PDF Version

May 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 22

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Today I

welcome to the Speaker's gallery Mary-Ann Nolan Reid, a student from St. John

Bosco, who is job shadowing me today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As well, in the public

galleries, we have the grade nine social studies class from St. John Bosco,

along with their teacher Mike Dooling.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We also have today, in the

public galleries, members of the Association of Early Childhood Educators of

Newfoundland and Labrador who are subject of a Ministerial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of privilege. The subject of this point of privilege is the Member for

Mount Pearl North, as I believe he is in contempt of this Legislature.

On May

16, 2017, the Member for Mount Pearl North made unparliamentary remarks about

the Minister of Finance. When asked to apologize for those remarks, the Member

refused to apologize, resulting in his ejection from this House.

After

having been ejected from the House, the Member for Mount Pearl North took to

ejection, and posted comments that unfairly called into question the integrity

of the Minister of Finance. Not only was the politically motivated attack upon

the minister a skewed representation of what occurred in the House on May 16,

2017, it was also a display of complete disregard for the rules this House

operates under.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North was aware of his inappropriate conduct, as he had

been ejected from the House. He very obviously was not deterred by this

sanction, as he proceeded to widely distribute a doctored version of the events

of May 16, 2017, along with a reproduction of his comments about the minister.

The

precedent is clear, so I need not refer you to authorities. The conduct is

unbecoming of a Member of this House of Assembly. Not only is the conduct

unbecoming, the disregard for a Speaker's ruling is reprehensible. This is

particularly egregious as the Member for Mount Pearl North is more than aware of

the importance of decorum and adherence to Speaker's rulings.

I quote

the Member from his time spent in the Chair in June of 2012: Unparliamentary

language, at any point in time, is not acceptable, whether you are standing on

your feet and you have been recognized or whether you are shouting from your

chair.

I ask

all hon. members of this House to always keep that in mind.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North's hypocrisy on this point underscores the necessity

for deterrence. He's been asked to apologize. He refused. He was then ejected

from this Legislature, which was undeterring to him as he continued this assault

Unparliamentary language at any time is not acceptable.

While

not directly analogous, in the realm of criminal law the objective of deterrence

as a factor will normally result in the offender being punished more severely.

Not necessarily because he or she deserves it, but because the court decides to

send a message to others who may be inclined to engage in similar activity.

Mr.

Speaker, you're in a similar position to that of a trial judge in the

sentencing. In these circumstances, deterrence ought to be kept at top of mind.

It is absolutely unfortunate that I am forced to stand here and make this motion

today, but I do so in the hopes that it will prevent future misconduct on the

part of the Member for Mount Pearl North and on the part of all Members of this

House, so that we can do the work we were elected to do instead of the political

sideshows.

This is

the people's House, this is where our laws are made and we are meant to be held

to a higher standard. The conduct by the Member opposite falls well short of the

standards we are all expected to maintain and, for that, he should be ashamed.

Given

the Member's intentional disregard for previous decisions from the Chair of this

House, I ask that you investigate the contempt of the Member for Mount Pearl

North and refer the matter accordingly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, to the point of privilege, my understanding is the issue was brought

forward to this House; it was dealt with by the Chair at that particular time. A

remedy was given. The remedy was followed. In regard to particular authenticity

of video of the Chamber, my understanding is that is a legitimate take of what

happened in Hansard and in video. So I don't know if we're questioning the

integrity of that.

I do

notice, too, the hon. Member did use the word hypocrisy. I'm not sure if that's

unparliamentary. If it is, I'd certainly ask him to withdraw it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

I will take the issue under

advisement. I will report back perhaps tomorrow after having an opportunity to

review the information and any prima facie cases from elsewhere and provide a

ruling tomorrow.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we have the Members for the Districts of Baie Verte Green Bay,

Placentia West Bellevue, Cape St. Francis, Mount Pearl North, Bonavista, and

Mount Pearl Southlands.

The hon.

the Member for Baie Verte Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to commend the Springdale

chapter of the Salvation Army on

its 100th anniversary. Anyone who knows members of the Salvation Army knows that

this means a full century of good works, faith and fellowship in the community.

Members of this congregation give so much back, without any expectation of

material reward.

Newfoundland and Labrador is fortunate to have a thriving faith community of

Salvation Army members in every region, as they are some of the most engaged and

committed volunteers you will find anywhere. They also meet the material and

spiritual needs of less fortunate among us with a longstanding mission of

community outreach and ministry.

Mr.

Speaker, 100 years is a significant milestone and well worth celebrating. The

Salvation Army in Springdale as demonstrated an ongoing track record of great

work in the community over the past century, and I have no doubt they will

continue the same exemplary fashion for the next one.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Springdale

Salvation Army for its 100th anniversary.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

congratulate a man whose name has become synonymous with volunteering and sport

on the Burin Peninsula, and indeed all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Shane

Dunphy has been a player, an official, a coach, a soccer dad, but perhaps most

notably, a key organizer of sport for many years. He is the long-time president

of the Burin Peninsula Soccer Association, chairman of the Soccer Hall of Fame

Committee, has made many contributions to the Challenge Cup and local

tournaments and has served at the executive level provincially.

recognize his longstanding efforts, Shane was recently named Volunteer of the

Year for Sport NL and the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Association. Both on

and off the pitch, Shane has always showed his commitment to promoting the

sport, but more importantly, involving young people in it. In his own words:

It's not about me, it's about the kids.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in sending our congratulations to Shane and best

wishes for another successful soccer season this summer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the winners of the Torbay Business Awards

which were presented in late April at the Kinsmen Centre in Torbay. This has

been the eighth annual award ceremony and I was pleased to join members of the

local business community, residents and the town council of Torbay at the

presentation.

The

winner of the New Business of the Year is The Traditional Coffee House and Deli

owned by Tina Ricketts. Consumer Commitment Award was presented to Torbay Unisex

Hairstyling, one of Torbay's longest operating businesses. Entrepreneur of the

Year was awarded to Andrew Scammell and Beverley Hillier, owners of East End

Taxi Services which have been providing taxi service in the area since 2008. The

final award of the evening was the Business of the Year Award. This award was

presented to EDGE Beauty Bar which is owned by Kate Porter who won the New

Business award in 2016.

Mr.

Speaker, being a successful business takes a great deal of hard work and

commitment. I ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the winners

of the Torbay Business Awards and wishing them the best in their future

endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Good

afternoon to all.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize Beclin Business Park. May 10, I attended a

celebration in honour of Beclin Business Park becoming the first LEED registered

business park in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

prestigious Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification is a

rating system recognizing environmental excellence in over 160 countries. LEED

works because it recognizes that sustainability should be at the heart of all

buildings in their design, construction and operation.

Since

2004, the Canada Green Building Council has certified over 2,800 LEED buildings

in Canada and registered over 5,000 with the second-highest number of LEED

projects anywhere in the world.

The

buildings in Beclin Business Park are designed with natural lighting so that

most operations can be carried out without the need for artificial light, saving

both energy and money and making them more pleasant places to work. The business

park is designed to reflect the appearance of traditional row houses. The spaces

are adaptable to many diverse uses with loading door and racking dimensions

built for efficiency.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask that all Members of this House join me in recognizing Beclin

Business Park and the chairman of East Port Properties, Mr. John Lindsay, for

this great accomplishment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May

13, I attended the 64th annual ceremonial review of #84 RCSCC Golden Hind. At

1400 hours sharp, Reviewing Officer and Retired Army Captain Garry Blackmore

received the General Salute and inspected the corps before a packed gymnasium at

Catalina Elementary.

The Sea

Cadets dazzled the audience with their dress and deportment, precision drill and

musical talent. The Colour Party kicked off the displays, which was followed by

musical performances by the corps' glockenspiel members. Next up, was a

black-light drum routine, followed by the immaculate drill maneuvers provided by

the Guard. Finally, the Golden Hind band put on a musical display that was

second to none.

