PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

March 5, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 48

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like today to welcome some guests in the public gallery; first of all, Ms. Lisa

Crockwell and Ms. Annette Johns from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association

of Social Workers.

A big

welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also, I'd like to welcome in

the public gallery a very important colleague, Dr. Suzanne Brake, Seniors'

Advocate from the Office of the Seniors' Advocate.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of

Lewisporte - Twillingate, Fogo Island - Cape Freels, Conception Bay East - Bell

Island, Placentia West - Bellevue and Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

Before I recognize, I would like to point out our most important MHA visiting us

today, Mr. George Murphy, former MHA of the House.

Welcome, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I do thank the Clerk for her very sharp eyes.

With that, I would like to invite the

hon. Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate for a Member's statement, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Volunteer firefighters and first responders play a vital role in protecting our

communities and residents.

March 3, I had the honour of attending the Lewisporte Fire Rescue Annual Banquet

and Awards Ceremony.

The 32

member department responded to 43 calls last year ranging from house fires,

vehicle and snowmobile accidents, and other emergencies.

addition, they run a vigorous training program, involved in community events,

organize fire prevention initiatives and a very successful Junior Firefighters

Program. Together, they logged close to 10,000 volunteer hours.

Two

firefighters were recognized with long service awards. Brian Pardy received his

20 year service medal, while Barry Budden was presented with his 35 year service

bar.

The

highlight of the evening was the prestigious Firefighter of the Year Award. Dave

Ryan was given this honour for his dedicated service and actions that helped to

save the life of a person at a local restaurant.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking the Lewisporte Fire Rescue for

the devoted service, and Firefighter of the Year, Dave Ryan, for his heroic

efforts.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Fogo

Island - Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

always a pleasure to rise in this hon. house and inform my colleagues of the

great events that happen in my district. I'm delighted to report that February

11-18 was winter festival week in Centreville-Wareham-Trinity and Indian Bay.

Lorraine Ackerman and her dedicated group of volunteers hosted the 25th annual

event. Their slogan was: keep the spirit alive in 25 – and keep it alive they

did.

The

opening ceremony attracted over 500 people. Their mascot, Wille Melt, led the

festival every day. If you ever wanted to see the perfect example of how to host

a successful event, visit these guys.

Good

fellowship and community spirit was always on the menu. The week was filled with

great food, great music and fun activities for folks of all ages. Although there

was no snow, this committee always had something on the go.

I ask

all Members to join with me in thanking the Centreville-Wareham-Trinity and

Indian Bay festival committee and their volunteers for another successful winter

carnival.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

today to recognize a constituent of mine who earlier this year was appointed to

the Order of Canada. I speak of lifelong volunteer and community leader, Ms.

Joyce Churchill, of Portugal Cove - St. Philip's.

Joyce

has had a very active life as a full-time nurse, business woman, former mayor,

mother of a son with special needs, cancer survivor and community activist. She

has made both measurable and immeasurable contributions to the local and broader

community at all levels, and particularly in the content of individuals and

families struggling with severe medical or social challenges.

addition to the many roles she has played over her lifetime, Joyce managed to

find time to be a founding member of the Autism Society of Newfoundland and

Labrador. She also was a driving force in the establishment of the Elaine Dobbin

Centre for Autism and served as the president of the Autism Society for more

than a decade.

Her

contributions to our province were recognized with her induction into the

Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Hall of Fame in 2013.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Joyce Churchill on being appointed to

the Order of Canada and thank her for her contribution to our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, Team Broken Earth, under the leadership of Dr. Andrew Fury, has

offered a helping reach to many distressed parts of the globe.

I rise today to recognize Loretta Ryan of Come by Chance and Kelsie Lockyer of

Arnold's Cove who both recently joined fellow Lions on a Broken Earth mission to

Nicaragua, assisting in the eye treatment clinic which includes providing eye

exams, glasses and general information to those in need.

While in-country, this team performed 974 eye exams and provided much-needed

support to this impoverished country with autism specialists. Giving the gift of

a first pair of glasses to a child, visiting the school for the blind and

witnessing elders have their first visit of their lives with a doctor, both have

described these experiences as amazing and life changing.

Loretta has been a member of the Come By Chance Lions Club for over 21 years,

while Kelsie is a current member of the Memorial University Lions Club and was a

Leo sponsored into the organizations by none other than Loretta herself.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking both Loretta and

Kelsie for their unwavering sense of volunteerism and dedication to serving

those in their communities and the world who are most in need.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to the Chinese

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and the fantastic evening they hosted

at the CLB Armoury on February 17 to kick of the Chinese New Year celebration.

This event saw approximately 375 people in attendance to join with the Chinese

community, making it the biggest celebration to date. The night also saw the

Chinese Association of Newfoundland and Labrador founder honoured with the

Senate of Canada 150 anniversary medal.

Dr. Kim Hong founded the association in 1976 and has watched the organization

and their presence in the community grow over the past 42 years. Dr. Hong

founded the Chinese Association of Newfoundland and Labrador with a vision to

“make us better citizens of the land. By trying to achieve that, you would have

social events and functions, integrate with the larger community and thereby

become better citizens.”

The

event certainly encompassed that value as we welcomed in the Year of the Dog,

which represents loyalty and hard work, making the entire evening and the

tribute to Dr. Hong extremely fitting.

Sharing

our cultures is what makes St. John's and our province the vibrant community it

is. I'm already looking forward to next year.

Gung Hay Fat Choy King Hong Fai La.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our province's social workers during

National Social Work Month.

Every

year in March, Canada celebrates the important contributions of social workers

to society. This year's theme, Bringing Change to Life, highlights their work

and the real difference social workers make in the lives of people, families and

communities throughout the country.

Mr.

Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador social work is a regulated profession

focused on ensuring quality service to the public through the work of more than

1,500 registered social workers. They practice within hospitals, seniors' homes,

adult and youth corrections, child welfare, addictions, mental health, community

centres, government departments, universities, private practice and consulting

businesses.

The

social work profession is incredibly diverse and the important and valuable

contributions of social workers help enhance the health and well-being of

individuals, families and communities in our society every day.

Social

workers perform their work with a high level of professionalism in what are

often challenging situations. Many social workers are employed with my

department and I have had the opportunity to visit a number of offices

throughout the province. These visits have given me a greater appreciation for

the valuable work that they do and I extend my personal gratitude to all social

workers.

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage social workers to participate in the many activities taking

place throughout the month to highlight the profession and ask all hon. Members

to join me in recognizing social workers for their ongoing dedication and

support.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, our caucus joins

with the government in recognizing the important contributions which our

province's social workers make to our province's families, communities and

society as a whole. Social workers often face challenging situations as they

carry out their day-to-day duties and keep the best interests of their clients

in mind.

Not

only would I like to recognize the social workers who work in our schools,

seniors' homes, correction facilities, hospitals and government departments, but

I also wish to recognize the team at Memorial University who train and educate

our social workers to be compassionate, professional and diligent in their

duties.

During

the National Social Work Month, I encourage all members of our community to take

the chance to recognize those social workers and provide support and advice.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. As a result of cumulative budget cuts, more and more of our people

are having a harder time making ends meet or having their basic needs met,

especially seniors and those who rely on our social safety nets, like home care,

income support, housing, adult dental care, bus passes and more.

It is

our front line social workers, our brilliant problem solvers, all 1,500 of them

who are there advocating for our people. They are a veritable love army working

to ensure all people are able to thrive.

Thank

you, social workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you for your passion and

compassion.

Bravo!

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today, on the heels of

celebrating the ongoing success of the province's tourism industry, to laud the

achievements of the Newfoundland and Labrador film and television industry.

A few weeks ago, joined by the Premier and the

parliamentary secretary for Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, I had the

opportunity to visit Middle Cove Beach to tour the set of the successful

television series, Frontier .

Mr. Speaker, what an amazing backdrop for the popular

Netflix series, now filming its third season right here in our province.

The total production expenditure for three seasons of

Frontier is approximately $73

million. Of that, 62 per cent, or $40 million, was spent right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker,

Frontier is just one of the productions being undertaken in the province.

Just last week, two new programs launched on CBC:

Caught which stars Allan Hawco and is

based on the phenomenal book by local author Lisa Moore; and

Little Dog which is written by and

stars Joel Thomas Hynes and is produced by Sherry White.

I am pleased to note that the total production value of

film and television in Newfoundland and Labrador exceeded $50 million for the

first time in history in 2017-18.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

That is why our government doubled our Equity Investment Fund for Film and

Television production to $4 million in

Budget 2017 .

Mr.

Speaker, this industry is a generator of well-paid, skilled jobs and leverages

new investment from sources outside the province.

Beyond

direct employment, the local film and television industry creates economic

spinoffs through spending on construction supplies, gas, car rentals, hotels,

food and a wide variety of other goods and services necessary to make a film or

a television show.

Mr.

Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador film and television industry is

experiencing a strong period of growth and success, and we will continue to work

to ensure that we capitalize on all these opportunities.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. We join with the

government in celebrating the achievements of the Newfoundland and Labrador film

and television industry, just one branch of a very successful cultural and arts

community that we have in this province.

He's

mentioned some of the more recent productions, Mr. Speaker, that have been

successful. We know that a tremendous amount of work and investment has gone on

over the last decade or so to continue to have inputs and increases in the film

and television industry. Those investments are paying off.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a very quick second just to point out

that I was impressed to watch Sally Hawkins last night. She was on the stage of

the Oscars for her role in the award-winning

The Shape of Water .

But I

point out as well that Sally Hawkins spent time here in Newfoundland and

Labrador in the last couple of years in her role and a very powerful role in the

successful film Maudie that was shot

right here in our province. That was backed by a great production team,

including Mary Sexton and others.

