PDF Version

May 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 17

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

MR. SPEAKER:

We would like to welcome to

the public gallery Mr. Barry Fitzgerald, who will be the subject of a

Ministerial Statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today we have the Members for the Districts of Exploits,

Baie Verte Green Bay, Torngat Mountains, Bonavista, Burin Grand Bank, and

Terra Nova.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Bishop's Falls

Public Library, and the important work done by all public libraries in the

District of Exploits. The library in Bishop's Falls, as well as the Botwood

Kinsmen Public Library, the Norris Arm Public Library, the Point Leamington

Public Library, and the Harmsworth Public Library located in the neighbouring

district of Grand Falls -Windsor Buchans, all provide countless benefits to

the people of my district and surrounding areas.

addition to providing books and promoting literacy, these public libraries, and

libraries right across Newfoundland and Labrador, offer services such as free

Internet access and computer training, story time, seasonal programs for

children, and information sessions on topics ranging from taxes and money

management, to gardening and Internet safety.

Libraries are dynamic, accessible community centres, and form an integral part

of our society. Libraries are places for people to come together, crack open a

good book, and share in the love of reading.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me today in congratulating the Bishop's Falls Public

Library on this their 50th anniversary, and in recognizing the vital role played

by all public libraries throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Baie Verte Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to commend two exemplary residents of Springdale. In 2010,

Roy and Sherry Clarke in partnership with five Dominican friends set out to

improve the lives of school children in the Dominican Republic.

They

founded United for Kids, with the mandate of enabling Dominican children not

only to start school on the right foot, but to remain in school.

Since

they founded the charity, the Clarkes host various fundraisers throughout the

year with the help of their family and friends, and members of the community.

The money they raise improves the overall health and well-being of Dominican

children by supporting dental care programs, providing essential vitamins and

rendering assistance in medical emergencies. The foundation now helps

approximately 170 kids in four different schools.

In 2016,

the Clarkes fulfilled a lifelong dream and opened a preschool in the Dominican

Republic. The school, called Bea's Preschool, has a qualified teacher and

provides a free breakfast program. The Clarkes believe education is vital for

breaking the cycle of poverty.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking the United for Kids Foundation for its

commitment to making a difference in the lives of impoverished children.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize an exceptional young woman from Labrador who was recently

called to the bar in our province.

Elizabeth Zarpa, whose family hails from Nunatsiavut, showcased a deep

connection to her indigenous culture during the swearing-in ceremony on April 21

by wearing a traditional Silapak to the event in St. John's.

Elizabeth studied law at the University of Victoria and articled in Labrador.

She wore the traditional garment after seeing other indigenous people from other

provinces do it when they were called to the bar. We believe she is the first

Inuk to ever do it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, Elizabeth Zarpa represents a new attitude among indigenous young

people, who now more than ever, believe that all things are possible and

dreaming of a career in any field, including the law, is open to them.

As for

wearing the Silapak at the ceremony, Elizabeth said she wanted to let people

know she was proud of where she came from and proud of her heritage.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Elizabeth Zarpa on her success and

we wish her well in her legal pursuits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, it's an honour

to stand here today and recognize all the volunteers in the District of

Bonavista. Coming on the heels of National Volunteer Week, I feel it important

to acknowledge those who give their time to make our region a better place.

Volunteerism is the heart of every community and without volunteers many of the

great things that take place would fall by the wayside. As my colleagues here in

the House can attest from their own districts, those who volunteer do so without

asking anything in return. They do so out of a sense of duty, a sense of

community. It is often said that after you volunteer once, you're hooked for

life. That is certainly true for my district where we have several volunteers

with over 50 years of doing what they love to do, giving their time.

Friday, April 28, the ninth annual regional Volunteer Appreciation Night was

held at The Factory in Port Union. With well over 100 people present, attendees

were treated to musical performances, food and refreshment, door prizes and a

wonderful speech/performance by Volunteer Week Honorary Chair Pete Soucy.

To those

who truly make a difference, I say thank you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Burin Grand Bank.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chief Petty Officer Travis Perrot of RCSCC

269 Endeavour in St. Lawrence. Travis learned recently he will be taking

part in

a cultural exchange in Hong Kong for two weeks this summer.

Travis

has been involved with his corps for the past six years and has taken

part in

extensive training programs and numerous trips. Being chosen for such an

adventure, the only cadet from Atlantic Canada who will be participating, Mr.

Speaker, is an indication of the high regard in which Travis is held.

Exchanges and visits like the one Travis will participate in do much to broaden

the world perspective for our youth, Mr. Speaker.

Travis

is the son of proud parents Mario and Kanta Perrot of St. Lawrence.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Travis on being chosen

for this cultural exchange. I know he will represent the province well during

his time in Hong Kong.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker, it is with

pleasure that I rise in this hon. House and recognize the members and volunteers

of Branch 027 of the Royal Canadian Legion.

On April

29, I had the distinct privilege of attending this year's honour and awards

celebration. Several members received pins and medals for their long years of

dedicated service including: Ralph Froude, Marvela Sargent, Glen Sargent, five

years; Beverly Lundrigan, 15 years; Barry Moores, 20 years; Dave Gullage, 25

years; Jean Burden, 30 years; Gordon Bursey, 50 years.

addition, Legionnaire of the Year Award went to Wesley Stringer and the

Executive Medal and Service Bar was given to Cy McGettigan. Mr. Daniel Seaward

received the Certificate of Merit for his actions which led to saving the life

of an individual during a Legion-held event.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the members and volunteers of

Branch 027 for continuing to promote the interests and benefits of veterans and

those who have served this province and country with pride and dignity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to

recognize Barry Fitzgerald, Senior Manager of Corporate Safety with the

Department of Transportation and Works, who has been selected as a judge for

this year's Canada's Safest Employers Awards.

The

awards recognize companies from all across Canada's with outstanding

accomplishments in promoting the health and safety of their workers.

Awards

will be presented in the fall in a wide range of categories with organizations

judged on health and safety criteria such as employee training, incident

investigation and emergency preparedness.

Mr.

Fitzgerald has been with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for over

three years and supports Transportation and Works employees at all levels as

they fulfill their safety responsibilities.

Mr.

Speaker, it is great honour for Mr. Fitzgerald to be selected as a judge.

There is

no greater priority than the safety of our employees and the travelling public.

The department is working to build a strong environment of workplace safety that

is squarely focused on safety first. We have made gains by improving and

updating procedures and policies. We are also taking advantage of North American

Occupational Safety and Health Week to raise awareness by holding special

activities with staff.

With

approximately 1,700 employees who daily work in challenging environments, we are

constantly seeking new opportunities to improve and enhance a culture of safety.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Fitzgerald and to recognize our

dedicated employees who work diligently every day to ensure safety for everyone

in Newfoundland and Labrador

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of my

colleagues on this side of the House, I wish to congratulate Mr. Barry

Fitzgerald as being chosen as a judge for this year's Canada's Safest Employers

Awards.

Mr.

Fitzgerald is one of many hard-working, dedicated and talented public service

employees who come to work every day in efforts to make this province a better

place for us all. I thank Mr. Fitzgerald for his commitment to safety in our

workplace and thank all the public service employees for the commitment they

actually give.

The role

in which Mr. Fitzgerald plays within the Department of Transportation and Works

is an important one, and as this is North American Occupational Safety and

Health Week, I encourage all employees to follow the lead of Mr. Fitzgerald and

ensure that safety is always top of mind when you carry out the

responsibilities.

Once

again, I congratulate Mr. Fitzgerald on this accomplishment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I'm very pleased

to join with him in congratulating Mr. Fitzgerald. It is encouraging that safety

is a priority for this government. But, speaking of those who work in

challenging environments, there's still an issue with the safety of police,

firefighters and paramedics working as first responders on the side of the

highway. There are many concerns that the Move Over legislation is not working

and drivers are ignoring the rules.

I urge

government, for the sake of all of these workers and Transportation and Works

workers as well, to look into this and work on solutions.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to congratulate the Towns of Old Perlican and Flatrock, which have

received $500 FireSmart Community Preparedness Day grants. These grants are

provided through our province's membership in Partners in Protection, a national

organization dedicated to making communities safe from wildland fires.

Newfoundland and Labrador has been a part of the FireSmart Canada Community

Recognition Program since 2013. This year, up to 20 project funding awards were

available nationally to implement neighbourhood projects.

Municipalities use these grants to continue raising awareness, protect homes and

become FireSmart. With this grant, the Town of Flatrock hosted a wildland fire

awareness and FireSmart preparedness public meeting yesterday. The Town of Old

Perlican will use its grant to host a wildfire awareness and FireSmart open

house at a later date.

Mr.

Speaker, our fire suppression staff encounter fires, particularly in the spring,

that place neighbourhoods, communities, the public and firefighters at risk. As

part of the National Wildfire Community Preparedness Day, which was on May 6, we

asked Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to become aware of techniques to minimize

the risk of wildland fire damage.

Until

the end of forest fire season on September 30, we ask all communities across our

province and the country to participate in local mitigation projects to help

reduce the risk of wildland fires in our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, I would also

like to congratulate the Towns of Old Perlican and Flatrock on receiving these

grants. I know the Town of Flatrock hosted their event yesterday with

representatives from various community organizations and the Torbay Volunteer

Fire Department in attendance.

Mr.

Speaker, last week we spoke about brush fires and how destructive they can be.