To close

the afternoon, the awards ceremony honoured cadets across a variety of

categories including Petty Officer Second Class Kiley Mackey who received the

Cadet of the Year Award. Four cadets age out this year and I recognized their

service with my MHA certificate. They are: Chief Petty Officer First Class

Jordon Dalton-Pittman; Petty Officer First Class Adam Cullimore; Petty Officer

First Class Amy Ford and Petty Officer First Class Raven Rittman.

The Navy

has an expression with a job well done and with the support of their officers,

civilian instructors and volunteers under the command of Lieutenant Wanda

Tremblett, I am proud to say to the cadets: Bravo Zulu.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure of rise in this hon House to recognize several outstanding young

people in my community. The 2017 Mount Pearl Focus on Youth Awards was a

tremendous success and highlighted the great talent, athleticism and

intellectual ability possessed by some very amazing youth.

These

individuals included: Mount Pearl Female Youth of the Year, Andie Winsor; Male

Youth of the Year, Patrick Breen; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Emily Garlie;

Male Youth Athlete of the Year, Evan Knight; Female Youth Athlete of the Year,

Keeley Cox; Youth Team of the Year, Mount Pearl Senior High Female Grade 9

Volleyball Team; RNC Youth In Service Award winner, Cassidy Rose; S.T.E.M. Award

winner, Joel Hatcher; Youth Group of the Year, Mount Pearl Senior High Causes

for Concern; Performing Arts Individual Award winner, Jack Thistle and Hunter

Madden; Visual Arts Award winner, Sarah Hiscock; and Literacy Arts Award winner,

Hunter Richardson.

There

were also performing arts recognition awards presented to: Conway, Mount Pearl

Senior High Drama Club, O'Donel High Jazz Band, Mount Pearl Senior High Jazz

Band, O'Donel's High School Musical

and Mount Pearl Senior High's Traditional Band.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating these amazing young people on their

accomplishments.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to acknowledge the efforts of those who responded to

the serious situation in Mud Lake over the past few weeks, but also to recognize

the efforts that are still underway to assist residents in getting their lives

back together.

Our

government is committed to helping the people of Mud Lake as they deal with the

terrible effects of this flood.

During

the initial flooding event and immediately afterwards, local residents,

emergency management partners and all levels of government came together quickly

and appropriately to support those who were impacted.

I would

like to thank the many organizations and departments who worked around the clock

to ensure the safety of the people of Mud Lake.

This

includes individuals like Mario Berthiaume of the Department of Municipal

Affairs and Environment, staff at the Emergency Operations Centre, Judy Bond and

everyone at the Canadian Red Cross-Newfoundland and Labrador, the Salvation

Army, Newfoundland and Labrador Division, officials with the Department of

Advanced Skills, Education and Labour, the SPCA, the Department of

Transportation and Works and the Department of National Defence.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to recognize the staff of the Intergovernmental and

Indigenous Affairs Secretariat at Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the Labrador

Friendship Centre, the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and everyone else who

pulled together to help in any way they could.

gesture was too small, I can assure you.

visited the community last week, along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Environment and the MHA for Lake Melville, as we implemented early roll-out

of applications for the disaster financial assistance.

This

visit also provided an opportunity to explain to resident in person how multiple

departments were working to assist them both during the initial event, but

also as we moved into the recovery phase.

Mr.

Speaker, we will be actively engaging the federal government in leveraging all

available federal funding to help the people of Mud Lake.

I'm also

pleased to thank Public Safety Canada and the Department of National Defence for

granting our request to assist with options of housing for those who will need

longer term accommodations.

Questions raised about the cause of this never-in-a-lifetime event are shared by

this government.

We need

answers in the form of an independent assessment. We have started that process

and are committed to getting answers to fully understand the situation that

occurred.

Mr.

Speaker, this government will continue to assist where we can and make it safe

for people as they return to their homes and to help them access accommodations,

insurance and disaster relief in their time of need.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

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

in thanking and recognizing the efforts of so many people who have assisted

during this difficult time.

Mr.

Speaker, I think I can say without reservation that all of us in this province,

and especially here in the House of Assembly, take great pride in the fact that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians always come together in times of tragedy, in

times when pressure and stress and assistance is needed. The co-operation and

good will that happens so often in our province goes a long way to ease the

burden of those most deeply impacted.

We know,

Mr. Speaker, while much has been done, we know the province is working with the

federal government and we urge them to continue to do so because we do know that

the disaster assistance available through the federal government can be slow and

difficult at times, especially for the people of Labrador at this point in time.

We have

a lot of questions unanswered, Mr. Speaker, and we'll be looking for answers

from the government as the days and weeks go on. Why has Nalcor changed their

position? Where has the CEO of Nalcor been during this whole event? What will

the parameters be for an assessment and so on? We have many questions and we

look forward to answers from the government.

Again,

we join with the government in recognizing those who have helped out the people

of Mud Lake.

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 Premier for the advance copy of his statement. I express my best

wishes to the people of Mud Lake and join the Premier and the Leader of the

Official Opposition in thanking the first responders and officials who have been

helping those residents.

It is

understandable that they connect the recent flooding with the Muskrat Falls

Project. They deserve a full and independent investigation of what happened, and

I urge the Premier to see that that happens. After all, it is their homes, their

lives and their community at stake.

I also

urge the Premier to get the people of Mud Lake the financial assistance he has

promised. I know he will do it, but I urge him to get it in a very, very timely

manner so that they can rebuild their lives.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize May 28 to June 3 as Early Childhood Educators' Week. It was a

pleasure to join members of the Association of Early Childhood Educators of

Newfoundland and Labrador earlier today to sign the official proclamation.

This

week presents a valuable opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate the crucial

role our early childhood educators play in the lives of our children. They are

critical to the provision of quality child care. Their knowledge and expertise

guide children's early learning and development through play-based learning, and

they provide essential support for families.

As a

government, we remain committed to supporting the important work of early

childhood educators. Budget 2017

included a $1.3 million increase to the annual Early Learning and Child Care

Supplement to enhance financial support for regulated child care services. In

fact we just recently concluded consultations with sector shareholders to find

out how the increase can be best administered, and will provide an update in the

near future on this. Budget 2017 also

added $2 million to the Child Care Subsidy program to make child care more

affordable for families.

We have

approximately 2,200 certified early childhood educators in this province. Every

day, these individuals work in child care centres, family child care homes,

family resource centres, educational institutions, businesses and not-for-profit

organizations to help our children learn and grow.

While

there is special acknowledgement of early childhood educators during Early

Childhood Educators' Week, we should recognize their dedication and hard work

every week of the year. I ask Members of this hon. House, and all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to join me in recognizing the outstanding work

of early childhood educators in communities throughout our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. There is no doubt that early

childhood educators are instrumental to the well-being of our children as well

as the role they play in our society.

The

2,200 certified early childhood educators in our province are indeed dedicated

and hard-working individuals who are in many ways the backbone of our

communities. I'm pleased to know the Liberal government has concluded their

consultations and was eager to see the results and recommendation.

This

side of the House very much hopes that the minister will be more upfront and

transparent with these recommendations than they were with the recently related

library report. The value of the early childhood educator is immense and it is a

pleasure to recognize May 8 to June 3 as Early Childhood Educators' Week.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I commend all the

early childhood educators working in child care settings around the province,

giving our children a good start in life.

Highly

trained early childhood educators are essential to quality programming and they

deserve the increase in the supplement that the minister spoke of. It is good to

see that government consulted about how to distribute it. I now urge the

minister to ensure that early childhood educators who make the effort to train

for higher certification will be fairly compensated.

Thank

you very much, 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.

Mr.

Speaker, the government has guaranteed a letter of credit for Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper valued at $88 million.

I ask

the Premier today to give details to this House of Assembly of what this $88

million fund will be used for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As this

hon. House knows, yesterday, along with my colleagues, we announced a very

unique arrangement that frankly puts the pensioners, some 1,300 active and

retired individuals who have worked at the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited,

in a much better position than they were before this arrangement was secured.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. TRIMPER:

What we've done is built on

an arrangement that the previous administration concluded in 2014, which is, in

exchange for a loan, assets were secured with the power assets. What we've done

is and I would suggest in a very clever and a very unique way in the country

we put those assets in a place where they can best be used to ensure that those

in this pension plan right now will not have to face a potential underfunded

situation.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the information. We do have more questions, obviously, on this

matter. I'm sure he's prepared to answer them for us.

