PDF Version

November 15, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 42

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Today we

welcome to the public gallery Joshua Power, who will be the subject of a

Member's statement this afternoon.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Member for the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave; the

District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; Conception Bay South; St. George's

Humber; St. John's Centre; and Baie Verte Green Bay.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

with great pride that I rise in this hon. House to pay tribute to World War II

veteran, William John Pauls, originally of Fortune Bay.

At age

15, in 1939, John left his hometown to join the Merchant Navy. He first set sail

on a cargo ship called the Elizabeth

Rivers . He started as an assistant to the cook before becoming a marine

engineer.

During

the war his friends knew him as Johnny. And like so many others, Johnny saw the

world: Greece, Holland, Belgium, the West Indies and Germany. His fondest war

memory is of a time when he and his crew arrived at a port in Belgium. The crew

helped distribute food and supplies to orphaned children left with nothing. John

remembers the children were very hungry and frightened.

In 1948,

John married Violet Chipman of Spaniard's Bay. They built a home there and

raised two children.

John

Pauls is 92 now and still a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 9, in

Spaniard's Bay.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking Mr. Pauls for his service in the cause of

freedom and his lifetime of dedication to our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to deliver the highest of accolades and thanks to the

many individuals who worked tirelessly to keep us safe and meet the challenges

caused by the devastating impact of Hurricane Matthew.

During

this storm, historical rainfall amounts produced multiple states of emergency

across the province. Rainfall amounts of over 200 millimetres in our region

battered roads, isolated our communities and destroyed many residents' homes.

Today, I

thank all those volunteers and officials who worked tirelessly to make sure

residents remained safe and secure throughout the response and recovery effort

to reconnect communities and have access to basic essentials. We also thank you

for your continued hard work as we move towards full recovery.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in thanking and congratulating those

who epitomize our true spirit of South Coast strong, which was clearly evident

throughout the district as we commenced the rebuilding effort together.

Hats off

to our volunteer fire departments, our mayors and town staff, emergency

responders, local volunteers, the aquaculture companies who provided boats for

freight delivery so we could have food, the mayor who rode a dory to transfer

doctors and nurses from one side of the bay to the other, our road crews and

everyone involved in the relief effort. We are so very proud of you all.

Thank

you so much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, from August 13 to 21, more than 1,500 young athletes from across the

province attended the 2016 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games in the

beautiful Town of Conception Bay South. I'm proud to say that for the first time

in Newfoundland games history, Aboriginal teams participated, along with eight

regions in the province.

Both the

SportNL trophy for the team showing the most improvement from one summer game to

the next and the Lieutenant Governor's award celebrating sportsmanship and

spirit were presented to the host region: CBS. These games are a great

opportunity for our young athletes to compete, develop skills, meet new friends

and also learn the values of sportsmanship, skill and development.

honestly enjoyed every aspect of the games, and it was obvious that teamwork and

community spirit was evident throughout the entire week.

Congratulations to the organizing committee led by games chair, Eric Schibler,

and the hundreds of volunteers who have made these games possible. I also

commend the Town of Conception Bay South for their support and, once again,

demonstrating its outstanding ability to host first-class sporting events.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize the accomplishments of Flat Bay native Gordon Patrick White.

Gordon was recently named as a cast member for the largest theatre company in

Canada: the renowned Stratford Festival.

Gordon

takes great pride in his Mi'kmaq heritage, which is not surprising given that

his parents are Elder Calvin White Sr. and Francis White. Gordon's involvement

with theatre started while he was at high school in St. George's. It was there

that he got the acting bug and he never looked back.

After

high school, he pursued his craft by graduating from the fine arts program at

Grenfell campus of Memorial University. His work from there took him everywhere.

He's been involved with the Stephenville festival, Theatre Newfoundland

Labrador, Neptune Theatre group, the National Arts Centre, amongst many more.

This

last September, this rising talent was invited to audition for the Stratford

Festival in Stratford, Ontario. While this was his first visit to Stratford, it

won't be his last. Gordon was asked to join the cast for the festival for 2017.

I ask

hon. Members to join me in congratulating Gordon Patrick White, a rising star in

Canadian theatre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am so

pleased to honour the amazing Joshua Power, winner of 4-H Club of Canada's

Leadership, Excellence Awards of Distinction. The coveted LEAD award is given to

only four outstanding young people across Canada, and Joshua is one.

Josh is

an active leader in his community and school. He's the secretary of Calvert's

local service community, his hometown, and was on student council at Baltimore

School. Among his many, many activities, Josh is particularly proud of having

helped start a gender-sexuality alliance at his school.

It's no

surprise that 4-H Canada would select Josh from across Canada as this year's

winner in the Community Engagement & Communications category. CN sponsors the

award, which includes a four-year university cash scholarship and the

opportunity for Josh to select a mentor for the four years.

Josh is

studying geography at Memorial University to be an urban planner and has done me

the honour of asking me to be his mentor. Of course I'm thrilled by this honour

and I look forward to working with and learning alongside Josh over the next

four years.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Joshua Power, LEAD award winner,

geography student and future world changer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

I rise in this hon. House to

pay tribute to Ms. Brooke Blanchard, an outstanding young lady from King's

Point. Last week at the Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Scholarship

Awards Program, Brooke came in first runner-up and captured a $750 scholarship.

Brooke

is an outstanding athlete and a tremendous student. She has been named Athlete

of the Year, Student of the Year and you can guess her grade point average.

Brooke spent a portion of this past summer at the University of New Brunswick's

SHAD program, where high school students get the chance to be immersed in

science, technology, engineering and math.

In her

younger days, way back in 2014, she attended Encounters with Canada and

travelled to Ottawa where she interacted with teenagers from all across this

country. Brooke was recently awarded the Johnson HORIZONS leadership

scholarship, which was presented by Memorial University to students who show

leadership qualities in school and in their community.

Brooke

is a dedicated volunteer. She tutors at school, teaches piano, volunteers at her

church and for all kinds of town functions.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating this outstanding young woman on

her amazing showing at this year's Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador

Scholarship Awards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

It gives me great pleasure

today to distribute to each Member of the Legislature a special edition of

Hansard in commemoration of the First World War and the Battle of

Beaumont-Hamel.

Members recall, and for the benefit of those listening at home, each Member of

the Legislature read out some 40 names in alphabetical order to remember the

1,600-and-odd brave men and women who gave up their lives during the First World

War from the Dominion of Newfoundland, now Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are

signing a copy of this. It's in my office. I ask all Members to sign it to be

kept at the Legislative Library. There's going to be a copy provided to The

Rooms which houses the permanent Royal

Newfoundland Regiment exhibit, and a copy to the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

We're

also sending out a copy to each of the Royal Canadian Legions throughout the

province. There will be other copies as well, in the event that people wish to

have a copy. It's a great piece for all names of those are listed in

alphabetical order for anybody doing research, and to remember those men and

women who gave their lives.

I'm

very, very pleased to present a copy of this to each of the Members today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

report that the response to the recent Calls for Bids in the province's offshore

was one of the most successful in the world in 2016 and shows significant

exploration opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

Calls for Bids by the Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum

Board consisted of 16 parcels of land totalling 3.3 million hectares and

resulted in a total work commitment of approximately $758 million.

We are

pleased to see that three of these bidders are new to our offshore: Hess Canada

Oil and Gas, Noble Energy Canada, and Delek Group. Of the eight parcels awarded,

four are in the newly identified West Orphan Basin, while two are in the Flemish

Pass Basin are two are in the Jeanne D'Arc Basin.

A group

led by BP Canada Energy Group, Hess Canada Oil and Gas and Noble Energy Canada

was awarded licences in the area of the newly discovered play trend in the West

Orphan Basin. In August, the hon. Premier and I announced that an independent

resource assessment covering the area of the West Orphan Basin identified 25.5

billion barrels of oil potential.

The

results of the Calls for Bids are impressive in the current global environment

and we look forward to continued exploration and development in our offshore for

decades to come.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. Through Nalcor, our

administration strategically invested over $30 million in geoscience programs

through the Energy Plan to drive economic activity by ensuring that seismic data

would be available for oil and gas investors around the world. This investment

recognizes significant reserves we have in the offshore in our province and

resulted in providing information to the oil and gas industry which allowed

investors to put forward these significant bids.

Mr.

Speaker, we are encouraged to see that our investments which some who were in

the Opposition at the time questioned along with our long-term economic

strategic plan are now benefiting our economy, both today and into the future.

Our party has always been a strong believer in the commodity markets, including

oil and gas. We are proud of our past investments and certainly see this as a

positive return on the people's investment.

Thank

you very much, 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 her statement. The bids are in, but

what do they really mean. I hope this interest in exploration will lead to

production.

I remind

the minister that while the offshore oil industry provides revenue, it provides

relatively few jobs and any new development is years away. I remain concerned

that government has no real plan for creating employment in meaningful numbers

for the people of the province here and now.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend the Newfoundland and

Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs, commonly referred to as NLOWE, for

their Women's Economic Forum. The forum, entitled Drivers of Growth Unleashing

the Economic Power of Women, which includes a number of sessions being held

across the province, provides an opportunity for women in business to explore

the challenges and the successes of advancing in business.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the pleasure of addressing the forum that took place in St.

John's this morning. It was a great opportunity for business leaders to come

together and share their knowledge and expertise. It is important that we can

collectively identify the barriers for women in business and the opportunities

so that everyone can learn from each other.

commend NLOWE for the important role they are playing in supporting women

entrepreneurs. As NLOWE points out, we all need to work together to tap into the

economic potential of the fastest growing economic force in the world the

untapped potential of the female population.