It is also important to raise awareness on fire safety and events such as those

sponsored through the FireSmart grants do exactly that. We should make every

effort to protect our properties and communities and become FireSmart. I

encourage everyone to take extra precautions during the forest fire season.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased that these

two communities received grants from the Partners in Protection in their work to

make their communities safe. Seasonal wildfires are a potential problem,

especially as climate change effects make our communities more vulnerable.

I hope

the government will find ways for other communities to do the important public

education as well in order to minimize the risk of fire.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday here in the House of Assembly the Minister of Natural

Resources said the Oversight Committee is now working with EY to finalize the

interim report.

I ask

the minister: Why would the Oversight Committee be working to finalize what's

supposed to be an independent report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Oversight Committee was the body that initiated and was responsible for the

initial report. They are working with EY to put the framework around the

parameters around the finalization of that report not details of that report,

but the parameters and the framework around the finalization of that report.

They

were also discussing, Mr. Speaker, how the Oversight Committee moves forward

with independent assessment.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to

the minister that having the Oversight Committee helping to finalize a report

removes the credibility from what was supposed to be an independent report a

report independent from government.

So I ask

the minister will she release the report as it is before her and her government

get a chance to liberalize that report.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, talk about

revising what I said. What I said was that the Oversight Committee which, in

fact, we've put more independence on them. The former administration, the PC

government, had no independence on that Oversight Committee at all, Mr. Speaker,

which was a problem identified by EY.

I can

tell you that the Oversight Committee is the group is engaged with EY. EY is

independent, as we all know, and will produce and finalize the report from last

year. The Oversight Committee is not working in conjunction with EY; the

Oversight Committee is responsible to engage EY and provide the framework.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to remind the Member opposite with all respect that the clerk of the

Executive Council who was clerk while we were in power was completely

independent from any political partisanship and from what government was doing.

An independent clerk is what we had appointed there and was also a member of

that Oversight Committee. That was independence on that Oversight Committee, Mr.

Speaker.

Months

have passed, Mr. Speaker, months

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Fourteen months have passed

since the due date announced by government in December 2015. One of the first

commitments that this government made to the people of the province is they'd

have an independent report finalized by March 2016. Now, the minister said the

oversight committee is working with EY using their tools.

If this

is the case, I'll ask the minister again: When will they release their

liberalized report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

all hon. Members, the only individual I wish to hear from is the individual

recognized to speak.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

With respect, Mr. Speaker, it

is doing an injustice to the people of the province to twist words and

manipulate ideas.

Mr.

Speaker, what I said was the oversight committee was responsible for EY and

responsible for oversight. Mr. Speaker, they are also looking at how do we

engage and ensure independent assessment as we move forward in this process.

The

report of EY in April of 2016 outlined a number of recommendations that we have

implemented, Mr. Speaker. One of the identified issues was the Astaldi contract

which the former administration didn't have exactly right. So Nalcor was working

to ensure that the Astaldi contract was renegotiated and redeveloped to ensure

the powerhouse could be completed.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in

actual fact, it was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the minister

himself who proudly said they were going to conduct an independent report. It

was announced on December 21, 2015. They said they were going to undertake a

comprehensive independent review; the process will be completed by March 2016.

We're far from that.

Mr.

Speaker, what we have over there is we have a Minister of Education who last

week is completely hands off an independent review and now we have a Minister of

Natural Resources who can't keep her hands off an independent review.

Minister, how are you doing business in your department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I will not be

schooled by the Opposition Leader when it comes to improving Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, one of the

issues identified in the report by EY was Astaldi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. COADY:

The former administration and

the current Leader of the Opposition knew there was a problem with the Astaldi

contract way back in June of 2015 and did not act. That was what the EY report

indicated in April. We spent right up until we, as in Nalcor December

discussing, renegotiating and improving the terms of that contract. That was

successfully concluded in December.

January, the oversight committee, and I actually engaged as well in that

discussion with EY to say: How do we finalize the '16 report and how do we

ensure independent assessment going forward something that they never did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Finance Minister referred to the Oil Revenue Risk Adjustment as a

buffer against moving oil prices.

Minister, you had one last year, none for this year's projection, but have one

in again for the next five years. Why not for this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member opposite. One of the things we did this year when we were building

the budget, that hadn't been done in former years under the former

administration, is that in addition to the lengthy list of oil forecasters that

we use, we also held a round-table discussion that I participated in with

officials, with economists from our banking syndicate.

Their

advice was that based on the information that we had that oil price risk is

higher in our out years. As a result, the decision was made based on the

learnings over the last year that we would modify how we use the Oil Revenue

Risk Adjustment to make sure that our budgeting was reasonable.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: If she included a buffer in your 2017 budget

forecast, would the budget meet your deficit reduction target of $800 million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the budget that

we presented to the House of Assembly that is being debated is based on the best

information we have on revenue. As the Member opposite surely would understand

based on his experience, their inability to accurately forecast oil created a

situation where when oil was at $120, $140, they had some of the highest

spending we've had in our province.

Our

department and our officials, working very closely with advisors, are making

sure that the oil forecast that we put in the budget is reasonable. Like every

other Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I'm watching that oil price very closely,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's my understanding that the 11 international forecasters that the

minister used are the same ones that the prior administration used.

I'll ask

the minister: This year's budget is based on oil of approximately $75 Canadian a

barrel, yet year to date the average is approximately $70, so you're already

behind. Without your buffer, how do you expect to make up this shortfall?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as we clearly

communicated as part of the budget this year and the Members opposite have

this information the oil price for this year is forecasted at $56 US, with a

US exchange rate of 75 cents US.

As we've

seen in the last five to six weeks, that oil price has been preforming less than

we had anticipated but, certainly, as last year is an indication, oil price

continues to be volatile. It's one of the reasons, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker,

that we need to continue to focus on our spending and get our spending in line

for the amount of money that the people of the province have for the services

that we provide.

This is

a volatile revenue and should not be used as one that sustains the spending of

the province, Mr. Speaker. We are quite concerned about that and we'll continue

to make decisions that are responsible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Estimates meetings last week, the minister was very evasive when asked about the

proposed biofuel plant for Botwood. We were told that there is no active

application and they would have to submit a business plan before a decision

could be made. However, through an access to information response, we now know

that much talk has happened with the company and a business plan has indeed been

submitted.

Why were

you not forthcoming with that information, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any

potential business plan or development that anybody wants to talk to the

Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation can certainly do so. We

have a business analysis division. We have a major projects investment unit that

would receive those proposals, that would do due diligence on it, would run an

analysis, would work with other departments that would be impacted by this, such

as the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources, as well as Finance, to look

at a return to Treasury and all the impacts that would happen.

Whenever

we look at a big project on any scale, we have to do our due diligence, Mr.

Speaker, and not make haste decisions on the back of paper napkins as they did

opposite.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister did

not answer my question. It's great to get the education about what goes on in

his department, but on this file we got information last week that conflicts

with what we found out through an access to information request.

We've

got the local MHA and the minister responsible for forestry in the news saying,

basically, that this project is a done deal, while the minister responsible for

business says something very different.

Last

week, the department told us there wasn't even a business plan submitted, when

we find out there in fact is. Who should we believe?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, what I have been quoted as saying, and the Member for Exploits and the

Member for Grand Falls as well, is that we've worked with this company. We've

identified a fibre supply. We will continue to work with this company as they

work their business proposal forward.

Any time

a company comes forward to our department, and the Department of Business, I'm

quite sure we'll certainly work with them to identify their needs.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I thank the Minister of Land

Resources for actually attempting to answer the question, at least.

I ask

the minister I ask that minister: Have other sawmill operators in the province

been consulted regarding this proposal and are they supportive?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

One

thing that we have done since becoming government, I know the former minister

who was responsible for forestry and myself have consulted very regularly with

our forestry industry, no different than some of the challenges that are being

faced today with softwood lumber.

Mr.

Speaker, I can assure you that when we look at a project or different projects

around the province, we always take into consideration our existing operators,

and we'll continue to do that as we look at these proposals.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I thank the minister for

answering my question.

follow-up question, Mr. Speaker: How will the proposed biofuel plant impact

existing sawmill operations in the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite should remember back to when they expropriated the

mill in Grand Falls-Windsor because what happened when that mill closed, there

became about 285,000 cubic metres available in the province that was used in

Central Newfoundland.

believe it was the previous administration who said that they would use that

fibre to attract business to Central Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. As

a government, we're going to continue to use that fibre, that resource that

belongs to the people of our province, for the best interests of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, in response to

the questions earlier this week on the Liberal tax on icebergs, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment committed to take action by Friday, and even

called one of the seven companies that have been impacted, and I commend him for

doing that.

But I

ask today: What action will the minister take by tomorrow to correct this

situation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find

the questions getting much better since there's a leadership race there in the

front benches.

I have

to say, Mr. Speaker, what I told the producer, what I told the person I spoke

to, it's by next Friday that we'll have a review it's next Friday.

Mr.

Speaker, what I always say, though, is when you're dealing with companies, you

always have to work together. You can't say yes you can never say never.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I'm glad the minister thinks

it's funny. I don't think the Liberal tax on icebergs is funny at all.

So I'll

the minister then: What action will he take by next Friday?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with

the person. I said to the media by next Friday we're hoping to have a resolution

and I will call back the people involved.

Mr.

Speaker, there's one little thing here I have to mention: the licensing fee

and usually you work with the groups, you work with them to try to find a

solution one little

part is that every five years that administration

doubled it in 2015. That was never ever brought to attention.

They

doubled the licensing fee. The reason why the fee wasn't even actually in place

is because it's done every five years. If they hadn't known and looked at it

they had the fee already doubled in 2015, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the recent

increase, the new Liberal tax on icebergs, represents a 2,500 per cent increase.