Of the

$88 million letter of credit, we understand that only $29 million of it will be

used to fund a pension plan.

I'll ask

the Premier again: What will the extra $59 million be used for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker, the way the

arrangement is secured and what makes it unique is that it's a long-term

arrangement, if in the event this most important industry in Western

Newfoundland has to cease operations. That's the beauty of the deal.

What

we've done is, through the arrangement, secured that up to $88 million will be

available, if it's needed, to fund what's known as the solvency components of

the pension plans. The going concern right now is sufficiently funded, but if in

the event that the company has to cease operations and money is needed to

support those two pension plans, it will be available.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our

understanding is the $29 million portion of the $88 million makes the pension

plan solvent. It looks after that unfunded liability that existed on the pension

plan.

I'll ask

the minister again to explain to this hon. House: The balance, $59 million, what

is that intended to be used for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker, the question, it

actually needs to be broken in a couple of a pieces. It relates to the

evaluation that was secured by the previous administration in terms of the

current price. Should the mill close now, the power assets would be worth some

$150 million. There's a $110 million loan that's outstanding that the company

will start making payments on in 2019.

Over

time, one year from now, the value of those assets increase by $25 million and

then finally, in the subsequent year, to $200 million. Depending on and God

forbid if the plant does have to cease operations, that's when we would

understand exactly how much money might be needed to fund those two pension

plans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Officials advised us that the answer is $29 million; that's what makes the plan

solvent.

The

minister has referenced the loan provided $110 million in 2014, so I ask the

minister this: Since that agreement was reached in February 2014, has Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper made any special payments into their pension plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

In reference to the Member's

question, yes, the company has been making payments in the vicinity of about $6

million per year. Nevertheless, there is a shortfall in the solvency components

of the pension plan, so the going concern again is sufficiently funded.

So that

folks understand exactly what this means: If the plant has to cease operations,

we need to know how much money will be available to all those involved, all

1,300 approximately retired and active workers. That calculation changes over

time. It's based on a variety of factors, but suffice it to say the situation

and the agreement that we've put in place will more than cover the current

situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

indications that we have and the information we have from officials says that

$29 million of that $88 million makes the pension plan solvent. The minister has

also said that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has made payments since 2014. So,

Minister, if the pension plan is solvent, then pensioners are now protected if

the operation was to wind up or if the plan had to wind up.

Again, I

want to go back to the $59 million. Are you saying that's not going to be used

for any other purpose, it's just going to be held in case the pension plan needs

it? Is that what you're telling us today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

see if we can walk through the story here. Currently and for the Member's

information there is some $25 million approximately that is underfunded into

the plan. In addition, there's an additional $39 million. So, in fact, to wind

up the pension plan, if we had to right now, we are looking at a need of about

$65 million.

setting this at an $88 million limit in terms of the security and with the

assets and the arrangement that we've set in place, we feel that we are in a

much better place for these 1,300 workers and retired pensioners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe

the minister can provide us with further more details on that because the

numbers seem to be different from what was provided by officials earlier and I'd

be glad to talk to him a little bit later again this afternoon.

Mr.

Speaker, taxpayers are on the hook now with a guarantee on a letter of credit

for $88 million.

I ask

the minister: Is the government a secured creditor for that $88 million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker, I must take

strong exception to what I just heard. In terms of the taxpayers being on the

hook, this was a deal that his administration set together in 2014. They

provided a $110 million loan, moved to secure power assets and water rights

agreement, but what they forgot to do was to think about the pensioners.

What

we've managed to do is to take the security of those assets and ensure that the

pensioners, those people who worked very hard all their lives, are going to be

first in line given the eventual situation that the mill has to close.

We've

moved them to the front, not to the back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really

don't want to get in a match with the minister here today, but I can assure him

that the $110 million was going to secure the pension plan for the people of

Corner Brook who work at the mill and who were pensioned from the mill. That was

the plan. There was a 10-year agreement in place. The members of the pension

plan voted for it, we accepted it. There was a plan put in place to make the

pension plan solvent through that process. That's what part of the $110 million

loan was for in 2014.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: If the operation in Corner Brook was to wind up,

who would be responsible for environmental liabilities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

I would like to just address

the

preamble if I may, Mr. Speaker. In terms of the money that is set aside,

that $88 million, it will be there in sufficient amount to cover both the

missing payments and the wind up requirements.

In terms

of the environmental liability, Mr. Speaker, the arrangement is that some $2

million has been set aside for the cleanup, as occurred with the Abitibi Price

mill when that was taken over by the previous administration. The estimated cost

of that was about $1.5 million, so we feel that's a reasonable estimate.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

financial deal that the government has reached with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

will we know and we're hearing secure pensions for hardworking

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, those who work at the mill and those who

worked there in the past

I ask

the minister: Will you extend the same deal and opportunity to other businesses

in Newfoundland and Labrador who have pensions that are at risk?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker, the success of

this deal was frankly because we had a very co-operative corporation and that we

had assets which clearly had a strong value and bringing those two elements

together.

I refer

to the situation that we inherited 48 hours after yours truly was sworn into

government, into Cabinet, when I had to join the Premier and other ministers in

a room and look at the difficult and very frustrating situation we found with

Wabush Mines and those pensioners. In that situation we had a corporation that

fled this province, went to Quebec, sought bankruptcy protection in a Quebec

court, had left us with no assets, no options. Unfortunately, we've had

pensioners right now who are severely underfunded.

We have

made six significant moves since we've assumed government to try to address that

problem and we will continue to do what we can. But right now, we are not

getting a lot of co-operation out of that company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

question to the minister was if other companies in the province who have pension

plans at risk is the minister telling us that government would be willing to

do the same kind of deal for any other business in the province who has a

pension plan which is struggling?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

As I mentioned in my first

remarks in the last answer, Mr. Speaker, the difference here is we had a

corporation that was co-operating and they had an asset that we could secure and

ensure that the pensioners were going to be first in line, not last in line.

Again, I

refer back to my example. Frankly, I see the beauty and the success of what was

secured yesterday and announced in Corner Brook hopefully as providing

precedent, but obviously we need to ensure that we have a co-operating

corporation and we have an asset that we can put together and support the

pensioners of this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

exactly what I'm asking him. For other businesses there are numerous pension

plans in the province. Many of them, we know, are struggling, have pension

struggles within their own pension plans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

They have challenges and

struggles and they also have assets. I'm sure they're looking for support,

assistance and ways to support those plans to make sure they stay solvent.

That

particular question wasn't about Wabush Mines. I was going to ask a question

about Wabush Mines, but my question to the minister is very simple. If a company

comes to him and says we have a similar kind of challenge, we want to work with

you, are you saying that you would provide the same benefits to private

businesses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker, it's very

important to understand here that in 2014 the previous administration set up a

deal, a loan that entitled the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to acquire

those assets should the company stop. That was the legal obligation.

What we

did is we took it a step further. We wanted to make sure that those pensioners

would always be protected so we've come up with this arrangement, unique in the

country. I thank the support of the Minister of Finance and other departments

and a lot of other hard work by my staff to come up with a unique arrangement

that's going to satisfy the pensioners, the company and the government

obligation that that crowd set up for us two, three years ago.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and this

crowd did a good thing for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and did a good thing for

the pensioners and people who work at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the

minister about Wabush Mines. Because we know the people who used to work at

Wabush Mines are left in limbo; we know pensioners have a loss in benefits.

Knowing

now that you've been able to make an arrangement with Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper: What do you have to say to the people impacted by Wabush Mines?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

find it kind of odd that the Leader of the Opposition is standing here and

trying to criticize the deal we just struck with the pensioners and the people

who are working Corner Brook Pulp and Paper right now.

One

thing I got to remind them. In 2015, he met with the pensioners and the union

workers. Do you know what he said? We will work on the deal. That's what the

Leader of the Opposition, met with them during the election another election

promise.