Our

government takes gender equity and diversity very seriously, and we encourage

women, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to actively participate and

seek out leadership roles and to work together to support each other as we

support continued economic growth for our province.

Our

government is supportive of NLOWE in hosting these sessions. We look forward to

working with them on the outcomes of the

Drivers of Growth forums through the resulting Action Plan being released in

January.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The Official Opposition joins

with government in recognizing the efforts of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Organization of Women Entrepreneurs, which we all finally know as NLOWE.

I, too,

attended the forum held in St. John's this morning and was very inspired and

very encouraged by what I witnessed. Exercises such as this that bring together

various stakeholders and community leaders are so extremely valuable. However,

we understand that much work remains. One only needs to look at the evidence.

A recent

study showed that Canada has slipped from 10th to 36th in terms of economic

opportunities for women. Another reality check tells us that at the current

rate, it will take 151 years before the proportion of men and women in

management are equal that's far too long. So it's painfully obvious that we

must remain diligent to address this inequity. It is through organizations

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

such as NLOWE who have been

supporting and encouraging women entrepreneurs that we can do just that.

Thank

you so much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Congratulations to

NLOWE for their courageous leadership in advancing women in business and bravo

for their great forum.

The

minister said her government takes gender equity and diversity very seriously,

yet refused to use a gender analysis on her budget that disproportionately

negatively affects the women of our province. And she refused to press

government to include a mandatory gender balance provision in legislation for

the Independent Appointments Committee, leaving it to chance and

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

goodwill.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker. Her words are hollow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to highlight November 14-20 as Global Entrepreneurship Week.

Global

Entrepreneurship Week is a celebration of the innovators and job creators who

launch start-ups that bring ideas to life, drive economic growth and contributes

to the advancement in human welfare. The week inspires people everywhere through

local, national and global activities designed to explore their potential as

self-starters and innovators.

We are

pleased that Futurpreneur Canada an organization that has fuelled the

entrepreneurial passions of young enterprise for two decades is hosting Global

Entrepreneurship Week for the eighth consecutive year. Over the past two years

in Newfoundland and Labrador alone, they have funded 35 young business owners.

There

are some great events planned to take place in the province this week, including

a pitch event, a branding session, an entrepreneurial networking breakfast and a

women's economic forum. These activities connect participants to potential

collaborators, mentors and even investors, introducing them to new possibilities

and exciting opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, the provincial government is very engaged in innovation and

entrepreneurship and the important role both play in the economic future of our

province. Last week, the hon. Premier launched

The Way Forward , a vision which emphasizes the importance of support

for entrepreneurship and innovation from the introduction of a new procurement

act and the development of a Business Innovation Agenda.

I am

pleased to say that in the very near future, the provincial government will be

launching the engagement process for the development of a new Business

Innovation Agenda one that is focused on building the pool and capacity of the

province's innovation and growth-driven businesses. We look forward to this

process and seeing continued growth in innovation and small business in

Newfoundland and Labrador and applaud our entrepreneurs for their tenacity,

their commitment and the success they have and continue to achieve.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. We, too, would like to

recognize November 14-20 as Global Entrepreneurship Week and would like to

recognize all those involved.

Small

business is the foundation of our province's economy. But there's a great deal

of irony, Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister state that his government celebrates

entrepreneurs and that the Liberal government will be developing an engagement

process more consultation I guess for entrepreneurs in the province. These

hard-working small-business owners are the same individuals who have

overwhelmingly expressed their displeasure regarding the actions this government

has taken with regard to our economy.

Entrepreneurs are some of the hardest working people in our province. They

deserve a government that fosters growth and innovation, instead of the present

government which is stifling growth and smothering the economy.

In spite

of this, Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Futurpreneur for hosting Global

Entrepreneurship Week and all those involved. I especially wish all

entrepreneurs the very best in their endeavours. We fully commend their efforts.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am pleased to hear

about the activities during Global Entrepreneurship Week. Small businesses are

very important to our economy and are creating much-needed jobs.

While it

is good to hear about plans for new initiatives, small businesses still need

resources on the ground to get established. I ask: What are government's plans

for getting more working capital into the hands of small business owners in all

sectors? Let's get a venture capital fund going for these businesses.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When

launching the Liberal vision, the Premier took some time to be critical of our

approach of developing targeted strategies.

I ask

the Premier: Have you scrapped the Poverty Reduction Strategy? What specific

actions are you taking to address poverty?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the

Leader of the Opposition had listened to the comments around the strategy of

strategies, we actually said and actually gave the former administration some

credit on some of the things that have been done around the Poverty Reduction

Strategy as an example.

These

are things that we see, ongoing programs that are actually providing benefit to

our province and said no, we would not be scrapping those programs. But there

are many incidents where the previous administration, based on a level of

response to a particular program, what they said was we would set up a new

office. What we saw was government working in silo.

When you

look at what we did with The Way Forward

program it is to reduce some layers within government right now that would

create a more effective and a more efficient government.

Mr.

Speaker, our way forward vision comes with many targets. We talked about

agriculture. We talked about targeting in health care. We talked about targeting

in immigration. There are a number of different targets and we will meet those

targets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We just

heard from a minister opposite who talked about engaging to consult to develop a

plan. That's what we hear from Members opposite quite often.

In the

vision, it also identified reducing the province's obesity rate by 5 per cent by

2025, and that's a good thing, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: What specific actions or initiatives have you identified to support

that goal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all

know the obesity rates in our province are very high compared to other provinces

within Canada, many other jurisdictions. Number one, it will come down to

education. The education will start with our very young. It includes making

investments in areas where we will increase participation amongst our young

people.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of initiatives that will be able to take place,

working with our education system, working with our communities, working with

the Department of Health, as an example, lots of good examples and initiatives

that we put in place to help reduce the obesity rates within our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Education and participation but no specifics. The Liberal vision also identified

increasing the province's rate of physical activity by 7 per cent by 2025.

I'll ask

the Premier: How did you arrive at 7 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we

know is there is a lot of information when it comes to benchmarking. We also

said that based on the guiding principles that when we make the decisions for

this government it would be the fact that number one, we will challenge

ourselves. That is the reason why we've put in those specific targets.

As a

matter of fact, if you listen to the forum, through the Leader of the

Opposition, his response on that day to some media was, well, this was just a

plan and not really much into it, only to find out later that there were some

very specific targets in place and they were mentioned. That is the reason why

as a government we will challenge ourselves by putting those targets in place,

working with leaders in our communities, working with various departments

because many of those policies are just not stuck in silos.

That was

the approach that the previous administration took in their level of government.

We are breaking down those walls so it becomes a culture throughout this

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the response from the Premier. However, Premier, what we are looking

for is how are you going to arrive at those goals? What's the plan to get to

those goals? That's what my question was just about a few minutes ago when I

asked you what specific goals and initiatives, what actions and initiatives, to

address your obesity targets.

As well,

we know that you've already taken some action on physical activity. You've cut

support for Sport NL programs. You've cut the Jumpstart very popular, very

beneficial, a very good program, the Jumpstart program.

I ask

you, Premier: What specific programs you say you have specific programs if you

read the document will be introduced in support of the goal to improve

physical activity?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I thank the Member for the

question.

We've

put in place numerous programs. In actual fact, the Veggie and Fruit program

that was just recently put in place for parents of young children, the Healthy

School Planner. There are a number of programs that are identified to meet these

goals and objectives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

Veggie and Fruit program is going to increase physical activity.

I'll ask

the minister again you cut the Jumpstart program, a nationally recognized,

good program for engaging young people in regular physical activity what

programs are directly related to increasing physical activity?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, just last week I

introduced a new program in schools to help school sports with travel. Again, I

said the Healthy School Planner, which is an online tool for all schools to

assist them with physical activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is

not much detail there. Assisting students with travel is going to improve

physical activity.

I'll try

this, Mr. Speaker, with the Premier. I'll try this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

In the vision document you

identified increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by 5 per cent by 2025.

Again, that's a good thing.

I ask

the Premier again: What specific actions will your government undertake to

accomplish that goal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's too

bad the Leader of the Opposition is really not paying attention to some of the

things that we've been saying about this. We recognize that in order to get to

where we need to be when it comes to healthy eating and so on, there's a lot of

work that we can do within our agriculture initiative. I can assure every person

in this province that have heard me talk at great length of our ability now not

to be able to feed ourselves in this province. So we're saying that we're going

to more than double that?

Mr.

Speaker, we know now by the research we've done that we can actually grow more

of our own vegetables, fruits and so on within our own province. What the

agriculture industry is telling us, Mr. Speaker, is they need access to Crown

lands, as an example. They need access to federal programs. So one thing that we

did do, which was in the budget, was actually put a person in place right in the

federation of agriculture. And, by the way, they support those initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

listen very well to what the Member's opposite say. It's hard sometimes to cut

through the rhetoric but we do listen to what they have to say, and we're glad.

I say it's a good thing they want to reduce obesity, increase physical activity

and increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables. But, I tell you, there are

ways they do all of this that could be specifically done in programs. We don't

hear many specifics from Members opposite.

I'll ask

the Premier: Are you reconsidering or will you reconsider introducing a sugar or

junk food tax?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when you look at

taxation in our province what I'm hearing here is the Leader of the Opposition

wants to tax more, which really goes against what Members of the Opposition have

been saying for quite some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

As the Leader of the

Opposition would know taxation sources of revenue are really something that

becomes part of a budget process. Right now, this is not something that we are

considering at this point but it will go through a budget consultation process.