I think

we should applaud them as well for their great work and achievements they've

done. They continue to put Newfoundland and Labrador on the map.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and to the minister.

As a

filmmaker, it has been wonderful to watch our industry grow. Usually our big

film projects begin with a crucial, very small grant from NL arts for someone

like Lisa Moore with a vision and the seed of a story idea. Then it builds and

builds with more and more people being brought on the team to share their

creativity and expertise. Then we see the culmination of all that brilliance and

teamwork on the screen – hallelujah!

Caught ,

Little Dog ,

Maudie and the smaller ones, too, and

the TV series, congratulations to all those who have worked so hard with such

dedication and passion. I can't wait to see what's next. Bravo to my friends who

are making magic for us all!

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, information contained in a recent RFP for an agency of record issued by

The Rooms read that it would be improper for The Rooms to enter into a contract

with a firm that's working in direct conflict with the provincial government.

So I

ask the Premier today: Premier, did your government provide any direction

whatsoever to disqualify marketing agencies from consideration if they have done

work which is viewed as being critical of government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said in response to the media on Thursday when this matter came to light that,

as minister responsible for The Rooms, I gave no direction, or had no insight.

The Rooms is an arms-length organization, as a Crown corporation. They have the

authority to operate and issue an RFP to procure the appropriate resources.

They do

not have to follow the Public Tender Act ,

nor do they have to follow the Government Purchasing Agency. They do have to

follow Treasury Board guidelines, and this is something that The Rooms itself

has undertaken.

The CEO

of The Rooms has issued a statement highlighting an example that was in the Q&As

that highlights that they used a poor example. But they have highlighted that

the process was fair, open and transparent in awarding the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe

the minister can explain how the example given can be fair and inclusive when it

actually excluded potential applicants.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had

spoken to the CEO of The Rooms and they have identified that this was an RFP

that they had issued. It was a request for proposals to procure a marketing and

communications firm to do a specific piece of work. Any marketing agency or firm

had the opportunity to make a submission. There were multiple submissions and

that it was evaluated in a fair, open and transparent process in awarding the

particular contract.

If the

Member opposite has information to state otherwise, that there was a company of

record that applied, that was rejected or whatnot, an unfair process, then he

should bring that forward.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the

RFP it's noted that an agency of record that represented a lobby group

protesting Muskrat Falls would be in a conflict of interest. There may be

companies – it could be virtually impossible for us to know if there are

companies who could have applied, so my question to the minister is: How are you

going to make sure it was an open, transparent and fair process if companies

chose not to apply or give it a second look because of this type of language in

the RFP?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly not going to get into theoreticals because there was no company that

has issued a concern with The Rooms itself in the RFP since this matter has come

to light. If there was, they certainly would have made that known throughout the

process.

When it

comes to conflict of interest, there are guidelines that are issued when it

comes to RFPs that agencies, boards and commissions would put into place. This

is not something that government directed; this is something that The Rooms has

done to procure a marketing and communications firm. They have done so in a fair

and open and transparent process. They have identified that they used a poor

example in their Q and A and that's something that The Rooms has since

apologized for. The contract has been awarded and a Newfoundland and Labrador

company, highly reputable firm, has been awarded this contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No,

they certainly haven't apologized for the process they used; they only

apologized for the example.

I ask

the Premier, the deputy minister of TCII was a hand-picked Liberal connected

appointee who's appointed as deputy minister in the department and my

understanding still sits on the board of directors for The Rooms.

I ask

the Premier: Can you confirm that the deputy minister still sits on the board of

directors?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When it

comes to the board of directors of The Rooms, there is a position for

either the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister that would have a

particular seat on the board of directors of The Rooms .

It's an 11-person board and we look forward to the appointments that will be

made for outstanding members of The Rooms

as well in the very near future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister tell us if the deputy minister and/or the

assistant deputy minister sit on the board? Is it both or just one that sits on

the board?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

A representative that would sit from my particular Department of TCII would

either be the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister. The deputy

minister has been attending board meetings of The Rooms

that sits quarterly, but the correlation of this particular RFP is within

the role and the authority of the CEO of The Rooms. They had decided that they

would go out and procure marketing and communications contract that would be

required for them to achieve their strategic vision. This is not abnormal for an

agency, board or commission to go out and procure marketing and communication

expertise. Many agencies, boards and entities have an agency of record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the deputy minister sits on the board, has been sitting

and attending the meetings of the board.

Was the deputy minister aware of this and participated in

all, in the decisions of this RFP? I'm sure the board would have approved the

RFP before it was released. Did the deputy minister participate in that process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, as I said on the onset at the beginning questions, as

minister, I don't approve or

manage the day-to-day operations of The Rooms, nor would the board. It is the

CEO and the management team that would be dealing with the day-to-day operations

of the board and the activities. They went out, through a request for proposals,

to procure marketing and communications expertise which they have done.

their Q & A that they put forward on their website, they highlight a particular

conflict of interest, that if somebody is going to go and do business on one for

an agency, board or commission and then have clients that could be in conflict,

then that composes a problem. The same way as if you were representing

government and you represent employees in negotiations.

You

can't represent both, and that's all that was being put forward. They used a

poor example, Mr. Speaker, and they apologized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

sounds like the deputy minister was aware of it. It was a very simple question.

I'm trying to understand exactly what the position is on the minister of this

because he doesn't seem to want to give a direct answer. It sounds like the

deputy minister was involved with this.

Did the

deputy minister make you aware of it, Minister, before it went out?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure

what I need to say further, but the day-to-day operations of The Rooms rests

with the CEO and his management team. He has the authority and the role to issue

a request for proposals to go out and procure an agency of record to fill their

marketing and communications needs and they've done that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on Thursday past when asked about the federal budget, the Finance

Minister said: We're still evaluating exactly what it means to this province, to

the Treasury and to business.

I ask

the minister: Have you identified what impact the federal budget and change to

retirement income and succession of small family business will have on the small

business community in our province.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say that I did hear the board of trade speak publicly and were happy with some

of the announcements in the federal budget. Again, Mr. Speaker, we are going

through a process in our department and in government with my Cabinet colleagues

of putting together our own provincial budget. We're spending a considerable

amount of time on that.

We are

focused on putting that together. Part of that is evaluating what the federal

government has announced to determine exactly what it means for our budget

process. Once that's done, I'll be very happy to share with the Member opposite

what we've determined from that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of

these amendments or initiatives were identified in the bill previous some months

ago in the House of Commons, so this should be nothing new. Some of these moved

ahead in the budget in reference. I guess that's my point.

Also,

last Thursday I asked the minister about how the decrease in corporate tax in

the US and the more favourable regulatory regime compared to Canada would impact

oil and gas development in this province.

I'll

ask the Premier: Is there a risk with a more favourable climate in the US that

foreign investment will be affected? In light of no mention in the federal

budget, can you give an update on your lobbying efforts for the best interests

of the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know

over the weekend, I've done a fair amount of reading on just trying to get an

assessment of what's been happening in the US. There's a significant amount of

analysis that would even challenge if it's actually gone from 35 to 21 per cent.

As a matter of fact, I saw an interview this weekend with Bill Morneau that

would suggest that it's actually not at 21 per cent in the US but substantially

higher.

I read

quite a bit about the tax impact and how we actually remain competitive. I know

for us, as Canadians, what we've seen is making sure that we have a workforce,

number one, that is available to actually meet the job skills of the future.

We've put in place Advance 2030, which is working with our offshore industry.

And it's not lost on anyone that it was the Fraser Institute that said

Newfoundland and Labrador is the fourth out of 97 jurisdictions to actually be

the most favourable province to invest in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tim

McMillan, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Association of Petroleum

Producers said, referring to the Trump agenda in the US: “They are beating us on

regulatory times. They are beating us on tax policy, on capital cost write-offs.

It is across the board.”

Premier, how will this impact your plan to double oil production by 2030 and

continue to attract foreign investment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

as most people in this province would know, much of the debate within the last

number of months has been around how we actually get the environmental

assessment done on a timely basis.

I find

the question from the Member opposite – because it was back really in 2010 when

we talk about CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, when even our

own agencies were taken out of the process. We have made some process on that,

so what we're looking at now is regional assessments. We think that is important

and the role for C-NLOPB.

Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to work with industry, like CAPP and others, and our

local industry players as well, to make sure the Newfoundland and Labrador is

positioned to be globally attracting the necessary investment to our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In June

of 2017, the Conference Board of Canada gave the province a D grade in our

ability to attract foreign direct investment.

So I

ask the Premier again: How does this limit business growth and affect your

proposal and, as well, affect possible impact on new mining development in

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even

just last week, we saw many people involved in the mining industry actually look

to Newfoundland and Labrador as a place that's really open for business and

attracting investment, Mr. Speaker. Even late last week, I met with executives

from people who are looking at coming to Newfoundland and Labrador and setting

up business.

Mr.

Speaker, we've put a lot of time in making sure that the investment climate for

Newfoundland and Labrador is favourable and people are reaching out, just like

we saw last week. The mining industry is one example of where people are looking

at our province – as commodity prices change and increase – as a favourable

place to invest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Canada is the number one producer of steel into the US, with

significant exports of iron ore out of Labrador and, as we heard recently, a

possible report of 25 per cent tariffs on export to the US. This could be

detrimental, certainly, to iron ore production, certainly in Labrador.

I ask

the Premier: What advocacy have you had with the federal government to protect

such an industry, and what accommodations are being considered?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, not just for iron ore but everyone in this province, everyone in

this country, as a matter of fact when you go around the world, a concern about

what's happening in the US, how they are actually not just literally building a

wall, they're actually putting barriers in place for people to invest.