Mr.

Speaker, I have to say that when the Member was the minister of Service NL,

responsible for pensioners, the pension liability for Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper went up by $10 million in that year. So we had to protect the pension.

So when

the Member is standing up here and criticizing Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, you

signed the deal, we're using the money that they had (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we're not questioning anything about the agreement. We're just asking

some questions and asking for some clarity. There's certainly nothing wrong with

that.

Minister, last week you indicated a change in the royalty regime was possible.

This morning you announced the sanctioning of the West White Rose extension.

Have you

changed the royalty regime previously agreed to for this project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It was a

great announcement this morning

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

that the West White Rose

extension and wellhead project are moving forward. It will mean a tremendous

amount of economic activity for the province.

As I

said previously in this House and I will say again to the Member opposite, the

financing arrangements, the fiscal arrangements, the royalty arrangements were

done when the West White Rose Project was put in place in 2007, and they have

not changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I thank the minister for her

answer. In 2014, the West White Rose extension was put on hold. This morning a

senior VP with Husky Oil indicated that the business case has improved.

Minister: What, if any, concessions were made from that time to today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

the opportunity to say once again how incredibly positive it is for this

province to have this project move forward, and it is wonderful to have Husky

and their partners, Suncor and Nalcor, moving forward on this project.

It is a

big day for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and one of the largest

oil and gas developments to move forward in the country so far this year, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

That speaks tremendously to

our oil and gas industry.

To the

Member's point, Mr. Speaker, I know in the last number of years that Husky has

been working very hard to re-engineer the project, to ensure that they brought

down their costs as best as possible. There are tremendous benefits occurring to

the province, as we know, as well as over $3 billion in royalties and taxes.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

minister, we're delighted certainly again with the announcement today and to

build on the work that we've done over the past decade in building the oil and

gas sector and building Nalcor to get the returns for decades to come, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, this morning's

announcement did not mention at all about the topside module. So why is an

undisclosed, preferred bidder building topside modules in Texas rather than Bull

Arm or Marystown?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As was

announced this morning, I will go through the benefits that were announced this

morning with Husky's announcement that they will be moving forward with this

project, one of the only projects to move forward this year, Mr. Speaker, of

such magnitude.

The

accommodation module will be built in this province, the flare boom will be

built in this province, the life boat stations will be built in this province

and, most importantly, the CGS, a concrete gravity-based structure, will be

built in Argentia. Husky has put in $100 million graving dock to do so. And the

increase in employment, Mr. Speaker he talked about the agreement that was

signed in 2013 with Husky. There is 10 million person-hours of employment. At

the time they announced it, it was 72 per cent less than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the hon. Member: What modules are not being built in the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon.

Member will recall that the topsides have never been built in this province. He

understands that I'm sure from the 2013 agreement.

believe, Mr. Speaker, he's trying to confuse the people of this province. The

accommodation module is being built in this province, the flare boom, the

helipad the accommodation module, I've already mentioned, as well as the life

boat stations and the CGS.

believe that the Member opposite is asking about work that will be going outside

of the province. As with all of these projects, some work will be done outside

of this province, just like Newfoundlanders and Labradorians work outside of

this province all over the world as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

delighted we heard the list of what was going to be built within the province

and with the tremendous workforce we have in the province, that's great, the

developed experience. But what I specifically asked the minister was: What

modules, what work will be done out of province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I think he's

trying to get to one particular point, and I'll get to that in a moment. I just

want to say there's more work being done I believe, on a percentage basis,

more work is being done in the province than there was on the Hebron Project.

But I

believe he's trying to get to the facility services module, the facilities

control module that he's talking about which he believes was part of the

accommodation module. I think he's trying to get to that. That is, with an

engineering design, going to be built with the topsides, Mr. Speaker.

But I

will repeat the accommodation module, flare boom, life boat stations, helipad

and, most importantly, the concrete gravity-based structure will all be built in

this province. We have 72 per cent more person-hours of employment. That

represents about 5,000 person-years of employment.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, we have spent

three answers of the minister telling me what's being built in the province. All

I asked was: What's not being built in this province based on what was

sanctioned this morning? It's a straightforward question. We still don't have

it.

Mr.

Speaker, this project will have to pay a carbon tax based on the federal

government's 2018 timeline. Who's going to pay this tax for the project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

carbon tax, I know my colleague is working very hard and working well with the

federal government. It will be a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador solution on

the carbon tax, Mr. Speaker.

As we

move forward, I'm sure that the offshore oil and gas industry will be consulted

and involved in the decisions around the carbon tax, should it proceed as we

move forward. I know my colleague is working very hard to ensure the continuing

competiveness of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

referenced before $3 billion in royalties, but through this process there were

no discussions about a mandated carbon tax by the federal government for this

industry and who's going to pay it and how it affects the royalties for this

province.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, I want to just reiterate the confidence that he has in the federal

Liberal win in the next federal election because the Conservative leader that

was elected just a few days ago had said clearly that he was elected, if Andrew

Scheer was elected, he would be doing away with the carbon tax. So I appreciate

the vote of confidence for our federal colleague, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we all

know that the carbon tax is part of operations, but the beauty about the deal

that we have signed on behalf of the impact of carbon tax and we know it's

difficult when you get offshore. This government has struck a deal that the

carbon tax can be used at the discretion of this government.

If we

want to work with industry, we will work with industry, Mr. Speaker. I

appreciate the confidence in our federal leader, Justin Trudeau, Mr. Speaker,

and the fact that he's suggesting that Andrew Scheer cannot win the next

election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't elected

to be concerned with Andrew Scheer, I've been elected to be concerned with the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

and the royalties from

these projects that the Premier just told us he hasn't even factored in the

carbon tax and sanctioned this project. That's what he just said.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier committed to an independent review of Mud Lake flooding.

Premier, who will be doing the review and what are the parameters of that

review?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

made a commitment to the people of Mud Lake to do an independent assessment of

what occurred. During the recent visit there a week ago there was certainly a

lot of fear and people asking questions of what actually happened. They needed

those questions answered. We've made a commitment that we will get this done.

Mr.

Speaker, right now we have inspectors on the ground. We are focused on getting

Mud Lake and the area of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, getting that stable, getting

people back in their own homes as quickly as possible. The work has started on

who would do this independent assessment.

Mr.

Speaker, when we're in a position to be able to announce this, the commitment

that we've made, we will get this work done so we can let the people of Mud Lake

and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, give them the answers that they need to prevent this

from happening again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Do you have to set a timeline to have this report finished and

available?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Putting

a timeline on an independent assessment would not properly do justice. Mr.

Speaker, what the people of Mud Lake and Happy Valley-Goose Bay have asked us to

do is a thorough review of what happened.

Mr.

Speaker, if I was to put a timeline and say you must do this in two weeks, two

months, that would not be fair. We have made a commitment to get back to the

people of Mud Lake and Happy Valley-Goose Bay when this assessment is done.

Mr.

Speaker, what's key to this, too and we've made a commitment to do this is

to use traditional knowledge in assessing the impact; people that have lived in

that area, people that have walked those grounds, to let them have their say.

The very people that felt they've been shut out by the previous administration

when this particular project was sanctioned in the beginning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: Have you met with the CEO of Nalcor to get an

explanation on Nalcor's position on the Mud Lake flooding as that position has

changed in the past number of days?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Officials from Nalcor were on the ground in Happy Valley-Goose Bay last Sunday.

They had public meetings there with the people of Mud Lake. The reception and

the response that we had was very good, a response from that meeting; but, Mr.

Speaker, let's be very clear here, let's be very clear. I am on record as

directing Nalcor that they have this is not about Nalcor. This is about

individuals on the ground there. They will be participating with the information

that they have. The CEO knows this, the vice-presidents know this, every single

person in the executive level at Nalcor is aware of this.

It will

be an independent assessment exclusive of Nalcor, but they will be participating

with the information that they would have. Mr. Speaker, we will also be using

people with the traditional knowledge in that area to be inclusive of this

assessment.

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.