I ask

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation: Why didn't you

consider the impacts on our province's small businesses when you made the

decision last year to increase the iceberg tax by 2,500 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to

the Member, two days ago when he asked me to consult with them, which I did do,

but that's not good enough. He asked me to find a resolution which we are

working with the industry to help find a resolution.

Mr.

Speaker, we had to find some way to put some value on water. As we said before

and I said in the media, some of the bigger water producers is what this

legislation is for and the people who are processing icebergs are caught up into

that.

We are

working with them. I made the call, I spoke to him personally. He was very

pleased with the call that I made. He was very pleased that I said by next

Friday I'll give him a call; we'll work back at it.

Mr.

Speaker, I will work with the industry on this. I made a commitment that I will

get to him by next Friday and I will fulfill that commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

executive director of the AIDS Committee in Newfoundland and Labrador is on

record this week acknowledging gaps in government's opioid action plan.

Will

government take immediate action, as we requested last week, and provide free

naloxone kits to pharmacies, to shelters, to youth homes and to our province's

schools?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Parliamentary

Assistant to the Department of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. B. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

Member for the question. We saw this opioid crisis coming. We had put an opioid

action plan in place. We put 1,200 naloxone kits on the streets not all of

them have been taken advantage of at this point at 74 public sites across our

province.

We have

a planning committee in place, a working group, trying to increase the reach of

those naloxone kits to ensure they get in the hands of the individuals that

require them the most.

These

are important things, decisions being made by people that understand what they

have to do, much more than anybody in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Wow! It's nice to see the

minister's arrogance has rubbed off already on the parliamentary secretary.

Mr.

Speaker, the 1,200 kits are not on the street. That's exactly the issue. We have

pharmacists who are qualified all over the province that could be part of the

solution. Local pharmacists have said that pharmacies should be distributing

naloxone kits as they are more than qualified to dispense, to consult and to do

injection training.

Will the

minister move quickly to ensure pharmacists are working at their full scope of

practice, better positioned to save more lives? Let's put the kits in

pharmacies, in schools and in other places where they can actually save lives.

Will the department finally commit to doing the right thing and follow the

advice of its own advisory group?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Parliamentary Assistant

to the Department of Health and Community Services.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

isn't suggesting that we just go out and do this without having the industry

professionals make those decisions. So we've established a naloxone distribution

network. Those are trained professionals, pharmacists are there, represented,

industry professionals, community partners that we're working with. We want to

get these into the hands of the people that need them the most. We're going to

continue to do that.

We're

not going to follow suit on the plans that you've made. We're focused on the

plans that are in this initiative. We're working with those independent experts,

arm's-length from us, and we're going to listen to those people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, when you announced in late February you were moving Crown Lands to

Corner Brook, you said to position it near the majority of agriculture and

forestry activity within our province.

Can you

tell us where the majority of agriculture requests have come from in recent

years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, if you look at the changes that we've made as a government with regard

to agriculture and making the land more accessible to our farmers and our

processors, it's very important for us. If you look at the 64 new parcels of

land that we've gone out and cut down the silos on so they're available for

farmers in an expedited way, I think it's about 95 per cent of those lands are

located off the Avalon, and the vast majority of them west of Grand Falls.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the majority of applications for Crown lands are on the East Coast,

and many of the related services and agencies, like Registry of Deeds, are also

located in St. John's.

Can you

tell us how this will make Crown Lands' process and service delivery more

efficient?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Labrador Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the opportunity to correct what he's saying here today. Mr.

Speaker, last year in Eastern Newfoundland there were 1,054 Crown lands

applications and Eastern Newfoundland would include the Clarenville office.

Mr.

Speaker, those 1,054 people will see no difference this year than they seen last

year. Because if the hon. Member wants to make a Crown lands application in

September or October or November of next year, he'll still do it at the Howley

Building the same as 1,000 people did last year, Mr. Speaker. The 1,054

applications last year represented about 37 per cent of the applications in the

province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

my question to you minister is, why is it being moved? Why is it leaving where

it is if there's no benefit?

Minister, the Lands Act requires the

Lands Branch to maintain a registry of documents. The current public registry is

located in a fireproof vault at the Howley Building in St. John's.

Are

hardcopies of all Crown land records moving to Corner Brook or will you have to

renovate the leased space to accommodate the Crown Lands material and equipment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, the reality is there are records

in that vault that date back to the 1800s. Last year under the previous

minister, they started to put a plan in place to have those records digitalized.

This past Monday, we started on a project that's going to last until about the

end of this summer to digitalize those records. You have to remember, Mr.

Speaker, those records date back to the 1800s. They need to be digitalized.

One of

the things that the new digital records are going to make accessible, Mr.

Speaker, is that people throughout this province are going to be able to go

online and find their record. Not only that, we're also committed to an atlas so

that in the future people will only have to go online to do Crown lands

applications, and all records now will be protected for generations to come.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, we're being told

it's going to take a lot longer than three to four months to digitize these

records.

Can you

tell us how you plan on getting those records digitized by the end of August?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, we're going to

use the technology, I'll tell the hon. Member, called a scanner. We brought in

the equipment to make this doable. We've hired the people to make this doable,

Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the hon. Member that we will take the time that's

required to get these records digitized. These records are very important to our

province, Mr. Speaker. You have to realize there's a historical value. These

records date back to the 1800s.

I can

assure the hon. Member opposite, stop fear mongering, we will get this done and

we'll get it done right.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I've

often reminded Members of the Legislature to respect the individual stood to

speak. I will make one final plea today. I expect that the only individual

recognized to speak is the individual that is recognized to speak.

The hon.

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you just referenced these very fragile documents. They've been in

storage since the 1830s. You told us in Estimates you were planning to do this

work in-house.

Who is

doing the work to handle these fragile, historic documents and do they have any

specialized training?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I think the hon. Member is questioning the capabilities of staff at

Crown Lands. They deal with these documents on a daily basis.

He talks

about the value of these documents dating back to the 1800s. Absolutely, Mr.

Speaker, and we respect that.

We know

that The Rooms has an interest in these documents that date back to the 1800s.

They're very important to us, Mr. Speaker, and we'll ensure it's done in a

timely fashion and a fashion that's respectful to the value of these important

records.

To keep

coming back and throwing out numbers, Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that 65

per cent of the Crown lands applications in this province come from outside the

Avalon. We're going to respond to the needs of the people around the province

who want to use Crown lands. Again, I'll reiterate, the service for the people

that use Crown lands today in St. John's and Clarenville on the Eastern part of

the province will not change.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay South, a very quick question without

preamble.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, have you hired any additional staff to do this specialized work?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker,

we've hired additional staff. At the moment I think there are eight additional

staff working with the people that are already there that has the expertise.

A lot of

this work is IM work and we'll make sure that it's done in a proper,

professional manner. Anybody going in to do this work, Mr. Speaker, will be

properly trained.

As well,

I have to remind the hon. Member, he stands up day after day fear mongering, Mr.

Speaker. We will do what's best for the people at Crown Lands.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Budget 2017 , government doubled the

expected cut to Memorial University, ignoring the multi-year MUN attrition plan

that government had agreed to. This cut could result today in increases to

tuition and other student fees.

I ask

the Premier: Will he take responsibility for any tuition and other fee increases

at Memorial?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, this government

will indeed take responsibility for providing Memorial University of

Newfoundland with $56.4 million this year to encourage and incentivize a tuition

freeze for Newfoundland and Labrador students.

Mr.

Speaker, we have encouraged as well the university to consider before raising

any revenue from students or expecting more money from taxpayers, we ask them to

consider reducing their expenses. We also ask the university to supply greater

disclosure and transparency for the funds that they do receive from the public

purse and from students as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, last year,

government reduced the grant portion in the student loan program and increased

the loan portion. This year, students will be forced to max out the federal

portion of their loan before they can qualify for a provincial grant.

I ask

the Premier: Will he take responsibility for imposing this new financial burden

on students or will he continue to hide behind his AESL Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Oh my, Mr. Speaker, there's

no one hiding from anyone.

There

was a decision that was taken by the federal government approximately a

year-and-a-half ago, I understand. Some good decisions where they would increase

the amount of student grants that would be available through the federal Student

Financial Assistance Program. They also did some modifications to the

eligibility criteria which were quite helpful to students.

Mr.

Speaker, as I explained in the Estimates Committee, the federal government also

did impose or require that students would have a fixed-rate contribution. In

other words, what that means, no matter what the means, whatever the ability for

the student to be able to provide for their own education, they would require a

minimum of $3,000. That was a change of policy. Modifications by the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador were meant to offset that, and it did indeed

achieve that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker,

Budget 2016 included a poorly thought out and regressive book tax

that includes taxing books sold at post-secondary institutions, resulting in yet

another financial burden on students' shoulders.

I ask

the Premier: Will he do the right thing and immediately remove the tax from

post-secondary books?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very

pleased to inform this House that within the Student Financial Assistance

Program offered by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have taken

into consideration the means and expenditures of the student, their cost of

attending post-secondary education. Built within the cost structure of a student

is indeed of course the cost of textbooks.