It is

the number one trading partner with Canada, Mr. Speaker. It's a relationship

that has been fostered over generations. It's important, not just to

Newfoundland and Labrador but to every single province in this country.

This

tariff of 25 per cent, Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see that. Yes, it could have

a negative impact, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, based on the conversations

that I have, that Canada and all provinces are prepared to put in retaliatory

measures, if required, to make sure that trade relationship stay strong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, since 1994 NAFTA has created one of the world's largest free-trade

zones. Our province exports $5 billion worth of products each year to the United

States. We know NAFTA is now uncertain. With no reference in the recent federal

budget, I ask the Premier what contingency plan is in place for our province's

industry if NAFTA does indeed fail.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, one thing that

we are always doing, the Premier and all of our ministers, we're looking at

attracting investments through The Way

Forward and our plans. We're looking to diversify our economy. This is why

we've been doing trade missions in the UK and the Netherlands, where they are

our number three and number four trading partners. Canada, in the federal

budget, is beefing up investment into China as well. We did $800 million, as a

province, in 2016 in export. That's quite significant and substantial.

There

are lots of opportunities of which we can diversify our investments, but we're

also working very collaboratively with the federal minister and our Canadian

counterparts when it comes to trade opportunities in the US. But we're an open

marketplace here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've always been reaching out to

new markets. Whether they be in the Caribbean, Guyana, Brazil, China, Asia or

Europe, we are open for business and looking forward to expanding.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) federal government efforts to (inaudible) there's a very real

possibility that the supply management system governing poultry, dairy and eggs

may be altered or even abolished. Being the highest cost of production

jurisdiction in the country, are there any changes to our supply management

system that could cause the immediate collapse to our egg, chicken and dairy

industries here in this province?

Minister: How do you plan to protect these industries, our food supply and the

supply managed sector's contribution to our economy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, for an excellent question.

I think

that's a very important subject that needs to be addressed by not only this

jurisdiction but provinces and territories right across the entire country. We

are indeed working with the federal government as a leader in the trade

discussions, but, as well, our own minister here in Newfoundland and Labrador is

taking a very active role.

I can

say, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the opportunity myself to speak with key

federal ministers, as have other ministers and MHAs from this side of the House,

and I would encourage as well my hon. critic to work with us in supporting our

supply managed agricultural system.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge

the invitation and openly accept. But in light of that, in efforts to avoid

farmers and residents of this province falling victim to what we say in our

industry, closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped, has a plan been

pre-emptively developed in consultation with farmers, food security and interest

groups?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Of course, we're always

interested in expanding our export markets, including Europe and other

jurisdictions outside of the United States.

The

hon. Member will probably note that from a trade perspective there have issues

surrounding our supply managed system that predate this particular

administration, whether it be with the Trans-Pacific Partnership or other trade

discussions that have affected and continue to be a potential threat to our

supply managed system.

So,

obviously, I'd look to certain leadership from the former government as to what

exactly it did in terms of its contingencies. I don't believe there were any at

that point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

If we do come up with a plan

to assist in the transition, heaven forbid, when supply managed does collapse,

will this plan include funding to directly assist the cost of production so as

to ensure our producers' financial viability and their ability to continue to

provide a top-quality consistent supply of milk, eggs and chicken to the people

of this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, regrettably the

hon. Member plans for failure. He's asking a hypothetical question which assumes

failure. I could understand where the hon. Member would come from that because,

of course, every initiative they have tried with the federal government in the

past has met with failure, but we are working co-operatively, collaboratively

with our federal government who is the lead on trade issues.

We are

supporting the federal government to protect supply management, and, yes, Mr.

Speaker, we will be very, very active in protecting and ensuring a stronger

foundation for supply management here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we'll go

beyond that to look for additional export markets from other jurisdictions

outside of the US.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not

counting on failure, but as part of the farming industry and a business person

there always has to be a contingency plan that you have to be prepared for the

worst.

So, no,

I don't aspire failure but I do aspire to be prepared. How are you prepared,

Sir?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I work very

closely with the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, and one thing that we

do in terms of industry and looking at bolstering up our agriculture and working

with farms and working with all of those in the supply chain is we look at

improving productivity, competitiveness, whether it's technology and other

opportunities and looking at new markets as well. These are opportunities that

we work very collaboratively with to find ways to make sure that our businesses

are as competitive as they can be, whether it's using new research and

development, innovative processes, lean manufacturing and opportunities, and

we're seeing that. We're seeing a real transition when it comes to how farming

is done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, medical research company Sequence Bio has been waiting more than three

months for approval from the Health Research Ethics Authority for approval for

their medical research Genome project. The delay may result in Sequence Bio

conducting research in other provinces.

I ask

the minister: What is the typical amount of time it takes to get approval?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thanks very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

approval comes through the Health Research Ethics board which is an independent

arm's-length body which was set up under previous legislation. They undertake to

begin consideration of applications within 30 days. As to the timing of a

decision, that kind of depends on the nature of the ethical questions and the

research in question.

understanding also is the Heath Research Ethics Authority are actually looking

at ways of altering their processes to improve these times, but currently this

is quite a complicated process and involves a lot of academic and research

input.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I ask the minister: Are you

concerned that this may drive industry and research out of Newfoundland and

Labrador because of the slowness for the authority to make improvements?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, it is sometimes challenging for a health agency and government to

work at the speed business would like. The Health Research Ethics Board was put

in place under legislation to protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from

questionable practices that may have occurred in the past.

I think

it's a balance that needs to be struck and at the end of the day I, as minister,

should not be involved in discussions around ethics. I would say that the

important thing is that the ethical and health interests of the people of this

province be preserved at all costs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sequence Bio has said that the legislation, the

Health Research Ethics Authority Act ,

is not consistently followed by the regulator.

I ask

the minister: Have you looked into this claim? What actions have you taken to

find a solution?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I have

had two interactions with Sequence Bio; one at the beginning of February 2016.

The second was an email I received last week asking for a meeting between myself

and the chair of the board of Sequence Bio. Doubtless, this will be a topic he

would wish to discuss at that point and I look forward to that conversation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception

Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

sounds all too familiar. Just a short time ago, we discovered that the new green

biofuels project for Botwood was lost due to what could only be described as

government departments' administrative chaos. Here we are again on the verge of

losing yet another project.

Will

the minister commit to immediately resolving this unreasonable delay faced by

Sequence Bio, ensuring another company doesn't close up shop and leave this

province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

Order,

please!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to rise to this question because that question itself is just completely

unfair. It doesn't reflect the amount of work that officials within government

and these ministers and MHAs put into this file, Mr. Speaker. What the Member

opposite doesn't know is that it was actually the company themselves that

voluntarily withdrew their application.

actually claim that this is as a result of this government is completely unfair.

I would suggest that the Member opposite would be aware of that. This is the

same person that said this week in a media outlet not working with businesses in

Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the very minister that just a few months ago

was over in a video in Romania launching ferries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island for a quick question, please.

MR. BRAZIL:

I just have to clarify his

statement there. This was years ago to supply a service for the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER:

Quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

So I want to clarify your timelines there.

But I

do ask – it's continuously that we're losing businesses here because of the

administrative chaos on that side of the House and their inability to govern –

will you come up with a strategy that ensures companies that want to stay in

Newfoundland and Labrador to do research, create jobs, have an ability to do

that? I ask that to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

I will outline three plans, Mr. Speaker. Since September of last year, it's

called the agriculture sector, it's called the technology sector – we're been

working with Aerospace – and it's called the aquaculture sector where it is

driving investment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This

government is open for business, Mr. Speaker, and we will do whatever we can to

clean up the mess. They talked about contingencies a few minutes ago. Where were

the contingencies for Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker? It is clearly on the backs of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party, please.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Staff

and parents of Bishop Feild School learned in a February 26 letter from the

public receipt of the engineer's structural assessment of the Bond Street Bishop

Feild building and recommendations regarding necessary repairs. They are

concerned that this delay may mean that necessary repair funds may not be

allocated in the upcoming provincial budget, which is only weeks away.

I ask

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development: Can he assure the

Bishop Feild community that this delay will not affect allocation in the

upcoming budget for anticipated repairs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I'll leave it to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board to make announcements regarding the upcoming budget for 2018.

October, a portion of the ceiling in the gymnasium at Bishop Feild school

collapsed and, thankfully, no one was injured when that happened. Safety is

paramount to the provision of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. Since that

time, the Department of Transportation and Works has contracted with a company

to go in and have a structural examination done of the facility to ensure that

it's safe for children and staff to return to.

Until

such time that we determine that the structure is safe for children, students

and staff to return to, they will remain at the former School for the Deaf,

which is an excellent, world-class facility.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) I would say on

the other side of the city, Mr. Speaker, from where these students live.

I ask

the minister: Will he assure the Bishop Feild school council that he'll work

with the Minister of Finance to ensure that the school district will have

adequate funds to do the necessary repairs to the Bishop Feild building?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question, but the first thing we need to do here before

we can talk about budget considerations is find out what it is we're budgeting

for. So we're in doing an assessment right now. The assessment did become a

little bit delayed due to the fact we ran into some environmental concerns

around lead paint. So it's taking a little bit longer than planned.

Until

we actually have the assessment completed and we know that children can safely

go back in that school and what's going to be needed, at that time we will take

the necessary conversations with the Department of Education, the school

district and all those involved to make sure for a safe return to that building,

Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of AESL just released today names of nine people appointed to

Memorial's Board of Regents and the College of North Atlantic's Board of

Governors, of the nine only two are women.

As we

move into International Women's Week, can the minister justify why only two of

nine positions are appointed to women?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

When we

look at appointments to boards, we can't isolate one board in particular.