It's

good to see government take steps to secure the pensions of current and former

employees of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. Some clarification of the terms of

this agreement would be helpful. The Minister of Service NL has said CBPP put $6

million into the pension fund last year.

I ask

the Premier: Does this new agreement include a holiday on pension contributions

by the company and, if so, for what period of time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

reference to the question, absolutely not. The company is obligated to continue

its payments and they will do so. We certainly will be watching them very

closely.

Mr.

Speaker, we've also set up, government has set up an oversight committee that

comprises and is led by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources. It

includes other departments, so we will be keeping an eye on both the pension

contributions, on the quality and integrity of those assets and do what we can

to support the operation of the mill.

Thank

you very much.

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.

We'll be

looking forward to reports from that oversight committee in that case.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday's Corner Brook Pulp and Paper announcement triggered media

reports questioning if there's a link between corporate financial contributions

to the governing party and subsequent government funding decisions.

I ask

the Premier to address public skepticism generated by these media reports: Will

be immediately I ask the Premier, will be immediately create an all-party

committee on democratic reform instead of waiting until next year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

I find it very strange that

the co-leader of the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, is up now concerned about the

workers at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, when the PC government was over here

trying to work out an arrangement in the 2014 deal, when myself and the Premier

of the province worked with Jerome Kennedy to get this deal, that leader,

co-leader of the Third Party, was asking questions on behalf of the union. I

contacted four union members, do you know what they said? We haven't even spoken

to the lady.

So now

all of a sudden she's standing up in this House asking about political

contributions. I'll tell you what sparked this, Mr. Speaker. It's a letter that

I wrote back in April and it is done through the freedom of information

April 2016 telling them they have to start making payments to the pension fund.

This is how this deal started. It was putting pressure on Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper, not giving them any breaks.

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 glad

they had a gift to give them, since they got a gift back from them. So now

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper looks good because they started putting into the

pension plan information we didn't have earlier.

Mr.

Speaker, Husky will build a fixed wellhead platform for their West White Rose

project to maximize their resource recovery, to use their words. The Natural

Resources Minister has said the province's preference is to maximize employment

and benefits to the province.

I ask

the Premier: Will he confirm where the drilling module required for the West

White Rose wellhead platform will be built?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

I'm pleased to speak to this huge announcement this morning and pleased to say

that our oil and gas industry is growing in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, to again outline the benefits of this announcement this morning, a

concrete gravity-based structure will be built in this province. The increase

and scope of that design has increased significantly since the 2013 arrangements

by the former government, the PC government, and it is now 72 per cent more

person hours of employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

That translates to 5,000

person years.

Mr.

Speaker, when it was announced it was at 2,800. It's now approximately 5,000

person-years of employment. The accommodations module will be built in this

province. The flare boom, the lifeboats and the helipad will all be built here

in this province, Mr. Speaker, and we're looking forward to the opportunity

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We still

don't know where the drilling module is going to be built.

Mr.

Speaker, the Hibernia, Terra Nova and Hebron projects were built at Bull Arm.

The site is now ready for a new project.

So I ask

the Premier: Will government ensure this facility is used for fabrication and

construction work for the West White Road project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As has

been discussed in this province for quite a number of years, Argentia has been

very interested in getting work on this project. They have worked very hard to

secure Husky and they have done so; $100 million has been put into the grading

dock. The Husky White wellhead project will be built in Argentia to the benefit

of the people of this province and most specifically to the benefit of the

people of the Placentia area, and we're very pleased with that.

Regarding the Bull Arm site, Mr. Speaker; I've advised this House over the last

number of months that Nalcor has gone out and looked for expressions of interest

on the use of the Bull Arm site which is currently being used for Hebron and

they have gotten some great, I understand some great applications and interest

under that expressions of interest. It's being reviewed, Mr. Speaker, and we'll

have more news as this moves forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

again on a point of privilege which is in relation to the one that I made in

this House just 30 minutes ago.

hesitate to stand here again, since the last 30 minutes, but unfortunately it

has come to my understanding, my awareness that the Member for Mount Pearl North

has committed the same contemptuous behaviour in the last 30 minutes via social

media that forced me to bring the same point of privilege here in this House 30

minutes ago.

I would

submit that again, using the same analogy of a criminal court this is an

individual that's been charged, that's been let out on conditions and has since

breached those conditions.

Mr.

Speaker, Standing Order 34 says: Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it

shall be taken into consideration immediately.

Now, I

was certainly fine and understanding of the Speaker's need to take time to

consider this matter, but given the fact that the Member for Mount Pearl North

cannot restrain himself from conducting himself with the same behaviour that we

find is contempt of this House, I would ask that you recess this House until

you've made your ruling to determine whether the Member is in breach of

privilege of this House.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the Government

House Leader is making a mockery of this House. It's ridiculous that he

continues to draw attention to an issue that was previously dealt with in this

hon. Legislature. A ruling was given. I left the House as instructed by the

person who was in the Chair at that time, respecting the Chair's decision at

that point in time.

Retweeting, Mr. Speaker, is not a crime as the Member suggests; further, earlier

today the Member used the word hypocrisy which is in direct contravention of

parliamentary practice.

I rise

on a point of order to once again call out that kind of behaviour, Mr. Speaker,

which hasn't been ruled on in this House. It's inappropriate, it's unacceptable

and we have more important issues to deal with in this hon. House.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I'm only

going to respond to the last part of the Member's comments there as it relates

to the use of my word hypocrisy. The fact is our comments have found that it

is not directly unparliamentary. In many cases it's been found to be perfectly

acceptable, depending on the context in which it is used and the statement is

made.

Again, I

would just put that out there, but I'm looking forward to a statement being made

by the Speaker on the conduct of the Member opposite.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm going to draw this to a

close very soon. I will recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and if

the Third Party wishes to make a comment, and I'm going to shut it down. I

believe I've heard enough evidence on both sides of the House.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know

you've heard arguments back and forth, but what I want to draw your attention to

is comments made by the Government House Leader just a few moments ago when he

drew a parallel between a Member of this hon. House here today who he is lodging

a complaint with and a person charged with an offence. He said it's akin to a

person charged with an offence and then being released on conditions. As if a

person were facing a criminal charge or a criminal court where you appear before

a judge, you want to be released from custody and then the court releases you on

conditions.

I find

it appalling, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader would be allowed to

stand and make such a parallel or such a suggestion. That's why I find it highly

offensive for him to use such language, to draw such a parallel. Above all else

that's been happening here today, on top of the use of the word hypocrisy, he

should be made to withdraw and apologize for those comments as well.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm not

going to enter into the argument that's going on between the other two sides.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

I would like to make one

point in your deliberations, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you to look up

past experiences and precedents, but I myself experienced a ruling of the

Speaker of the House for something I said outside of the House after a ruling

was made in the House.

So there

is precedence for what we say in the media outside of the House after a ruling

of the Speaker. I myself had that ruling made to me. That's the only point I'm

going to make.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I am

going to take a brief recess on the point of order raised by the Member for

Mount Pearl North, as well as the point of privilege raised by the Government

House Leader.

We will

recess and reconvene as quickly as possible.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There

are two issues that I'm going to rule on today. Before I rule on the first, I

will say that a point of order is generally not entertained while a point of

privilege is on the floor but in this particular case I will rule on the point

of order raised by the Member for Mount Pearl North against the Member for

Burgeo La Poile who used the word hypocrisy.

I will

ask the Member for Burgeo La Poile to apologize.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I retract the statement and

apologize unequivocally.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

I have to say at the outset

of this and before I give my ruling on the point of privilege, I find it both

ironic and extremely disappointing that the Member for Mount Pearl North who can

refuse to apologize for using words like dishonest, deceit and unethical can

demand another Member apologize for the use of the word hypocrisy.

With

respect to the point of privilege that has been raised in this House by the

Member for Burgeo La Poile regarding an edited video placed online by the

Member for Mount Pearl North, I have reviewed the circumstances and listened to

Members speak on the issue.