The full

in cost of all textbooks, including any additional taxes, are indeed included

for the consideration for the student's access to grants for their education. So

we have accommodated that by providing additional grant opportunities for

Newfoundland and Labrador students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, there are no

additional monies in those grants to pay for the hike in textbooks because of

the tax.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: How much did government make on the book

tax from January to March 2017, and how much of that amount was from

post-secondary textbooks?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, for the Member

opposite, as the Minister of ASL has already communicated, students who meet the

means testing that is available and who qualify for grants can have the entire

costs of their academic books that they need at university covered; but, Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to what the Members opposite refer to as the book tax,

which really was a rebate on behalf of the taxpayers of the province for books

in Newfoundland and Labrador, we made the very difficult decision that that was

an action we had to take last year.

As I've

said to the Member opposite, we will continue to look at that as part of the tax

review that's coming up this year. When we have the ability to rebate for books

that are purchased versus paying for hospital beds, we'll certainly take a look

at that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table a document here related to position eliminations and

position creations associated with the change to the management structure, and

this document I'm tabling today on May 11, 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, as per my commitment to this House, today I'm tabling a list of

positions eliminated as well as a list of positions created as a result of the

changes to the management structure announced in February. This information

reflects actions taken as of May 8, 2017, and there are a number of items that I

wish to highlight and these are noted as footnotes in the materials that I will

be tabling.

The term

actioned, for the purpose of this report, means that the department has notified

any impacted employees. In all but 16 cases, the position has been vacated and

is ready to be eliminated. The 16 positions that have employees attached to

them, these employees have been notified that the position will be abolished at

a later date; therefore, the net reduction is 292 positions reflecting actions

taken as of May 8.

With

respect to the position creations, there are some positions yet to be created,

but because the action has not occurred yet, these have not been included in

this list, Mr. Speaker, and I'll table that.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd also like to take the opportunity to table a response to a question

I was asked yesterday in the House. The Member for Ferryland asked me a question

about the information I tabled last week specifically related to position

reductions in Budget 2016 .

Budget 2016 , I announced there would

be a reduction of 450 FTEs in the agencies, boards and commissions, and 200

positions in core government. I also indicated at that time that upcoming

retirements presented an opportunity and that our government will continue our

commitment to using attrition as a preferred means to reduce the workforce.

The

information tabled last week reflects decisions made as part of

Budget 2016 . It provides the list of

full-time equivalent eliminations to date for the agencies, boards and

commissions as of November 2016, and position eliminations for core government

as of March 31, 2017.

For

positions identified in core government to be abolished but have not yet been,

these would reflect the budget decisions for 2016, former attrition targets by

the former administration, government renewal initiative decision, as well as

changes to the management structure that have yet to be acted on and positions

that have yet to be abolished.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite also asked yesterday about questions related to a

particular department

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. C. BENNETT:

and I'll certainly provide

him with that information at his leisure.

MR. SPEAKER:

I think the first was a

document to be tabled. I think the second was an Answer to a Question for which

Notice has been Given. We'll consider it tabled under that.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice I

will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Natural

Products Marketing Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I

give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Proceedings Against The Crown Act. (Bill 11)

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisional Standing Order 11, I

give notice under provisional Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, I further give notice that under provincial Standing Order 11, I shall

move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2017.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

government has removed the provincial point-of-sale rebate tax on books which

will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and

WHEREAS

an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local

bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must

be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;

and

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada and the

other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to encourage

reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS

this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we

will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government

a tax to read the books of our own writers;

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

of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, it was very interesting to hear the non-answers or the answers to the

questions I raised to the Minister of AESL and the Premier and the Finance

Minister about their tax on textbooks; textbooks, Mr. Speaker, an absolute

necessity. Not a frill. Not a luxury, but textbooks. It makes no sense at all.

Not only

should the tax be immediately removed it is a rebate, we know that, but for

the ease in speaking about this issue. This tax rebate should be reinstated or

the tax should be removed. Not only should that happen, but we also believe that

students who have paid taxes on their school books, on their textbooks, that

those taxes should immediately be reimbursed as well. So not only to cut the tax

on books, but to also reimburse students who've had to pay taxes on books.

It's

very interesting the way government has pitted students and administration

against each other at MUN now because of government squeezing the university and

the administration, but then to do an extra burden on students by placing a tax

on textbooks. It just flies in the fact of reason, Mr. Speaker. There's nothing

to be gained in this. No one wins.

As the

minister says, well, then people who are going to get government grants, they

get some money for textbooks and that will cover their textbooks. However, Mr.

Speaker, that's still an unnecessary burden on students students who are

getting grants and also students who aren't eligible for grants.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

we insist that the well-being and safety of our families take priority over any

economic consideration; and

WHEREAS

we reject, in advance, any Nalcor-led plan to send its experts to Labrador to

inform; and

WHEREAS

we are calling for a process where independent experts are provided with

everything they need to ascertain the safety of the North Spur: i.e., the proper

mandate, documents, financing and time; and

WHEREAS

we demand this process have a public component where we, the people, can have

access and can ask questions; and

WHEREAS

the Premier promised to open the books on Muskrat Falls and, so far, that has

not happened;

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

of Assembly to urge government to consider the establishment of an independent

expert review of the North Spur.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand and present this petition on behalf of people

who believe that this government should be paying much more attention to the

concerns of people in Labrador with regard to the North Spur which is related to

the Muskrat Falls Project.

I do

know that besides my having the petition that this petition was presented to

government through the Minister of Environment. They have great hope that

government is going to pay close attention but, so far, there are no signs they

are going to.

It is

very important, Mr. Speaker, that an independent review panel be put in place.

We really haven't had a fully independent review body. We know that there are

people around the world, geotechnical experts, who have real concerns about this

North Spur and who are interested and willing to look at this issue and to

present their views and their evidence with regard to the concerns about North

Spur.

expert review panel, an independent review panel, could call upon such

international experts that are out there with their concerns. We have experts

here in our own province. There is so much confusion around this issue and many

different positions. For the government and for Nalcor and for those responsible

for Muskrat Falls to move ahead pooh-poohing those concerns which are based on

evidence as well and which come from experts as well is irresponsible.

We also

have the traditional knowledge of the people from Labrador who have lived and

hunted and fished in that whole area and have long-standing traditional

knowledge of generations, Mr. Speaker. That knowledge was presented during the

environmental assessment panel, but government refused to listen to the

recommendations of that panel.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

infertility is not an inconvenience, it is a disease of the reproductive system

that impairs the body's ability to perform the basic function of reproduction;

and

WHEREAS

infertility affects women and men equally; and

WHEREAS

treating infertility is excessively expensive and cost prohibitive; and

WHEREAS

infertility impairs the ability of individuals and couples to conceive children

and begin to build a family;

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

of Assembly to urge government to implement a program that assists individuals

and couples allowing them to access affordable in vitro fertilization services.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this petition has been signed by residents across Newfoundland and

Labrador. This is an issue that affects families throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. I've heard from a number of my constituents and a number of people

outside of my district as well who have asked that we raise this issue in the

House of Assembly. It is one that, as I said, touches many.

received a note from one constituent who indicates that she feels like fertility

is something that's taken for granted by most people and taboo for those who

actually go through it, and because of this, it's not talked about enough. She

notes that people go to a fertility clinic, get their tests and procedures and

try to forget about it.

She

urges people to start looking at the clinic as a relief and an exciting

experience knowing that there may finally be a solution. She says the last thing

that should influence a person's emotions and decision making at the clinic is

finances. No one should have to remortgage, take out a loan or sell the things

we have worked so hard to get. Most people are worried about saving money for

maternity leave when people with fertility issues have to owe so much money from

the beginning.

Basically what she's saying is: Why should we wait until every other province

covers fertility treatment? Why don't we join a couple of the larger provinces

that have taken the lead in that regard? I think it's an issue that's worth

looking at. I believe there is more that can be done. And given the number of

families that are affected in our province, I would urge government to take a

closer look at the issue and see what can be done.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition. It's

certainly an issue that I've brought to the floor of the House many times

before.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2015 announced a new school for

the Witless Bay-Mobile school system; and

WHEREAS

the planning and design of this school was completed; and

WHEREAS

the project was cancelled in Budget 2016 ;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reverse its decision and construct the

proposed school for the Witless Bay-mobile school system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Again,

we have gone through a process with the residents of the area in regard to

asking government to reconsider this. We've certainly made representation to the

Minister of Education and the parent community has come as well and has made

representation to him. They have asked to have a meeting with the Premier. I

think on April 4 they asked. I asked him yesterday in the House if he would

consider discussing this issue and hearing the thoughts and understanding of

those in that region from Bay Bulls to Bauline. We haven't got a response on

that, which is unfortunate.

The

other evening on a Facebook Live CBC interview the Premier was asked about it by

one of the parents from the area that emailed in a question. At that time,

amazingly, he said the decision was made by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Everything to date has demonstrated that this decision was made to cancel this

school by the current government. It was approved in 2015 based on a BAE-Newplan

report that indicated that a middle school was the best alternative here. The

to government. Again, last fall when they put their infrastructure list to this

current Liberal government, they included this new middle school on the list. It

was this government that denied it, I guess, the Premier and through Cabinet.

But

yesterday, or the other night the Premier stood and basically said that wasn't

totally incorrect. Even to date, with the nine classrooms that are being

never recommended it. And even today, what we're hearing with the consultants on

site in Mobile and the footprint, it's something that they're having trouble

even making do with the footprint of Mobile High. The cost is escalating. Even

the rationale behind this is getting more ludicrous by the day as they move

forward in their region to do this.

We urge

government, the people of the community as well, for the Premier to answer their

call to sit, meet and discuss this; to get back and look at the numbers and for

rationale to why this was originally approved, to why that hasn't changed while

the numbers still exist; still support it, and let's move on and get this done.

