as much as I can. I play a little bit of hockey. I'm not very good at

it anymore, but I do try to exercise. We all should be exercising. We all should

be trying to live healthier lives or whatever. You know, just think about the

investments in recreation.

I'll

just mention my district. I am sure I could look over across the way and say

that every district in this province over those 12 years that we were in power

saw investments in recreation in their districts. Are those bad investments?

When they get up and say, oh, they squandered $25 million. They threw it out the

door. You wouldn't know if we just took it and threw it out through the window

and said there it is, gone.

Listen

there were investments that needed to be made. Again, I'm not saying it was the

PC government, the Liberal government, I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying

the timing was right for us. The timing was right. If you got money and you get

some extra money and your house has a leaky roof, it's time to fix the roof. You

got to fix the roof. Use that money to fix the roof. There is no doubt about it.

When you got some money and you need some work done on your yard or something

like that, that's the time to do it. You've got to do that stuff.

That's

what happened over these years. The Member just got up and listed off all these

huge investments, $50 million here and $50 million here. I'm sure if you go

through the whole list, there's nobody who would disagree with those

investments, and especially if they're in your own district. You're not going to

disagree with the investments in your own district.

You know

what, Madam Speaker, we still have a little ways to go. We still have a little

ways to go, but the problem I have and I'll get back to my budget thing here

now. The problem I have is, as I spoke, how proud our people are. How proud it

is to live here, and what a great feeling it is to be a Newfoundlander and

Labradorian. I really believe that because I feel it and I know the people in

this province feel it.

What

happened in this budget and what happened with this government across the way,

they said they had a plan. The plan, everybody's going to like it, but they

didn't have a plan. What happened in last year's budget is the same thing that's

happening in this year's budget; like I mentioned the other day, even in the

Budget Speech, reaching into people's pockets. I think we reached in too deep

into the people's pockets.

There

are some things sure, that we can look at and say, okay, maybe we can cut back

on this or maybe we can cut back on that, but the effects of the budget taking

$6,000 out of people's pockets has a huge effect. It has an effect again, the

other day, I said it's like a snowball effect that it has on what people can

actually spend.

I know

the Minister of Justice, I can remember everyday getting up in this House of

Assembly and I heard about dentures. Because what the plan was first, you give

the top or the bottom. You only could take one at a time, and he talked about

the dignity of people. That's the one thing that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have, we have dignity. None of us want to go on bended knee or

anything at all, but we do have dignity.

The

denture program, I know first when it started, it was either your top set of

dentures or your bottom set of dentures. We realized it, and everybody in this

House realized it, look, we want to be able to give that person who needs

dentures dignity dignity to smile. That's all. That's all it was about, but to

cut the whole program altogether, seriously.

Like I

said, there are some options we could have done, some different things we could

have done. I don't say that everything you cut was but there are some things

you just can't cut. When it comes to a senior, and I have seniors in my district

that tell me, Kevin, I got to go up the over-the-counter drugs that they used

to get. These items, Madam Speaker, are $4, $12. They're not high-end items.

It's not like something they're going in to get that's going to cost $150, but

to a senior and to senior citizens who are trying to stay in their own homes,

that we really want to stay in their own homes, $20 a month or maybe $30 a month

when you're on a fixed income and you know where every single penny is going,

that's a lot of money.

Those

are the things that, you know, we talk about pride in our people and pride of

who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we should be proud as

legislators in here that we don't let that happen. We shouldn't let it happen

because there are some things listen, there is nobody I'd love to see us

have a billion dollars in the bank, but there are some costs that you should

just say, b'y, we got to take that. We can't do that to certain people.

That's

what's happening today in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a lot of people

in this province that are really, really hurting. They are really, really

hurting and they find it difficult to live. Like I said earlier, we're very

proud people and I want to see all our young people stay here. I want to treat

our seniors with the dignity that they deserve. I think, right now, this budget

is no different than what the budget was last year. The problem is I don't think

the people on the other side see it.

We just

have to look at how we treat our people. How we treat our families. That will

tell you who we are as individuals.

Thank

you very much, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Madam

Speaker.

Given

the hour of the day, with the consent of my colleagues, I would suggest that we

recess until 2 p.m.

