PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

October

19, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 28

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Before

we begin our proceedings, I would like to welcome to the public gallery two

people today whose work will be recognized in a Member's statement: Angela

Crockwell, who is the Executive Director of Thrive – Community Youth Network,

and Cheryl Coleman, Director of the Blue Door Program.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to welcome in

the Speaker's gallery former MHA for Bellevue and former minister of this House

of Assembly: the hon. Percy Barrett.

Welcome,

Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also, while it may not be

protocol and I anticipate that he's somewhere lurking in the hallways, but I'd

also like to recognize the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment

today because it's his birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members'

statements, we're going to hear from the Member for Labrador West, St. John's

Centre, Harbour Main, Cape St. Francis, Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when the pager goes off at 1 in the morning, or anytime, a paramedic,

EMR, firefighter, police or a search and rescue person is startled awake, jumps

out of bed and is en route to the unknown; regardless of the hour or weather

conditions, they promptly respond.

Such was

the case in the early morning hours of October 10 when the Labrador City Fire

Department received a call from Switzerland that a gas balloon was making an

emergency landing in a wooded area just south of Lorraine Lake. It turns out the

balloon was competing in America's Challenge long-distance, gas balloon race,

which is held each year as part of the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta

– the world's biggest hot air balloon festival.

This

balloon was piloted by Nicolas Tiéche and Laurent Sciboz of Switzerland. They

had taken off from Albuquerque on Saturday evening and were aloft for nearly 60

hours. The distance they flew, 3,666 kilometres, set a new world record for the

greatest distance flown in a gas balloon and earned them a first place finish.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking all first responders for

the great work they do to keep us safe each and every day.

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.

Today I

acknowledge the incredible work of a number of organizations and activists in

St. John's Centre who came together to create a new program called Blue Door.

Housed

within the organizational structure of Thrive, the Blue Door Program is a

five-year project serving individuals 14 to 29 years of age who want to exit the

sex trade, or who have been sexually exploited and are looking for support to

find alternatives in their lives.

Blue

Door provides services based on the principles of self-determination, survival

leadership and harm reduction. The dedicated workers work flexible hours to best

support young folks, providing help with housing, education, therapeutic

services, health services, leadership skills and employment skills. All this is

centred on respect for the choices made by individual participants, while

developing meaningful relationships with staff and participants. This is about

transforming lives.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking Angela Crockwell and her amazing team for

their dedication, their passion and compassion. I look forward to what we will

learn from the young participants of Blue Door and the leadership they will

provide to us in understanding the needs and rights of young folks in this

project.

Bravo to

them, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Avondale Railway Museum in the Town of Avondale was built over 100 years ago.

It's an official heritage structure as designated by the Heritage Foundation of

Newfoundland and Labrador and houses two museums: a railway museum and a

community museum.

The

building was constructed to service a repeater station for the first telegraph

land line serving St. John's. Avondale served as a freight and passenger

station, being an important terminus for branches serving Conception Bay,

Placentia Bay to Port aux Basques.

September 14, I had the great pleasure to join with my colleagues, the

parliamentary secretary for Tourism, the MP for Avalon and the members of the

community to celebrate the reopening of the museum. It will serve as a point of

pride for the town and a tourist attraction for years to come. For me, the

official reopening brought back many memories of my childhood where my father

worked as a railway employee.

encourage everyone to visit if you're in the area.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to celebrate the opening of a new school, Juniper Ridge

school in Torbay. This school has 540 students from Bauline, Pouch Cove,

Flatrock and Torbay.

There

was a huge issue with capacity of our schools. Growth in the area in the last 10

years has been enormous. Three school councils came together to create a

committee to solve this issue. Led by Chairperson Peggy Comden, members were

Lisa Stagg from Cape St. Francis Elementary, Tara Power and Patricia Mahon from

Holy Trinity Elementary and Keith Hogan from Holy Trinity High.

These

members dedicated many hours. They researched things like birth rates in the

region and expected growth in each town. They presented the information they

accumulated to the eastern school board, giving them a solution that would be a

resolution for all three schools.

As well,

former Mayor Ralph Tapper and his council in Torbay played a huge role to ensure

that there were no roadblocks in the construction of the new school.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in thanking all those who in any way assisted

to ensuring that our students get the best possible education.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to recognize the organizing team for a fundraiser which is known as the

Ride for the Boys. This initiative is an ATV ride through the backcountry of Bay

Roberts and Shearstown.

The ride

has become an annual event in support of three young boys who tragically lost

their parents, Amanda Reese, originally of Spaniard's Bay and Donald Snow of Bay

Roberts, in a motor vehicle collision, which also claimed the life of the driver

in the opposite vehicle, on the Veterans Memorial Highway, leaving these three

children to be raised and cared for by their grandparents.

Mr.

Speaker, when tragedy strikes, the people of Harbour Grace – Port de Grave

District come together. Following this fatal accident, local residents Gerard

and Rosemary French, Dean Spicer, Bryan Drover, Rodney and Bobbi Snow formed a

team to kick off this fundraising ATV event.

This

past May marked the second annual ride, raising $43,000 to support this family

to date. I have had the privilege of helping launch this ATV ride event,

arriving at the opening ceremonies on my dirt bike. This initiative has been

inspired, indeed, by a tragedy, but the community spirit is nothing short of

amazing.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, last Friday I joined the hon. Patty Hajdu, federal Minister of

Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to celebrate a significant

milestone in our efforts to maintain a highly skilled workforce.

Minister

Hajdu and I announced the development of a new $10 million shared IT system that

will allow apprentices, journeypersons, training institutions and employers to

simply go online to complete tasks that are currently paper based and can be

time consuming. This online resource will simplify apprenticeship

administration, and aligns with our commitments in

The Way Forward and the goals of the Cabinet Committee on Jobs.

addition, the second phase of the Atlantic Apprenticeship Harmonization Project

is moving forward. Ten trades have already been harmonized, and this second

phase will add six more – truck and transport mechanic, heavy duty equipment

technician, automotive service technician, sprinkler system installer,

construction boilermaker, and industrial mechanic or millwright.

I am

also pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that the efforts of the Department of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour to have the project office located here in

Newfoundland and Labrador successful. This will be, Mr. Speaker, the first

intergovernmental office of its kind based in this province.

This is

a fantastic opportunity for our province as we work with our Atlantic partners

and the federal government to grow and diversify our economy and make changes

that benefit apprentices, journeypersons, training institutions and employers

throughout the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Let me begin by

stating that I'm pleased to see that the federal government has continued on

with the second phase of the Atlantic Apprenticeship Harmonization Project.

Eliminating barriers for people and businesses in trades is always a positive.

Along with my colleagues on this side of the House, this is welcomed news.

However, I would like to remind the minister that federal government initiatives

such as these are hardly a result of the Liberal way forward, which to date has

seen skyrocketing unemployment and hundreds leaving our province.

Mr.

Speaker, our tradespeople are a vital component to our workforce and our

economy. I'm sure all sides of this hon. House welcome any initiatives that

support apprentices, journeypersons and employers.

With

that said, I look forward to learning more about the intergovernmental office

and the future role that will be played by its employees.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased to receive the advance copy from the minister. It's good to see that

harmonization of trades in the Atlantic provinces is progressing. I know the

department has been working on this for a long time and I'm sure that more will

be coming onboard.

I'm glad

to see the upgrade to an IT system to allow the completion of administrative

tasks online, but I would like to know from the minister at some point, I'm sure

he'll let me know, if this shared IT system will not preclude the option of

paper submissions because for some that may still be necessary. I know at our

post-secondary institutions it is.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to highlight the recent introduction of five indigenous

graphic novels in a series entitled Tales

from Shadow River written by award-winning author, David Alexander

Robertson. The graphic novels are historical fiction that highlights indigenous

history and culture in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 2016,

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development officials consulted with

indigenous groups within the province to identify potential topics for a series

of historical fiction novels based on our rich indigenous heritage.

Officials worked with leadership in each indigenous organization who provided

support, time and knowledge to collaborate on the project, selecting leaders who

reviewed and revised the novels and provided feedback during their development,

to ensure accuracy of cultural information. These novels represent an early step

in the department's efforts to share our rich indigenous culture with all

students.

Mr.

Speaker, the five new novels are being distributed province-wide to schools with

students in junior high. These novels will support the curriculum outcomes of

stories in a modern and easily accessible manner that appeals to our

intermediate students and will encourage their engagement. We hope these novels

provide junior high students with an opportunity to discover more about our

indigenous heritage.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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 his statement. I wish to start off by

commending David Robertson for his work. If his previous work is any indication,

Tales from Shadow River will be a

positive learning experience for Newfoundland and Labrador youth.

I'm very

pleased to see the Department of Education collaborated with indigenous

organizations to bring forth an initiative that places a focus on indigenous

history, culture and traditions. This addition to the junior high curriculum is

very important for all students. Our history is what shapes our future. I look

forward to reading more about Mr. Robertson's work and the feedback from

teachers and students.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Adding indigenous

graphic novels is an important step toward reconciliation, as it will help

educate students on the realities faced by indigenous peoples in our province.

We encourage the minister to continue working with indigenous groups to expand

on this welcome initiative, and provide further education in our schools of our

province's rich indigenous culture and history.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this week the Government House Leader has made numerous statements on

what analyses and studies have actually been done in regard to changes to the

Elections Act . He said here in the

House that the bill was the analysis; he's made comments that there's been some

analysis, maybe a briefing note, and he's also made comments he can't provide it

because of Cabinet confidence or solicitor-client privilege.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister, once and for all – he hasn't given a committal

answer of yes or no – will he table the analysis and study on the impact of the

changes that are before the House before the debate proceeds today, so Members

of the House can be better informed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly happy to stand here and answer questions on this very important issue,

and certainly happy and looking forward to engaging in debate on this bill again

this afternoon. I think all Members of this House realize the importance of this

bill and the need to debate it and get it done.