Even the

parent community has said to government: If we need to push this out for a year

or two to reach the financing, we're willing to work with you to do it. A

government that's hailed consultation and let's sit down and resolve issues, yet

today they won't do that. This is a blatant case.

We don't

know why this is cancelled, but we wish at some point someone would tell us and

we move forward in the best interests of those people in that region.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the provincial government has mandated the Eastern Regional Service Board to

implement modern waste management practices in the Eastern region; and

WHEREAS

the Eastern Regional Service Board has opened a waste recovery facility on Old

Brigus Road in Whitbourne to receive bulk items such as appliances, furniture,

electronics, car and truck tires, construction and demolition debris, shingles,

et cetera;

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

of Assembly to urge government to insist mitigation measures be established to

contain waste held at the facility and improve esthetics surrounding the

containment area.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I have numerous petitions on this same issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

It has to do with a drop-off

facility that's located on Old Brigus Road in Whitbourne. As I've just said,

it's not your household garbage but it's the larger items.

There's

a tender that's been called. Right now there's going to be a fence erected

across the front with, I believe, six trees. Residents don't feel this is going

to be adequate to close it off. It's an eyesore right now to residents, the

travelling public and tourists alike that come up and pass by there. There will

be an increase in that, obviously, as summer season approaches.

There's

garbage that's blowing all around the community in areas around close to that

area. As I said recently, there was even a box spring that blew out on the

Trans-Canada in the median. Residents have concerns. They've brought this to the

town and they've approached me to bring it to the House of Assembly and petition

government to urge the Eastern Regional Service Board to insist on better

mitigation issues.

One

thing that's being proposed is fencing going right around this facility. Another

issue is to provide covered containment. Right now it's just holes in the

ground, I think, with concrete walls around. They're not adequate on windy days

and as we know, it's not uncommon to have a lot of those days. It's not doing

the proper work. They'd like to have those areas contained and covered.

Another

thing that's been asked and people are requesting is maybe when they put the

fence up, provide a berm to cover off from visibility, people can't see it and

it also would serve as somewhat of a buffer to preventing stuff from blowing

around.

One

other point that residents have also expressed concern about is, unfortunately,

you can't control behaviour but there are people dropping off other garbage in

the gateway outside this area. So they've suggested to the Eastern Regional

Service Board to maybe install video surveillance. Unfortunately, those things

are inevitable to happen but they don't want to turn this into a dump on the

side of the road and not meet what is required to do, as being just like a

transshipment facility. Right now it's becoming an eyesore. It's a great concern

to residents in the area.

While

this tender is being called, residents are calling upon the Eastern Regional

Services Board, which I am lobbying government, to insist on extra measures

being taken so that when they do it the first time they do it right, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

smaller class sizes, adequate learning environments and effective curriculum are

paramount to success of our youth; and

WHEREAS

recent budget decisions have negatively impacted student supports, educational

resources and teacher allocations; and

WHEREAS

the provincial education system should ensure that each child has the ability to

reach his or her full potential;

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

of Assembly to urge government to enhance the education system in Newfoundland

and Labrador; introduce initiatives which ensure smaller class sizes which will

provide more sufficient personal space per child and allow more individual

learning opportunities; develop effective curriculum which will enable youth to

develop both life skills and optimal academic achievement; provide resources to

ensure a fully beneficial inclusion model is in place and to ensure all children

in our province have equal standards of education in their learning environment.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been presenting a number of petitions around education for the

last number of months because I continue to hear and receive emails and calls

from concerned parents, from students themselves, which is alarming when

students identify that there is inadequacies within their school system and

there are challenges that are not being met.

We're

hearing it from school councils. We're hearing it from the prospective agencies

that work within the school services: the Association of Psychologists. We're

hearing it from the NLTA. We're even hearing it from NAPE and CUPE, agencies

that work within the school system and other avenues.

It's

becoming a real challenge here and a real issue about how do we address some of

the issues within our education system. When you have parent organizations, and

particularly all over this province and I note, just looking at some of the

names here, some of the communities. They're from Random Island, Shoal Harbour,

Bunyan's Cove well then that tells you that this is not isolated to one

particular school or isolated to one particular area of our province, or one

particular age category or level of school.

It's not

just around high schools or middle schools or the elementary schools. This is

about parents, students, administrators, teachers, counsellors, the public

having a concern about our education system and the holes and the gaps we have

in being able to provide an adequate, safe environment.

As we

noted a few months ago, CBC had a three-part documentary on Monday evenings

where teachers from various backgrounds, various geographic backgrounds, periods

of time they've served in it, the role they play in the education system,

outline their concerns. Concerns were about class sizes. It was about having the

resources to do things properly. It was about having more engagement to address

the needs, particularly around inclusive learning, but you can't do some of

these things if you don't have the proper resources.

They

talked about violence in schools. When you've got 28-30 students in a classroom

and you get some students who may be volatile with each other, there may be

conflicts, you may have some behavioural issues, it's a lot harder for that

instructor, that teacher to be able to deal with those situations.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this and many other issues that

are in the education system over the near few weeks.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders

of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

I would call from the Order

Paper, Motion 1, the Budget Speech, main motion.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm very

pleased to be able to stand again today and speak to the budget. For those who

are watching, we are now in the final phase of the debate on the budget. We are

now debating the main motion. We've had the vote of non-confidence, which was

defeated by government, and we had the sub-amendment, which was defeated by

government. So now we are back to the main motion, and I'm very pleased to speak

to this.

When the

time comes to vote, I'm sure I'll be voting against the main motion and

government will be voting for it, but I will continue to speak to this budget

and to speak to how this budget is not a good one. How it builds on an extremely

bad one, the one from 2016, how this maintains the budget of 2016 and continues

down the path of a route that is not going to be good and is not good for the

people of the province. We will continue to speak against it and, of course,

we'll vote against it, just as we had to vote against 2016.

I know

what the government is facing. All of us in the province are well aware of what

the government is facing. The provincial deficit is a very serious issue I'm

not going to doubt that and it must be addressed, but the way in which this

government is dealing with it, Mr. Speaker, is the issue.

This

government's approach to reducing the deficit is that their attack on the

deficit is taking priority over the needs of the people of the province. What's

starting to happen is that we are going backwards, not forward. Things that had

been put in place for the good of the people, things that had been put in place

in education, things that had been put in place in health care, things that had

been put in place in assistance for people who need help, things have been taken

away that had been put in these weren't frills, Mr. Speaker.

Yes,

it's quite possible that down the road or in the past there are things that were

put in budgets that were not for the good of the people and benefited the

government and made them look good. When we start cutting the programs for

people that we were starting to put in place in this province, when we start

cutting those because we're giving priority to the deficit, then we have a

problem.

Senior

government leaders show a great passion to address the issue of the deficit. The

Minister of Finance shows real passion to reduce the deficit. The Premier shows

real passion to reduce the deficit. Government shows real passion to reduce the

deficit. People see that. What I'm saying to the government, what I'm saying to

the Premier, to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Education and Early

Childhood Development, what I'm saying to everybody who's sitting in that

government is that we want to see the same passion for providing the best

services to the people of the province. That's where the passion should be.

Then the

goal should be how we address the deficit while still meeting the needs of the

people of the province. The deficit needs addressing for sure, but the needs of

the people of the province, all the people, need to be the necessary

consideration, not a secondary consideration.

The need

of the people of the province is to see that passion. They need to know that

government is concerned about them, that they are government's focus, they are

government's passion, not satisfying and appeasing the bond raters and money

lenders but focused on the needs of the people. This government has to have what

is needed to say back to the bond raters and the money lenders, we know our

responsibility, here's our plan for that responsibility but that plan has to

include the needs of people.

Mr.

Speaker, I have spoken in this House before and mentioned structural adjustment

that went on decades ago, thanks to the World Bank and the International

Monetary Fund. What happened there was a fight back eventually had to be taken

by governments to say this is not working. Cutting services, cutting social

programs, cutting things that are helping the people of our countries, the

poorest countries in the world, that's not the way to go and they fought back.

Even the World Bank and IMF changed their tactics.

This is

what this government has to do, Mr. Speaker. It has to look at what are the

needs of the people. The debt, a product of decades of mismanagement, must be

addressed but the people of the province need to know government is on their

side, as I said, not on the side of the bond rating agencies and the business

community. The people of the province do not have that confidence far from it,

as a matter of fact.

Government seems to need to be reminded. Let's look at what happened in 2016 and

what's still going on, Mr. Speaker. One of the things, for example, was the

transportation benefit for parents under the Child Care Services Subsidy

Program. That was eliminated last year. It is still eliminated. This was a

benefit that was provided to low-income families to pay for their children to

use buses operated by daycare centres. The subsidy ceased in the fall of 2016.

Some daycare centres depended on the benefit to help operate their buses, which

can cost tens of thousands of dollars. But besides the daycare centres

themselves, the parents who got the subsidies can't afford to pay for those

buses.

I don't

know how the people on the government side of the House think that people on

low-income, people earning minimum wage for example, have the money to do that.

This is why we need real plans put in place for a child care program in this

province, a public, universally accessible child care program. We've got to

start taking seriously the need for that program: one, for the good of children;

two, for the good of parents; and three, for the good of the economy.

If this

government were to take that seriously and put a plan in place and show the

people they're trying to appease, the moneylenders and the bond raters, and show

them how this plan could work both for the people as well as for the economy,

I'm sure that those people would listen. I'm sure that the creditors would

listen; they just need to see plans in place to do that.