There's been a very balanced approach to the boards that we've announced through

this government.

fact, Mr. Speaker, let me point out, not only within our boards but within core

government. We have judges, 50 per cent of them are women; our executive, 57.1

per cent are women. That includes deputy ministers, ADMs and other executives.

We look at professionals within government, 60.6 per cent of them are women.

Mr.

Speaker, we take gender equity very seriously on this side of the House. You

can't isolate one board in particular when you look at the appointments to

various boards throughout the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre for a quick question, please.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, last year we

debated the IAC act and myself and my colleague for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi

debated the need to have gender and diversity embedded as values in our IAC act

to reflect the diversity of our population.

I ask

the Premier: Will he bring the act to the House again for amendments to ensure

that legislation will ensure that population is represented in appointments to

our agencies, boards and commissions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

I want to point directly to this specific board, Mr. Speaker.

MS. ROGERS:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

I'd ask the Member, if she's

serious about getting an answer to this to allow me to answer it without

heckling.

Mr.

Speaker, this specific board, as it now stands, has equal representation. It's

50-50. So even with the change it just made to this board, Mr. Speaker, there is

gender equity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port, the following private Member's resolution:

WHEREAS gender-based violence remains a reality for many women and girls in

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS Indigenous women across the country experience a rate of violence three

times higher than non-Indigenous women and are murdered at a rate of six times

higher; and

WHEREAS the Moose Hide Campaign is a grassroots movement from indigenous and

nonindigenous men taking a stand against violence against women and children

across Canada; and

WHEREAS the Moose Hide Campaign helps promote the wearing of a small piece of

moose hide signifying the wearer's commitment to honour, respect and protect the

women and children in their lives, and to work collaboratively with other men to

end gender-based violence; and

WHEREAS the Moose Hide Campaign movement has spread to over 350 communities

across Canada and distributed over one million moose hide pins;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that his hon. House encourages all Members of the House

of Assembly to support the Moose Hide Campaign and work towards ending violence

against all women and children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move that this House resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for granting of Interim Supply

to Her Majesty, Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's resolution entered by the

Member for Torngat Mountains shall be the one that is debated this Wednesday.

Further, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), I move that the House do not adjourn

on Tuesday, March 6, at 5:30 p.m.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the 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 Route 60 is the main highway that runs through the Town of Conception

Bay South and is a vital artery in the provincial road network; and

WHEREAS Route 60 is one of the most heavily travelled roads in the province and

where Route 60 has been deteriorating and requires major upgrades;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to allocate funds to upgrade Route 60.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I, once again, present this petition. It's one that I've presented many

of and I'll continue to do so. Route 60 has become my rallying cry to the

minister and his officials in the department. Constituents that make it a daily,

sometimes an hourly occurrence, Mr. Speaker, are contacting me about the

condition of Route 60.

I'd

like to be on record so people in this House can understand I have been

contacted – since Saturday evening until last night 20 tires were blown, rims

and tires, and the number is counting. It's going up. I can show you

documentation.

I've

spoken to the minister, I've emailed the minister and I've emailed his

spoken to the local media about it. I've spoken on

Open Line about it. I've spoken in

the House of Assembly about it. Mr. Speaker, I'm getting to the point now I'm

getting tired of speaking about an issue.

There

are 20,000 vehicles a day. It's not 20 – 20,000. The people in CBS – it's the

second largest municipality in this province – deserve better treatment. I give

the minister credit. I speak to him and he's very receptive to my conversation.

I get that and I respect that, but actions have to match the words, Mr. Speaker.

I feel

very tired that it's falling on deaf ears. I'm constantly out saying it. I don't

mind getting answers; I want action, Mr. Speaker. Friday I was told the potholes

are going to be fixed. I'm telling you there's a crater in Foxtrap. It's not a

pothole; it's a crater. I'm not exaggerating. I challenge any Member opposite to

go and drive it. It's disgraceful.

It's

absolutely disgrace for a community, for a road that's so busy travelling. The

people in that area pay their taxes and they deserve better, Mr. Speaker. Forget

about me being a Tory MHA, the people in CBS deserve better. They elected me,

but this government represents the people of this province, including CBS and I

call upon them to take action and take action now.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works for a response, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. I'd like to remind the hon. Member these road

conditions didn't happen in the last 24 months. Mr. Speaker, I reference a

letter from April 14, 2015. The text of the letter is: Potholes are not as

simple as you would think. This letter was actually written by the former

minister, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island. His EA of the day

was the current Member for CBS.

They go

on in this letter to explain that fixing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, they go on to

explain in this letter that pothole issues are something that we do encounter

typically from March to May.

Mr.

Speaker, I do agree with the Member that there are issues on Route 60. We have

crews on Route 60 today addressing these issues. We'll have the hot asphalt

recycler on Route 60 tomorrow addressing these issues.

I look

forward to meeting with the Town of CBS tomorrow to have a discussion on Route

60, Mr. Speaker. Government has invested tens of millions of dollars –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROCKER:

The government has invested

tens of millions of dollars in Route 2, a bypass road for that heavily travelled

area. And our primary concern is Route 2; that's where we've invested our money.

I look

forward to a conversation tomorrow with the Member and with the Town of CBS on

the future of Route 60 that goes through, like he just said, the largest town in

the province. I look forward to a conversation tomorrow with the Town of CBS on

the future of Route 60.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

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 residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland

and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education

because of the lack of appropriate full-time resources; and

WHEREAS

from 1964 to 2010, deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a

full-time, quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but deaf

and hard of hearing children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only

a fraction of a school day with a teacher qualified to instruct deaf and hard of

hearing children;

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

of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate, complete and thorough

assessment of the supports in place for deaf and hard of hearing children by a

committee of at least two independent and recognized experts in the field of

deaf and hard of hearing education and to accept the recommendations of these

experts and, in the interim, take measures to honour the support commitments

made to all current and future students upon closure of the School for the Deaf

in 2010 to ensure that all deaf and hard of hearing children are provided with

access to a quality education equivalent to hearing classmates, as well as

access to sign language.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is an ongoing issue. I've stood a number of times in this House

with this petition, signed by many people from around the province. And once

again today it's mainly people from the St. John's area, but also from

Carbonear, Musgravetown and Lethbridge.

The

evidence is out there, as is mentioned in this petition, that the children in

the public education system who are deaf and hard of hearing are not getting

what they had in the School for the Deaf. The call that's here for a study to be

done by independent and recognized experts is something that this government

really needs to pay attention to. The deaf and hard of hearing children were

ignored really by the task force on education. No reference was made – well, one

sentence. One sentence, not even a full sentence on deaf and hard of hearing

children was in their report, though they did have representation made to them.

Government has a responsibility to listen to what's being called for in this.

These children are not getting what was promised when the School for the Deaf

closed, as the petition points out. They aren't getting the same services.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my

district related to Route 13, the Witless Bay Line. It is certainly a

significant piece of infrastructure. It connects Route 10, the Southern Shore to

the Trans-Canada Highway.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly upgrade and perform immediate

maintenance to this significant piece of infrastructure to ensure safety of

drivers and improve the flow of traffic to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.

As I

said, this piece of infrastructure is significant for the region, for commerce,

for people who work on both sides of the highway and the region commuting back

and forth, certainly the tourism industry. We have a vibrant tourism industry on

the Southern Shore right along the Irish Loup, and it certainly leads to a large

amount of traffic each year from one region to the other.

I have

had discussions over the past number of weeks with the minister in regard to

getting some immediate repairs done. He has committed that indeed that is to

take place. We are certainly appreciative of that and have asked him to do some

initial assessment on doing some preparatory work on that piece of

infrastructure in the upcoming construction season.

Over

the past couple of years we have, on two occasions, done two significant pieces

of infrastructure upgrades to the highway and certainly calling on the minister

– and I do recognize he has done an assessment and he's looking at what

possibilities would be for the upcoming season, as well in doing some immediate

maintenance repair with potholes and that sort as well.

So I

recognize that and look forward to seeing some results in the very near future

on the immediate concerns and something, as we move into summer construction

season, recognizing that not all of it needs to get done but certainly the worst

parts, and work with the minister and the department to see if we can get some

of that accomplished as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

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

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

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

reproduction; and

WHEREAS

infertility affects men and women 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, I had the privilege this week of meeting with a couple, who after two

attempts to have a child and hundreds, and I mean hundreds and hundreds of

people very expressively supportive and happy for this couple who wanted to

start a family, in the later stages of their age that you would think as

parents, but have been trying for a number of years. They have gone out of their

way to mortgage their home to be able to do this, to travel out of the province

to do the multiple attempts to have this done.

speaks highly of people who are very diligently committed to starting a family

and being a part of our bigger picture here. Keeping Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians in Newfoundland and Labrador and as part of our population growth,

ensuring that the next generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are from

here are here and have access to that.

It's a

whole big picture here. We are open to immigration, it's very important to us,

but we should be also open to supporting our local people who may have some

restrictions due to, in this case, a medical ailment to be able to do it; and

because, as I noted earlier, it's cost prohibitive, because it's not offered

here, because of the cost, particularly around the travel and the attempts. In a

lot of cases it doesn't take the first time; it doesn't work out. The in vitro

fertilization doesn't work and it's always a second, and in some cases three

times.

The

number of people – it's amazing, in a good sense, of how many calls I've gotten.

The notes you can see on this particular Facebook of this couple about those

other people who are trying and who, while it's cost restrictive, go out of

their way to do it. There are other people who do note that if they had the

ability – after the first time they had no financial ability to be able to try a

second time.