The fact

remains, as the Member opposite would know because at one point he was in

Cabinet and at one point he was Premier, that when information goes to Cabinet

for a decision it becomes part of – there's a Cabinet process that prohibits the

release of that information. Certainly, there's a lot of Cabinet information

that I would love to see from the previous administration that helped them make

decisions on things like Muskrat Falls.

The fact

remains, though, that we – again, I look forward to the debate. The Member

opposite, yesterday, did a very good job, the Opposition House Leader, of

putting forward their points, which we're very open to considering. Hopefully,

we'll continue on with the debate and have a meaningful one.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Justice

Butler in her recent decision has clearly discussed the fact and the importance

of legislators understanding a study or analysis and the impacts that a change

in legislation on democratic reform, as this is, will have on voters and voters'

rights. She's been very clear in discussing that.

If the

minister won't release the analysis, I'll ask the Premier: Will you step up,

Premier, and ensure that this analysis is provided to the legislators as

referred to by Justice Butler?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

happy to stand here. Again, the answer was provided to the Member and he didn't

like it, so he chooses to ask it again. But I'll certainly answer it again.

The fact

remains that the bill is here for debate. I have read Justice Butler's decision

on a number of occasions and, one of the big things, she does bring up the

legislation in the House and the fact that there was very little debate at that

time, but the fact remains we still haven't had enough debate on this. We could

have had two more days but the Member opposite chose not to allow debate in this

House, so I look forward to continued debate.

The main

crux of the argument that Justice Butler, the main crux of her decision, was

about informed voters; their thing is about having an able campaign.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

assure the Government House Leader that we're in no rush to rush this through in

any way, shape or form. What we're asking for is more information, not less

information, and Justice Butler also talked about that. In her decision she

talked about many aspects and we're going to talk about that through debate in

the days to come.

But, Mr.

Speaker, maybe the Government House Leader, if he won't provide the analysis and

the study on the impacts to the people of the province and the impacts of these

changes will have, I'll ask him this: Were there any concerns raised during your

analysis or your study, which we've raised and talked about this week as our

issues and our concerns about this bill?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I think what the Member

opposite asked in the question was do we have any concerns that were the same as

the concerns that they've brought up. Again, I don't know, the Member opposite

hasn't brought up any concerns in debate yet because the Member opposite hasn't

stood up and debated yet. What I would say is that I think the Opposition House

Leader has done a very good job yesterday morning during debate and brought up a

number of the points.

Do you

know what? We had a significant discussion. I've had a significant discussion

with lawyers in our department about the different ways that we have to look at

this. One of the main issues is that we had to have constitutionality here, but

constitutionality, there's no silver bullet for it. The fact remains that

there's a risk analysis that happens. You can go on the low end. You can go on

the high end. There's a spectrum to it. So we had a great discussion on it and

came up with a very good piece of legislation I think.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

just take a second to review. I've asked the minister if he'd table analysis

that would be important to legislators in this House as they carry on with

debate and consider how they're going to support this bill or potential

amendments that we plan on bringing forward. He said no.

I ask

the Premier if he would step up and see to it that an analysis would be provided

to legislators. He wouldn't answer. The minister said it was already answered by

him and I guess that's the answer.

Now I

ask him if any of the concerns we've talked about was raised during their

analysis and their study. He won't answer that, Mr. Speaker.

I will

ask the government this: This is the real first action on any electoral reform

and it contradicts their own platform from 2015. How are your proposed changes

to the Elections Act in line

with democratic reform? How does this benefit the process when you are limiting

nominations?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I love when the Member opposite stands up and talks about

democratic reform, when the only thing he did was come in here and eliminate

seats. I didn't see much analysis provided by the Member opposite on that. I

don't think that was well thought out but, again, I digress, Mr. Speaker.

The fact remains here that this decision, this piece of

legislation, was done in consultation with a number of lawyers. Do you know

what? The fact is that we have more democratic reform coming.

The Member opposite should know that this is the result of

a court decision striking down their legislation and the fact that it's a

resignation from one of their Members. We are here today and every day to debate

a piece of legislation to allow for us to have a constitutional election in the

best interests of the people of this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was legislation brought forward by the government of the

day and it was supported by the Opposition of the day who now sits in

government, Mr. Speaker. The same as for when the legislation came to the House

on the seats in the House of Assembly, it was supported by the very Member

opposite who is now being critical of that very decision. He stood here in the

House and he supported it.

Mr. Speaker, today the executive director of the St. John's

Status of Women Council said that those who actually called for a task force

were not even consulted by the minister and a request for a meeting has gone

unanswered.

I ask the minister: Why would he ignore such an important

request?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I would say is I was very happy yesterday,

along with Ms. Linda Ross who is the chairperson of the Provincial Advisory

Council on the Status of Women, to announce a new government committee to

address the issue of violence against women and girls in this province. It's an

issue that's plagued us for too long.

We like to think that there's more that can be done. We

like to think that all Members of this House want to work together in this

initiative. I know all Members of this House want to.

The fact is yesterday the announcement came out and said

that we, as a committee, would put out invitations to all members to come

together to figure out what

our mandate should be, and an invitation will go out to the very person that the

Member opposite references.

I have

not, at this point, received any correspondence from the person that the Member

references, but what I would say is I haven't turned down a meeting yet as

Government House Leader or Minister of Justice, and I don't plan on starting

now.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

according to what the executive director has said it wasn't that the meeting was

turned down, it was that the minister never even bothered to respond or consult.

The executive director used some very strong language today in response to the

minister and to the disrespect expressed by the minister to those who organized

the vigil and those who do very difficult and emotional work year in, year out.

question – let's see if I can get a direct answer on this one – Minister, why

would you disrespect a coalition, not even consult with them or respond to their

request for a meeting?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

can guarantee you, there's certainly no disrespect intended. If the Member

opposite had listened to my answer, I said that at this point I hadn't actually

received any request for a meeting, but I am always open to meeting with anybody

who wants to discuss these issues.

Certainly, I was at that vigil that was put off by that group. It was powerful

and it was moving. Again, it's an inspiration to make sure that we need to do

more.

The

purpose of the announcement yesterday was to announce a committee that will

comprise all members that want to be involved in this action, and that's why we

need to consult them. We need to get the group together first to do the

consultation to figure out where do we want to go with this.

As I've

said very publicly, I'm not an expert on this, but I'm certainly willing to

listen and be a part of any solution.

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.

Labrador-Grenfell Health review spanning November 2016 to March this year showed

that the private contractor had only one ambulance in service about half the

time – this, despite the fact that they were being paid to operate two.

Why did

it take the minister months to act on this problem he clearly knew existed, a

problem he now calls unacceptable? Why did it take the loss of a human life to

force him to act?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

The

provision of an adequate and appropriate ambulance service for Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, as indeed any community, is top of the list for us. The facts

of the case are we have had challenges with access to data, and that was

explained both in the media and in public statements on this.

What I

can say, Mr. Speaker, is that there are two extra paramedic teams in Goose Bay

being integrated with Labrador-Grenfell as I speak. There is another ambulance

which got off the ferry at noon today and is being driven to Labrador. There is

yet another spare ambulance being resourced to get the numbers up to scratch,

and we're working to get the contract reassigned to Labrador-Grenfell.

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.

The

minister now says that the health authority will closely monitor the company to

ensure its service is improved. Too little, too late, I say.

Knowing

it has been a long standing issue, why is it now only getting the care and

attention it deserves?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Member opposite references information that was out in the media, probably, 10

or 12 days ago. I would draw his attention to the events of the last couple of

days where there has been very decisive action for non-compliance with the

contract. As soon as the department was notified, within three hours we had the

system stabilized and the reference I made in my earlier answer to the ongoing

measures.

I have

to state that this is an issue we take very seriously, and whilst we are now

working as it were to patch the hole, over the coming days we will be looking at

ways to ensure that this does not happen again.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

want to acknowledge the fact that this was something the health authority had

identified since 2016, well over a year that this could have been addressed.

As I

understand it, the private operator in Goose Bay attributed staff problems to

recruitment and retention issues. What will the minister do differently to

ensure they are able to properly staff this service?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

The issue of the private

contractor is simply down to contractual obligations. There was a price agreed –

and, in actual fact, negotiated by the Members opposite when they were office –

for a service, and the service was two fully staffed ambulances, 24-7. The

operator did not comply with that.

question to him, which has still not been answered, is why did he not deliver

the service for which we were paying? When I get that answer, I'll be happy to

provide it to anybody who wants it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

doubt, the people of Goose Bay will want to know that answer also, to have

proper services.

Labrador West the health authority operates the ambulance services.

I ask

the minister: How many ambulances are available for the residents of Lab West

today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Labrador West is operated

under a different plan. There are ambulances staffed around the clock there.

There is also a non-patient transport vehicle to satisfy some safety

requirements which were an issue with response times there.

I would

suggest that the difference between the two arrangements, between Lab West and

Goose Bay, is not at all unusual. Of our ambulances in this province, the vast

majority of them are provided by private operators. The contract that was put in

place by the previous government was essentially a funding arrangement with

minimal levers for compliance, and that's something we're going to address on a

go-forward basis, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the

Minister update the House on how many vacancies exist in the air ambulance

services that so many people depend on, particularly those in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

The air ambulance services is

a partnership, Mr. Speaker, between government air services, who have two

aircraft and provide flight crews and maintenance, and the private sector where

we have an on-contract extra aircraft for travel between larger centres and

transport of patients to quaternary care centres outside the province.

That

system has been challenged because of maintenance issues, simply because of the

demands on the aircraft. In addition to that, we have negotiated with other

providers to provide fill-in resources so we have two aircraft available around

the clock. As far as I am aware Mr. Speaker, that is currently the case today.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Minister, do you support the federal government's decision on Arctic surf clam

quotas and the effect it will have on workers and communities on the Burin

Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all appreciate and support the concept and the

principle of indigenous participation in fisheries. Complementary to that, I

think we all can support the concept of and principle of adjacency being applied

in fisheries management, fisheries allocation decisions.