What we

do is when we talk and engage with people, we actually listen to what they are

saying. The previous administration actually held, on many occasions, budget

consultations but it meant nothing. Lots of people that showed up to their

consultations actually said that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the Premier completely missed the point. The point was about reducing obesity,

increasing physical activity and about improving the consumption of fruit and

vegetables. It's not about a revenue generation. It's about benefiting

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the health of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Yesterday we asked the Premier, and we didn't receive an answer. The Premier was

asked teachers want to know, the people of the province want to know do you

think that the Minister of Education has shown integrity in his work as a

minister? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I

was asked a question, similar to that yesterday, I did answer the question. And

it went something like this: When mandate letters were given to all ministers,

in this particular case the Minister of Education and Early Childhood

Development, part of what I asked him to do was to put in place full-day

kindergarten. It also explored many of the Premier's task force on improving

educational outcomes and also about school board elections, Mr. Speaker. These

were all requests that I put in that I asked the minister to do.

Now, the

minister is working. He is working quite well with many members of our

communities and many members of the education system I would say, Mr. Speaker.

So when I speak and say that I have confidence in my minister, I do have

confidence in my minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

The Premier may have

confidence, but for the second day in a row he won't simply state whether he

believes that his Education Minister has acted with integrity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development: Do you agree

with the decision to headquarter the new Atlantic provinces ocean technology

institute in Nova Scotia rather than in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had

the pleasure of being at Memorial University when a joint announcement was being

held between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to bring over $90 million

into oceans research to lead the way for ocean technology in a very

collaborative way looking at our Atlantic growth strategy here in the province,

that we're committed to working with our Atlantic counterparts and the federal

government to make sure that oceans is a key piece of our technology.

Our

province, Newfoundland and Labrador, Memorial University is a key partner in

that and is going to get a big chunk of all of the investment that is happening.

There will be office space, and there is a significant amount happening at the

Marine Institute and at Memorial University that is going to bring in high

value, research, technology and we're going to see the benefits in Newfoundland

and Labrador from this investment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister's

comments fly in the face of our Northern Gateway strategy, our ocean technology

strategy. We've made huge progress in this province over the last decade.

I want

the minister to confirm for this hon. House: Does he agree with the decision to

headquarter the Atlantic provinces ocean technology institute in Nova Scotia

instead of here? It sounds like he does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This was

a collaborative effort by a number of universities. Actually, the University of

Prince Edward Island is also involved in this process. The provincial government

and Memorial University will see a tremendous benefit, somewhere in the range of

about $40 million of this $90 million investment based on the Ocean Frontier

initiative.

We have

the best assets, when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador, that's drawing

significant investment. We hosted the international Arctic Technology

Conference, which is an international conference showcasing our simulation,

showcasing our research and the companies. We have over 600 companies that are

based in dealing with oceans.

So we're

doing and we're continuing to collaborate, to grow the ocean tech sector and the

pathway to the Arctic right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, working with our

Atlantic counterparts. That's how it should be done.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind all hon. Members

again today that when a Member is recognized to speak, that's the only Member

that I wish to hear. It's oftentimes difficult for the Speaker to hear. This

will not be tolerated.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't

sell out our industries in this province for $40 million. The minister just

outlined all the reasons why that centre should be located right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Our ocean technology strategy

was working. Why did the Liberal government allow the Atlantic provinces ocean

technology institute to go to Nova Scotia instead of being here where it belongs

in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to

remind the Member opposite, who is a former minister in the past administration,

that under their track record if they looked at the footprint of federal

government services that happened under their leadership, we saw the closure of

the marine sub-centre which is now being reopened by the federal government

through hard work by the minister and the Premier. We also see that Coast Guard

has expanded their footprint. There's a lot being done. The Veterans Affairs

office in Corner Brook has been reopened.

We've

had tremendous success working with the federal government on a number of

initiatives to expand the footprint of federal government presence in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I know how much

they love the federal government, but I would point out that we have been

leaders because of our investments in the Marine Institute and RDC and Memorial

University. All that could be undone by this government. Ocean technology is

important to economic development.

I'm

going to ask the minister: How many jobs are going to be lost as a result of the

decision to headquarter the ocean technology institute in Nova Scotia instead of

here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is

simple: There will be zero jobs lost. There will actually be jobs created due to

the post-secondary

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

a significant investment.

So we're very pleased to see the number of high-value jobs that will be created

at the Marine Institute.

I would

suggest to the Member opposite to maybe go to the Marine Institute, talk to the

people there, and find out exactly all the positive things that's happening

based on this investment on the Ocean Frontier Institute that's happening right

here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

So, Mr. Speaker, exactly how

many jobs will be created here at Marine Institute and how many jobs will be

created at the new ocean technology institute in Nova Scotia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, there will be a

tremendous amount of jobs and benefits that will be created based on this

investment. If we look at the research that's going to be taking place, the

Ph.D. students that will come along with this, these are high-value,

high-resource jobs to be connected with the Research & Development Corporation,

with Memorial University and with the Marine Institute.

Certainly we can endeavour to go reach out to the Marine Institute and also

Memorial University, which is an autonomous organization if he wants to

achieve that information, he can. Myself, as minister, I don't particularly have

those numbers directly on hand. But I will certainly go do the work for him if

he's unable to do so, and get that information and table it in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to do

my research, but he should know, he's the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture

and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

So he was prepared to support

this outrageous decision without even knowing the facts, and he doesn't know

them today. He may not want to talk about job numbers, but I do. Newfoundland

and Labrador has lost 6,100 jobs over the past 12 months quite the economic

legacy for the Liberal's first year in office. The minister provided no details

yesterday.

I ask

the minister: When can people expect the economic growth plan not the fancy

vision document that your Premier promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'm glad and not surprised at all that the Member is talking about the last

year. What he is not talking about is that we have seen in the last 38 months,

35 months of decline. Now, I say to Members that are in this, and people that

are watching home, do we need to remind them once again that for nearly 35 of

those 38 months they were the party that was in power where we saw consistent

job losses within this province.

Also, to

provide some context in this, is when you look at the three provinces, Alberta,

Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily related to oil and gas,

Alberta's down 25 per cent, Saskatchewan's down 10 per cent, Newfoundland and

Labrador even though it's down is down just over 6 per cent.

So, Mr.

Speaker, in context, remember, 35 of the last 38 months during their

administration it was a decline and loss of jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, they wouldn't

answer the question yesterday and they won't answer it again today.

The

Premier's government has been in office for a year, a quarter of his mandate has

passed thankfully. I ask him again, and maybe his minister will respond if he

doesn't want to give specifics: What specific actions has your administration

taken to address projected job loss in the province? It seems like after a year

in office, there's still no plan.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, he

asked for a specific answer to the question before, I thought I gave him a lot

of detail. I'm going to continue on that detail now, Mr. Speaker.

Based on

our last budget, $570 million in infrastructure spending, that will create 3,860

person years of employment. That is creating jobs. Not only did we put $570

million into the infrastructure plan, we've leveraged that with communities,

with private sector and, in some cases, the federal government.

Mr.

Speaker, to answer his question specifically: 3,860 person years of employment

based on our infrastructure investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Education: What did the review of the library system cost the

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, as Members of

the House of Assembly will remember, last January all agencies, boards,

commissions and departments of government were requested to try and find a

certain amount of savings over a number of years. The provincial libraries

board, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development, came up with a plan. In fact, they exceeded the goal, some might

argue, in terms of finding savings.

There

were five proposals that were worked on. There was one that was accepted. That

was incorporated into the budget. Following that, there was significant amount

of public feedback about the need to have further consultation with the public

about those decisions and also there was an interest in having a consultant

review the system.

that's what we did. If I have additional time, I'll continue, 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.

The

minister didn't answer, so I'll answer it for him. It was $187,000 for the

contract, but that didn't include travel, it didn't include taxes, associated

fees, stakeholder agreements and third-party surveys.

So can

the minister tell me I'm assuming a quarter of a million dollars to this point

exactly what it cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to have

consultations around libraries after you determined that you were going to cut

54 of those in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the opportunity to continue. I don't know why the Member is asking me

questions if he thinks he already knows the answer to them.

After we

listened to what people had to say, the feedback that they had provided, we used

the consultant that was basically the agency of record to go out and do some

work. It was a major undertaking that was done. There were 10 consultations that

were held around the province; two in St. John's. Those concluded on November 8.

There

was a significant amount of opportunity for people to provide feedback. There

was also an online form that people could provide feedback through. There was

also a survey that people could provide feedback to. All that feedback is now

going to be included into a final report, 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.

The

minister is correct, there were 10 consultations. I was glad to see that his

colleagues on that side of the House, along with some on this side, had attended

them.

I ask

the minister: How many consultations did he attend to get feedback from the

general public about the libraries that he slated to close?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, again, I'm happy

to provide answers to questions that the Member already knows the answer to.

As I

said multiple times in interviews with the media, I didn't attend any of those

sessions, Mr. Speaker. I felt that it would basically influence what people

might have to say. Maybe people would feel more guarded in what they might feel

about the issue. I didn't want it to become a we-versus-they conversation. We

are genuinely interested in what people have to the information people have to

provide about the sorts of library services that we need to have in our

communities going forward.

So with

that in mind, we allowed those consultations to take place without me being

present. In some instances our MHAs attended, in others they didn't.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

That's another example of how

the minister doesn't consult or listen to stakeholders.