The only

plan this government has is cut, cut, cut in order to get at the deficit and in

order to help with the payments with regard to the debt cut, cut, cut. What

they're cutting are the people of the province. They use terminology that takes

the humanity out of it, and that's what's really disturbing, Mr. Speaker. It

does take the humanity out of it.

Let's

look at something else with regard to early childhood development. This

government in 2016 eliminated the workplace training program for early childhood

educators. What they had is a workplace training program that helped them to

access certification by training on the job.

Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development was working

on the program. There was a budget of $500,000 in 2015 to train 50 employees a

year, but it was not implemented. The money was in the budget and wasn't

implemented.

It was

designed to help child care staff upgrade to Level I which is a requirement

under the early childhood development strategy. Under that strategy, the workers

were required to upgrade to Level I. The idea of putting the training in place,

the on-the-job training program, was to bring those workers up to Level I, a

minimum requirement.

Employers would receive funding to hire substitutes while their employees were

taking an accelerated ECE program. There was to be a prior learning assessment

and recognition component where experienced staff could obtain credit for skills

acquired in the field.

There

are many staff out there who have all kinds of experience and really do know

what they're doing, but they're not certified. It's absolutely important in this

day and age for them to be certified. What they could do, because of the

on-the-job training program, the way it would have been designed, would give

them credit for skills already acquired and then further their certification.

The

Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador came out

strongly about the need for this program to get people properly trained because

there is a shortage of Level I ECE workers. So we have regulations in place but

we don't put in place what's needed to help people be able to live up to those

regulations. Again, something that this government did in the 2016 budget which

is still continuing, they have not put in place, they have not made operational

a plan that was a solid plan in the 2015-2016 budget. That is just unacceptable,

Mr. Speaker.

Let's

look at some other things under Education and Early Childhood Development. We

had last year an increased class size. We had multi-grade classes brought in,

and those two things, Mr. Speaker, eliminated 61.5 teaching units at a time when

we have the highest unemployment and do not need more people unemployed. Not all

of those units resulted in people being unemployed but a lot of them did.

additional 15 units have been cut in this year so far, Mr. Speaker. That's what

happened because of 2016 budget and the budget this year. I cannot believe in

this day and age this is going on in our educational system, at the same time

that we use the fancy language of having inclusion education when in actual fact

we don't because we're not putting the resources in place to really have a full

inclusion model.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, people in the system, parents, teachers, those who

are involved with the educational system and who are affected by it, they tell

us that the so-called inclusion model because of inadequate resources is

actually excluding rather than including. Everybody in the classroom is

suffering from this, not just children who have exceptionalities and exceptional

needs on whatever end that might be, especially those, Mr. Speaker, who have

learning disabilities, who are on the autism spectrum. Besides those, there are

also the children who are highly capable, have high IQs, all of them, Mr.

Speaker, are suffering from the lack of resources in our classroom, lack of

resources in the system to allow the inclusion model to work.

I can't

understand why this government can't see it. It's crazy, because I know what

they're trying to do but while they're trying to do it, they're causing a whole

lot more damage in the name of taking care of the deficit. They're causing a

whole lot more damage. How much more damage is going to be done to our children,

to our system during these years that they are doing all these cuts and

maintaining these cuts? It's just crazy, Mr. Speaker.

It's

like saying to somebody who has a disease, in order to get better you really

need this, this and this to get better, but we can't start it for two years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, by the time the medicine starts or by the time the health

care starts for that person, the person is going to be much worse when it comes

to the disease that the person has. That's the same thing that's happening here.

More and more damage is being done in our system because of what this government

has done.

If they

don't take seriously the report from the Task Force on Educational Outcomes, I

am really going to be very disturbed because I cannot believe the task force is

going to be saying anything much differently than what I'm saying myself, what

others are saying out there, what those who went to them and witnessed and made

representations have said.

I am

convinced they're going to have strong messages for this government and strong

recommendations, especially when it comes to the resources needed for inclusion.

Inclusion is not a tack on; inclusion is now supposed to be the model. That's

supposed to be the framework of the model, but this government is not making it

work.

Let's

look at AESL, Mr. Speaker. Today we asked some questions around this because we

have a reduced grant portion and an increased loan portion for our students. The

minister can speak all the way he wants, he can twist things around all he

wants, the bottom line is students are finding it harder. Their debt load is

being increased. They are really feeling pressured when it comes to grants.

Not

everybody qualifies for grants, Mr. Speaker, so let's talk about the tax on

textbooks. If you're not somebody who qualifies for a grant, then everything

that was said here in the House today in response to questions in Question

Period means nothing. Yet, not being eligible for a grant doesn't mean you're

wealthy. Yeah, there are people who are wealthy and there are students who have

wealthy parents, but in this province they're in the minority.

The

majority of students who are out there paying $300 and $400 and $500 in tax

I've had the students come to me and tell me, paying that much in tax on their

books and they're not getting any rebates. They're not. So how this government

can continue to support the things they've done in their budgets, I don't know.

They

eliminated the grants for students studying outside the province in programs

available in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, there may be really solid reasons

why students are studying outside the province. I've had again students come to

me.

In the

case, for example, of students who are a couple, one of the couple needs to go

away to study, needs to. What the person wants to study is not available here.

In order for the couple to stay together, the other person goes also, even

though, maybe the program they are doing is available here, but their reason for

going is so valid, and to think they're not available for a grant. That's not

acceptable, Mr. Speaker. Especially, if we're looking at trying to keep our

young people here in this province.

A couple

who goes away like that, a couple who goes away because one needs to go in order

to further his or her education and the other goes so that the couple can stay

together. They go away and one of them finds a good job opportunity. The other

one says, well, I will look for a good job opportunity too. So they stay away

and they don't come back.

This

government has such a short-sighted vision with regard to what our needs are. No

long-term vision at all, Mr. Speaker. Long-term vision and long-term planning is

what is missing. That's what I'm begging them to start doing and that's what the

people of the province want, long-term planning. Not just for eliminating the

deficit, long-term planning for the good of the people in the province. This is

what we're looking for, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

look at AESL. Eight offices were closed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Eight

offices closed in this province; eight of them last year, still closed, making

it very difficult for people to access Income Support, emergency housing and

other services. The government can try all it wants to say: The phone is there,

you can call. Madam Speaker, it doesn't work It is not satisfactory.

What

people need is to know that they are being taken care of. They need to have

continuity in terms of the people they're speaking with when they have an issue,

and they don't have that continuity. They want to have some sense of security

that the person they're speaking to is not just reading from a piece of paper

and saying: Yeah, I know your history, but that they really

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

It's

very hard when you get interrupted by shouts from the other side because one

loses one's train of thought.

talking

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

If the

Speaker hears any more unnecessary noise in the Chamber, I'll name Members and

you'll not be permitted to speak for the remainder of day.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

Madam

Speaker, the closing of the AES offices, yeah, may have saved some money for

government, but it has made life more difficult for people living in rural

areas, in particular, and has removed the human element from their interaction

with government in having their needs met.

Thank

you and I look forward to speaking again in Concurrence.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I'm very

happy to stand and to speak for the third time on this current budget. This will

be my last opportunity to be able to speak on the budget.

MR. KENT:

We have one more Concurrence.

MS. ROGERS:

One more Concurrence; that's

not my concurrence, though.

MR. KENT:

We want to hear from you,

though.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you very much.

I am

pleased to have this one last opportunity to speak to the 2017 budget. As I've

pointed out previously, we have a serious job crisis in this province and the

Liberals' plan, in fact, is for it to get worse, for the job crisis to get

worse.

The

economic indicators projected in the background paper on the economy paint a

grim future of our prospects for the next several years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. ROGERS:

Madam Speaker, it's a little

bit hard for me to hear myself here with all the noise in the House.

So the

economic indicators projected in the background paper on the economy paints a

grim future for our prospects for the next several years. Real household income,

retail sales, housing starts, real GDP, capital investment, all declining

continuously for the next several years; that's a grim picture. That's all part

of the government's grim program, the GRI, grim program. The only indicators

projected to increase are unemployment and cost of living. These are the ones

that you want to see going down; but, in fact, government is telling us in the

next five years unemployment will go up and cost of living will go up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

Members for their co-operation to keep the volume down in the Chamber or if you

have pressing conversations, please take it outside.

Thank

you.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Yet the minister's Budget

Speech sounded like something from an alternate reality. This is from her Budget

Speech from 2017: We are on a path to gain control of our finances . Our

focus will always be on positioning our province to be an ideal place to raise a

family . Budget 2017 reflects progress.

Those

are admirable words; that's exactly what you want a budget to be able to do.

But, Madam Speaker, that's not the reality of the budget. You would have to have

rose-coloured glasses on through which someone could actually read the economic

indicators and still make sense of these pronouncements. Again, every indicator

shows us increase in unemployment and increase in the cost of living, while all

their other economic indicators are worsening.

So I'd

like to take a couple of minutes to focus on the job crisis in our province

because I believe, Madam Speaker, that is the worst crisis that we are going

through right now. Again, government has told us in all their budget documents

that the job crisis will get worse in the next five years. So we have to look at

that; that's a serious statement.

already have the highest unemployment rate in Canada. In our beloved

Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the highest unemployment rate in Canada, and

our jobless rate is forecast to increase every year for the next five years. So

we are going to be losing more and more and more jobs in the next five years.

That's a concern to all of us.

When

people say they're worried about the economy, really what they're talking about

is they're worried about the job crisis because they're feeling it in their

communities. They are seeing it in their families. Our own public servants are

worried about their own jobs. We know that we've lost a number of jobs in the

public service. Public sector jobs, we have lost a lot. So that's what they're

talking about when they say they're worried about the economy. They're worried

about whether or not they're going to have a job.