I've

already had an opportunity to speak directly with the Minister. I've

communicated with his staff, communicated with the Department, to outline some

of my suggestions as to how successful, prosperous fisheries allocations

decisions can be taken, that respect historical attachment, respect adjacency

and that honour the time-honoured principle that when we have a plant that

operates 12 months of the year, nobody should do anything to reduce that

employment opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I'll

just the Minister, what are you going to do about it? What are your suggestions?

You said you suggested –

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I think I just outlined the opportunity that our government has to

communicate with the federal government, because they actually take our calls. I

have communicated with the federal minister my concerns. I've also expressed to

him my feeling that there are opportunities here to promote indigenous

involvement, but also to recognize adjacency within fisheries resource

allocation decisions.

I've

relayed that information to the minister. He's taken it under advisement. No

decision has been taken by the federal minister yet. There is a request for

proposals that has been issued. The deadline, I believe, is early November. He

will assess those applications or proposals accordingly and we will encourage

him to use prudence and judgment in his final decision.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm glad

that he took your call. Perhaps you can share with the people on the Burin

Peninsula what the solution is, what they're finding today that they could have

a possible cut of 25 per cent to their quota. It's a major concern on the Burin

Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, not only have I

spoken directly to the Mayor of Grand Bank, but the Premier has spoken directly

to the Mayor of Grand Bank. We have spoken to the company; we have spoken to

indigenous organizations here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're working with

everyone who supports the concept of a fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador

which provides full employment, maximum benefit and better value for our

communities.

Now, the

minister has offered an opportunity, which I take as that, an opportunity to be

able to use the resources for all of our benefit. I am communicating directly

with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to encourage him not only to include

indigenous participation but to respect and understand the principle of

adjacency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'm glad the minister

mentioned the mayor, because the mayor said he was blindsided by the decision

they were making.

I ask

the minister: Has any agreement been signed on the Atlantic Fisheries Fund? If

so, can you table it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the federal

government and the provincial governments of Atlantic Canada have already

brought up the portal. The applications are now being assessed, they're being

accepted. There's a committee, there's a process in place to be able to review

those applications.

While we

focus on the fishery of the future, of making sure that our communities, our

industry have the maximum resources available to them, not only from the sea but

from their governments, I can think of 100 million reasons why they should be

very, very, very optimistic about the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I believe that most

harvesters in the province are optimistic about the fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador, but the question was simple: Is there a signed Atlantic Fisheries

Fund, and can you table it to the House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we have an arrangement with the federal government, amongst all the

provinces of Atlantic Canada. We not only have an arrangement with the federal

government, but we actually have access to an additional fund, a $30 million

fisheries marketing fund.

So when

we look at what's available, what is the option, what is the opportunity here

for us all, we have an industry, which while it faces certain demands, certain

challenges, we have two levels of government working in co-operation with each

other, working in co-operation with the Atlantic industry, to make sure that

those benefits come home and on shore – and that's what we're focused on.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In July,

the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court ordered a full environmental impact

statement on the Grieg aquaculture project before the project goes forward.

I ask

the minister: Why did your government appeal this court decision?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for the question. I guess I'll ask the Opposition, for the employment

in the area, should we not go ahead and appeal this decision for the amount of

employment that it would create for this area? So you're saying we shouldn't

have appealed this decision?

This

decision has major impacts for the Burin Peninsula. So for you to stand up and

say why did we do it, it's somewhat irresponsible that we're just taking the

Burin Peninsula and just moving away.

The

former Member for Cape St. Francis said: Have you talked to Grand Bank? Why

don't you go down the Burin Peninsula and have a public meeting and say we don't

support the government in appealing the Grieg decision? Why don't' you go down

and have a public meeting down there and ask the mayor for Grand Bank to join in

on that meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

loud and clear what I just heard the minister said: They don't care about the

environment. We do. We care about jobs out in the Burin Peninsula. We supported

this project, but we said we want it to be done in an environmentally friendly

manner, not what's been happening. That's my question, Mr. Speaker. Why didn't

they –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I'd like

to hear only from the Member who's been identified – first and final warning.

Thank

you.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, your decision to

appeal the Supreme Court ruling will have additional costs and further delays

associated with it.

So my

question is simple. Maybe the minister can give me a clearer answer. What I'm

asking is: Why is your government not ordering an environmental impact

statement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a

person who agrees that there is a balance between the environment and the work

that is needed to be done. But I'll tell you one thing we're not agreeable to is

taking over a mill out in Grand Falls with the environmental impact that we have

on the province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

– and didn't even know we

took over the mill until we had to clean it up. So you're trying to give me a

lesson on environment?

Mr.

Speaker, what we had to do from the courts is strike a balance. There are parts

of the court decision that we are appealing. I can assure the Member, and I can

assure all – I know you're against the Burin Peninsula, I know you're against it

already, but I can assure you that we will find a balance between the

environment and the employment activities that are needed in the Burin Peninsula

to sustain rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we stand by that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind

the minister we do support the Burin Peninsula; we do support this project. We

just want it done right, and I think most of the general public feel the same

way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

We're in the Legislature to

ask questions. That's what we're here to do; we'd like to get some answers and

the general public want the answers as well.

Mr.

Speaker, last October the Premier promised Aboriginal leaders that water levels

at Muskrat Falls would be lowered this spring. However, in June, lowering the

water levels has stopped.

I ask

the Premier: Can you please explain why government has broken its promise?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Oh, he is up.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I'm

pleased to be up because while I listened to some rhetoric today on the other

side of the House talking about environment issues, one of the real issues on

the development of the Lower Churchill was indeed around methylmercury. Just a

few minutes ago, we heard the Member opposite talking about environmental

issues.

I would

say that when the Joint Review Panel did their work on the project called

Muskrat Falls, the biggest tax in the history of this province, I would say, Mr.

Speaker, issues around methylmercury and the Joint Review Panel were completely

dismissed. So today, the Member is reminding us about a commitment that we made

to the indigenous leaders – a commitment that we met.

When the

water was being lowered – the Member opposite would have known if he had read

the articles – we were seeing some sloping changes. We spoke to the indigenous

leaders; they were involved from day one, as a matter of fact. Mr. Speaker, they

knew about this issue a week before we did.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Premier stated that he's not interested in changing legislation so

that information on embedded contractors might be made public. Instead, he would

prefer to wait for a report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which

will be quicker than changing legislation. He noted that if there's a mechanism

in place that would allow this happen more quickly, he'd be happy to look at it.

Well, I

note that in

section 17.1(2) of the Energy

Corporation Act it states: “Notwithstanding subsection (1), the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may declare that a subsidiary is subject to the

Public Tender Act and in that

event the Act applies to the subsidiary.”

I ask the Premier: Why would he not use this power as the

mechanism to require that Muskrat Falls, a Nalcor subsidiary, be subject to the

Public Tender Act ?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all let me clarify, because I'm not sure if the

Member opposite got the wrong message, but I think I clearly articulated

yesterday that I was quite willing to actually change legislation. I've said

that many times this week as I spoke to the media and in this very House.

We also know that based on the information that's been out

is that there is a review that is currently underway with the Privacy

Commissioner. So what I've been saying is this: We're looking for – we've had a

number of correspondences which we've put out there publicly trying to address

getting this information out there.

We will get the information out there. The commercial

sensitivities – I'm sure the Member opposite would understand if indeed some of

those can't be done. My goal is to make sure that Nalcor, as a subsidiary, is as

open and transparent as any government department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I point out that Nalcor is the corporation. I'm asking the

Premier: Did he even know that he has the power to put Muskrat Falls under the

Public Tender Act ?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, with legislation and with the authority that's been given on all of

us, I guess we have the power to do those sorts of things as the Member opposite

– as a matter of fact, the CEO of Nalcor has clearly articulated that it's his

desire to get this information out there as well. I do too. But I guess it's

probably professional in our way and respectful to the processes that we have

already in place is that we would allow the Privacy Commissioner to do the work.

I will not be surprised if the Privacy Commissioner came

back and actually said that he feels this information should be released. All

I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to change the legislation if required,

but let's let the Privacy Commissioner do his work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Mr.

Speaker, we all know violence against women and girls is a major problem

province wide. Earlier this month, a coalition of feminist anti-violence

community agencies asked the minister to consult on the establishment of a task

force on violence against women and girls.

Yesterday they were very surprised by his announcement of

his Minister's Committee on Violence Against Women and Girls. Mr. Speaker, I do

commend the Minister of Justice for partially or somewhat listening to the

community.

I ask: Will he commit to inviting this very important

coalition of experts to be part of this committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question from the Member. The fact is yesterday we did announce a

very important committee to study a very serious issue in this province, one

that's plagued us for too long and one that we need to continue to work on.

While I

had heard about a request for a meeting or a consultation before, I actually

never received anything in writing, email, telephone call, anything. I have not

received that as of yet. What I can guarantee is that any of these experts,

advocates, people that have been doing the work and are recognized for their

work, they should be a part of it, they will be a part of it, they will be

invited and I certainly look forward to working with them.

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.

I ask

the minister: Will he ensure there is substantial representation from all

Indigenous communities in the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, a

very important question and one that I'm happy to answer in the affirmative; the

fact is we certainly recognize that violence against Indigenous women and girls

is prevalent and, in fact, the rates are higher. It's something that is going on

across the country and I've seen some of this through the murder and missing

inquiry into women and girls – the fact is they will have representation. We're

going to reach out to them. They should be a part of this.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre, for a quick question; no

preamble, please.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister; I assume he's going to want a lot of help with this committee: Will he

invite Members of the Opposition parties to also be part of this committee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

would say is that contrary to what the Member opposite experienced back a few

years ago when there was a different administration, I can remember she wasn't

allowed to go visit one penitentiary. Since that time, we've allowed that to

happen because she should have that right.