Did any

of the 54 communities with proposed library closures host consultations? Can you

tell me the process that was used to determine where the consultations would

take place?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to be able to continue to explain the process that was undertaken. After

the consultant was contracted to do this, a steering committee was struck. There

were representatives from the Department of Education, Early Childhood

Development and the provincial public libraries board. There was an individual

from that board who was specifically there to represent rural Newfoundland and

to represent their interests.

The

public libraries board had a majority, basically, on the committee. They

selected a number of communities on the premise that people would be able to

come from surrounding areas in order to be able to attend. For example, there

was one held in Clarenville with the interest of people from the surrounding

areas being able to attend and that sort of thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island, for a quick question.

MR. BRAZIL:

Did the minister direct Ernst & Young to not have consultations in communities

where the libraries were about to be closed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development, for a quick response.

MR. KIRBY:

No, 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.

As of

October 1, low-income earners in our province have the dubious distinction of

having the lowest minimum wage in Canada. Meanwhile, a minimum wage review as

required by the Labour Standards Act

is well overdue.

I ask

the Premier: When will his government live up to its statutory obligations and

conduct a review of our minimum wage, including public hearings?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I was

delighted to engage in consultations with union leaders, with labour leaders,

with employers, with faith community, with a number of different organizations

concerning minimum wage requirements as a statutory requirement in minimum wage

for our province. We are committed to this review. We'll be announcing our

decisions on this matter in the very near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask

for clarification from the minister. Is he saying the review has taken place and

we're going to be getting a report of these private meetings?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if

the hon. Member opposite considers meetings with the union leaders to be

private. She's always free to embrace and to have discussions with members from

the labour council, with members from the employers' council, from others.

We have

engaged in consultations. We are always open to new ideas, to new points of

view. This process is ongoing; but, yes, we have actually engaged in key

stakeholders, and anyone who wants to come forward, including the Member

opposite, to provide a view point which I have not yet heard. If she would

like to come forward and provide a brief to this government, we would be happy

to receive it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

asking the minister to be clear. There has been no public announcement that I'm

aware of, unless I was in the ground somewhere, of a review having taken place.

When is

the minister going to make a public announcement so that people know they can

come forward and talk about the horrible situation we have with regard to the

minimum wage in this province. If he doesn't know what I think, he's been in the

ground somewhere.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, there is a point

of view that's being expressed here about being in the ground. I know that I've

been on the ground talking to stakeholders, talking to people who have a

particular point of view about this. There are a range of different points of

view.

Consultation is always welcome. This government prides itself on consultation.

That will not end. There is a new era that is overtaking this government

compared to the last government, which is about engagement and actually

receiving points of view. And it's not just with the federal government but with

stakeholders generally.

So, yes,

Mr. Speaker, there will be consultations. We will put forward our plan and we

will have a very effective policy that provides a minimum wage for Newfoundland

and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thirty-eight per cent of provincial minimum wage earners mostly work for large

chains that employ more than 500 people. Many of these workers need government

help through social programs because their employers don't pay them enough money

to live on. This, in fact, becomes a corporate subsidy.

I ask

the Premier: Has he done an analysis of how much government is spending to

subsidize corporations' low-wage practices on the workers of Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We, in

Newfoundland and Labrador, have a very progressive labour standards policy and

act. We also have very, very specific programs to be able to assist

underemployed people gain full-time employment. The question here is really

about how do we get a very high-functioning, highly effective, highly skilled

workforce to be able to participate in a modern-day workforce.

I've

been Minister of Labour for a relatively short period of time, but I have been a

Member of this House since approximately 10 months. I'm delighted that the NDP

is finally engaging on this particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

It's interesting, Mr.

Speaker. There hasn't been any answer about minimum wage.

Mr.

Speaker, 66 per cent of minimum wage workers in this province are women. Working

full time and year-round, their earnings are around the poverty line.

I ask

the Minister of Finance and Responsible for the Status of Women: What is she

going to do to address this issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we always take a

very deliberate and definitive view, making sure there's equality in the

workplace, and our Labour Standards Act

is a part of that instrument. Part of the process of ensuring that we have

equity in the workplace is we engage employers, we engage labour, we engage

every stakeholder to come forward with ideas to allow this to happen. We're

blessed in this province with a very effective counsel in terms of other

agencies and institutions that provide us with that advice. That is the process

we'll always be engaging in, and that will produce results.

So as we

go forward, as we initiate a consultation on this, if this Member or any member

of the public would like to come forward, we'd be happy to receive that

information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 44.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Yesterday I gave notice that I would be presenting this notice of motion today.

In accordance with subsection 85(6) of the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 I apologize to

Members; I need (inaudible) for the Government House Leader to give me

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition 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 expansion of the aquaculture industry is important to economic

diversification of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS

any developments must implement measures to ensure safe cohabitation between

wild species and farmed stocks;

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

of Assembly to urge government to perform due diligence to ensure the

appropriate environmental assessment full environmental impact statement and

existing policies are adhered to as it relates to proposed developments on the

Burin Peninsula and Placentia Bay.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, today's petition is three pages long and it's signed by people from all

across the province, and particularly on the East Coast of the Island. As I

stated yesterday when I spoke to Address in Reply, I'm certainly a strong

proponent of aquaculture, but I'm also a very strong proponent that aquaculture

development must be done right.

We've

lived through the growing pains in the Coast of Bays region and we still

encounter them from time to time. But what is absolutely critical in all of

this, in order for aquaculture to work, aquaculturists have to take extreme care

of the environment. And I'm confident that they are absolutely wonderful

stewards of the environment, but in order to grow fish you really have to

understand the environment in which they are grown.

Mr.

Speaker, certainly a full environmental impact statement is something that I

think would lend confidence to others in the province about this venture. And

we've seen recently the Environment Minister is certainly paying attention with

respect to other issues to the call of the people, and the people really do want

to see a full environmental impact statement.

Mr.

Speaker, it's of critical importance that this industry is developed properly

because any negative impacts to a new area will certainly be a negative impact

to an existing industry that provides over $200 million in revenue. So we must

move forward and do it right, I guess, is the issue here.

certainly support the call for a full environmental impact statement and support

the full development of aquaculture across the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, but no cutting corners, no bypassing regular processes. Let's ensure

that we do this, do it right so that everyone has confidence in the initiative

when it goes forward, that it is in the best interest of everyone and there are

minimal worries.

Certainly, I know there are other companies looking to invest in Placentia Bay.

Thermagraph data showed it was below 1.6 which is lethal temperatures for

finfish. So these things need to be studied.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has the greatest percentage of the workforce earning

the provincial minimum wage in Canada, with women, youth and those from rural

areas making up a disproportionate number of those workers; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage does not provide enough money for the necessities of life

because a person earning minimum wage working 40 hours a week will make between

$21,300 and $21,800 in 2015 that's what they made which is barely above the

low-income cut-off of $20,065 for St. John's, and a working couple on minimum

wage with two children will also make close to low income; and

WHEREAS

in 2012 the minimum wage review committee recommended an increase in the minimum

wage in 2013 to reflect the loss of purchasing power since 2010m and an annual

adjustment beginning in 2014 to reflect the Consumer Price Index; and

WHEREAS

government instead legislated two 25 cent increases, one in October 2014 and one

in October 2015 with no annual adjustment; and

WHEREAS

eight provinces and territories will have a higher minimum wage than

Newfoundland and Labrador by October 2015;

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

of Assembly to urge government to legislate an immediate increase in the minimum

wage to restore the loss of purchasing power since 2010, and an annual

adjustment to the minimum wage beginning in 2016 to reflect the Consumer Price

Index.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this minimum wage petition has been signed by thousands over the past

couple of years in this province. We have continually brought this voice into

the House of Assembly, as is our responsibility as a party.

The

minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. A series of increases

brought it up to $10 an hour in 2010, but it has fallen behind inflation ever

since. So by now, as the petition recognizes, we are the lowest minimum wage

rate in all of Canada. In the six years since 2010, we went from having one of

the higher minimum wages in Canada to having the lowest on October 1 when

Saskatchewan raised it minimum wage to $10.72.

We're

not anti-small business in supporting minimum wage, as some opponents like to

say. Along with economists in Canada, 85 of whom put out a report just last

year, along with economists in the United States, where in 2006 there were 650

economists who came together, we agree that as the economists in the United

States said, minimum wage increases 'can significantly improve the lives of

low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics

have claimed' .

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there have been a number of buses removed from service over the past few weeks

for safety reasons, calling into question the current inspection and enforcement

protocols for school buses in this province; and

WHEREAS

there have been concerns raised by members of the busing industry regarding

government's tendering practices as it relates to the provision of school bus

services in the province; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents throughout our province who have raised both scheduling

policy, courtesy-seating policy, new double bus run schedule, as well as

overcrowding on school buses;

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

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to strike an

all-party committee on school busing to consult with stakeholders and make

recommendations to government for the improvement to the school busing system in

our province.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I raise this petition again today. I will continue to do so each and

every day until we get some action here. There are a number of issues around

school busing, as has been indicated here. They cross the Department of

Education and they also cross the Department of Service NL.

The

safety of our children has to be of the utmost importance, and that's what

parents are calling for. That's what people in the community are calling for.

Whether it be the actual safety of the bus itself or whether it be the safety

issues associated to children having to walk in a lot of cases, they have to

walk in areas where there are no sidewalks, walking in the dark, especially with

this new double bus run and the staggered times.