I will

point out that my role as Speaker in this matter is laid out in O'Brien and Bosc

at page 145, the issue put before the Speaker is not a finding of fact, it is

simply whether on first impression the issue that is before the House warrants

priority consideration over all other matters, all other orders of the day that

are before the House ...

And in a

decision on June 19, 2012, by Speaker Wiseman indicated it is for this House

to decide what course of action will be taken when that happens .

Maingot, on page 227 in quoting the UK select committee on Parliamentary

Privileges Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of

privilege or to put it shortly, has the member an arguable point? And in this

case I do believe he does.

I find

that this issue is not about a breach of Standing Order 49, as put forward by

the Opposition House Leader. That issue had been dealt with previously and

issues against Standing Order 49 should be raised as it happens in this House.

That issue has been dealt with and it is done.

This

House should also be aware that the Member for Mount Pearl North knows the

purpose of that Standing Order. It is aimed at preventing the use of offensive

language that might disrupt civil debate in this Chamber. He, himself, was a

presiding Officer in 2012 and I quote: I would like to provide a reminder to

all hon. members of this House. Unparliamentary language, at any point in time,

is not acceptable . There have been a number of cases where the Member for

Mount Pearl North had made rulings against unparliamentary language.

Also,

this is not about the editing or manipulation of a video in such a way as to

change the tenor of the actual proceeding that was recorded. For that, I will be

asking the Standing Orders Committee to consider how audio and video recordings

of this House can and cannot be used in the future.

The

question of parliamentary privilege before us is that the Member for Mount Pearl

North created and broadcast online the very unparliamentary language for which

he was reprimanded, refused to apologize and was ejected from this House. To

make matters worse, while seated in this House today, the Member for Mount Pearl

North retweeted the very same video using the same unparliamentary language that

was ruled against and is now the subject of a point of privilege.

Maingot

at pages 254 and 255 states: Language spoken during a parliamentary proceeding

that impugns the integrity of Members would be unparliamentary and a breach of

order contrary to the Standing Orders, but not a breach of privilege. Spoken

outside the House by a Member, and I interpret this to include stating the

same words on video or other recorded or electronic means the same language

reflecting on the Member's parliamentary capacity would be considered contempt

of the House .

The

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi is correct when she stated earlier that

a very similar issue arose for her in June of 2012. However, despite much

Speaker commentary on contempt, she was given the benefit of the doubt for words

used outside the House, and the Member did the right thing when she was asked to

apologize. She did so honourably.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North was a presiding Officer of this House at the time

Speaker Wiseman outlined contempt and said contempt, can be found against a

Member even if the comments were made outside the House.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North was given the opportunity to apologize and had gone

further by posting the unparliamentary language on the very video produced by

this House of Assembly.

The

Member's behaviour has been much more egregious and, considering all of this, I

find there is a prima facie breach of privilege by way of contempt. I now ask

the Government House Leader to move his motion.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for St. John's West, that the matters raised as a

question of privilege by myself earlier today and the responses made be referred

to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the Committee

submit its report no later than two weeks after the commencement of the next

sitting of the House of Assembly.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Seeing no further speakers, I

move that we proceed with Presenting Reports by Standing the hon. the Member

for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, sorry, we didn't

realize that there was an opportunity to respond. If there is an opportunity to

respond, then there may be Members on this side of the House who wish to

respond.

I'm

asking for your ruling. Is it acceptable for us to do so?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I don't have

anything to add at this point in time. I respect the role of the Chair. I don't

feel I've done anything wrong. If we end up in some kind of debate, then I'm

happy to have that debate, but I have nothing to add at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

matter that's at debate here this afternoon has become a very important matter.

I think it's a serious matter that's been brought forward by the Government

House Leader. I think it's worthy of me having a few moments to discuss and

debate and speak to his motion that this be sent to a committee and then to

report back many months from now.

Mr.

Speaker, by way of background, if I may take a few minutes to do so, last week

there was a debate here in the House of Assembly involving the budget. We know

that the Member for Mount Pearl North had become frustrated, as I can say I was

as well, in being challenged to try and obtain answers to questions in a

Committee here that were placed to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

At the

time that it took place, Mr. Speaker, there were several times a question asked

and

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, if I could stand

on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I will

recognize the hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I refer to the

section of

Standing Orders on Relevance, and I believe that the Member opposite is speaking

to the content which led to the original motion for contempt as opposed to the

motion that I made right here, which is to refer this to the Standing Committee

on Privileges and Elections.

I would

certainly welcome debate on the motion, but I don't believe debate on the issues

that led to the original contempt should be debated here now. That's been done

and the Speaker has ruled.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

On an

oversight as well by myself, there was a motion and a seconder and I will hear

comments, but then we will put the motion to a vote of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I have

made a ruling. I will recognize the hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I

may, on a point of order, just for clarification and then allow you to rule on

the point of order. Just to be clear in understanding the process that happens

here now, we are now allowed, permitted any Member can now speak to the motion

before the House. Would that be correct?

MR. SPEAKER:

Without a challenge of the

Speaker's ruling, I will allow some discussion back and forth on the issue that

is going to be put forward to the Standing Committee.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, as I was saying what happened to give rise to this matter was that

questions were being asked and answers were being sought. The question was asked

about the Lieutenant Governor's private secretary and no less than three

different distinct answers had been provided which led to frustration, I can

tell you, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House.

I'm not

going to repeat the comments that occurred, but on the very next day the Speaker

ruled that the comments by my colleague were out of order. The Member was

ejected after refusing to apologize or withdraw the comments.

Now

today, the Government House Leader has risen twice during proceedings this

afternoon and suggested that the Member for Mount Pearl North has committed a

breach of privilege by posting a video, which he referred to as a

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I've

provided a ruling on this and I've put it to the Government House Leader to put

forward a motion, as he did. I ask the Member, the Leader of the Opposition, are

you questioning the ruling on the matter of privilege?

MR. P. DAVIS:

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

questioning the ruling

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

Leader.

MR. P. DAVIS:

I'm simply providing

background information as I did for what transpired in the House which led to

the ejection of my colleague here.

So, Mr.

Speaker, you did rule on that. The Government House Leader suggested today that

the video, which was compiled by House of Assembly video, and his point was on

an edited video.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, what's being asked now is that the conduct here in the House by my

colleague is at question and how should that Member be dealt with, his conduct

be dealt with. That's what the motion for the Government House Leader is about

and that's what I want to speak to.

Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, reporters, people from the media,

politicians and others, they view the House of Assembly webcast on a regular

basis. They use them for their own purposes. The media daily will take video,

edit it to make it part of their evening news cast. They edit clips for their

own reporting purposes. People post clips of videos that happened in the House

well. Mr. Speaker, political parties use the same type of clips for political

purposes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, using Standing Order

48, which deals with Relevance, the motion that I've made is that the matters

we've discussed today be referred to a committee who will then meet to discuss

that. The Member opposite is questioning he is not speaking to the motion on

what we should do to deal with this; he's discussing again the behaviour that

lead to it, which I believe has been ruled on quite clearly.

Again, I

would ask that if there is to be debate, it be on the motion on whether we

should support this or vote against it. That's what the debate should be on, not

about what has led up to this. That has been ruled on, quite clearly. And I

believe now, after two points of order, any further commentary on this should be

seen as a challenge to the ruling by the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

On the

point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

assure you I don't have any intent to question or to challenge the Chair this

afternoon. I'm simply using an opportunity to put in perspective the commentary

and the conclusions and suggestions that I'm going to make regarding the Member

opposite's recommendation here before the House. I think that I should be

afforded the opportunity as a Member of this House to do so and, so far, you've

ruled twice for me to continue and allow me to do that and I appreciate that.

If the

Member opposite is going to continue to object on the same grounds when I

haven't changed my speaking lines in any way, then this is going to only

obstruct this whole process.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

On the

point of order, I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue. I will

listen very carefully to the words spoken by all Members of the Legislature. I

understand there has to be some discussion of the events leading up to this if

it is to go to a Standing Committee. I will give some lenience.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

appreciate your ruling.

Mr.