She

asked to go to the Labrador Justice Summit that we're holding on Monday. I've

made sure that she can do that. We're going to have this committee; she can be a

part of that too.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Pursuant to

section 105 of

the Access to Information and Protection

of Privacy Act, 2015 and

section 82 of the

Personal Health Information Act , I am

pleased to table the 2016-2017 Annual Report of the Office of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

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

emergency responders are at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, also known

as PTSD;

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

of Assembly to urge government to enact workers' compensation legislation

containing a presumptive clause with respect to PTSD for people employed in

various front-line emergency response professions, including firefighters,

emergency medical service professionals and police officers not already covered

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I wonder

if the Member could restart his comments, because your microphone was not on. I

wonder if you would mind recommencing, please.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, certainly.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

petition, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

emergency responders are at great risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, quite

often referred to as PTSD;

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

of Assembly to urge government to enact workers' compensation legislation

containing a presumptive clause with respect to PTSD for people employed in

various front-line emergency response professions, including firefighters,

emergency medical service professionals and police officers not already covered

under federal legislation.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to first comment that we know there are other first responders

who should be considered under any legislation or consideration of legislation.

This is not new for Canada. The military, as I've mentioned before when I've

spoken on this in the House, the Canadian military many years ago have

acknowledged that their members can have an accumulation of experiences that can

lead to illness, quite often PTSD.

The

RCMP, in recent years, has acknowledged all of this as well. The Provinces of

Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all introduced legislation

and have recognized PTSD as an illness that is often the result of an

accumulation of exposures and experiences that first responders have in the

course of their careers.

Mr.

Speaker, the fact is that here in Newfoundland and Labrador there are first

responders today who continue to go to work when suffering from PTSD because

they have no option; because they cannot prove what experience, what exposure,

what event caused their PTSD. That's what's required of them today: to show what

event, what experience, what incident that they encountered caused their PTSD.

And they can't do it, Mr. Speaker.

It's

better recognized by health professions now than ever before. We're learning

more about PTSD on a regular basis. The broadness and understanding of it is

growing, and the interest is growing and is understood now better than ever

before that people who endure these experiences over and over again as first

responders, it's not if they will be impacted, they will be impacted, but by how

much is the question. People who are experiencing PTSD who can't get coverage,

they continue to go to work every day as first responders without support,

without an opportunity to grasp a further understanding.

Mr.

Speaker, it can stop. The government can even indicate that they're intending to

review the legislation or change the legislation. That, in itself, will provide

relief to first responders.

It's a

pleasure to rise again today. Thank you for allowing me to table this petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

a 2013 risk assessment report made public in June 2017 makes it clear that

initial cost estimates and financial risks for the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric

project were understated; and

WHEREAS

the Muskrat Falls Project is way over budget, diverting funds from other needs

and potentially doubling electricity bills, and it has raised serious concerns

about damage to the environment and downstream communities; and

WHEREAS

Nalcor and the provincial government have not been transparent or accountable as

to why the 2013 report was not previously made public, and the people of the

province are left with many unanswered questions;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately conduct a forensic audit of the

Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, Muskrat Falls goes beyond just the actual concrete project. It has

affected people's confidence in its democracy. It has affected people's

confidence in its government.

People

are stymied by what may be the effects on their lives of this project. They have

a right to understand fully how decisions were made. In whose best interest were

the decisions made? The people of the province know that the decisions made by

the former administration and by the current administration – we know the former

administration created this mess and the current administration did nothing to

alleviate it or to rectify it.

What we

have are a people who have lost all confidence and all trust in both

administrations. Mr. Speaker, that's serious, to think that the people of the

province don't know who has their best interests at heart. Were the decisions

made with the best interests of the people? They don't believe that anymore and

we have no proof that was the case.

Muskrat

Falls is a mess and the people of the province, those who have gained the least

by Muskrat Falls, will bear the biggest burden of Muskrat Falls.

The

people have a right to a forensic audit, and this government has to commit to

that forensic audit. It's not up to this government to advise whether or not a

committee that they pull together will decide whether or not there will be a

forensic audit. The people of the province want one. They have a right to one.

Thank

you very much, 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

the Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Prescription Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in

Budget 2016; and

WHEREAS

many low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care;

and

WHEREAS

those same individuals can no longer access dentures;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to

cover low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality

of life and dignity.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, a number of my colleagues have spoken to this because of the backlash

from individuals who, unfortunately, their circumstance dictates that they don't

have coverage. They don't have the financial means to be able to have a certain

access to health care. This simple access to health care is about dentures,

being able to do the everyday things that we do.

We've

been fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, I've been fortunate enough to have had

dental insurance most of my life and been able to provide that to my family, but

a number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don't have that. Particularly

seniors who are on fixed incomes, and because of health reasons, because of not

having access to this over their lifetime, are now in need of dentures, just for

basic things like being able to have a proper meal.

I didn't

realize how prevalent this was until – the last few months I've been getting

calls from constituents of mine, when I start looking at the impact it's had and

have families coming, basically, so distraught because their mother was 85 or 90

pounds because she couldn't chew up anything. She didn't have her dentures to be

able to do it and didn't have the means to do it, and the family couldn't

support that process.

In some

cases, it does become very expensive. In some cases it is a medial process here

that it becomes an issue around whether or not people can afford it. They can't

frivolously throw out money they don't have, even though this is a health issue.

There are other things that are more important, like basis survival. At the end

of the day, it comes down to a particular health service that they should have

access to. It comes down to a bit of dignity. It comes down to quality of life,

and it's having a major impact.

A number

of years the previous administration quadrupled the amount of money because

there had been a real gap in the need. There was such an uptake, I think it even

frightened the administration about the amount of monies they had to budget, but

they had to budget it for a real reason because there was a need there. After

they figured it had peaked out and the demand was there, then you could go back

to something that was stable. Cutting the program has had a detrimental effect.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll get a chance to outline this again in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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 14.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

very pleased to stand and speak to Bill 14. For people who may be watching today

for the first time, this bill is

An Act to Amend the Elections Act, 1991. The

amendment is a pretty crucial amendment because it has to do with special

ballots.

Special

ballots are something that are essential to the whole process of elections

because special ballots allow for somebody who cannot vote in either the

advanced poll or on election day to make sure they are able to exercise their

democratic right and vote. While the issues we will be dealing with in the bill

have to do with constitutional issues because of a ruling by the Supreme Court,

the basic constitutional point is that everybody should have the right to vote,

and special ballots allow that to happen.

Now, in

2007 in this House, we did deal with amendments to the

Elections Act which did have to do with the special ballot. I think

it's important to point out that special ballots were pretty new to us,

actually, and in 2007 an attempt was made to make the special ballot more

accessible and easier for people to access. I think that was honestly what

people were trying to do. I don't think there was any attempt or any desire to

make the special ballot a mechanism that would in any way disadvantage or give

greater advantage to anybody, but one of things I noted, I went back over

Hansard actually to read the 2017

discussion.

One of

the things I noted was there was a recognition by government that this was a

learning process with regard to the special ballot and perhaps after the 2007

election we would come back and have to make changes because of recognizing

something not working, and maybe even after the election of 2011 we might have

to come back and make changes. I think without knowing it that showed real

foresight by the person who said it, because, in actual fact, that's what has

happened. It's been a learning process and we've seen things that haven't

worked. We've seen loopholes.

What

happened in 2011 was a particular situation in Burin – Placentia West that led

to one of the candidates to make an appeal, because the person who won, Mr.

Jackman, won the special ballot but he did not win the advance poll and he did

not win on election day. The ballots he won prior to the dropping of the writ –

because at that time you could vote with a special ballot prior to the writ,

even knowing who the candidates are, but at that time he actually got 40 votes

prior, from ballots that came in prior to the writ being dropped. Because of all

of those facts, the candidate, Ms. Julie Mitchell, decided to appeal.

I think

it's really good that she decided to appeal because we now have something, a

ruling from the Supreme Court that is based on constitutional rights, both of

the general public and of people who want to run. I'm not going to go into the

details of the Supreme Court ruling. I think the minister did a great job. He

used almost his whole hour to make sure people understood what was going on here

today. If anybody needs to get the fine points of that ruling they can go into

Hansard and read it. So I won't use my

shorter time to go into that.

understand the CEO will be appealing. He has appealed the Supreme Court

decision. He launched it on October 13. He's arguing that the special ballot

provisions don't infringe on

section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I was

quite impressed with the ruling. I've read it a number of times. I was quite

impressed with it. I think we just have to now wait and see. I will say I am

disappointed it's being challenged, but that's the right of anybody to do that,

to do an appeal, and that is happening. We don't know if the appeal will win;

it's quite possible that it won't. Unfortunately, if it doesn't we will have

wasted a lot of money, but that's part of democracy as well.

There's

a point I'd like to raise about by-elections. It's not something that can

actually be dealt with in the bill as we have it, but it's a broader issue. I

think the minister may have thought about this, I don't know, because we did

have one day just chatting. It wasn't about the bill, saying there are things

about by-elections that are different from general elections and we may have to

look at that.

There's

one thing I'd like to raise about by-elections. Right now, our legislation says

that the minute a seat becomes vacant, either because of resignation or a death,

then from that moment on the clock starts. Within 60 days a writ has to be

brought in and then within 30 days after that the election has to happen.

What

happens – and it's not just for the party or for the government, the party whose

person has stepped down, it's not just for the government, all parties are then

on alert. From any minute on after that day of the person no longer being in his

or her seat, from any minute on, an election can be called. We all have to get

candidates; we all have to get things in place because it was unexpected. We

didn't know this was going to happen.

Now the

party with the person who stepped down may have known, which gives them a bit of

an advantage. So I think it's something we're going to have to look at in a

broader discussion of the Elections Act

and a suggestion, and it is used in some places. My idea has actually come from

sitting and chatting with the Chief Electoral Officer. That is you can say the

writ has to be dropped within 60 days, but that cannot be called during the

first 30 days. That would give what the Chief Electoral Officer said to me, a

bump. It would sort of slow it down and give us time, give all parties 30 days

to start getting their ducks in order, and then after the 30 days the writ could

be dropped anytime during the next 30 days.