There

are so many issues around this. I think that the best option for us is to form

an all-party committee to look at all of these issues and make some

recommendations for improvement.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

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

there are families who face scheduling challenges to get their children to and

from school each day; and

WHEREAS

because of these challenges these children are required to go to child providers

before and/or after school each day; and

WHEREAS

the current policy and practices does not allow children to be dropped off via

school bus to their child care provider;

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

of Assembly to allow children to avail of courtesy busing and to enable parents

to indicate an additional drop-off location in addition to their own.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very important issue in a lot of areas in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Today it seems like times have changed when it comes to our children.

I know when I was growing up and when school got out, I could go to an aunt or I

could go to my grandparents, or I could go to somebody in the neighbourhood. My

parents felt it was great that they saw that person taking care of me or

watching over me until they got home, and the same thing when my children went

to school. I was fortunate to be living next to my parents' house and the

next-door neighbours were my babysitters and they had a chance to go there.

Today,

in the Northeast Avalon there are a lot of things changing. There are a lot of

parents out there now that both parents are working. It's a real issue for them

for their young children, where they go to after school. In most cases, they

don't have a family member or they don't have a relative or they don't have a

person in their neighbourhood, so they need to go to different daycares.

Torbay right now, there are three different child providers in the area. That's

where most of the children go and there are some people that do it from their

homes. But the problem is busing in our area only allows you to use your civic

address. That means come 3:30 in the evening, unless you can get a seat on the

buses and the buses in the Holy Trinity area this year, at least four of them

were cut and there are no courtesy seats anymore.

What I'd

like to see is for government, even if they don't allow to do additional

drop-offs, even if they let the parents say this is where my primary area is

and it could be the daycare. That evening they would be assured, while they're

working, that the child can be dropped off to a certain area, in the area that

they want the person. They could arrange somehow in the morning, whether they do

it themselves to drop off the child at the school. So it wouldn't be the home

address; it could be the address of the child provider.

So I

just think government has to look at this and understand the circumstances that

people are in. It's a huge problem for them because right now there's a buddy

system in Torbay that's costing people to get a bus to go to these child

providers.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. 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

Budget 2016 closed the Advanced

Education and Skills office in Bonavista; and

WHEREAS

the residents of Bonavista and the surrounding communities require and deserve

an appropriate level of service;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reconsider its decision to close the Bonavista

Advanced Education and Skills office.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, as the critic for Advanced Education and Skills, the last couple of

weeks I've started to get emails again from some of the people who had some real

concerns when the announcements were made, and still echo the same concerns that

not only people in Bonavista and surrounding areas, but in the other offices

that were closed around the loss of a very valued service.

The

minister has talked about the ability to integrate and dialogue with individuals

and stakeholders these offices played that key role. It was the stop-in centre

for not only the clients themselves, but it was the stop-in centre for the

potential partners. The business community, the not-for-profit sector, the

municipalities in those areas, to have a dialogue around how they could partner

in providing various services, in being a pillar of strength and support for

clients who were trying to get on their feet and trying to find ways to be

gainfully employed, and to look at what kind of services or what kind of skill

set they would need be it around assessments for adult basic education, be it

around particular other skill sets, be it around post-secondary education needs

that they would have. They served that particular need.

But they

also served the need for those people who have to rely on income support and all

the services that are attached to that. So this was a stepping stone for people

to identify services they need, and for the very good qualified staff to be able

to counsel and provide those services and direct where there may be other

supportive services so that people could get as the minister noted to a

point where they're gainfully employed. But taking away a very valuable service

and a very valuable first step, particularly in rural and remote communities, is

a detriment to people being able to do that. That's why this is still a very

pertinent issue for people who particularly have lost that service.

You can

see in a lot of areas now as the economy turns people need other supports; they

need other directions. And taking away valued services that are always part and

parcel of what people understood and to develop partnerships in these

communities is a detriment. That's what we're finding here.

So, Mr.

Speaker, there's no doubt, over the next number of weeks, I'll be presenting

other petitions relevant to this, because it started again with these

communities now realizing the impact. We were lucky to get through the summer

when things are a little bit more positive and things move at a different rate

and it wasn't as noticeable. Now we're back into the fall sitting and people now

realize how detrimental these cuts have been.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this and the other cuts that have

been made in the near future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: I

c all Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, Order 2, second

reading of Bill 39.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood

Development, that Bill 39,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read the

second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 39 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader and Minister of Justice.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

happy today to stand here in this House of Assembly again and speak to the first

piece of legislation for this fall sitting of the House of Assembly. The act

that we are debating today, Bill 39, is

An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.

Before I

get going, I'd just like to thank some people before we get started because I

had an appreciation when I was in Opposition, obviously, getting briefings and

reading legislation and having some obscure idea of how this happens, but now

being on this side and having this opportunity to see what actually goes into

it, I'd like to thank all the staff that are necessary and are responsible for

helping get all this legislation done. I'm sure Members on the other side know;

they've been through this.

There's

a tremendous of work that happens behind the scenes. The finished product shows

up here, it gets debated, we go back and forth. In many cases if it's especially

simple, it gets dealt with very quickly, but even for the smallest piece of

legislation there is a tremendous amount of work that gets done. Legislative

drafting, there's policy work, there are solicitors looking at it, departments

looking at it. So in this case, given that this is a piece of legislation

emanating from the Department of Justice and Public Safety I'd like to thank the

staff within the department who have been working on this for some time.

This is

a bill that came from the last session that we've gotten ready to move this

session, so thank you to all those who have done it. Then, secondly, to taking

the time having been on both sides, I realize the value in having briefings,

and I know that staff have had a briefing with Members of the Opposition to

discuss this act. They've been willing to answer questions. It's good to see

there are briefings happening, and there are times when there are follow-up

questions that happen after.

I guess

regardless of stripe or politics, at the end of the day one of the biggest

functions that we do here, the one that doesn't often get covered is the

drafting and the moving of legislation, the laws and the statutory pieces that

govern our province. I'm really happy to see that process is going I think

we're trying to take steps to improve that process and provide more time.

Hopefully, that worked.

Now

speaking to this particular piece of legislation specifically, what we want to

do here obviously, the Judicature Act

governs basically our Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are

three specific sections to this when you look at the Explanatory Notes. There

are three things that we're trying to achieve with this piece of legislation:

one, we are increasing the judicial complement of the Trial Division of our

province; two, we are creating a position of associate chief justice; and,

three, we are clarifying a provision respecting judicial areas and expanded

service areas and the manner in which those areas may be designated and

modified.

Just to

go back and provide some background and context, obviously, we have the three

levels of court. You have your Provincial Court, you have your Supreme Court and

you have Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. Again, you have the Supreme Court of

Canada as your ultimate level.

In this

province alone we have the Provincial Court which has a number of centres across

the province, and we have the Supreme Court Trial Division which has centres

across the province in bigger centres. Then we have the Supreme Court, Court of

Appeal, which is in St. John's. So this particular piece of legislation and

what we're doing here today deals with the Supreme Court Trial Division.

Now it's

funny, the judges themselves, their salaries and everything, they are federally

appointed and federally paid. The salaries for these individuals are not paid by

the Provincial Treasury; however, it is our Legislature and our

Judicature Act that governs the

staffing and the model that is used.

Previously, we've had a complement of 21 judges which would encompass the chief

justice of the Trial Division. Over the last year I've had a number of

conversations with the chief justice, both of our Trial Division, as well as the

chief justice of the Court of Appeal. We've talked about any number of issues

affecting our justice system and looking to work together to find ways to

improve the system.

One of

the issues that we discussed and it's not just a conversation that I have with

the chiefs, I've had it with a number of judges, practitioners and people, just

regular citizens is regarding family law. Now, just so people understand in

our province, family law has actually a couple of different jurisdictions. On

the West Coast and in the Avalon area, unified family court or the Supreme Court

governs family law totally.

So if

you're in Port aux Basques, for instance, and you have a family matter, you make

application to the Supreme Court. Now that changed sometime I'm going to say

in the last decade. When I first started out sometimes, depending on what the

matter was, if it was child support or depending on if it was custody, you might

apply to a different court. But since that time there's a uniformity there, and

now everything goes to the Supreme Court Trial Division which is based in Corner

Brook. The same thing in St. John's, we have the unified family court over on

I forget the name of the street because I'm not from here.

MS. ROGERS:

King's Bridge Road.

MR. A. PARSONS:

King's Bridge Road; unified

family court. Thank you to the Member for St. John's Centre.

So we

have the unified family court, which I've had an opportunity to be in on a

number of occasions. In fact, I just visited there two weeks ago and met with a

number of justices to discuss family law, access to family law and some of the

issues they face, both when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to

procedure, just any number of things. I felt it was important to hear from them

directly.

AN HON. MEMBER:

What a minister.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I say thank you to the

Opposition House Leader. He's complimenting me, so thank you for that. I don't

hear it very often, so I'm blushing here now.

Anyways,

we have 21 justices right now. The difference: judges in Provincial Court;

justices in Supreme Court. One of the things that we want to do is to increase

that complement to 24. Now, that has been done in consultation with the chief

justice of the Trial Division.

One of

the reasons we want to do that, going back to what I had discussed, is that we

have in this province and you know what, this is an issue facing every other

province. Family law is one area that there is actually an increasing number of

cases. There is a backlog of those cases. So one of the things that increasing

this complement will do, it's going to increase in many ways access to justice.

It's going to reduce the caseload. It's going to normalize the caseload for

these justices. The thing that I think is most important, and I really hope to

see, is it's going to improve the wait times when it comes to accessing our

court. That's what we want to see.

Now,

anybody who has ever dealt with family law, whether it's from using it

themselves, whether it's practicing, whether it's justices, whether it's staff,

family law is a trying

section of law. It can be devastating to many people,

just the range of emotions in many cases. It can be very difficult to be in.