So I

think we have a responsibility because it's a medical situation here. It's a

medical aliment that should be addressed. We've done yeoman service over the

last number of years of adding other types of treatment and other types of

support to ensure that people have a quality of life. Well, this is a quality of

life in many ways because it adds to our Population Growth Strategy. It adds to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians being able to start families here and it adds

to families being broader in their community.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this again. I do encourage

government to take a serious look at supporting, in some way, shape or manner,

financial supports for families in these situations.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2,

third reading of Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 32,

An Act

Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information, be now

read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded

that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting

The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For Health Information. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador Centre For

Health Information,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on

the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, that Bill

34,

An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded

that Bill 34 entitled,

An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a second

time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.” (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

always a pleasure to stand here in this House and speak to legislation.

Particularly, in this case, I'm very happy to speak to this particular amendment

to the Legal Aid Act .

I'll

apologize to my colleagues across the way. I'll certainly try my best to be as

coherent and as streamlined as possible in explaining what we're doing here, but

I think people will get the gist of where I'm going with this particular

amendment.

Basically, we're here today to discuss Legal Aid. It's something we're all

familiar with in this province. It's something I'm especially familiar with,

especially from my practising days where I handled many files on the other side

of, individuals from Legal Aid, especially on the family side, just seeing the

work they did on the criminal side and other matters.

One of

the things anybody who's ever dealt – especially in practice – with Legal Aid

would tell you is that Legal Aid lawyers are some of the hardest working, most

conscientious lawyers that you ever see. The work they have to do, the hours

they have to keep – I'm just looking at the lawyers I used to deal with back

when I practised. They would, in many cases, have long drives over the highway

all times of year. You'd see them come into court with bankers boxes full of

files. You'd see them handle Duty Counsel where people would show up and present

their matters to them and they had to provide advice.

They

are excellent lawyers and, in many cases, they go above and beyond the call of

duty to do their work. It's something I've said since the time I started

practising and I maintain that now. Legal Aid lawyers across this province

handle a wide number of matters.

While

we're doing it, I'd also like to throw a shout-out. It's not just Legal Aid, but

we're also lucky to have an executive for Legal Aid who handles this. This is an

extremely busy group. What they do – again, I don't say there's an MHA in this

House that hasn't had a constituent contact them to discuss Legal Aid. I don't

think there's an MHA who hasn't been contacted to say, can we look into this

matter or deal with this.

Certainly, I deal with them on quite a frequent basis. I've contacted them and I

know my constituency assistant herself has said the interactions she's had with

Legal Aid have been tremendous. The fact that when you contact them they get

back to you especially quickly, and I'd like to echo that. The work they do for

their clients and our constituents is beyond reproach, and I thank them for what

they do.

Many

times when you're dealing with these people – I just had an individual last week

on a family matter. These people are often going through the most stress they've

ever been through, if they're going through a marital breakdown, dealing with

custody and access as it relates to their kids, or if they've been charged with

an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. It's extremely, extremely trying.

We also

have a Board of Legal Aid, of individuals who have taken it upon themselves to

contribute back to their province and to provide us that overseeing mechanism.

So we're very lucky in this province to have a very good organization with a

great board. The men and women that are doing the work out there on the ground

are doing a fantastic job. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

there's one issue with Legal Aid, and I'm going to echo the comments made by our

– well, if she's not retired she's in the process of retiring. I know she's out

doing speaking engagements now, but that's our Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin,

who actually did a speech back here not that long ago. A tremendous, tremendous

individual.

She

mentioned in her speech there that Legal Aid was under resourced. That's

something that, you know what, I'm going to echo. The fact is Legal Aid in this

province and across our country doesn't have the resources it needs. In many

cases I get contacted by individuals who are at that threshold. Again, when you

look at the caseload these lawyers carry, it's absolutely – in some cases it's

beyond belief how many files they can juggle and handle and you throw in the

other constraints that come with it.

Just on

Friday, I was in Corner Brook and I visited the Legal Aid office in Corner

Brook. Not only do I speak to the lawyers there but I also like to speak to the

staff, especially the intake personnel, because these are people who are

handling very sensitive matters, very tough matters and making that decision on

whether Legal Aid can be provided or not provided.

Legal

Aid dealt with this I'd say since their existence, and it's something we've

dealt with as well. It's something that when I look at the justice system I'd

like to think we could use more on all facets, but there's an argument that can

be made that that's the same for education, that's the same for health. Again,

as it relates to the justice system, it's something that I'm so involved in, and

have been since I got out of school, I'd like to think that it does apply, and

we continually do our best. We've worked with the feds to see increased funding

there.

The

amendment that we're bringing forward today is something that will help

alleviate that concern, but this is not just an amendment that's being brought

forward for financial reasons. This is an amendment that is being brought

forward for bigger reasons than that.

What I

want to do is begin by just looking at the bill itself. As I'm prone to doing

whenever I stand in the House, I look at the bill and I say whether it's – this

one is fairly thin. There are only just a couple of sections there. Just to read

it out for the record: Subsections 31(3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) of the

Legal Aid Act are repealed. Then it

says: Nothing in this act affects a certificate that was issued by the

commission to an applicant for professional services and is completed and signed

by the solicitor in private practice and returned to the commission.

So,

what is it that we are debating here today? Well, what I'd like to do is go back

to 2008; 2008 is when the sections that are being repealed here were originally

brought in by the previous administration. What we saw basically in 2008 was a

change, in many ways, to the in-house counsel model that is currently provided

by our Legal Aid Commission.

2008, what was changed was there was the addition of the choice of counsel. That

was proposed and brought in, in 2008, here in this House of Assembly. I have

taken the time to review the Hansard

from that time and read the debate on both sides.

It's

funny because you can sit here years later and I can say well, we would do this,

we would do that, but I can understand some of the logic provided at that time

made sense, for reasons that were provided. But I'd like to think that with 10

years since that, we've discovered that the move was not, in fact, positive

overall and that it has had effects that maybe were not contemplated when this

amendment was originally brought in.

couple of things – so what was added was a choice of counsel where a person that

was charged with certain offences, murder, manslaughter or infanticide, was

basically entitled to select their own private counsel, outside of Legal Aid,

but still funded by taxpayers, still funded by Legal Aid.

Legal

Aid, you would go there and basically they pay the bill, very little control

over what the bill is, and it became statutory. It's by law. This clause was put

in saying anybody charged with those three offences was guaranteed their choice

of counsel.

There

were a number of different arguments made for it at that time. One was, I think,

that they thought it might speed up matters going through the courts. One part –

I wouldn't have agreed with it then and I certainly don't agree with it now –

was that by doing so, it might improve the perception of Legal Aid.

What I

can say here, Mr. Speaker – I've read the

Hansards – is that this clause – take away the money, take away any other

concerns, any other issues – to me, has done significant damage to both the

morale and the reputation of Legal Aid. The fact that people are coming in

without having met a Legal Aid lawyer, spoken to a Legal Aid Lawyer, and just

saying they want their choice of counsel and the law gave it to them. What it

did, it contributed to the perception that Legal Aid lawyers were not as good as

the private counsel.

This is

not a shot, in any way, at private counsel – not at all. What this is doing,

we're taking this out for a number of reasons but one of them is Legal Aid are

excellent lawyers. People who qualify for legal aid under any of these charges

are still going to get an excellent lawyer funded by the state; that is not

being taken away from them. What's being eliminated is their statutory right to

choice of counsel.

There

are a couple of things I'll throw in there for people to understand and to

contemplate as they look through this. One of the things that we've noticed is

that this provision is not found in any other province, except Quebec. If it was

there before, it was eliminated. In fact, some provinces referenced our province

in a report that was done, that I'm going to refer to now shortly, the Roil

report from 2013.

There

is no statutory right to choice of counsel anywhere else. I think Quebec has a

sort of a mix there. Some might question: Is there some kind of constitutional

right here? My answer is an unequivocal no. No, there is not. This is not an

issue anywhere else.

I want

to go back to that report that was done. Back in 2013, I would note that it was

a particularly tough year on justice as it related to the budget. Anybody that

was involved in the field will recall that. There were a number of, again, sort

of familiar, trying financial times, a lot of decisions made and there was

certainly a lot of backlash within the justice and within the legal community.

One of

the groups that was affected – and there were a number – was Legal Aid. The

province, on June 13, the government of the day commissioned an outside counsel,

external review, by John Roil to come in and look at legal aid. The report was

quite, quite comprehensive with a number of suggestions, recommendations, a

number of thoughts, and I would note that again it was this report that PEI

looked to when they repealed and replaced their choice of counsel provision.

Choice

of counsel is specifically referenced by Mr. Roil in this report. Right here it

says: “The current legislative regime calls for a legal aid client to be

entitled to choice of counsel only the case of charges for murder, manslaughter

or infanticide.” And there's one part that I want to refer to here, because he

actually uses the word here. It just hit me when I was reading through. What

this change may have done in 2008 was may have unwittingly – that was the word,

quote from Mr. Roil – led to that negative perception that exists of Legal Aid

lawyers. It was perpetuated by the change, in many ways, that government made in

government back in 2013 got the report, external report, and that report came

back and said we recommend that you get rid of choice of counsel. So I've read

the Roil Report, I've gone through it, and that's something that we took to

heart when we reviewed this as well.

The

other thing that I would note here is we have to look at – one of the big

issues, obviously, like anything that a government does, is that we have to be

responsible with the money that we spend, the money that we allocate, because

everything we have through our Treasury is taxpayers' dollars. One of the things

about this choice of counsel is that in many ways the cost is uncontrollable.

Legal Aid has no control, we have no control and it depends on the number of

cases coming in.