I think

that's a really good idea, and it is used in some places. We can't deal with

that now, unfortunately, but I think it is something we need to deal with as we

go on and further study the Elections Act

because today we're dealing with things – except for one

section at the end of

the bill – that have to do with special ballot. So whether it's changing the

length of our campaigns – now we're going to be saying a minimum of 26 days,

while in the past legislation was 21 days to 30 days for a campaign. So while

we're changing that and making a change to the nomination deadline, both of

those things are being dictated to by the need for the special ballot to happen

after the nominations are in place.

A couple

of the other changes – you might say that's not special ballot changes, but they

are changes that are required because of now trying to meet the ruling of

Justice Gillian Butler. The ruling was that it's unconstitutional to have

special ballots out before the writ is dropped and it's unconstitutional to have

the special ballot before the nominations are finished. That would be a special

ballot that would have on it the name of a candidate and the affiliation if the

person is with a party. To meet those two needs, which were the key rulings of

the judge, there are some other changes that are happening related to letting

the special ballot happen.

I'm not

going to go into a lot of the details. I've mentioned, I think, key points that

need to be talked about. What I want to do is go through the sections and speak

to them. Most of them are pretty straightforward, actually. The first one,

section 86.1 to 86.2, there's no change. That remains the same; we're not

changing anything there.

section 86.4(1), this provides that special ballots will be like regular

ballots. What that means is when we go in people are used to a regular ballot.

Your regular ballot has the name of the candidate, it has the party the

candidate is affiliated with or it states the candidate is an independent. Then

there's a place for marking your X.

Up to

now, the special ballot is a blank sheet. That's not allowed anymore. People

could either write a name or write a party. Then they could put that on the

sheet, write it on the sheet. So what they got wasn't a ballot like you see in

the box when we go in. It was this blank sheet with special ballot written on

it.

Now what

will happen is because of this change, the special ballot will look the same as

the ballot we get in either the advance poll or on election day. It will look

exactly the same. It won't be any different.

Section

86.4(2) does allow for a write-on ballot. I had a problem with this, the fact

that there was still an allowance if necessary. It sounds like even if it's

deemed to be an emergency, there was still going to be the possibility of a

write-on ballot to continue in cases where regular ballots cannot be printed

quickly enough after nomination date. Now I understand the CEO does have

problems because there's such a tight timeline. I think the timeline could be

increased. I don't think it has increased enough.

So what

is happening is it could be possible that some voters could still get a write-on

ballot where they have to write in, but they will have to name the candidate

because it would be after the nomination date and candidates will be known. They

will have to write in the candidate, or the candidate and his or her party, but

they're no longer allowed – if this kind of ballot has to be used somewhere –

just to put down the name of the party.

That's

sounds like that makes it all right. I expressed real concern about that in the

briefing we had. We talked about what could be done. I made a proposal, and it

was said, well, there's a desire to have a nice, clean piece of legislation

without extra things put in that aren't necessary, et cetera. Because what I was

saying is why couldn't we find a way to put a list of the names in there.

I still

believe we do need – while I'll accept there might be occasions where we'll have

to have that blank sign-on ballot, that the person voting, though – even though

it's after nomination day, and even though it is now public who is nominated, I

still believe the person with that ballot in their hand needs to have the names

of the candidates in front of them, just like the person would if they went into

the box on advance day, or on E-day itself.

understand the printing of the ballot could be, in some cases, difficult for the

CEO to get done. I would say it wouldn't be difficult to have one sheet copied

to go into a company with the special ballot, and that sheet naming who the

candidates now are with their parties if they have an affiliation. I think it's

really simple.

I will

be bringing in an amendment. The amendment is eight words. I don't think eight

words at the end of that clause is making the piece of legislation cumbersome or

dealing with details that aren't needed. I think that detail is needed. I don't

think we should just say: Well, we can take for granted that the names will be

on a sheet and we'll go with a special ballot. We can't take that for granted.

So I think all we have to do is to make sure it's clear in the new legislation

that everybody receives the names of the candidates after the nomination

deadline end. Not just people who are going into the polls and voting in polls.

I really

believe this strongly. I know that the minister is open to having discussions.

I'm not asking for something that I think is crazy or outlandish. I think it

really makes sense. I think – I'm not a lawyer and the minister is and there are

other lawyers out there – you can even make a constitutional argument that the

voter has to have the same situation.

Whether

I'm a voter in the polling box with my ballot with the names on it, or I'm a

voter with my special ballot in my hand, I should also have those names in front

of me. When I go into the polling station you can say: Oh, you know who the

candidates are. Just write down the candidate's name and the party. We don't do

that, so we shouldn't be saying: They have the special ballot. They know who the

candidates are; they know where to get that information. I think no matter how

you vote, we all should have that same equal situation of having the list in

front of us. We will have further discussions on that. I think it's very

logical.

With

regard to

section 86.5, there is no change.

Section 86.6(1) to (9); this is

slightly changed, Mr. Speaker. The Chief Electoral Officer will have some

flexibility in opening envelopes and counting ballots. This may sound very

simple to people but it's not.

Previously, declaration envelopes of the special ballot had to be opened at 6

p.m. on one day. The envelope that said there was a ballot inside got opened at

6 p.m. one day and the ballot counting started 6 p.m. the next day. Now, the CEO

could choose what days they were, but there are 24 hours in between.

People

who were part of the count on one day, the very same people had to be there for

the second day. They had to wait 24 hours. Spend hours one night opening up one

set of envelopes, wait 24 hours and come back and spend hours another night.

That's been changed. The other thing that we have in here is something which is

not related directly to by-elections.

I don't

really know why the government chose at this time to make these changes, but it

could be because they just overall want to make this change to elections and

decided since we're dealing with a by-election, let's make the changes now. It's

interesting because it's part of a whole different part of the

Elections Act . It goes right over to

section 226.1(1) and (2). What it has to do is black out days with regard to

advertising. I think I will read it, as people don't have it in front of them.

It's pretty straightforward. It deals with the registered party or the

candidate, a corporation or a trade union, different people who would be

involved in an election and when they may not advertise.

The

original piece in the Elections Act

resulted in advertising blackout days at the beginning of any election that was

longer than 21 days. It ensured that candidates don't get overcharged during an

election. The new subsections were intended to ban advertising on polling day

and the day preceding polling day. In other words, you wouldn't turn on a radio

on polling day or the day before it and hear ads about a party or an individual.

You wouldn't see ads in a paper or anything of that nature.

The

original wording that was presented during the briefing looked like there was a

possible snag. It looked like advertising was going to be banned all the time

during a year except during elections. We had noticed the discrepancy after the

briefing and we were going to suggest the wording be changed. Then, the

government notified us that afternoon that in actual fact they had picked up on

it as well. In the afternoon after the briefing we did get a revised version of

the bill.

Now, the

only time that advertising can't happen in the province – when it comes to a

party's political action, whether it's advertising by a corporation or a trade

union, or a party or an individual – is on the polling date of an election and

the day before the polling date of an election. So we were glad that got picked

up and acted on.

I see

that my time is running out, but I have made the two major points that I wanted

to speak to. I look forward to speaking to them again when we get into

Committee.

Thank

you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up here today and represent the beautiful District of

Cape St. Francis, as I always say.

It's

interesting how I'm going to do my comments today. I listened to the three House

Leaders basically go through the bill and give the explanation line for line on

the bill and what clauses they look at, and fixes that they do have for some of

the dilemma. I'm not saying it's a dilemma or anything, but some of the

discussion that's on the go here today was – I just listened to the Leader of

the Third Party. I have to say most of the comments that she made, I agree with

her. I'm going to go a little bit different today.

I've

been involved in elections at a very early age. My father was an MHA here in the

House of Assembly for a number of years. When he finished, I became involved

with Jack Byrne.

We all

run elections in different ways. It's your volunteers and the people that come

out and help you that really dictate how you do in your elections. I'm sure an

experienced person like the Minister of Finance who's been here for years and

years, you have people that you say: You're in charge of the advance poll and

you're in charge of the special ballots.

Special

ballots were a new thing to me. It was interesting in the last election because

in my district, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people that work offshore. There

were a lot of people working at the time in Alberta and other parts of Canada

and other parts of the world, friends of mine. I had a person in my campaign

that said: We have to find out who's not going to be around election day, who

needs special ballots, who cannot go. There were people who were at home on

oxygen and different other ailments that couldn't go to the ballot box on the

day of the election so they needed special ballots. In some cases, it was at the

seniors' home.

I was at

a place last night where someone just asked me: What are special ballots? Who

can do a special ballot? That's what I explained to him, these are the people

who can actually do the special ballots.

In an

election campaign it's very important that for anyone who wants to get elected,

you have to get the vote out. You have to work and make sure that everybody you

know, who's available to cast a ballot, casts a ballot. As we know in elections,

one vote counts. Every vote counts. You can do it by one vote or whatever.

Just to

tell you about the special ballots. In the last election I had numerous people

who were away. There were people who were in Florida. I had two couples who were

in Arizona and I think they either mailed in or they called the chief electoral

office and had the kit sent to them, then they had so many days to get it back,

but you know what, it's part of democracy. Those people have just as much right

to vote as anybody else in this province. If you're working offshore or maybe

you're retired and you don't want to stay around here for the cold winters and

you're down in Florida, it's your right to vote.

Special

ballots are a great thing. Like I said, it could be somebody who just cannot go,

due to medical reasons, to the poll box but they want – listen, as we all know

in this House of Assembly and we all know as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

we have many people who died to give us the right to vote and that's part of

what this is all about. It's about democracy. It's about the right to vote.

That's why we're here today.