It's difficult for everybody.

It's

made that much more difficult when things are slowed down, when you have

difficulty getting in, when you have difficulty in getting your matter heard. So

that's one the reasons that after consultations with our chief justice and after

meeting with our other justices in fact, today I actually sat down with the

members of the Canadian Bar Association, Newfoundland and Labrador branch, and

they didn't know about this law being brought in. They asked what were we doing

and we told them. They are actually very happy about this step being taken

because it's one of the things their members, the members of the bar for this

province are advocating for as well. We think this is going to improve that

access. So we want to increase it to 24.

I don't

decide where the justices go. That is determined by the chief justice, but I'm

confident that we will see improvements to the complement of family justices

that are taking care of them. In many cases they're moving justices from the

Trial Division over. They're moving around. That's one of the areas we need to

see some work in and I'm happy to work with our chief justice on that. So we'll

see that complement increase.

One of

the questions at first might have been: Well, what's the cost of this? The fact

is this is a cost that is borne by the federal government.

One of

the questions following up that might be: Well, is this going to happen? The

fact is this is not a guarantee, but I can say that in my 11 months in this

position, I've had a number of conversations with our federal Minister of

Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould. I've talked to her in person. I've met with her

in a number of places, in Halifax recently. In fact, it's been really good

knowing I don't know what previous experience is like knowing that you can

reach out to the federal minister and have that conversations.

You're

not always going to agree on everything. That's not the nature of how this

works, but we can actually have a conversation. This is one of the things that

we've expressed to them is that we have this issue and we're looking to them to

work with us on this. The good news is that one of the areas that Minister

Wilson-Raybould has as one of her priorities is access to family law. They have

reached out to us, independently, and said we want to talk about a unified

family court across the country. We want to see a situation we're going back

to what I discussed previously, where we have, even in this province, a

difference. If you go to court, for instance, in Grand Falls-Windsor or if you

go to court in Gander, you can go to Provincial or you can go to Supreme, and

that can cause a bit of a difference there. There are many reasons I don't think

that that's the system that we need to move forward in.

This was

something that has been identified as a priority for the federal government. It

is the same thing in Labrador as well. So we'd like to see it. Now, obviously

there are challenges with that. But I think that is something that we're working

on and I'm doing that by talking to justices. I've been talking to judges,

talking to practitioners. Just recently actually I was out in Grand

Falls-Windsor and met with people working, even just staff working in the office

to talk about what are the challenges that they face and what are some of the

things that we can do.

Some of

these, when you're talking to a staffer that's been working 30 years and they've

been through a number of changes and differences, it's really good to be able to

have them tell you what the issues they face are but have that context and have

that history of 30 years to tell you about how things were done, some changes

that were made, did those changes succeed or did they have to go back.

That is

one of things, when you make change, you hope for the best, do all the planning

that's necessary, do the research; but, in many cases, it doesn't have the

desired effect. But, in this case, I have no doubt that the desired effect,

which is to normalize the workload for our justices, which is to increase access

to justice, which is to decrease wait-lists, will succeed. That's one of the

things that we are doing with this piece of legislation.

Secondly, we want to have the position of an associate chief justice. Now, for

some reason, that's never been done. It's unusual. In fact, other provinces

have, in many cases, more than one; they have two. I think Nova Scotia might

have two, but I might be mistaken there. This is a normal position in many other

provinces. In fact, here in this province in our Provincial Court, we have a

chief judge and we also have an associate chief judge.

That can

help many things, even when the fact is that our judges and justices are like

any of us, they might be gone away for work reasons, business reasons, personal

reasons, vacation, whatever they are like all of us; you have to have someone

there that can help run that organization while they're gone. That's just one of

the reasons, to have somebody to delegate to. To me, this just makes sense to

have this position, to have an associate there, and will help improve the

quality of our court system.

Again,

court is one of those things where it is not often praised in many ways because

if you're involved in court, it is usually for a negative reason. But I tend to

think that we have a very, very strong bench here in this province whether it's

our Supreme Court or whether it's our Provincial Court. I would just go off on

an aside and say that was obviously recognized recently with the appointment of

one of our own justices, Justice Malcolm Rowe, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

So the

quality of our justices has been recognized at the highest level for the first

time in the history of our province. That was done based on merit and based on

looking at the fact that, you know what, that was one justice there, but I also

think we have a number of great justices and great judges on our bench that are

serving the people of this province, and we thank them for that. So again, in

putting the associate chief judge in there, we think this is only going to

improve the administration of justice and improve the administration of the

court.

Now, the

last step here we want to discuss the provision respecting judicial areas,

expanded service areas and the manner in which those areas may be designated and

modified. So, in many cases, what we're doing here and the good news is that

we did have a briefing; there were concerns expressed at that briefing and

questions asked. And that's the whole point of this briefing. Again, another

aside here, hopefully down the road, we're also going to be moving to things

like legislative committees; the whole point being that legislation that comes

into this House of Assembly allowing for better debate and better legislation is

allowing for these debates to happen and questions to happen. So I appreciate

the fact that we're having these briefings.

So one

thing I wanted to clarify for everybody is that there's nothing with respect to

actual family law, jurisdictional boundaries, that is being altered in this

legislation. The boundaries are presently remaining the same. Now, the federal

government has told us that they do have plans to implement more unified family

courts, as I discussed earlier. We're not at that stage.

The

Judicature Act has always allowed for

us to amend judicial areas by using the legislation. That's always been there.

But the legislation aims to treat all areas in a consistent manner such that

expanded service area can also be altered by way of regulation. Again,

thankfully I have very intelligent people that help go over this. What we have

right now is a legislative status quo. So one of the things that we're trying to

fix is some of these legislative anomalies that exist, and this one was

identified and we're trying to fix this.

So under

the status quo when referring to

section 43.5, when we talk about expanded

service areas, one has led to the Unified

Family Court Act . But that legislation was actually repealed. So the

legislation before the House today, this amendment to the

Judicature Act will put everything in one place under the

regulations for the act. So we're actually just simplifying what is currently a

piecemeal approach to referring to other legislation. So in many ways, even

though this is substantive, this piece, when we talk about increasing the

complement, we're also cleaning up old legislation. There is a housekeeping

component to it in many ways.

So right

now the presently enforced legislation, we shouldn't be referring to old

repealed legislation that is no longer of any force or effect. That's one of the

things that's going on here, but we need to have that authority. The same way

that while there is no agreement in place now to increase the complement of

judges from 21 to 24, it is better to have that in place knowing that that is

the appropriate number for this province. We do need more. If you look at the

judicial complement across the country right now with the caseload that we have,

24 is the appropriate number, it is better for us to have the legislative change

to allow for that happen and for the appointment of more justices rather than to

wait for legislation to be changed and then if there was the justice to be

appointed depending on how this were all to work out if it was in between

sessions, you could be waiting months for us to have a justice appointed. It is

better for us to change the complement and this has been done in the past.

So the

same thing here, we need to have the flexibility and the ability to change

judicial areas, expand the service areas in the hopes and in the promise that it

may change down the road. If it were to change, it's for the purposes of

uniformity and allowing a similar standard across our province, the same as what

they are trying to achieve in other provinces.

Right

now, in our province, we have different standards in different regions. What is

going on in Central is not the same is what's going on in Western. What's going

on in Labrador is not the same as what's going on in the Avalon, and we want to

have uniformity and I think that will allow for better service.

Again, I

would put out here now to anybody who is watching and I know that Members from

the Opposition will rise now and speak to this and they may have questions, and

I endeavour during this part or during the Committee phase to answer any

questions that are put forward. That is the purpose of this. And I'll certainly

try my best to answer those.

Just

looking through some of the notes that I have here, just to make sure that I

haven't glossed over or moved over anything, I think this is a positive piece of

legislation. I think that this is legislation that will improve the

administration of justice in this province. Again, I would note that this was

done in consultation with our chief justice. It's the chief justice of the Trial

Division that has actually spoken to me on a number of occasions saying this is

one of the things that we need to do.

We need

to have this done and, in fact, right now in this province we have empty

positions. Obviously with the ascension of Justice Rowe, there's an empty

position there and there's another one coming up as well and there will be more

in the future, but we need extra positions to deal with the family law caseload

that we have.

One of

the things that justices talk about is workload; just like us all, everybody

talks about workload. Well, when you go over and meet, especially with members

of the judiciary who are dealing with family cases, these are trying cases. That

number of cases is not going down. That number of cases is going up.

We're

trying to do what we can and I think that allows for better decisions when we

have justices that have time to do the work. They're like anybody: if you heap

the work on somebody, it makes it harder and increases that burden on them. And

we need the best decisions coming out. Knowing how we have a system based on

precedent, the better decision now will allow for better decisions down the

road.

Additional judges will mean additional judicial resources for the Supreme Court

General Division. Now this is some of the information that's been passed on to

me by our Supreme Court. For the last three years, two judges from the General

Division in St. John's have been assigned to the Family Division, so the

remaining 10 justices have been handling the work of what should have been 12

justices. What this means then so you put them over in the family system, what

you have then is you have delays in the civil system. That's one thing that we

want to obviously, we want to alleviate that situation.

The

other thing and this has come up on a number of levels but primarily in

Provincial Court, but it's also coming up in the Supreme Court level as well

is we have the Jordan case. This case, as we know, has put in place a hard and

fixed ceiling on dealing with criminal matters. The Supreme Court also handles

these. So by adding these we hope to again, this is just one of the many ways

that we're taking to alleviate that burden that's being felt not just here in

this province, this is a burden that is national in scope. It's being felt

absolutely everywhere. This is just one of the ways.