MADAM SPEAKER:

This House now stands in

recess until 2 p.m.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I wish

to address the matter of caution which I had extended to Members yesterday with

respect to references by a Member of this House to a member of the public who

was formerly a Member of this Legislature. I urged Members at the time to be

cautious in debate with respect to referring to former Members of this House by

name as they are no longer in a position to defend themselves in this Assembly.

The

O'Brien and Bosc reference used to support this caution is to Speaker Milliken's

decision in the House of Commons in 2005 and found in the House of Commons

Debates on page 5933. At issue were Member comments critical of two former

Members.

There

had been an earlier decision of Speaker Fraser where the same caution that I had

given yesterday had been issued.

Speaker

Milliken determined that the Speaker Fraser ruling on comments made about a

former Member were comments initiated by the Members themselves. The allegations

made by the Member arose in the House and the former Member was not able to

challenge any possible unfair criticism.

In the

matter before him in 2005, Speaker Milliken distinguished the issues before him

from the Fraser ruling. He stated that the references to a former Member were to

public testimony and had already been reported in the public domain. Therefore

less reliance could be placed on the earlier Speaker Fraser decision prohibiting

the naming of an individual. The comment made before Speaker Milliken was

therefore allowed.

I will

refer to the comments made in the House of Commons at the time. The remarks that

offended the parliamentary secretary make reference to testimony given in a

public forum before an inquiry and widely recorded in various media.

I have

carefully reviewed the situation to ensure the references made here in the House

are already in the public domain and I am satisfied that that is indeed the

case. If the disputed statements were thus not linked to reports in the public

domain I might have been inclined to view the matter quite differently; however,

under the circumstances I fail to see how I, as your Speaker, can enjoin Members

from referring at all to the testimony or to those media reports that are

already made public. To do so would be to impose upon Members of the House

restrictions that go well beyond normal restrictions that apply outside the

House.

Consequently, and for clarity, I will proceed in this House on the assumption

that where facts and comments respecting a named individual who is a member of

the general public, whether or not a former Member of this Legislature, are

clearly already in the public domain, a Member may comment upon those issues in

this House.

However,

a Member will not be able to stand in this Chamber and make personal, defamatory

or derogatory comments about a member of the public, whether or not they are a

former Member, where those comments originate with that Member and not by a

member of the public, where the member of the general public have on context and

are not clearly substantiated in the public domain.

Members

in this House have the protection of parliamentary privilege and a freedom of

speech during debate. There can be no legal action for slander or defamatory

remarks arising from such debate. Individuals who are not Members of the

Legislature have no such protection and it is therefore unfair to make

unsubstantiated allegations or comments during debate under the protection of

the House when the person about whom those comments are made did not themselves

initiate the remarks and do not have the protection of the House or a defence

against the unfounded allegations.

I would

like to welcome to the public gallery two students: Joshua Smith Ford and

Kayleigh Richards from Virginia Park Elementary School who will be the subject

of a Member's statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also in the public gallery is

Ian Chaytor from Conception Bay South, who is the subject of a Member's

statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Conception Bay East Bell Island;

Placentia West Bellevue; Virginia Waters Pleasantville; Topsail Paradise;

Exploits, and Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this past week I had the privilege of attending the best of Portugal

Cove-St. Philip's business, sports and volunteer awards. Portugal Cove-St.

Philip's resident Fred Hutton served as master of ceremony which saw 12 awards

given in three categories.

The most

moving moment came when the guest speaker, last year's youth of the year

Portugal Cove-St. Philip's resident, Nathan Chaulk, who is this year's

provincial Easter Seals youth ambassador, brought the message that every citizen

has the ability and responsibility to serve as a volunteer no matter the

challenges they face, and that the rewards for volunteering are immeasurable.

I would

like to congratulate the following award recipients: Youth of the Year, Grace

Codner; Senior of the Year, Ruth Bugden; Service Group of the Year, Portugal

Cove-St. Philip's Lions Club; Volunteer of the Year, Bradley Moss; Male Athlete

of the Year, Kyle Spurrell; Female Athlete of the Year, Kaitlyn Hall; Coach of

the Year, Jonathan Lee; Team of the Year, Grade five Boys PUMA Basketball;

Employee of the Year, Shannon Barbour; New Business of the Year, Brewkies K9

Bakery & Spaw; Developer of the Year, B&L General Contracting Limited; and

Business of the Year, Sharpe's Store.

I ask

all Members to join