My whole

thing about the debate today – I'm glad that the House Leader has let us get up

today and speak, it seems like we're going to be the ones to be doing most of

the speaking and give our concerns. Our concerns –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, and so we should, so we

should. Everyone should get up and make sure that your constituents are heard

and make sure that democracy and the rights and fairness for people in this

province are doing it. That's what this is about.

Now, I

can talk about, like I said, how I did for special ballots. I tell you, as an

incumbent or a government Member – I'm not saying government, I'm saying

incumbent, as a Member of the House of Assembly it's an advantage. If you're

running again and you get your own nomination, it's an advantage because you

should have a team in place. You should have an idea of how advanced polls work.

How it's important to get your vote out that day and how important it is with

team work and stuff like that.

Special

ballots – I'm not sure, but the last election, I could be wrong, I think when

they did the count I had over 300 which was huge. For some people in this House

of Assembly, 300 votes are a lot because it meant the difference between winning

or losing your seat. So if you did your work you can get – it's all about

getting a vote out, it's all about getting everybody.

The

special ballot gives people who cannot vote, for no reason of their own – and a

special ballot doesn't necessarily mean that you're not around voting days.

Somebody may just want to say listen, I want to get the vote done and I'm going

to go do a special ballot. It takes a bit of procedure. You have to go fill out

an envelope and you have to put it in another envelope and do a lot of work.

It's not as simple as just going up and signing your X the day of the election.

It's a little bit of work. So if somebody really wants to do it, it's up to

themselves.

As I

just said, incumbents – and I'm not saying government Members, I'm saying all

Members – have an advantage if they're going to run again because they know the

procedure and everything else. Government Members, along with any Member of this

House, surely knows the importance of what special ballots are and advanced

polls are.

I had

the experience of working with my father and Jack Byrne. They were very good

political people; very smart political people. I think I've learned a lot from

both of them over the years and know how the whole thing works.

What I

want to talk about today is about fairness, and it's fairness to all. I know the

decision to do what we do – I had a bunch of seniors in here this morning and

had a great conversation. I love it when they come to the House of Assembly. I

get to stand here on the floor and talk to them and explain the procedures here

in the House of Assembly.

One of

the seniors said to me, she said: Kevin, it takes a lot of guts to do what

you're doing. I laughed at her. I said I don't know if it takes a lot of guts or

anything, but it's a big decision. It's a huge decision to put yourself out in

public life.

People

all around this province – we're probably the most opinionated province in

Canada. People always have an opinion. People always want to express their

opinions, but I wish there would be more stand up and say I'm to express my

opinion. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go and I'm going to try to make a

difference.

I feel

that everyone in this House of Assembly is here for that reason. First and

foremost for me is to do everything I can for my constituents. I tell them

they're my bosses. Secondly, we're here in the House of Assembly to make

decisions that are best for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We're

here to make sure things are done properly. That's part of the stuff I want to

talk about on this bill. It's about fairness.

The very

first

part I'm going to talk about is the five days for nomination. I understand

the reasons why this was brought in. I understand the judge's ruling; Judge

Butler's ruling. In fact, I agree with her ruling.

Understanding special ballots like I do, I always had a problem that there's no

name there. When people ask me: Kevin, how do I do this special ballot? Is it

like going to the box and you mark your X with the person's name there? Not so.

I said: No, that's not how it works. You can either put my name there or the

party.

For a

person who was running as an independent, what party do they put down? You know,

that's a disadvantage. I agree with the Leader of the Third Party, and I'm going

to talk a little bit about it later, about write on the ballot. I'd love to see

it so that the names are there and the Xs, so you can mark the same thing as you

do on election day. So all the names of the candidates – and that's basically

what Judge Butler wants us to do. What her ruling is, that the names be there.

Here's

what I want to talk about, the five-day nomination period. I told you about how

this morning I had a group of seniors in and it was a big decision, like I told

them, for me to run. I came in at a very unfortunate time. My good friend had

died, and there was a nomination period. He was a very good man, a very good

friend of mine. I had really no intention of it. I would have much rather see

him continue with his job.

At that

time I had to make a decision, and the decision I had to make, as a single

parent with two children, one in high school and another one in university,

would I take the gamble to do what I did today. That was a huge decision. I had

to talk to my family; I had to talk to my employer. I had to talk to my

employer. I didn't know but he'd probably say, listen, Kevin if you take that

loop and go try for the nomination, don't bother coming back here no more. I

don't know.

There

are all kinds of different things you have to look at. As new MHAs, and people

in this House, I'm sure you all, everybody here in this house had the same

decision to make. It's not something that you just snap and it's done. There are

all kinds of things you should be prepared for. Most people understand public

life, but it would be nice to talk to somebody who has been involved in public

life to see if that's really what you want to do.

five-day period for nomination is just not long enough. You got to have a

nomination meeting. You got to have people in – if there are people going to run

against you, a nomination meeting. So then what you have to do, you have to go,

like I had to, to my friends, people I played hockey with over the years. Some

of them, I wasn't sure whether they were going to support me or not. I don't

know why, but I just wasn't sure they were going to support me.

They

came out and they did support me. It was a period of time that we did have for

people to get out, but there's no way, it's impossible – it's my belief that

it's impossible to do that in five days. The decision that has to be made, for

you to do what we're doing here today, you should think about it. You should

inform your family. You have to make sure your employer or anyone else – and it

would be nice to know if you have a bit of support in the communities. You'd

want to call people in different communities and see. Nobody wants to run for

nomination and for nobody to come out and support him. So there are a lot of

time frames.

This

five-day period, I can't see it working. Again, it's okay for me. If I run

again, hopefully I'm going to be okay, but the new person that comes in behind

me afterwards, they have decisions to make. Anybody can resign; just like we saw

right now in Mount Pearl North. Anybody in this House can resign.

I've

been here for over nine years now and it's amazing me. If I could tell you the

number of people and the by-elections that have gone on here in the House of

Assembly; I can't believe how many people come and go, but that's part of

political life.

I really

believe that if we're going to be a great House, if we're going to represent the

people of the province the way we want to, we have to have the best possible

people here. We have to have people that are here for the right reasons. If that

means getting a person to make up his mind or her mind and it takes 10 days,

well so be it. I believe there should be a time limit. I'm not saying there

should be no time limit. Obviously Justice Butler said, listen, this is what we

have to do, there has to be a time limit. That's the reason why we're moving it

to 26 days.

I have

no problem with that whatsoever, but I think we should come back from the end.

There should be a duration, whether it's a 34-day campaign or it's a 40-day

campaign, come back, give the Chief Electoral Office time enough to be able to

get special ballots out. Give them time enough to be able to make sure that

everybody who deserves it, everybody in a democracy deserves the right to vote

and they get that right to vote, and give them time to do their work.

That's

why I think there should be a duration at the end, and I think we should work

back. Rather from the start, I think we should work back from the day the

election day is, come back and make sure we work with the Chief Electoral Office

so there's enough time in order for them to be able to do what they need to do

with special ballots.

Again,

agreeing with the Leader of the Third Party, I think it's fair that the names –

now she proposed, I was at the same briefing she was at. She said, okay, if the

Chief Electoral Office doesn't have time enough to get the names on the ballot,

at least have a list there. I think that's what you were saying. At least have a

list there so that when a person does go in to the ballot box they have a list.

If it's

a person that's an independent, their names are there as an independent and you

have the same vote. Now I would prefer it be done the same as election day, that

all the names are there, parties, independent and you mark an X, but there may

be circumstances that the Chief Electoral Office wouldn't be able to get that

out, but if there's a list there they would be able to do it.

Again,

sometimes people will say: Oh, it's an unfair advantage for government; it's an

unfair advantage for incumbents and unfair advantage for this. Any time we do

about incumbents. It should be about fairness.

We live

in a democracy. We live in a place where it's the greatest country in the world

and the finest province in the world. People have the right to vote because

people sacrificed what they did, scarified so we have this right.

I just

want to say to government and say to the House Leader: Let's do this right.

Let's make sure that what we're doing on this piece of legislation is right.

It's not an unfair advantage for me or it's not an unfair advantage for you. I

want to see this piece of legislation so that people in the province who deserve

the right to vote, have the right to vote.

I heard

the House Leader today say it's about the candidates and stuff like that. It is

about the candidates and it's about the right to vote, but it's about having the

best candidates. It's about having people that are here for the right reasons.

It's about having someone who's representing everybody in the province that are

there because they want to be there. They want to be here because they want to

do the best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I firmly believe that –

and I've got no reason not to. I firmly believe that most or all Members here

are here for that reason. I hope they are.

When I

look at the special ballots and I know – nah, this will never happen. Look what

happened to Harper when he ran the long election. Look what happened to him. He

went down and stuff like that. There are scenarios that could happen here. There

are times that leaders leave. Leaders leave and I was part of it when leaders

left. I was here for a number of leaders and I was only here for a short time.

That happens.

People

leave politics and for reasons of their own, people leave. Sometimes there can

be snap elections and there was. In the past, we've seen snap elections in this

province, but it would be unfair for us to put legislation through in this House

that will give somebody an advantage over another group. People of the province

don't want that. They want it to be fair.

I'll

just give you an example that I'll see. By-elections and general elections are

two different things. I know we have a fixed date. A fixed date on a general

election is not a problem at all, but it doesn't necessarily mean that's the

only time that election can be called. An election can be called any time at

all, depending on what happens.

In the

governing party, it is your right. People voted you to be the government of the

day and you have the right to call the shots in this House of Assembly. You have

the right to call an election. You have the right to call a by-election. But all

I want to see is for this bill to be fair to everybody, to be fair to all

parties, whether it's the Third Party, the Opposition Party, or even your own

party, and everybody on a level playing field is fair.

If the

time is there and it's a fixed date, will we come back and say, okay, we'll give

them an extra few days – I think the last was 21 days and 30 days that an

election could be called. So if we are going to go to 26, let's look at 34.

Maybe we'll look up as far as 40 days, but that will give you time back so the

chief electoral office can do their job with special ballots. I think that makes

sense. I really do.