I think

everybody in the system has a role to play here whether it's Crowns, whether

it's defence, whether it's our judiciary in dealing with these situations in

the hopes that, as we move forward, we do not have cases that are waiting too

long to be heard, whether it's the 18 months or the 30 months. We want to avoid

unreasonable delay; we want to avoid Charter applications and having matters

thrown out for the reason that the person didn't have a right to have their

trial within a reasonable period of time. This change in this legislation, if we

support it, will allow for that.

I've

already mentioned the associate chief justice position. There's a lot of

administration, obviously, that comes to handling this. There's dealing with

justices and courthouses all across the province, there's dealing with staff,

dealing with caseloads. This will help in that provision. This will help the

chief justice do this. Again, we already have it in our Provincial Court. It's

already happening in the superior court levels across this country. It's

something that should happen here as well.

Finally,

we're talking about the judicial area or expanded service area. I'll answer

questions as they arise here, but depending on where you are there's a

difference in where your family matter can be heard. This allows us to have the

possibility of an expanded service area, depending on the type of application.

Section

43.5 of this act currently provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make

regulations after consultation with the chief justice to designate or expand or

contract the judicial area of the Supreme Court Family Division. There is no

corresponding authority for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make

regulations. This will change this. It's set out in three separate enactments of

the unified family court.

The

exclusive judicial area from the Supreme Court, just so we know, East Coast

right now is the Avalon Peninsula as far as Holyrood, including St. John's metro

area and Bell Island. That's

Schedule A. On the West Coast, the area from Grey

River west along the South Coast to Channel-Port aux Basques, then north to

include the whole of the Great Northern Peninsula, west to the turnoff of the

TCH to Jackson's Arm and the Beaches. So those are the two areas now that are

exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The expanded service area would

include communities from Holyrood to Port Blandford, including the Bonavista

Peninsula.

These

amendments don't change the boundaries. The status quo will continue with

respect to matters before the family court. What it allows is the possibility

for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations to designate these

expanded areas for the Family Division, in addition to the existing authority to

designate judicial areas. So it allows for us to change that, if there is the

talk of the Family Division operating in one area, and for allowing this

uniformity that we've discussed.

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I've had a number of consultations with our federal

minister on this. We've made our position known on a number of occasions. We've

had, I think, very beneficial, very positive conversations on this need. This is

something that's a priority area for them as well.

I think

this piece of legislation is going to be beneficial to absolutely everyone,

whether it's an individual who wants to avail of our Supreme Court, avail of our

unified family court, to avail of the court system for the Supreme Court across

this entire province. I think it's going to be of benefit to our judiciary to

help with the burden of the workload that is on them. In turn, that's going to

allow for better decisions which are good for absolutely everybody using the

system. We need to do what we can to ensure the administration of justice

proceeds properly, properly resourced and to allow us to have the justices

necessary to make sure that cases are heard on a timely manner.

On that

note, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. I look forward to the commentary by my

colleagues across the way and to answer any questions during the Committee

phase.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the comments from the minister in presenting the bill. I think he was

very clear and understanding, and took a fair bit of his time today, that he had

an opportunity to do so, to explain the bill and the rationale and the reason

for the bill and how it came to be. We certainly appreciate that.

understanding is that the chief justice of the Trial Division had asked and

requested a change in the current legislation, a change in the number of Supreme

Court justices that exist in our province and also that a new associate chief

judge be appointed. Also, as there was some housekeeping component, as

referenced and explained by the minister as well.

Now, the

minister took some time to reference R. v. Jordan. R. v. Jordan was a case in

the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it was July I think the minister might

confirm in early July I think this year when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled

on whether or not an accused person had been tried within a reasonable time as

allowed under the Charter. Our Charter says that a person who's accused has a

right to a trial in a reasonable period of time. It's about access to justice,

and timely justice is one of the hallmarks of a free democratic society as

referenced by the Jordan decision and discussed in the Jordan decision.

It was a

very important one because this is not new to justice, not only in Newfoundland

and Labrador but throughout Canada. For decades there have been discussions and

cases presented and arguments presented before courts to say there had been an

unreasonable delay to an accused person to be provided their access to a trial.

Because every person accused of a crime in Canada has a right, first of all, to

be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but also have a right to have their

day in court and have a reasonable time to have their day in court.

R. v.

Jordan took the opportunity to deal with this in a more critical way than had

been done in the past. In cases in the past, there are numerous cases over the

years that have been dealt on a one-off basis or on that particular case.

This

case, R. v. Jordan, the Supreme Court, what they've done here is they've set

benchmarks for a time period when cases should be heard in court. For the case

of Provincial Court, they've set it at 18 months. So that's 18 months from the

time a charge is laid against an accused individual to the time that the trial

has been completed. They set 18 months as the time period.

It's not

a hard and fast rule because Jordan when I say Jordan, meaning the Supreme

Court on Jordan also said there may be circumstances where the conclusion of

the trial goes beyond 18 months. Maybe there was an extensive amount of

evidence, a much larger amount of evidence than you would normally see in cases,

way beyond what's normal. There may be some other reasonable explanation of why

the delay went beyond 18 months but unless there was a critical reason for going

beyond 18 months, 18 months would be the new rule.

If a

person is charged, they are given their day in court. They are given access to a

trial and, if the trial is not completed within 18 months, there has to be a

very, very good reason why, and R. v. Jordan talked about that.

Similarly, when a person goes through a preliminary inquiry, which is when the

Provincial Court hears, it's almost like a mini trial, on status of facts to

determine is it worthy to take this matter and send it to the Supreme Court.

What Jordan has done is said, well, from the time the lower court determines,

yes, we should use the time of the Supreme Court to have a trial. Then there's a

30-month window in which the Supreme Court should finish the matter as well.

Similarly, Jordan talks about the Supreme Court talked about in Jordan, but

Jordan also talked about when there may be exceptions to that rule. Very rare

we'd be very clear very, very rare.

The

standard has been set for justice systems throughout Canada, not only

Newfoundland and Labrador, that trials essentially for Provincial Court, have to

be completed in 18 months and Supreme Court for 30 months. I believe it is an

important factor in what the Supreme Court justice has requested from the

government to add justices currently 21, and this will increase justices to 24

in the province.

Trial

Division will consist of 24 justices, which would include the chief justice and

also the new associate chief justice. I think it's an important thing to do. I

think it's a very important thing to do. People are entitled to their day in

court. They're entitled to have their matters heard, and cases are more complex

than they've ever been before. Complexities have increased.

In an

article I read in The Telegram just

recently, the president of the Crown Attorney's Association here in Newfoundland

and Labrador expressed concern about heavy caseloads. He referenced that cases

now he said, even shoplifting, every shoplifting case now has a video, which

has to be entered into evidence, and that makes the case more complex. It

requires the technical expertise to review the video to ensure that it's

authentic and so on. There may be challenges about the authenticity of what the

video is, the clarity of the video and so on.

All that

has to be considered now in a matter of a shoplifting and I say shoplifting,

which is a theft. Of course, theft is a criminal offence, but it's very

common to see those types of offences in our courts, in our Provincial Courts,

lower courts, but they do add the president of the Crown Attorney's

Association for the province, Mr. Sheldon Steeves, did reference it and talk

about videos in shoplifting cases because it adds time necessary in the courts.

Also, there's broader evidence of other areas that are available today, quite

often technical or electronically-based and so on.

There's also a great growth in forensic evidence and

scientific evidence. I know

and I'm sure the minister can reference it when he speaks again I'm sure he's

heard concerns about the length of time it takes for evidence to be processed

scientifically. And that causes delays. So there may be a charge laid today by a

person, there may be scientific evidence available that gets sent out of

province for forensic examination, and in many cases it can take many, many

months for that evidence to be properly assessed, to be examined and a report

back or a decision on that particular piece of evidence.

So those

types of changes in the justice system add to those types of complexities, add

to the burden and the workload of our justices in the Supreme Court, our judges

in the Provincial Court, but all aspects of our judicial system. From law

enforcement right through to the judiciary and the support staff that work with

them, and then other aspects such as, as I mentioned, forensic laboratories as

an example, who now have a greater burden to process and produce the results of

forensic examinations in a much timelier manner because of R. v. Jordan.

All of

that is good for our justice system and it's good for any person who's accused

in an offence. I think, overall, it's good for society, for our province and, of

course, for Canada because this impacts all of Canada.

That

particular aspect just considering those particular thresholds, those

particular aspects of greater pressure will require more justices. Madam

Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the irony in some of this. I

respect the fact that the salaries and the costs for those additional judges are

a responsibility of the federal government, not the provincial government;

however, the provincial government does have many aspects and costs associated

with operating our courts, Provincial Court, Supreme Courts and so on. There is

going to be an extra burden on the province as well here, I'm sure, with extra

court staff, with extra court security as an example, Sheriff's officers and so

on. But it will speed the process of justice which needs to be improved upon.

The

irony here is I have to go back for a minute just to reference what happened

earlier this year. It was only a few months ago when the minister stood here in

the House and advocated for the closures of Supreme Courts and Provincial Courts

in our province, which really kind of is ironic, as I said, compared to what the

Supreme Court justice is asking for now.

It was

back in April on budget day when the Supreme Courts in Grand Bank and Grand

Falls-Windsor were planned to be closed, reducing Supreme Courts from six to

four. Provincial Courts in Harbour Grace and Wabush were closed, reducing

Provincial Courts from 10 to eight. There was a reduction in staff in the

Department of Justice and Public Safety, 27 positions announced at that point in

time, about a $6 million savings.