So we

look at what's been spent over the last eight, nine years, and it actually adds

up to, under choice of counsel for these charges, $1.338 million, which is a lot

of money. It's not ridiculously huge, but it's a lot of money. Now, just so

people know, Legal Aid often and will continue to still refer matters to outside

counsel for any number of matters. It could be conflict of interest. In fact, in

some cases, if they feel that it falls outside there area of expertise, they

have that ability to refer out. They've done that in the past; they'll continue

to do that. Depending on where the matter's heard, depending on the roster of

lawyers, there are a whole number of things. They control that; they make that

choice.

So what

I would like to point out, though, I just gave that number. Right now, on the

books for the current choice of counsel, individuals that we have the

certificates out for, we're currently on the hook for $1.395 million. So right

now, at this exact moment, we're on the hook for more than was spent in the last

eight years on it. That's a tremendous, tremendous amount of money.

Like I

said, we cannot control that. Anybody looking at the court docket or watching

the news will note that we've had, unfortunately, a number of high-profile,

serious cases of murder and manslaughter, which nobody likes to see. There is no

statistical basis or analysis for this as of yet. This is something I've

discussed on many occasions with our director of public prosecutions. I've

discussed it with our police; but, the fact remains, these people need counsel.

They do need a lawyer. We would never want to see anybody not have the right to

counsel, especially in a serious charge.

What we

are suggesting here is that automatic right to a choice of counsel is not

something that should be automatic. It shouldn't be in the statute. It should

not exist. We will guarantee you the right to counsel, but it's not going to be

who you choose. You will get a very fine lawyer, in many cases, from the Legal

Aid Commission which is still paid for by all the taxpayers. That's what we're

doing here.

anybody says: Why would you do this? Every other province in Canada seems to

have moved down this route. I don't know why we went there in 2008. All I can

say is while we're here, while we're making decisions, this is one we're making

in the best interest of not just taxpayers, but even within the court system.

I'd like to think that in many cases people will tell you that the choice of

counsel provision – because we also had, from an inquiry we had, the Lamer

report, we also have usually two counsels.

You'll

see in most cases now, it's two Crowns, two defence counsel. In many cases this

can lead also to delays in court. It's our belief that by repealing this and by

eliminating this we are not going to do anything to jeopardize wait-lists in the

courts. This is not going to have any sort of Jordan effect. We're still going

to do everything we can to ensure that Legal Aid has the resources to continue

to provide the tremendous legal support and legal advice they have been and will

continue to do. We're going to make sure that continues.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll just take a minute now. I'm going to go through – I've gone on now

for about almost 20 minutes and I want to go through my notes to make sure I

cover off some of the other points.

It was

only through research I found out the part that we're moving in line with the

other provinces. This was something I was very happy and very anxious to make

happen for a long time now. This is something I wanted to do for some time. The

fact that other provinces have already gone there only strengthens the position

that we felt.

We have

a staff solicitor model here in the province. This is just going back to more of

a backdrop of Legal Aid and how they operate. We have a director who appoints

in-house counsel based on resources, counsel experience, expertise on the

charge, the geography, the location, you name it. Where circumstances warrant,

they can go outside and still get outside counsel for any number of matters.

It's happened every year. It will continue to happen. That's the nature of it.

We had

the amendment in 2008 which gave individuals who qualified for Legal Aid who are

charged with murder, manslaughter and infanticide the power to select private

counsel and have the commission pay. We have a report by Mr. Roil QC in 2013 who

recommended – and this is his words – consideration be given to curtailing

entirely the choice of counsel provision saying the provision was problematic as

it perpetuated the inaccurate negative perceptions of Legal Aid solicitors.

Again,

I say, Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity to work with them, to work against

them, and clients and constituents have come in and had them. I say in every

case, you're lucky to have that legal experience on your side. You're extremely

lucky to have that. The fact it's paid for by the state, I think we're very

lucky to have that. I wish we could do more. I wish we could do more but that's

the situation we live in.

I know

after I'm done speaking, I'm sure Legal Aid, if they are listening, will say: We

agree, we need more, too, can we work on that? We will do that. We have to. I

think we've had a great relationship doing that and advocating to the feds to

pay their fair share. The feds have to continue to do their part.

I would

also note to people that if they haven't ever done it, the Roil report gives a

great history and background of Legal Aid, how it came about in the province,

how it was originally created by the Law Society. Then we have the

Legal Aid Act of 1975 and then the

creation of the commission. It's interesting to see the rates that lawyers got

then and the rates they get now.

What

else do I have here, Mr. Speaker? In a time like this, where it's no secret of

the fiscal situation and capacity of this province, we cannot continue to have

situations that are out of our control and that are not an efficient use of the

money we have. I say this here in the House and I would say it anywhere: In no

way is anybody's right or rights affected negatively in any single way, shape or

form.

We want

to look at the money. We have staff solicitors at Legal Aid with decades of

experience. They're charging – in many cases, the rate works out to $85 an hour;

whereas if they go outside, you might not get a lawyer with that experience

charging $135 an hour. Again, this is on the taxpayers' dime.

What we

did is we looked out – and this was quoted in the

Hansard from 2008. The minister at

the time, he estimated about 300 hours was what was required for one of these

types of trials. He would know. He was an excellent lawyer then, he's an

excellent lawyer now and he's done plenty of these trials. Certainly, he would

have the background to be able to discuss that.

Under

our Legal Aid Act, both, not one,

both private solicitors representing a Legal Aid client qualify for up to 200

hours each of prep time plus any additional hours spent attending court. In

complex cases, which many of these murders are, the hourly maximum can be

increased at the discretion of the commission's provincial director. The

commission tells us, and they're experienced, the cost of providing private

counsel to a person facing a murder charge is upwards of 50 per cent higher for

private than a staff solicitor. It's not sustainable. Mr. Speaker, it is not

sustainable. It's straining the resources of Legal Aid.

What I

would say is it is also having a negative effect. These lawyers often handle not

just the criminal side but the family side. The work of the family law, the

lawyers that are doing – whether it's over in the UFC. The support they provide

to other groups and agencies is affected negatively by the money that's going

out that can be controlled going to these types of cases, I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker.

Since

2008, government had to come up with the extra $400,000 a year to the

commission's operating grant to offset the costs, but it's not being sustained.

It can't be met, even providing that and continuing to provide that. Legal Aid

now with this will be able to take what they have and create a serious crime

unit to deal with these cases. Again, we still have that money that's going out

to these solicitors. It's just over and above that. Right now on the hook,

almost $1.5 million.

closing, and I think I've spoken to this, but I look forward to the commentary

from my colleagues across the way. This amendment will not impact the quality of

legal representation provided to the accused and appointed by the director.

The

other thing I would note, and this is important, anybody currently on a

certificate will not be affected. This is not meant to affect people that are

currently on a certificate with outside counsel. Somebody that's on a

certificate now for one of these charges who has private counsel retained will

not lose that private counsel. We will not interrupt the solicitor-client

relationship because of this. This is for ongoing.

This

will not impact Legal Aid's ability to appoint external counsel in appropriate

circumstances, and this will – and this is very important as well, and I know

the Minister of Finance is encouraged by this – reduce an unpredictable and

significant expense, which allows the commission to better manage their

resources and their demand. They do tremendous work with the resources they

have; this will give them better control and allow them to do an even better job

than they are already doing.

As the

minister I can tell you, I have the utmost faith in the staff at Legal Aid and

the solicitors at Legal Aid. I'm encouraged by the work that they are doing,

especially in the last few years. Just having been here and having had a chance

to even go over and visit, to see the headquarters and talk to them is

absolutely tremendous.

closing – and I look forward to speaking again after and answering questions

when we get to the Committee stage – what I would suggest is that, as a

government, we're very committed to providing a fair and equitable justice

system, one that has justice for all, and we feel that this amendment to the

Legal Aid Act that we are proposing

will do that, will not affect that negatively in any way and will only enhance

what we are trying to do as a government, which is providing more justice to all

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for his introductory comments and the entrance of debate on Bill

34, which is a bill to amend the Legal

Aid Act . As laid out by the minister, the bill pertains to a removal of

subsection 31(3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) currently contained in the act, which is a

provision which allows for an applicant for legal aid, who is charged with

murder, manslaughter or infanticide, to select a solicitor in private practice.

Under these sections, a person who is charged with one of these very serious

crimes, murder, manslaughter or infanticide, can select a private practice

lawyer outside of Legal Aid itself. There is tariff system put in place for

charges, and I think the highest level right now is $135 an hour that can be

charged under that particular tariff.

Mr.

Speaker, I join with the minister in his commentary surrounding the respect and

acknowledgement for the good people in Legal Aid who do fantastic work in

Newfoundland and Labrador. They provide a great service to people who can't

afford to retain their own private lawyer, or private solicitor matters. The

majority, or quite extensively the work they do, would be legal matters, when a

person is charged with an offence.

We know

that when a person is given and provided with their Charter of Rights under the

Canadian Charter and by police in a time of detention, they are notified of

their right to representation or get advice from legal counsel, which is a Duty

Counsel, free of charge. They provide those types of services as well.

I go

on, again, to join the minister's commentary that they have some very capable

and qualified lawyers. I know that from my own experience in my former career in

law enforcement, I dealt with Legal Aid lawyers numerous times. Some of them

were engaged in work with Legal Aid because of the very nature of their work

because it was criminal in nature and, in many cases, focused on their client.

We know

there's a lot of work. You talk to private practice lawyers and they'll tell you

there's a lot of work just managing a practice and managing the affairs of a

practice, whereby a Legal Aid lawyer doesn't have that aspect of a practice that

they have to have oversight on and focus on their clients.

always try to stay away from naming names in these types of circumstances but

one lawyer comes to mind, Derek Hogan, who's been with Legal Aid in this

province for probably 30 years, Mr. Speaker – 25 to 30 years for sure. My

understanding is that Mr. Hogan has actually been to the Supreme Court of

Canada, I think, nine times through his career.