What

could happen in an election – I hope that you listen to me, the Member for Lab

West; I'd like to see you listen to me. Because that's what we're here to do;

we're here to debate. I believe that in order for us to attract the people that

we need, it has to be longer than five days. I believe that people want to get

involved in politics, but sometimes they need the time to make that decision.

There are different ways to do this. All I want to do is make sure that it's

fair to everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS:

The Member for Lab West is

chirping over there. I wish he'd give me a chance to speak. I didn't chirp while

he was speaking yesterday, but he has a tendency to do all the time.

I only

have a minute left here now; I just hope he'd listen for a little bit because he

was against every amendment. I'm not listening to any amendments is what he said

yesterday – not listening to any amendments. I'm glad that his House Leader said

today that he will listen to us because this is what the House of Assembly is

here for, for all of us to make a decision. But the main thing when we make a

decision in the House of Assembly is that we make the right decision, and the

right decision is about fairness, it's about attracting people to this

Legislature that are good people, that people in this province want to see here,

and they're here for the right reasons.

I think

there are some changes that should be made and some amendments that should be

made here, and I hope that government will listen to Opposition, and probably

listen to some of the Members that have concerns also.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

pleasure to get up and pass my commentary on this Bill 14, our

Elections Act and dealing with special

ballots. I guess if this bill ever comes to the floor of the House again, most

of us won't be around here then, more than likely, you never know, but it's

always good to pass your comments and have your views on record because we do

represent individual districts.

Sometimes that's all lost in the banter back and forth in the House. No one

needs reminding, but I think it's valid to say that we all represent individual

districts. It's a huge honour. There are 40 men and women in this House who

represent the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the respective 40

districts and bring their voices to the floor of the House of Assembly. That is

what democracy is. This is supposed to be our democracy. This is our Parliament

and we do represent the interests of the 500,000-plus people who live in this

province. It is a huge honour and it's not an honour, I don't think, any of us

should take so lightly.

keeping with that, I believe that is probably the crux of why we, as an

Opposition, collectively, have kind of stuck our heels in, in the last week, on

this bill in general because it's too important an issue, I believe, to let

slide by and not to do it right.

We heard

what Justice Butler said in her statement in 2007: It was rushed. There was lots

of blame to go around. There might be a couple of Members who sat in that

Legislature back then who are still here now. It was nothing intentional. It

wasn't an intended result, but unfortunately that's what's happened. Here we are

today, 10 years later, going back, due to a court decision, to try to make it

right.

If we're

going to make it right, we should make it right. We should listen to what 40

Members have to say because as I just started – my preface was, we represent the

entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a huge honour. The residents

who we represent deserve – the 16,000 people I represent deserve to hear me pass

my opinion along because I'm speaking for them.

As an

incumbent in this Parliament, we have a huge advantage when it comes to

elections. Whether you get elected again, that depends. We're advertised. We're

out in the public. We get constant PR – I guess if you want to call it – for

four years. We're the incumbent; we have an idea of when an election is coming.

We have a feel for it. So we're well off to the races, but you look at anybody

out on – my prospective opponents are sitting by waiting I guess until 2019.

Have a

fair and open process; give everyone that opportunity to try to put their name

forward, to come in to represent their district; and, like I say, to take up

this huge honour. Of course, any of us who are running for re-election, we're

going to challenge them to the last minute, but that's what democracy is about.

That is really and truly what democracy is about.

When the

clock hits 8 o'clock on election night, if you're fortunate enough to get put

back here, you get back here, but do it right. Don't have any roadblocks. Why

would we even be considering something that – you come with 40 Members, why are

we not doing something? Why don't we all sit down around a table, sit here at

this table, wherever, and hash out a proper process for everybody.

I mean,

you're dealing with special ballots, but you're also getting into election writ

periods, your nomination period. It kind of gets muddied a bit when we say

special ballots as an entirety because it kind of confuses the situation.

first, when Justice Butler came down with her decision, we called our leader. We

called for the House to open to deal with this issue knowing that at the time

there was a by-election coming up. At the time, until we got a chance to look at

that decision, we were more or less thinking special ballots. I think everybody

was. It was unconstitutional and I got that.

I ran a

lot of elections before I ever ran as a candidate and I'm very well versed in

the special ballot process. I know there was a lot of work to get that one vote

sometimes; you did a lot of work. I think most Members here can attest to some

of the work you do to get that one ballot to that person and what's required.

Every

vote counts and not only in a ballot box, but it counts for democracy. Everyone

has that right to vote and we should never put any impediment there to deny them

the right to vote. Justice Butler was bang on with her decision, but given the

right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

With the

decision as he stated, it's unfair to independents, people who are not party

affiliated. I know when I got elected I never got elected because I was a PC. I

know this because people told me they elected me. When they were going in to

vote, if they had to go in without a face to that ballot, they probably wouldn't

have wrote in Progressive Conservative back in 2015. I mean I'm not afraid to

say that.

When

Barry Petten's name showed up on the ballot, they voted for me. I've been told

that this is not – as I was thinking there the week about all this, that really

came true for me. That process would have probably hindered me in the tight

election I was in with the change of government coming on. To me, that just

answers everything about what we see wrong with this bill. That's one section.

We need to have a list of candidates and their parties. We need to have the

nomination in place before you cast your special ballot. I think that's one big

issue.

We talk

about the five days, the nomination period. This comes back to the whole crux of

our democracy. Why are we making it challenging for a party or an individual to

put their name on the ballot?

I tell

the story many times because I think it just tells sometimes that people don't

understand in the general public how we all arrive where we are. The former

Member that sat in the seat I'm in now, when he announced his resignation – and

I was his executive assistant at the time – I never ever anticipated, I never

viewed myself in this role. I was always quite comfortable; we were kind of

partners in crime for long time. I enjoyed the support role and I ran his

campaigns. That was our comfort level.

remember when he resigned, the next thing I know people were looking at me: So

you're running, right? I found it really funny. I have to say, I got a great

chuckle. I laughed a bit and then I realized the people weren't laughing back

and I said well I better seriously consider this.

That

took me days. I never went home that evening and went in and told my wife and

family I was running because that took a soft approach. It's a big decision.

Even if everyone is with you, it's a huge decision. It's not so simple, and we

all know it, it's not so simple – oh yeah, I'm going to run. If you're not given

enough time to debate that out in your own mind, a lot of people will not run,

they'll probably pull back.

remember – and I was around politics all my life – it was a huge decision. The

pit in my stomach was turning for about a week trying to get my mind around am I

ready to take on this challenge. But when I made my mind up, I was ready to roll

and the rest was history.

We're

given a five-day period in the event of a snap election. I understand, for the

most part we will have an idea. We have fixed election dates and if there is a

change in leadership, and the government can call an election any time, I guess.

I do know that in most cases we will know in advance when an election is coming,

in most cases. I get that.

When

you're going out, say your five-day window, everyone says, and I heard some

media commentary early in the game saying: You're going to know when the

election is. This is no surprise. A by-election we do and we've had lots of

notice of this by-election.

Not all

general elections will work that way. We've seen that in the past with the

so-called snap election. That's why we come in a lot with fixed election dates

so we can give a more defined period, a defined election date pretty well to

stop that from happening.

If you

look back, when that was brought in, fixed election dates, that was one of the

reasons that – advocates who advocated for fixed election dates didn't want to

give the governing party an advantage. That was well documented back at the

time. This was meant to eliminate any unfair advantage the governing party had.

The governing party had a huge advantage before that. We've seen it back in the

90s with former Premier Tobin. He did it twice. Bang, bang. He called elections

less than three years apart. It happens. It's happened (inaudible) that's the

most recent examples but it's happened over the years.

Again,

I'll go back to: Why aren't we doing it right? Even to say: Trust us; we're not

going to do that. Do you know what? Fair enough. The Government House Leader,

I'll say I trust you; no problem. This is not about us. This is not about this

group of men and women in here now.

What

about in 15 years' time, in 10 years' time when all of us have gone off into the

sunset, wherever we've gone. There's going to be a new Legislature; there's

going to be a new government here. These are election rules. They're not

changing every day without coming in and doing what we're doing here now.

Why

don't we do it – there's criticism already about it from Justice Butler, and

rightfully so, and from a lot of commentaries. We got it wrong in 2007, the

Legislature of the day. Get it right in 2017 so in 2027 we're not back here

saying: In 2017 they rushed this; they never did the proper consultation. They

never did the proper analysis.

This

shouldn't be a political gain, a win for anybody. Again, I come back, there are

40 of us. We're elected Members of this House and it's a huge honour that we

represent, but we're here again representing the interests of the people. I'm

representing 16,000 people. Out of those 16,000 people, there are people who are

going to want run for my seat, but I'm here to represent them and their

interests. They have a right.

This is

a process that we look back now – and I'm sure there's not a Member in this

House who haven't thought about when they heard it, that's terrible how they

rushed that in 2007 and never got it right. I believe there were 12 pages of

Hansard that was registered. Justice

Butler was pretty clear in her criticism and rightfully so. Get it right.

There

are several issues, but the two big issues we have are the fixed writ period and

your five days to get your candidates in place. Both of those create problems. I

believe that you need to have a fixed window for elections because, again, the

governing party has an unfair advantage. The reason I say that is governing

parties tend to do a better job fundraising, which is par for the course. They

have deeper pockets. They can run it.

We saw

what happened federally. We all know, it's been well documented the former prime

minister of the country pulled that one on an 11-week campaign. It backfired. A

shorter campaign, the Conservatives probably would have formed a government and

the Liberals would not have won, but in saying that, he did that on the premise

that they had deep pockets. The federal Conservatives are great fundraisers.

They're still great fundraisers. He thought he was going to outspend his

opponents. That was his goal: 11 weeks, I will outspend them, out campaign them

and out advertise them because they were into the (inaudible) all negative

advertisement, pumping it on the television and whatnot. It didn't work, we all

know.