Our own

minister said at the time that they were very difficult decisions, and I have no

doubt. I fully understand; very, very difficult decisions but it was necessary

to find efficiencies. I agree with that. There is a necessity to find

efficiencies. I fully respect that. The government has a responsibility

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

I ask

Members to keep their conversations down or take them outside.

Thank

you for your co-operation.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The

government does have a responsibility to find those efficiencies and create a

climate where we can afford the services that we need. I would say, and with all

respect to the minister, he's standing here today saying we need to do this for

our justice system, and I agree.

They

also made cuts; earlier this year they cancelled the hiring of 10 additional RNC

police officers. They removed four vacant constable positions as well.

So there

are a number of things the minister had done back in the budget which was

reducing resources; but, thankfully, many of those decisions were reversed in

June. The minister reversed the decision of Grand Falls-Windsor and Grand Bank.

He explained at the time that the chief justice of the Supreme Court had

presented a proposal identifying savings. I'm glad that happened. I'm glad they

were able to resolve that and keep the courts open. I'm glad they're increasing

the number of justices in the Supreme Court because they're really needed for a

number of reasons. Of course, R. v. Jordan has really drawn the line in the sand

on that as well.

Then

later in July, the minister also reversed the decisions on Harbour Grace and

Wabush courts. I'd spent some time in Harbour Grace consulting with

municipalities and a number of stakeholders who were very interested in the

implications of closing the Harbour Grace court, but I'm glad the minister

changed that.

He also

referenced R. v. Jordan back at that point in time as well, and talked about the

need to ensure a speedy trial and that people have timely access to justice. So

R. v. Jordan is making impacts. That's not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador,

Madam Speaker. It's impacting across the country. The government is required to

follow the rules established by the Supreme Court of Canada. He found that using

R. v. Jordan and reversing that decision was the right thing to do.

There

may be other reasons why they changed those decisions, but I certainly respect

the decision and appreciate the decision, and the reconsideration of those

decisions to keep those courts open. He did so, and it's consistent with what's

being presented today.

What's

presented today, which is now known as Bill 39 which is going to amend the

Judicature Act , will increase that

judicial complement in the Trial Division. It will increase the number of

justices here in Newfoundland and Labrador from one to 24.

It will

also create a position of an associate chief judge. An interesting position and

I fully respect the judiciary. Certainly, the chief justice has many years of

experience, very learned in the operations of the court and the operations of

justice, requirements and so on. I understand the chief justice, as well, has

advocated for the appointment of an associate chief judge.

associate chief judge in many ways will assist and accept some of the

responsibilities of the chief justice and will also act on behalf of the chief

justice at times when the chief justice is not available. I'm just looking for

it in the act what it refers to he's not available or can't conduct the duty

as required and so on, and then the associate chief judge can assist with those

responsibilities and share those with the chief justice.

As well,

the third part of this Judicature Act

is to clarify a provision respecting the judicial areas and expanded service

areas. The manner of those areas may be designated and modified. Again, the

minister has outlined some of those.

referenced a little bit earlier in my comments, Madam Speaker, an

article in

The Telegram in which the president of

the crown attorneys' association and he referenced how prosecutors will have

too heavy a workload trying to meet the demands of R. v. Jordan. He also talked

about how they work a lot of uncompensated overtime. I'm sure that the minister

is aware of that and that's not new, either, in Justice. I'm aware that those

circumstances have existed for some time. For a long period of time there's been

adjustments and improvements made, but they continue to be the case.

Also

though, it's interesting to note that the chief Crown prosecutor for the

province also commented in the article. She indicated Ms. Knickle that

government was looking for options to reduce delays. I'm glad to see that as

well. So I expect to see more from the government other than just the increase

in justices in the Supreme Court. I would expect that the minister will bring it

forward for announcing other changes in how justice is delivered to reduce

delays.

One of

the things that the Crown prosecutor talked about was she questioned whether

preliminary inquiries were still necessary as they have been in the past. We

have new disclosure laws in Canada where files and disclosure are accessible to

accused persons and their legal counsel; great improvements over the last decade

or so. She questioned that and I think it's a worthy question and worthy

discussion to have.

She also

referenced that government is aware of the obligations under Jordan and is

exploring the possibilities of additional resources according to this

article

was the comment from the chief Crown prosecutor for the province. I'm glad to

hear that as well, because the delivery of justice has to be sound, it has to be

timely. It has to be done in a way that protects the interest of all parties. It

respects the presumption of innocence and provides an accused person with fair

access to justice and a trial in a timely manner.

Madam

Speaker, I'm not going to go through all of the sections in the act, the

minister has done that quite well. But we will be supporting the movement of the

Judicature Act . There are some more

specific questions we may have for the minister after we've heard all the debate

and we get to the Committee stage. We may have some more questions for him.

Those

are my comments for today. I thank the minister, again, for this bill, for

bringing it forward. Of course, we support the addition of more justices in the

Trial Division and also the associate chief judge.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I'm very

happy to stand and to speak to Bill 39,

An Act to Amend the Judicature Act .

I would like to thank all the folks within the Department of Justice

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

It is

the second time the Speaker has asked for co-operation. If you have business you

want to conduct, I ask you to step outside. The next time I will name Members.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

Again, I

would like to thank the members from the Department of Justice, the staff in the

Department of Justice who provided a very thorough and clear briefing for us.

Also, I would like to thank all those in the public service who work in the

justice system. It's not the easiest department or system to work in.

Oftentimes, when people go to court it's because there's a big problem. They go

to court to plead their case, to have resolution and to have justice and

fairness.

We know

that our Crown prosecutors, we know that our legal aid lawyers, we know that our

judges and all their support staff are very qualified, are very committed, are

working hard, often under very difficult circumstances. So I would also like to

take a moment to thank those people who have dedicated their lives to the

pursuit of justice, again, working sometimes really long hours and who have

expertise. Most people who work in the justice system whether they be the

police officer on the street, whether they be a stenographer who's taking notes

in court are all well qualified. Some people have had to spend years and years

and years in formalized education to be able to do the work that they do. I

would like to thank them on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, I

believe that we have excellent workers. We have people who are well trained, who

are well qualified, who are both passionate and compassionate about the work

that they do. One thing we sure need in our justice system is that commitment,

that passion, but also the compassion. When people enter the justice system,

whether they have been wronged or they may have been the person who have

wronged, that compassion is really needed and understanding. So I would like to

take the time, once again, to thank them on behalf of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

first, when we were briefed on this act I thought, whoa, this is great; we're

going to get three new justices. But in fact, Madam Speaker, that's not the

case. We are amending legislation to prepare ourselves for the event that in

fact we may get three new justices. I believe that there is a need for that, so

I think it's really important to clarify for folks at home that in fact we're

not getting these. There's no actual arrival time. The stork isn't on its way to

deliver us three justices, but

MR. A. PARSONS:

How do you know?

MS. ROGERS:

The Minister of Justice has

just said: How do you know? Well, I don't know, but I sure am looking forward to

that announcement. We will all be ready with a shower to welcome them all. So we

don't know if or when this is going to happen, but we live in hope that it will

happen because we know that there is a need.

I would

also strongly, strongly encourage everyone, if they've not yet had the

opportunity, to read the special feature this past Saturday in

The Telegram . It was a fantastic

special feature on the state of the art of our justice systems right now in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was written by Rosie Mullaley. I strongly

encourage people to take a look at that because that's a thumbnail sketch,

really, of what kinds of things we are dealing with in our justice system.

We know

that our justice system in the past few years, under the previous

administration, has been chronically underfunded. We know with our current

administration, there were some cutbacks in Justice. A number of courthouses

were to be closed, but some of those decisions have been reversed. I applaud the

current government for reversing those decisions because it was proven that

those decisions, even though we may be in a really tough economic time, there

are some things that simply cannot be tied to the price of a barrel of oil.

That, for sure, is our justice system.

I'm not

going to go into great detail about the parameters of this bill. I believe the

Minister of Justice has done a great job and the Leader of the Official

Opposition has done a great job in really laying out what this bill is intended

to do, what the effects will be. It just goes to show that our justice system is

a living, breathing system that has to be flexible and has to respond to the

needs of our current realities.

Thirty-seven years ago I date myself I was hired to assist in a process in

an impact evaluation of the Unified Family Court, which was when it first

started on King's Bridge Road here in St. John's. It was a wonderful time

because it was the first Unified Family Court in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and one of the few across the country. We knew how important

family law was and that it needed to be updated and that we needed to update our

judicial procedures around the area of family law. So it was an exciting time to

be on the ground floor when we had a new Unified Family Court to look at how

justice could better respond to the needs of the changing lives of the families

of Newfoundland and Labrador and also we saw that happening across the province.

I have

some concerns, not so specifically about the potential of three additional

judges, but specifically what that might mean for our province in terms of if we

have more judges, the hope is that we will be able to see a more nimble and a

quicker response to the cases that come before the courts. However, we know

there are some problems in our court system right now. For instance, there are

14 murder cases that are before the courts.

One of

our problems we have is quite simple in some ways, and that's space, but in

other ways it's extremely complicated. We know that the courts presently aren't

doing concurrent murder trials, although we need that to happen. The reason

being, although we have three or four courtrooms that have jury boxes because

murder trials always are required to have a jury trial in the province. So we

have courtrooms that, in fact, have jury boxes so that jury trials can happen,

but we only have one jury room, which means there is no place for the j