Probably many, many lawyers never go to the Supreme Court of Canada. I'd say

most lawyers never end up in the Supreme Court of Canada but Mr. Hogan, I

understand, has been there about nine times through his legal career. I think

that speaks volumes about the experience that Mr. Hogan would have and his

abilities as a criminal lawyer.

Having

gone to the Supreme Court of Canada nine times is a significant amount. When I

heard that number, I was a little bit taken aback. I wouldn't have thought that

anyone would be before the Supreme Court that many times, but Mr. Hogan has

been. He's a Legal Aid lawyer, a well-known Legal Aid lawyer and does really

good work. So I join the minister in his comments about praising the good work

they do.

wasn't around here in 2008, but I'm sure that the amendments that were made in

2008 on choice of counsel in no way were designed or intended to create any

hardship or a degrading of morale in any way, or to change the perception that

people have of Legal Aid lawyers. I'm sure it wasn't that.

I know

that at the time there was significant pressure on our legal aid system. There

was a resource issue and that's not isolated to 2008. For several years, we've

heard, from time to time, concerns and complaints from people trying to access

adequate and quality legal counsel when the legal aid system is overburdened and

a very busy process.

During

this debate and process of this bill, I intend to ask the minister about what

changes have taken place to deal with the pressures. As recently as just about a

year ago, just a little bit over a year ago, in the fall of 2016, there was a

story by CBC where they were talking about Newfoundland Legal Aid, in

particular, and the story reads: “Recently, legal aid has been swamped with a

slew of applications for assistance.”

Mr.

Nick Summers, who's the commission's provincial director, was interviewed and he

used words like: “At the moment” – in that particular time, just a year ago –

“we seem to be experiencing a particular large wave.” Later in the story by

Glenn Payette of CBC, the story talks about the $135 an hour, which I previously

referenced, and also a comment by Mr. Summers: “We don't have 50 files that we

have to get rid of by next Wednesday or something like that. We have a problem;

it's a growing problem right now. One of the solutions is going to be to send

some of that work out to the private bar.” So that's a commentary which is

related to this particular bill today. I would anticipate that the minister and

the government have a plan on how to deal with this.

During

an opportunity for a briefing with the department – and we thank the minister

and officials of the department for a briefing that took place – there was

reference to a senior lawyer counsel office. I thought I might hear from the

minister on that today. I'm sure maybe in closing he can reference it or when we

get to Committee stage, we can talk a little bit more about that, how that's

going to work; has it already been established; have staff resources been

assigned to it; and give some more details on what that plan exists.

The

minister referenced Mr. Roil's report in March 2014. I had a look at some of

this as well, because he talks about choice of counsel and he recommends

curtailing entirely the so-called choice of counsel. That was a recommendation

to him. What we would like to know is if you're going to do this, we're going to

pass this bill and change these parts of the act, then what next; how are you

going to deal with these necessities.

In our

society today, in recent years, we've seen all too often cases that are before

the courts, murder and manslaughter types of cases. We also know, as the

minister referenced, in some of these cases a person is looking for or feels the

requirement or the need exists to have two lawyers representing each client. I'm

sure that can be a significant burden and cost on government. However, in order

to make sure that the services are going to be provided, we'd like to know a

little bit more about what is going to happen or what the options are going to

be available to them.

Some

lawyers I've spoken to have suggested that this will wind up with applications

being submitted to the Attorney General for outside legal counsel, a process

that an accused person would have to generate and undertake themselves, as I

understand it. The minister can correct me if that's not what is going to take

place. And what would be the cost in those types of cases.

If a

person is charged today, this

section is removed. They have to go through a

process. What process will they have to go through if they feel the need to seek

outside counsel? Then what would the cost – would the tariffs still apply that

exist under the choice of counsel sections, or will there be a different process

set up? We'd like to know what those costs will be to have an alternative

approach.

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the minister again for his comments. I'm sure we're going to

have lots of discussion in Committee and I look forward to further debate on

this, this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It is

indeed a pleasure to get up today to talk on Bill 34,

An Act to Amend the Legal

Aid Act. I want to thank the minister for his statements beforehand.

It's an

interesting bill we're bringing in here today. I have a couple of concerns that

I will be asking the minister about when we do get to Committee, just some

questions I have.

Any

time we talk about the justice system my concerns basically come back to me to

make sure that people are getting the best possible justice that's out there,

representation – no matter what it is – in our courts to ensure that everybody

gets treated fairly. I know sometimes people look at our court system and they

shake their heads and wonder why this person is getting representation and

another person is not. The Legal Aid system we have in this province, we're very

fortunate to be living in a country like Canada that supplies legal aid to

people who can't afford it and to people who do need the assistance.

I know

the minister has gone back and talked about 2008 when this was brought in first

to change the Legal Aid system for private lawyers to be able to represent

people. I can remember back – and I know the minister, obviously, he has more

information being a lawyer himself – in the day, there were some very serious

situations in our province where people didn't have, not only in the Legal Aid

system, but didn't have confidence in our legal system in the province, where

there were three or four at the time, in that era – I think it was around, I'm

not sure of the years – of that time when people were found guilty and then

later it was overturned when new evidence came forward and people that were

guilty and in jail were found that they weren't guilty at all.

I think

the confidence in our legal system at the time – and since then I'm sure has

gained a lot of respect for our legal system and people see it a little bit

different, but at that time, it was a time in our province when our legal system

was questioned by the general public. I know a lot of people had questions back

and forth back then. I do believe one time there was probably about three cases,

maybe four cases – again, the minister would know more about it than I would.

The

minister spoke about the Legal Aid system and I do tend to agree with him. We

have a great Legal Aid. Our lawyers at Legal Aid are qualified. They're

excellent lawyers and they do a fantastic job.

When

you look at what is happening in our court systems today, it seems like there's

a backlog. People are going through the courts – to me, I don't know, maybe it's

just that I watch a little bit more these days. I don't know, but it seems like

we're at a stage in our society where major crime seems to be the essence of the

news. Every single evening it seems like there's a murder trial or there's a

serious incident that's on the go in our courts. My only worry about anything is

that – again, I believe every person deserves the best possible defence or

representation that they can get through our court system. I think it's

important that we make sure they get it.

I know

the minister, while he was doing his statement I believe – now, I could be

corrected. I'm sure the minister will correct me. There are a pool of lawyers

that are outside the Legal Aid Commission who also – I believe what I've heard

is there are 20 in the province who are private lawyers. I'm not sure if that

would still continue to exist where if there is a backlog and if there is

representation somebody needs or for some reason there could be a conflict in

some way or another, it could be that they could still avail of that pool of

lawyers to be able to defend them and represent them in the court of law. That

will be a couple of questions that I do have to ask the minister.

I know

it's the responsibility of us as a society and as a government to ensure that

everybody gets treated fairly in this province. I think it's important that we

make sure the best possible representation is there. Everybody deserves to be

treated equally, whether you need legal aid or you're a person who just can

afford a lawyer and maybe can afford a high-priced lawyer, but everybody

deserves to make sure they do get proper representation.

The

only other thing I would be concerned about is the resources. I know the

minister spoke of it and said it was a major concern with the justice system,

whether Legal Aid had the proper resources and proper personnel. Things that are

given to them, whether they can do the proper investigations, and the expertise

sometimes that's needed in a court of law.

Especially when you deal with murder trials, for example. We watched it in the

courts. It always amazes me, the experts that come in to the court system. I

know they're available for everyone, but sometimes it takes a little bit of

digging. I'm not sure if there's any monetary or anything involved in getting

people involved in the – again, the minister can answer that question also –

people to get involved in giving their expertise in the courts when it comes to

serious incidents like that. So I just want to make sure.

Also,

when I looked at this bill, I thought maybe the minister would do some kind of a

pilot project just to see this and see how it would work. I know he said that in

every other province – other than I believe, Quebec is what he said – don't have

this system. It goes back to the same system we had before 2008. Again, maybe

there is some way that we could look at this over the year and just see what the

system can be and do a pilot on it to make sure we're doing the proper thing, to

make sure that people get the proper representation.

Also,

the other thing is – and I know the finances of the province plays a huge

part

in what's introduced here today, and finances, obviously, is on the minds of

everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm wondering if any of the money that

would be saved through this process would be reinvested probably back into Legal

Aid, into ensuring that resources and what they need to make sure they represent

people at the best they can possible do would be given to Legal Aid to be able

to do that.

think, Minister, maybe that's a part of what the process would be, to ensure

that – we're all about making sure that everybody in this province gets treated

fairly, and I mean everybody. I just don't mean people who are on Legal Aid, but

anybody who goes through the justice system. We want to make sure that if they

go before trial they get ample opportunity to prove themselves, their innocence

or whatever.

don't want to see, like I said first when I started and when I first read this

bill what my concerns were. I go back to a few years, and I'm not really sure

when those years were, but I know of three for sure that were overturned in the

court of law. I'm not saying anything about Legal Aid. I'm not even sure if

Legal Aid was the representation at the time, but I know the general public out

there were: What's happening to our justice system? That's what we want to make

sure that everybody out there, if they're on trial, that they get the best

possible legal advice and legal representation that they have.

I'm

sure the people at Legal Aid do a fantastic job and there are great people down

there too. But again, I think that we should look at this and if there are any

monetary savings, invest it back into our justice system so everybody gets fair

trials.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

am happy to stand and to speak to this bill. It's a Legal Aid bill and this

bill, in and of itself, covers some very complex and tangly issues. I believe

that has been highlighted by both the Minister of Justice and my colleagues in

the Official Opposition.