Having

that window makes it fair for all parties, all parties in our Legislature and

Independents included. Sure, the governing party will still have an advantage

because most times governing parties have deeper pockets to run elections, but

they'll have more candidates in place. They have more fundraising abilities, but

in saying all of that, if you have a window of 40 days, what's wrong with that?

If you

give yourself enough time – I know the federal government, they have a minimum

36-day period and you get 15 days to have your candidates in place. So let's

give it 40 days and give it 15 days, go back from 40. So that's 25 days from

election day you have to have your candidates in place. Right now, it's 10, 11

maybe, 10, yes. Then the proposal of five days, to me there's something

radically wrong. It's just not right. I suppose in conjunction, that's two of my

points in the one response. The fixed election period of say, 40 days, I believe

you don't start from the beginning; you start from election day. That gives more

certainty to everything.

You have

15 days or whatever. You have 25 days back from – you have a 40-day election

period. The nominations have to be done by 25 days prior to election day. That

gives you 15. Thirty-five, 20 – you can play with any number; it's like a

timeline, but go from election day back. Then, everyone gets certainty.

As was

already stated, government wanted to – we know then we have fixed certainty that

election day is scheduled to be November 30. October 21 is the earliest the

election writ can drop. It's more certainty but it levels the playing field.

It's what democracy is about.

We take

it for granted. I'm sure all of us go home; I try not to look at too much

because sometimes it can get draining. But you look at the national news cycles;

look how fortunate we are to live in the country we live in, to have a democracy

to be able to get up and opposing views. To be able to question your government,

your Legislature every day when the House is sitting, to be able to speak up for

the people you represent. Lots of places in this world would give dearly to have

what we take for granted.

Sometimes maybe we take it too much for granted because when we bring in a bill

like this – and I'll go back to my initial comments. At first, when we brought

this in I was just zeroed in on special ballots. I really was. I was thinking:

That's good. That makes sense. There should be no problem. We can work with

that. But then it got into, like I said, the writ period, the period for your

nomination. This was more than special ballots.

This

came into the crux and the basic foundation of our democracy, of our election

system. It took a couple of days, I think, for even the media, and somewhat

outside, to really catch on to what we were talking about. This wasn't a Tory

against a Liberal thing; this was about us as a Legislature getting it right.

Mr.

Speaker, I reached out, actually, yesterday to a local political science

professor at MUN, Kelly Blidook. I clarified with him and feel free to use his

name. I reached out to him and I never gave anything away but I said: What are

your thoughts on this bill? Just basically I told him we had issues with the

length and the five days, what do you think? I can show you that email as well,

but I didn't give him any other illusions. I'd like to know. If you don't mind,

would you share your views?

He came

back and he was very appreciative that, actually, we reached out to ask him. He

reviewed the bill. I'd like to read what his response was because I think it

kind of seals the deal on what I've been basically saying, right?

He says:

“Thanks for getting in touch – I have not been vocal on this issue in part

because I had not followed it very closely previously. However, I share your

concern and have reviewed what I can to get up to speed on the initial decision.

“I agree

that the 5 days is extremely short and therefore a problem. If this provision is

to serve to benefit anyone, it can only logically be those with power over

election timing, which is the governing party. It's noteworthy that, at the

federal level, there is a minimum 36 day period” – as already stated – “and the

closing of nominations is 21 days before the election, thus a minimum of 15 days

for nominations. I would simply recommend following the same model (it clearly

doesn't risk a lack of constitutionality), and I'd question the rationale of

making it significantly shorter and taking such a risk.

“I can

also see where a governing party might abuse the lack of a maximum, and there

seems to be no other plausible reason to avoid a maximum period, but I also know

this is an area where there are other clear cases where no maximum is imposed. I

still feel there should be one.

“I think

it logically follows that the bill fails to meet the justice's ruling because

the concern stated centred around an advantage due to the law itself, and at

least in the case of the proposed 5-day nomination period, there is still an

advantage – in my view – in a substantive form. I don't know that I'd conclude

the same about the length of the writ period, but a similar concern is at least

apparent.

“Anyway,

I hope this helps – if you want to discuss further, please let me know.”

That, to

me, is pretty well telling to what I'm after standing here and saying for the

last, pretty well, 20 minutes. He captured it in a shorter period of time. I'm

not getting up and mudslinging, I'm not pointing fingers. We do a lot of that in

other debates and that, but I believe this is too important to go to that level.

I believe that I'd encourage all members to get up and share their views because

we all are 40 on this one, I believe. We need to park our political stripes and

do what's right for our Elections Act ,

for our democracy.

I can be

as political as anyone in this room. I'm sure most members around know I can get

into pretty good banter, but I have no intentions of doing that. I sincerely say

that, in all due respect, to everyone here. I believe this is too important to

get wrong, Yeah, you can come back to the Legislature and fix it, but I think

it's probably a level of embarrassment for all of us here in this Legislature.

You know, I've heard the comments on the floor of the House critical of the

Legislature of 2007. Now, rightly or wrongly – but this criticism, I guess, if

the shoe fits, you wear it.

I know

the Member for Signal Hill, the Leader of the Third Party, stated they probably

were unaware because it was a new thing to them. Special ballots were somewhat

new back then. I was back running elections and it was all kind of a bit – we

were unsure, we were uncertain about it. It was a new thing so I can sort of

justify how they would have not gotten it right.

But now,

10 years later, 2017 the world has changed a lot, especially with elections.

Like I say, we should not get this wrong. This is too important to get wrong. I

believe that we should work together. Park your, I guess, politics by the door,

because on this one it's just too important.

I know

my colleagues, the rest of us, will obviously be speaking and our leader will be

following up. We all feel strongly enough about this to carry on the debate as

long as necessary to get our points out, to be on record as standing up for what

we believe in.

Most

importantly, Mr. Speaker, we need to stand up for the individual districts we

represent and the people who we are representing. They might not realize it

today but down life's road what you're doing now is protecting democracy. It's

protecting them in the future, too, for the right to vote, the right to run for

election, the right to serve and have the privilege to serve in public office.

On that

note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's,

indeed, an honour to stand in the House of Assembly again as we reconvene to

debate Bill 14,

An Act to Amend the Elections Act.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to start with a paragraph that I'm also going to use to end.

This is an excerpt from Justice Gillian Butler's review and decision on the

electoral special ballots challenge that was put forward a number of years ago.

Under

paragraph 156 it says: “There was no evidence presented in this case to support

that the members realized that special ballot voters' ability to make a

reasonably informed decision in the pre-writ period could be compromised ….”

Mr.

Speaker, to me – I want to start this on a positive note – that speaks volumes.

There's no blame given here to any individual, any political party, any group,

any past Members of this House of Assembly, or any organization that lobbied in

any way, shape or form to give a particular advantage to any particular party or

candidate in any particular region.

What

this states here is that – and a number of my colleagues have said this in the

past – in the past, as we addressed issues, policy, procedures, we addressed the

things that we know are in front of us. That's human nature. You address the

things that you're most comfortable with and the things that you address in a

forthright process.

In this

case, in 2007, the Legislature here was dealing with issues around special

ballots as part of a bigger picture. One of the particular issues was that this

was a new approach to certain things and had to be addressed in a different way.

Everybody had a discussion around how do you do this in an equitable way, in a

fair manner. In a way, that really represents democracy and isn't an advantage

or a disadvantage to the voters, to a particular party, to a particular

candidate or to a particular region.

At the

time, their review and their discussion – and all parties had an open

discussion. Maybe not as lengthy as if hindsight now would dictate if they'd

gone back they would have said: What happens in this scenario? What if this is

the case? What if there's a small spread of votes between the winner and the

second individual and those votes' difference are based on special ballots? Is

there any relevance to that? Does it have an impact?

Obviously, Judge Butler's decision is: Yes, it does have relevance. At the time

it wasn't that it didn't have relevance, it's that nobody identified the impact

that it could possibly have. These are new things.

In life,

as we go through anything, as things progress – as they say in life: It's a

living entity. You improve it as you go through. You identify challenges you

didn't know existed. You realized there are different approaches to certain

things.

As we

address the special ballot issue here, there's no doubt people now who were

around in 2007, who had this debate, people who previously were there and made

recommendations in 2007 would look at this and say had we really thought down

the road and really thought of every component of the special ballot but,

particularly, the bigger picture here of how we give our citizens the ability to

have access to voting and using the democratic process, that there would have

been, particularly, I would think, some additional discussions here. There would

have been some open processes about the scenarios that could be positive and the

scenarios that could be negative.

There

would have been, no doubt, a better understanding that we have to review this

maybe on a more timely basis. As things evolve and as we identify certain

challenges, we can come up with solutions so that we don't get into a

circumstance where we are now. There's no blame to anybody in this House.

There's no blame to the government. There's no blame to the Opposition. What we

are facing now is a decision that was made, a legal decision made on merits and

made with due diligence, due research and following the letter of the law and

the

interpretation of what the characteristics of democracy and, particularly,

about eligibility and ability to vote in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We were

forced then, because of that, and forced in a good sense, to come back and

rectify something that hadn't been addressed or that the circumstances had

changed over the last number of years so that we could now get it right. But to

get it right, you don't want to repeat history. So what you want to do is to say

let's look at what are the nuances here that will identify the challenges that

Judge Butler had outlined that weren't acceptable under legalities in the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms and prevent it, all candidates and all parties,

from being on an equal playing field.

As we do

that, you want to be able to project, on a go-forward basis, what are some of

the other challenges here. What are some of the other potential restrictions or

some of the other potential hindrances that may down the road prevent an

independent candidate from running, another party from being informed and having

access to their candidates and their policies and that and the general

population understanding who it is they would vote for and what that party

represents and who their candidates are.

These

were things that she had outlined. I just wanted to note one of her key things

were to say: Look, there's no malice here. Nobody set out to ensure that they

had an advantage. In 2007 that was the intent, and I would hope and I would

think by the ti