A lot of

people are worried about their adult children who may be coming out of

university who can't get jobs or who are coming out of university with huge

student debts and are underemployed, working at minimum wage jobs.

Where is

the progress? Where is the progress in that? A place where someone is unemployed

is hardly an ideal place to raise a family. Yet the minister said she's going to

do everything to position our province to be an ideal place to raise a family.

How is this an ideal place right now to raise a family? And we want it so much

to be so. I believe, Madam Speaker, that it can be.

Government has hyped its so-called Way

Forward documents. Incredibly, the first

Way Forward publication made virtually

imagine this, Madam Speaker, it's the biggest crisis that we have right now,

aside from Muskrat Falls, and in their Way

Forward document government made virtually no mention of jobs. The elephant

in the room and there's no mention of jobs.

It didn't address joblessness as a problem, it didn't set a

jobs target, it didn't offer any solutions and that's what government should be

doing. It's not about moving numbers around on a spreadsheet, it's about having

a vision for the province and coming up with solutions, and coming up with a

real way forward rather than dragging us backwards. That's basically what this

budget is; it's a rehash of 2016, with no relief of the damage done by

Budget 2016 .

After we rightly took government to task for this shocking

omission, the second round of Way Forward

because it takes us pushing for government to go in the right direction set

a jobs target. That's what we wanted them to do, to set a jobs target, although

it wasn't clear at all where any of these theoretical new jobs would come from

no plan, nothing concrete.

Earlier this week, Members opposite flocked into the media

centre: promise of a solution. They were so excited. In they went to that media

centre and the Premier's big announcement about jobs. What was it? Exactly what

was that announcement about? What was all that air blowing around? What was it

really about? Their Premier announced that two-thirds of his Cabinet would be

working on a problem that the entire Cabinet should have been focused on this

entire Cabinet should have been focused on it for the last 17 months.

But now they're going to get two-thirds of the Cabinet

together. They realize that there's a job problem. We've all known there's a job

problem. It said it in the 2016 budget and it really said it in the 2017 budget.

Now, after 17 months, they've woken up and they're going to get a few of their

folks together and solve the problem. Well, that's what they should have been

doing from the start.

This big announcement, this flurry of activity, there was

no funding put in place and no specific plans as to where new jobs would come

from. It was a public relations exercise and not much more. I wish it would have

been more. I wish that it was substantive. I wish that it was really a

comprehensive job strategy but, no, they're saying now we're going to get

together and talk about it, after 17 months. This is a huge crisis facing the

province.

One

thing we do know, Madam Speaker, is the public sector jobs continue to be cut in

dribs and drabs; five one day, 45 another day. They're trickling down. We're

getting messages in Estimates that these positions are going to be gone. Those

are gone by attrition. These ones haven't been filled in a while. Therefore,

zero-based budgeting means we'll take those off the spreadsheet. Those jobs will

just disappear because they haven't been filled in a while. That's what they're

doing in dribs and drabs. They are cutting jobs.

We still

haven't had a straight answer from the Premier or his Minister of Finance as to

how many public sector jobs will disappear as a result of the budget. We can't

get a handle on those numbers. Not because any of us are stupid, it's because

government aren't being really forthright about it.

In fact,

the minister gets indignant when we ask and accuses us of fear mongering.

Getting to know the actuality is not fear mongering. It is really fear mongering

in a debate on a provincial budget to ask a simple question? Is this fear

mongering? How many public sector jobs will be lost as a result of the budget?

That allays people's fears when they know for sure what's happening, when they

know for sure what the plan is, what the future looks like.

Madam

Speaker, our job is to ask those questions. That's why we're here. We have to

ask those questions, and it's the minister's job to answer those questions. We

also know what the knock-off effect of those public sector job losses will be.

How many private sector jobs will disappear as a result of the public sector

layoffs? How does that square with this week's photo op on jobs? Because that's

what it was, it was a photo op.

It's not

a coincidence that with projected increases in unemployment and reductions in

household income over the next few years that the spinoff of that is that retail

sales are projected to decline year after year as well. So we're seeing the

rollout effect of that. It's not benign. We lose job, higher unemployment,

reduction in household income, people have less money to buy things. People have

less money to buy things; therefore, retail outlets have to lay off people

again, more jobs. It's a spiral downward.

retail sales decline, does anyone think the retail sector will be able to retain

current levels of employment, let alone increase them? No way. So how can anyone

describe this downward spiral as progress? It's not progress. It's not growth.

It's not even maintaining our status quo. We are spiraling downwards, but it

doesn't have to be this way. That's the thing, Madam Speaker, it doesn't have to

be this way.

We all

know the fear in our relative communities; the people who are afraid of job

losses, who know what's happening in their communities because of the drop in

household income, because of the increase in unemployment. We all know it. We

know it in our families. We know it in our communities. We know it province

wide. People are telling us and we can see it.

Madam

Speaker, the Premier indicated in media interviews following the uproar over

last year's budget that he would make last year's budget decisions over again.

That he would do that again. Well, that's one promise he kept.

Budget 2017 ,

for all practical purposes, is Budget 2016

all over again. It's a rehash. Warmed up hash, that's all it is. It's a rehash.

The biggest difference is the political spin attached to this year's budget

they did a better job on the spin was designed to obscure the bad news.

Although they did mitigate some of the effects of the levy, but that's only

because those of us on this side of the House pushed so hard, as did the people

of the province, they had to push government to do the right thing.

Madam

Speaker, household incomes are expected to decline. Unemployment is expected to

increase and electricity rates are poised to go right through the roof when the

ill-advised Muskrat Falls Project is complete. Already, though, even earlier

than that based on hydro's request for a whooping rate increase.

We have

employment going down, unemployment going up, household income going down and

power rates, electricity rates skyrocketing. It's the antitheist of prosperity.

It's the antitheist of growth. It's choking the people of our province and

they're feeling it. We know they're feeling it.

So how

does this represent progress? Is this progress? I wouldn't want to be going

backwards. This is not progress. At a time when the people of the province are

desperately looking for vision and hope, we have a budget that offers neither.

Now,

government may call us fear mongering and negative, but, Madam Speaker, the

opposite is true. We know that only by acknowledging the challenges and barriers

that we can come up with real workable solutions. That's the only way to be able

to design real workable solutions.

Government's been at the helm now for 17 months and haven't come up with any

solutions. Their solutions are only about moving numbers around on a

spreadsheet. That is not a budget. Those are not solutions for the current

fiscal reality that we face. It's not simply about moving numbers around on a

spreadsheet; it's not simply about zero-based budgeting.

I say

it's time now for government to call an all-party committee on jobs because they

have shown, government has already shown over the past 17 months they can't do

it alone. The people of the province know that this government can't do it on

their own.

Government has already shown us over these past 17 months that they don't have

any solutions. The only thing they've done is last week or this week they've

pulled together and said, hey, we're going to start talking about it, after 17

months. We know they don't have it in them to do it alone. The people of the

province know they can't do it alone. I know they can't do it alone. They have

proven that.

Our

beloved Newfoundland and Labrador belongs to us all, as does our future. Our

future belongs to us all. Government should do the right thing and call for an

all-party committee to develop a job strategy in conjunction not just an

all-party committee but in conjunction with a citizens' assembly. I believe

this crisis is big enough that it warrants an all-party committee and it

warrants a citizens' assembly to deal with this problem. We have to develop a

job strategy to help our province really move forward, not backwards in the

direction that this government has been taking us all in.

Madam

Speaker, we need all hands on deck, including private industry, academia and the

general population, to pull together to design a real recovery strategy. What we

need is a strategy of recovery, a strategy that will in fact compel us forward.

We cannot afford not to do this. We did it with mental health and addictions and

I know that we can do this with our job and economic crisis.

Madam

Speaker, I would be more than happy I would absolutely be more than happy to

sit on such a committee. We cannot afford to not do this; we need all hands on

deck. I believe we can. I know we can. We must. We have no choice but to come up

with real workable solutions. Government has proven to us they cannot do it

alone, they cannot go it alone. We need all hands on deck.

This

time, time is of the essence. We don't have any time to waste here. There is no

time to waste, so let's roll up our sleeves and let's work together. The

solutions do rest in us coming together. As the great late Jacky Layton said,

don't let them tell you it can't be done.

believe, Madam Speaker, that it can be done. I believe that it must be done. I

believe that working together, because that's what we have to do, because we are

in a job crisis, we are going backwards, it's time to change the direction, to

pull our people together, to pull together a citizens' assembly, to pull

together an all-party committee to look at our jobs and economy strategy.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Seeing no further speakers

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Topsail Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

apologize for being slow getting up; I thought the Members opposite may rise and

speak to the budget this afternoon and I was giving them an opportunity to do

just that.

Thank

you for giving me the opportunity to speak back on the main motion. I have

spoken for two hours already on the budget. I'm going to speak for another hour

now this afternoon, which is we are back on the main motion and I get an hour to

speak this afternoon and I'll use my time this afternoon to speak to the budget

as I've done before.

Madam

Speaker, there's so much information and so much material and items that I'd

like to use my time to cover, but there's no way that I can cover them all. One

of the aspects of the budget that people ask me about from time to time and

they'll say: I haven't heard much about the budget. I haven't heard a lot of

detail about the budget. How's the budget different from last year?

Madam

Speaker, the budget is not a lot different from last year; it's essentially the

same budget as last year, with one exception being the reduction on gas tax.