Speaker, the point I was making is that the videos produced and broadcast by the

House of Assembly are used by many for many different purposes. Members of this

House have used videos and happenings in the House. It's common for everyone to

do that. Every party has done it; the Independent Member has done it and so on.

I'd

suggest even that this matter is not new for any legislature in Canada where

parliament, provinces throughout our country, even municipalities, broadcast

proceedings and people utilize it. If there's an issue with how they're

utilized, then the Speaker deals with that as you have done earlier today.

Mr.

Speaker, the point of privilege raised by the minister is for this matter to be

sent to a committee, left to sit stale for a lengthy period of time to review or

to discuss what would be appropriate in this particular case. What he's asking

for, I believe, goes beyond what needs to happen in this House. There are

current Standing Orders in place. There are rules in place. We also have in

place what is an overarching piece of legislation that impacts us all by federal

legislation in the Constitution.

Mr.

Speaker, what the minister opposite is asking for is this matter to be referred

to another process to determine what should take place. You've ruled that the

Member's conduct was not in order, that he shouldn't have done what he has done.

I'm not questioning the ruling on that. But to take this somewhere else and

create a new set of rules or to create a sanction contrary to what may already

be in place, the Constitution is quite clear and deals with a person's rights

and freedoms. The Government House Leader opposite wants us to take this to a

process to determine sanction when the House of Assembly and the Speaker can

rule and deal with it here.

believe the House of Assembly is where this matter has been given rise, where it

came up; it's where it's been talked about. Now we're going to move to a process

to determine what the Member opposite wants, a Committee to determine how video

can be used. Is that going to apply to just Members of the House? Would that

apply to members of the media or the general public? Would it apply to Members

inside the House and outside the House? Because the Constitution is quite clear.

Members opposite said you shouldn't do through the backdoor what you can't do

through the front door. Mr. Speaker, we have rules here in the House of

Assembly, and I suggest that they end at the door.

When the

Constitution itself, the Constitution of Canada, under

section 15

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

The

Speaker doesn't often interject into the course of debate. In this particular

case I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, the rules around this

procedure are clear. The way it is rolling out is clear, that when the Speaker

rules that there is enough evidence to refer this to a Committee, the motion has

to be put by a Member of the Legislature. The ruling has been made. I am

satisfied with the motion that is put before the House. It is the proper

procedure.

I ask

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to respect the rules that have been in

place under the British Parliamentary System for a considerable period of time.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I fully

respect and wish to respect the Speaker and the rules of this House.

I know

there are a number of issues which are delicate and contentious and discussing

this entire matter. My point that I'm trying to achieve here and reach here is

that this is a matter that occurred here in the House. It's a matter that's

happened amongst Members of the House of Assembly, including yourself as

Speaker, and I believe should be decided and heard here in the House of

Assembly. Not by Committee, but should be heard here in the public House, in the

public Chamber of the House of Assembly, and the decision should be made here.

Mr.

Speaker, that's the point I'm trying to reach here. That's the point I'm trying

to reach. We're all familiar with the Constitution. The only reason why I refer

to it is to differentiate between what goes on inside the House and what goes

outside the House.

The only

reason why I raise it, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of a Committee determining

that here in the House of Assembly. Let's do this in the public House. It's the

public House that gave rise to this matter, and my suggestion is that we do it

here in the House instead of referring it to a Committee.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

looking for some clarification, to be honest with you. This is a new process to

me and I just want to understand the process.

understanding is we have a motion to the floor to bring this matter before a

Standing Committee. I'm wondering if this Standing Committee is going to be

Committee as I understood it to be, and I'm getting this from listening to the

Leader of the Opposition. Is this Standing Committee to look at, I guess, the

actions of the Member in question, and what sanctions would be against that

Member? I want to understand which it is because if I'm expected to vote on it

then, obviously, I would want to know exactly what it is I'm voting on.

I would

also like to know, if it is a Standing Committee, then who would be on that

Committee? Would it be a majority of government Members, for example? Because

tying into what the Leader of the Opposition said, if it came before the House

of Assembly and it was dealt with by you, Mr. Speaker, well you're an impartial

person. But if it's a Standing Committee and the majority of the Members are

government Members, then obviously they could try to take some serious sanctions

against the Member, in theory, and would be out voted and there could be some

bias there.

I just

want to understand what it is I'm voting for, because quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I don't understand what it is I am voting for at this point.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, again, I'll sit

down if you want to explain how the Standing Committees work. I will say that

the membership of the Committees is posted outside there, and it's been posted

there for the last six years that I've been here.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, I'm speaking to this

is debate to the motion I believe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS:

I'm speaking to the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There's

a very serious issue before the floor of the House. I presented to Members of

this Legislature, just prior to the constituency week break, that I had been

very disappointed at the way the House had operated and I will not allow any

Members to take the House on their back.

I will

say for clarification I understand the Member for Burgeo La Poile has

already spoken. I wasn't sure if he was on a point of order or not.

I will

say that the Standing Committee has been in place for several decades on this,

and each new Legislature the Standing Committee is put in place. The Standing

Committee on Elections and Privilege is posted outside my office door for all

Members to see who is on that Committee. The motion for that Committee was put

before this House at the beginning of the General Assembly. It's the first time

I'd seen the Standing Order on Elections and Privileges being used because we

don't often have a breach that is put to a vote and referred to the Standing

Committee on Elections and Privileges.

I hope

I'm not asked to intervene in this debate any further. This debate is amongst

Members of the Legislature. I will preside over the debate, but I do ask,

especially considering the serious nature of what is before the House today,

that at least today we can practice order and decorum.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands, I believe has already spoken. Is this a

point of order?

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, again I'm

seeking clarification. The minister said that the Standing Order committee is

posted on the wall. I understand that.

I've

been here for six years, Mr. Speaker, I have never been on a standing committee

ever, on any standing committee. So I'm just seeking if I'm going to be asked

to vote for something, I just want to understand exactly what it is that the

standing committee will be looking at. Are they going to be looking at, in

general, the issue around video and so on or are they looking at sanctioning the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl North? Is that exactly what this Committee is going

to meet about?

I'm just

wondering how that process would work, and to ensure there is input from all

sides and that it's not outweighed one way or the other. That's all I'm asking.

If I'm asked to vote on something, I'm not going to vote on something I don't

know what I'm voting for.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition, are you standing on a point of order?

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

looking for much like other colleagues, other Members of the House

clarification on the process because it is a very rarely followed process.

understanding of a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker, is that when a prima facie

case, or the Speaker rules on a prima facie case has been thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

understanding, or what I had understood was when a prima facie case has been

established, it establishes that the Speaker has ruled that on first look into a

matter, if you feel there may be some substance to a case and then there would

be a process to determine if the case is being proven or not, or if there are

grounds to prove the case or not. That's my understanding of a prima facie case.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

the Member to quickly get to his point of order, and any Member of your caucus,

I would submit, can speak if you have other questions.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you

I will,

Mr. Speaker, very quickly.

My point

of order being if you determine a prima facie case exists, there should be a

hearing and then I believe the rules would follow that the hearing happen here

in the House of assembly.

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask again: Is the Leader of

the Opposition questioning the ruling before the House today?

MR. P. DAVIS:

No, Mr. Speaker. I'm not

questioning your ruling in determining that a prima facie case exists. What I'm

discussing is what happens next.

MR. SPEAKER:

I've asked the Member for

Burgeo La Poile to put his motion. The motion is before the House. It is a

debatable motion.

Are

there any other Members who wish to speak to the motion?

Seeing

no further Members, is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those in favour of the

motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion has been approved.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Division has been called.

Call in

the Members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the Whips ready?

All

those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK (Barnes):

Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.

Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Kirby, Mr.

Trimper, Mr. Warr, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Browne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Edmunds, Mr.

Letto, Ms. Haley, Mr. Derek Bennett, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Parsley, Ms. Pam Parsons,

Mr. Bragg, Mr. Reid, Mr. King.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against the motion,

please rise.

CLERK:

Mr. Paul Davis, Mr.

Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms. Michael, Ms.

Rogers, Mr. Lane.

Mr.

Speaker, the ayes: 22; the nays: nine.