Two of

the issues that we deal with are perception and actuality. I would like to thank

the fine folks in justice who gave us a very thorough briefing on this bill. I

believe that they, too, acknowledge that there are some tangly issues here that

will need to be dealt with.

I also

want to thank the director of Legal Aid who I had an extensive conversation

with, Mr. Nick Summers, who has done an incredible job under, often, very

difficult situations. We heard the Minister of Justice today talk about how hard

Legal Aid lawyers work. He said they work so hard and he often sees them

travelling around the province with bankers boxes full of material. Their

caseloads are pretty heavy.

Are

they heavier than the private bar? I'm not so sure, but we do know that they are

incredibly busy and that they work hard making sure that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador who are eligible to avail of their services are

represented with expertise, with care, with consideration and with compassion.

I would

like to state, Mr. Speaker, once again, the gratitude on behalf of the people of

the province for the incredible work that the lawyers who have dedicated their

careers to the public as defence counsel for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. So I will return to that issue as well.

I also

would like to thank the lawyers in the private bar who I also consulted with. I

consulted with a number of lawyers in the private bar who as well work very

hard, very, very hard in their defence of people who are accused and also in

representing people in all aspects of justice, who do it as well with expertise,

with compassion and with commitment. They, too, work very, very hard on behalf

of the people of the province.

Mr.

Speaker, what we're looking at here is whether people feel that a certain right

– now, we're talking about cases that are extremely complex, extremely serious,

where people may be sentenced for life for something they have been accused of.

We are talking about people who have been accused of murder, who have been

accused of manslaughter, who have been accused of infanticide. I don't have to

stress how complex that it, how important that is and how serious that is.

We've

had, since 2008 in our province, choice of counsel legislation, which means that

if you are accused of murder, manslaughter or infanticide, you have a choice of

who to represent you. You can go to the private bar or you can have a lawyer

from Legal Aid who will represent you.

There

is often a perception that anybody who's a Legal Aid lawyer is because they

can't make it in real life, that they can't make it out there in the private

bar. There is also a perception when you look at our public service that so

often there's this false perception. I'd like to stress again, Mr. Speaker, that

perception is not based on reality.

There's

also a perception that floats around about our public sector workers; people

work for the public sector because they can't get a job anywhere else. Our

public sector workers are among the best educated, the most dedicated and

experienced people who have a desire to work in the public sector.

The

same with our Legal Aid lawyers who have so much experience because they spend

so much time in litigation; they spend a lot of time in the court room. There is

a lot of respect for them in the legal community and in the judiciary as well

that they work hard, they have expertise, they are well educated and they are

dedicated.

I would

like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about whether people are

represented by the private bar or whether people are represented by a Legal Aid

lawyer that people have expert representation by credible lawyers. There is a

task ahead of Legal Aid, there's a task ahead on behalf of public sector

workers, all around, of dispelling those myths that those folks who work in the

public sector do not have what it takes to work outside the public sector. As a

matter of fact, they have oftentimes more than what it takes because they have

worked in such a concentrated manner.

Mr.

Speaker, what Legal Aid is proposing is that they will set up a special defence

unit of more senior lawyers, of three senior lawyers that will deal with cases

of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Also currently for someone who appears

before the court, someone who is accused of either of these crimes, they have a

senior lawyer and a junior lawyer both representing them. So we know that there

is a team of lawyers.

What

Legal Aid is proposing is that they will set up a special defence unit of three

senior lawyers who will be available to anyone who is accused of murder,

manslaughter or infanticide and that there will also be a junior lawyer

appointed as well. So it can be a junior lawyer from Legal Aid. I was also

informed that there would be a possibility of, instead, a junior lawyer from the

private bar, if there's a junior lawyer who would like that additional kind of

experience to work with a well-experienced senior lawyer.

There

will also be times, still, when there will be a lawyer from the private bar that

will be appointed, depending on certain circumstances, even outside someone

having to make application for an Attorney General application for a lawyer of

choice.

But,

Mr. Speaker, what we have again in terms of the perception is that I have people

calling my office saying they can't get hold of their Legal Aid lawyer because

there's a perception that their Legal Aid lawyer is too busy. Whether or not the

expectation of access to their lawyer is unreasonable or not, it's hard to say

but I do know that when we do contact Legal Aid, that Legal Aid will follow up

when we call on behalf of folks who feel that they can't get hold of their

lawyers.

Chief

Justice Beverley McLachlin has said publicly, as she tours the country, that

Legal Aid has been and continues to be, across the country, under resourced. It

is people without the private funds who count on access to Legal Aid in order to

have fair and comprehensive representation. The Minister of Justice himself

today said that Legal Aid lawyers work so hard. He sees them travelling across

the province with banker boxes. They work long, hard hours. They're extremely

busy lawyers. Their caseloads are beyond belief, he said, at times. The number

of files they juggle is really high. We know that, and we've heard that from the

director of Legal Aid himself.

that's a concern. Whether or not they're not able to fully represent and

comprehensively represent people in these very complex cases, that's a question

that needs to be answered, because again we know how under resourced our Legal

Aid has been. We also know that – Mr. Summers has told – there has been a 20 per

cent increase in Legal Aid applications. So that's 20 per cent more people in

the province who are applying to Legal Aid for representation in the past year.

It's in different parts of the province. Now, this could be because of people

coming back from Saskatchewan and Alberta. So it becomes a strain on the system.

So we know that our legal aid system is strained.

Chief

Justice Green also said, in the Pardy case, that he believes that the issue of

confidence in the lawyer who's representing you in these cases is very

important. So he supported the issue of choice of counsel if you are accused of

murder, manslaughter or infanticide. So that's an issue to look at.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe that Legal Aid lawyers are experienced and have the necessary

education and legal experience to be able to represent folks who have been

accused of murder, manslaughter or infanticide. I believe the private bar has

the experience and the education to be able to do so.

But

what I am concerned about and what my caucus is concerned about is whether or

not the resources that are needed by Legal Aid in order to fully represent these

particular accused members of our society, whether Legal Aid will be given

resources that it actually needs in order to do this project properly so that it

doesn't fall off the rails. We have seen the budget for Legal Aid shrink over

the last few budgets.

there a possibility of phasing this in? The other issue that we are dealing with

is the issue of perception, the perception out there that Legal Aid is too busy

or the perception about the qualification of our Legal Aid Lawyers. So there is

a lot of work to be done in terms of looking at those perceptions and how to

counteract those perceptions. That just doesn't happen overnight. Will

government agree to phase this in and in the meantime do a campaign that helps

build the profile and the confidence of the people of this province in our

excellent legal aid system?

These

are important issues. We know that Attorney General applications – for people to

be able to go to the Attorney General to ask for representation by a private

member of the bar – are still possible. We also know for those who are already

in the process of their trial and they have a choice of counsel, a lawyer from

the private bar, it will continue until their case is wrapped up.

We also

know that there will be exceptions, that the director of Legal Aid has some

discretionary powers. He has assured us he will at times allow for choice of

counsel under certain circumstances, which means that an accused would not have

to go to the Attorney General. He also said if an accused person has a history

with a certain lawyer, then the director of Legal Aid can issue a certificate.

He also

said that we are reasonable – this is Mr. Summers – always looking for best

representation. I believe that, Mr. Speaker. I believe the administration and

the staff at Legal Aid are always looking for best representation for people

but, again, my confidence is shaky in the government providing adequate

resources. Not just resources where people can just hang on, where Legal Aid can

just keep its head above water.

These

are very serious issues. They're very complex issues. We need assurance from

government that they will fully resource Legal Aid. We've already lost the

family resource

section of Legal Aid because of budgetary considerations. What

else will we lose?

We have

been warned that there was a 20 per cent application in those who are looking

for legal aid in the past year. We also know that Legal Aid has had to turn down

people that they may have taken in other situations had they not experienced

budgetary cuts.

These

are valid points. I believe they are valid points made by groups on the opposite

ends of the spectrum. They are valid points that need to be addressed and we

understand – all of us in this House – the need to save money. We believe that

with correct supports and investments Legal Aid could do this work, but it

cannot be just enough money to keep their head above water.

We also

do not believe or have confidence that government has a proper plan in place to

implement such a change. Again, it is not a simple change. It's about perception

and it's about the actuality. People may feel that in fact a right has been

taken away from them, that this is simply a budgetary cut. Because issues are so

complex, so tangly, so serious, the issues of manslaughter, murder and

infanticide, we cannot err on the issue of perception.

Government has to have a plan in place to address this; otherwise, we will

constantly hear people banging on the doors saying that they did not have

access, the same access to justice that people who are poor, who are

economically poor, do not have the same access to justice as somebody who has

money. We, as a society, cannot tolerate that. We have to ensure that is not

what's going to happen.

We have

to make sure that the resources required to make sure this doesn't go off the

rails is in place. Also, at the end of the day, are we really saving money or

will be have appeals based on perception?

The

other issue because this is so complex, because it is so tangly, government

should have done stakeholder consultation on this matter to try and identify a

proper course of action. I am not convinced, because the lawyers from the public

bar that I have spoken with did not know that this was being introduced. This

was new to them. Why wasn't proper stakeholder consultation done? Again, because

this is so serious – and who knows what may have come up if proper consultation

with stakeholders would have been done, consultation with the expertise and the

private bar who have been doing this defence for years.

There

are a handful of private bar lawyers who have been doing choice of counsel

representation. Why were they not consulted? This is a reasonable discussion

that could have happened, Mr. Speaker, and a way forward may have been found

that may have been a phase in, for instance, so that we could deal with some of

these issues.

This is

about building a solid confidence. We know how important it is for our society,

for our communities, for our people to have solid confid