There's a bill scheduled to come before the House this spring to make an effort

to partially reduce the gas tax. As we've said, they actually had actually 350

new fees and increased fees there are 300 increased fees and 50 new fees; 300

became the number that people used. We said we it's still 299 on the books, so

they reduced half a fee.

As a

government who has said that they have to reduce the cost of operations and when

we drill down on all of the budget material, even from the high level, you see

what the difference in the cost of programs and services from last year to this

year, you really have to search really, really closely to find what government

is doing to actually reduce the cost of government and the operations of

government.

Back in

2014, 2015, we talked about reductions through attrition, but we also started a

program within government departments to look at how synergies and efficiencies

could be created. We know that in 2013, the government of the day having seen

a decline in revenues occurring took steps to reduce the size of public

service all in one year, and we know it was a tough year. It was a tough year in

doing so. While all the intentions were right and it came from criticism,

especially from Members opposite who said it was the wrong thing to do. You

shouldn't cut jobs at a time when you were in an economic downturn. We shouldn't

reduce spending and we should increase investments.

Those

types of commentaries came from the Opposition of the day who, for the most

part, is now in government. Then in '14 there was a further reduction in the

size of core public service, and again in '15. We're not sure where it is now

though. I know the hon. minister tabled some documentation this afternoon. I

haven't had an opportunity to go through that as of yet and it will show some of

she referred to as reductions a result of a Flatter, Leaner Management System.

I'm glad she's tabled that. We'd be interested to know what the entire impact

is, the entire efforts of government, and what those total numbers are.

We asked

questions just a few days ago. My colleague for Ferryland asked questions just a

few days ago yesterday actually on the previous documentation that was

tabled by the Minister of Finance here in the House which showed I think it was

a further 200 positions that were planned to be eliminated through '16-'17. What

the Member has tabled today and spoke about earlier after Question Period was

some of that.

One of

the aspects of a budget is to understand how people are feeling about it, how

are people feeling about the actions of government and what they're doing. Madam

Speaker, we've seen some interesting, I think, good things happen. I know the

Minister of Municipal Affairs made an announcement yesterday about partnership

with municipalities. I think it's great for him to do that; he does it very

well. I'm glad he's doing that and it's important to partner with

municipalities, even though they have concern about the change in ratios this

year.

Many of

them are saying we can't do the work that we had hoped to do or planned to do

because they're going to get less work done for the funding you had available

not in all circumstances, but in some categories of operations they will not be

able to complete the work that they wanted to.

But they

are continuing to have those relationships and you have to have those. In tough

times and in good times, you have to try and have those relationships. I know

from my own past experience that sometimes it can be challenging to do that.

They

made and discussed some of their actions and some of the things they wanted to

do, taking the politics out of appointments. We've had significant discussion

here in the House on taking the politics out of appointments. We see another

announcement today on appointments by the Independent Appointments Commission to

the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. Two out of three people who I

know enough about to speak about are good, quality people on their appointments.

They, I think, will bring value to the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor board,

or the liquor agency and the liquor board and how they operate. The board itself

will be enhanced by some of those appointments.

The

problem that people become cynical about is that the government and the Premier

had said that they were going to take the politics out of appointments, period,

campaigned on taking the politics out of appointments. We're not going to make

any more political appointments. They quite often stand up here and they talk

about appointments that we made. Political appointments have happened since the

beginning of time in history. There has been some really good work done by those

appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, volunteer based types of

appointments in large part, and how they've operated and functioned and some of

the good work that they've done.

The

government said they're going to change that. They brought forward the

Independent Appointments Commission bill last year and laid it out to government

and laid it out to the House of Assembly; a signature bill, going to take the

politics out of appointments. The bill was no sooner passed when we saw

something happening in the public service that was completely unexpected and

somewhat disingenuous from what they had said they were going to do when it

comes to appointments.

When you

say you're going to take politics out of appointments and you include agencies,

boards and commissions and certain extensions certain of those positions, but

you exclude positions that traditionally have not been political appointments in

such a way, with the full intention of making and politicizing those

appointments, it becomes problematic and people become cynical about it. The

clerk is an example of one that we've talked about which was clearly a partisan

appointment.

haven't been able to find anywhere in the country, Madam Speaker and if

someone can find it, please send it to me where a clerk of the Executive

Council was a previous candidate for the leadership of the party in power. I

can't find anywhere where anything like that ever happened before.

When we

look at the legislation, conflict of interest legislation, we look at the public

service legislation, you'll see the comments have been, oh, it's outdated, it

doesn't deal with that kind of position, because I don't think anybody ever

anticipated that type of an appointment would ever be done or would ever take

place because it's been just an accepted practice that the public service not be

politicized.

Now,

people are going say: Oh, well, you appointed this one to you have certain

persons in your staff who were political appointments. Madam Speaker, those

appointments, there are people who work in the Premier's office and in

ministerial offices as political staffers who are that. They are political

staffers, but there's a separation from political staffers and a public service.

I've

explained this to some people over the last number of weeks who weren't clear

about it before, and I've explained it to them because there are different

branches of our government. There's a judicial branch. There's an Executive

Branch. There's a legislative branch. We're in a legislative branch.

Members

of the House of Assembly are also responsible for the Executive Branch and run

the Executive Branch of government. Then there's the judicial branch; the

judiciary, the courts which run independent from government. Government will not

have influence or say over policing or enforcement, or shouldn't. They're not

supposed to have say over policing and enforcement and what they investigate or

who they investigate or how they investigate them. As well as what happens in

our judiciary, what happens in courtrooms and so on should he hands off from

government's control completely.

The

public service is the people who are hired, non-partisan appointments. There are

people in public service I'm sure that are members of all I'm not sure, I

know, are members of all parties or support all parties, but their employment

should not be done on a partisan basis. It should be done based on skills and

qualifications and hire and so on. People have a right to be associated with or

support a political party privately and independently without threat or fear of

reprisal because they don't support the governing party. It's the way it's

supposed to be.

When the

government starts to make political appointments, people who are known,

long-time supporters of the governing party, then the politics starts to work

into the fabric of government. They are different from the Premier appointing

Cabinet ministers. He can appoint whoever he likes to the Cabinet. That's a

political process, from political staff. That's a political process.

We have

political staff in my office who are very partisan because that's what they do.

The Premier has political staff in his office who are very partisan because

their role is a political and partisan one, but when it comes to the public

service then it should be separate.

Through

government, you have the leader of the government who is the Premier; it's the

highest position in government. You have the leader of the public service, which

is the clerk. While they work together and have a relationship, one is political

and one is not. That's the way our system of government works, and that's the

way our system is supposed to work.

We've

seen in the last year, while they passed their Independent Appointments

Commission legislation, they made a number of appointments I don't, to this

day, believe we know all of them. We know they haven't announced many of these.

We found out through other ways of some of these appointments.

You have

a former Liberal MHA, a former Liberal candidate, former Liberal leadership

candidate, former Liberal political assistant, former Liberal political

assistant, former Liberal candidate, a former Liberal party executive member, a

former Liberal executive member who was also a campaign chair back in 2015, a

number of Liberal party executive, a candidate, a candidate and so on, a staffer

who has now been put in the public service. That's one of the reasons why people

are very cynical and become very cynical about this government and the actions

they've done. They say they're going to do one thing and they do something

completely different.

Today in

Question Period we had I know Question Period there's a lot of bantering and

so on that happens in Question Period, but that's where the serious matters and

important matters are quite often raised, and it's what most people, the media

and so on, keep closest eye on. We asked about the EY report. Back on December

21 someone is saying, what's the EY report about?

Back on

December 21, 2015, a very, very, short period time after government came into

power, there was an announcement by government and the headline is government

opens books on the Muskrat Falls Project. The Premier announced, as well as the

Minister of Natural Resources, that the provincial government is undertaking

independent review of the cost

schedule associated with the risk of Muskrat

Falls Project.

The

quote here from the Premier indicates it will be Ernst & Young, known as EY now,

will undertake a comprehensive independent review and identify opportunities for

corrective action. That's what's right in the release of December 21. The

release also says the process will be completed by March 2016.

So we

were asking today, in April last year an interim or draft report was made

available by Ernst & Young to government. We've asked where's the finalized

report? It's now 14 months past due, and the minister has talked about how

they're working with EY to finalize the interim report. Actually, her words

yesterday in the House, and I quote: The Oversight Committee is now working

with EY to finalize the interim report.

The

Oversight Committee is their committee who is providing oversight on the

project, and reports, I'm pretty sure it was pretty much monthly last year in

give credit to the Oversight Committee, I'm pretty sure it was every month. It

was 11 times last year they actually had a meeting and reviewed the project.

They're now working with EY who is providing an independent overview of the

process.

What's

also interesting, while we have a government who campaigned on openness and

transparency, and slammed the previous administration they do that every day

in government, in the House here, they talk about the previous administration

this, the previous administration that. They'd rather talk about us then talk

about the things they've done, and that's their strategy, Mr. Speaker.

Their

Oversight Committee reports have never been released. Eleven months since

December of 2015, the month that they took office, there has not been a single

Oversight Committee report released by government, not a single report. They

also have the EY report which they're continuing to work on to finalize this,

what's supposed to be an independent report.

raised that in Question Period because we quite often measure the questions we

ask and decide on what questions we ask, because we have tons of material, areas

and so on, that we'd like to raise in the House but there's not enough time

during Question Period. There's not enough time in Question Period to get to all

the matters but we quite often take a process where we understand what is timely

and important to people, what people want to know about. We reflec