MR. SPEAKER:

I declare the motion

approved.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with

section

19(5)(

a) of the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act I hereby table the minutes

of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting held on March 15, 2017.

accordance with subsection 273(1)(

h) of the

Elections Act, 1991 I hereby table the

2015 provincial general election report on election finances by the Office of

the Chief Electoral Officer.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act, Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Deputy Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Bonavista, that I give notice the following private

Member's motion:

WHEREAS

last year Marine Atlantic experienced its first year-over-year increase in

passenger traffic for 20 years; and

WHEREAS

traffic on the Labrador Straits ferry increased during May to October 2016, with

the number of passengers and passenger-related vehicles increasing 6 and 5 per

cent respectively over 2015 levels; and

WHEREAS

last year, St. John's Airport had the busiest summer in its history and the

Airport Authority stated that the strong tourism product offered by our province

contributed to its success; and

WHEREAS

summer 2016 was the busiest ever at the Deer Lake Regional Airport, with August

2016 being the busiest month in the airport's history; and

WHEREAS

the number of visitors to Red Bay and the Point Amour Lighthouse increased by

26.2 per cent and 12.1 per cent respectively from the previous year, and the

Pinware provincial park saw an increase of 29.1 per cent in the number of

registered camping units from the previous year; and

WHEREAS

the 2016 cruise season saw an increase of 9.2 per cent in cruise visitors

compared to the previous season; and

WHEREAS

government has been working in partnership and consultation with private tourism

businesses, non-profit operators, municipalities, regional and other tourism

sector organizations, destination management organizations, Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Parks

Canada and many other tourism, culture and transportation partners;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House supports government's commitment in

The Way Forward that, by 2020,

Newfoundland and Labrador's annual tourism spending by residents and

non-residents will double 2009 levels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

Standing Order 63(3), the private Members' resolution entered by the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair shall be the one to be debated this Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I can,

I'm going to move to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 2. I would move pursuant

to provisional Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at today at 5:30

p.m., Monday, May 29, 2017.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 today.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 7.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 7)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2, 3 and 4.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2, 3 and 4

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clauses 2, 3 and 4 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Public

Service Pensions Act, 1991.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 7 carried

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

That happened so fast, Madam

Chair, I just have to find my I move, Madam Chair, that the Committee rise and

report Bill 7.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 7.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Deputy

Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report Bill 7 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Deputy Speaker reports

that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed her to report Bill 7 carried without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,

by leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, Order 7, third

reading of Bill sorry, I better make sure I have the right Order number.

Bill 9,

Order just give me a moment, Mr. Speaker, this is moving very quickly.

Order 4,

third reading of Bill 7.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill now be read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

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

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bills.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 9)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up here today and to speak to Bill 9. I believe it's

very important legislation. This bill we've debated already in the House but I

think there's more discussion that needs to be had here today.

While I

am pleased to see there is going to be a reduction in the gas tax of 8.5 cents

now in June 1. I'm sure that most people are waiting in the next couple of days

and really looking forward to the reduction in the gas tax because right now

we're paying, I think it's one of the highest in all of Canada when it comes to

the amount we pay for gas in this province.

It's

also important to realize the situation our province finds ourselves in today.

There are a lot of people out there that are hurting. There are a lot of people

out there that look at the gas tax as really distraught and really put a dent

into a lot of plans; a lot of concerns when it comes to people with the amount

of money they have to spend on things like renovations, buying new cars,

purchasing appliances, purchasing things for their homes. The amount of income

they have once the gas tax went in last year when it went in, it was said it

was at 16 cents per litre. Well, in actual fact, it was almost 20 cents per

litre. The effect that has had on our economy is unbelievable.

We look

today at what happened in last year's budget where there was over 300 increases

in fees to normal Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and people found it very

difficult. There was also 50 new fees that were added on and people found that

very difficult.

While

the reduction in the gas tax I'm sure will be met on June 1 by a lot of people

knowing they're going to go and the price per litre of gas is going to go down.

It's not far enough. The amount of stress and the amount of pressure that has

been put on our economy is unbelievable. We all see it. We see it in every one

of our districts. We see what's happening in our construction industry. We see

what's happening at our local restaurants.

Last

year, I know the Minister of Finance made comments in her Budget Speech that she

had to reach into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Last year, I

believe we reached into the pockets and we went too deep. We went way too deep.

The average home in Newfoundland and Labrador had to come up with $6,000 extra

to pay for all these 300 fees and the 50 new fees that we implemented in last

year's budget.

I said

it last year and I said it while we debated this year on the budget, we all

understand the fiscal restraints we do have in this province. Most

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are willing to pay their way because that's the

way we operate and there is no doubt about it, everyone realizes it. But to make

such an attack on everyone from seniors to young families, to students to the

average Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, this is way too much.

While I

say I'm happy to see that there's 8.5 cents coming off, I believe that the whole

16 cents and other reductions too we really went too far when we look at what

we've done with regard to insurance. We're the only province in Canada right now

that's paying taxes on our insurance. People on fixed incomes, hard-working

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and families are really finding it difficult.

They're finding it so difficult that we can see what's happening in our economy.

Our economy is after slowing down so much, it's unbelievable.

When you

look at what's happening in my area I spoke last night I was a Girl Guide

function. I happened to be sitting with the town clerk in one of my towns. She

said: Kevin, it's unbelievable. We have one housing start so far this year. She

said everything, even when it comes to doing renovations on people's homes,

applications are down all over this province. The reason being, people just

can't afford to do it.

They

can't afford to go and spend the extra dollars that have been taken away from

them because they don't have it any more. They don't have it to spend it. So

these renovations, home starts, even people paying their municipal taxes are

finding it really difficult. They're slow on paying their taxes because the

money isn't there anymore. That's a result of all the extra fees and the extra

amount of money that they needed to put their hand in their pocket and take out.

Again,

that has a real snowball effect on our whole economy because we all know and

when the government party were on this side, they it was a job killer. They said

the one thing you can't do, you can't increase taxes; it will kill the economy.

They said it over here every day. Yet, when they got in government, nobody has

ever seen anything like it in this province. Nobody has ever seen anybody do the

amount of damage that this government has done to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

While

this year's budget, they touted no, no increases, no tax increases this year. My

God, they couldn't do any more than what they did last year. I guess they

couldn't find any more, because last year was just so hard on the people of this

province.

I call

on government to really reconsider all these taxes. I look at the insurance tax.

Again, I speak to people in my district all the time. I speak to a lot of

seniors and that's the one thing that they tell me about. All these taxes, when

you're on a fixed income and you know what your monthly income is going to be,

then all of a sudden there's an increase in the gas that it causes you to go

back and forth from my district, back and forth to St. John's, it could be

doctors' appointments, it could be groceries, it could be anything like that,

but then you have to come up with that extra money.

Then if

you look at what happened to the insurance, again, most people live from day to

day. I'm sure most people in this province do a budget and say, okay, this is

what I've got to do; this is how I spend my money.

father, when I was very young, always used to say to me you can't make $400 and

spend $500; you'll never survive. That's what is happening in this province

today. We have more bankruptcies than ever before because people can't find that

money. They don't know where the money is coming from. They are finding it

difficult to pay their light bills. They're finding it difficult to put

groceries on the table. There are choices to be made between the light bill and

the grocery bill. That's a difficult choice. It's a difficult choice whether you

want to live in your house that is cold or do you want to decide what you're

going to have to eat for supper that evening.

It's

unfortunate and, again, nobody is doubting the financial situation that we find

our province in today. But the thing that people do worry about is where that

money is going to come from to be able to provide for your family, to make sure

that your children are warm or to make sure that there's enough food on the

table so no one is hungry.

As much

as that sounds like people might say, oh, it's scare mongering or whatever,

but I'm sure there are a lot of families in this province in that boat today.

When you look at what's happening when it comes to bankruptcies in this

province, it's the highest ever. Never before, the rates are triple what they

normally are because people are finding it difficult. The choices that were

made, weren't the choices that should be made.

We're

over here on this side from election right on through, we always said about a

plan. What kind of plan do you have. The plan this government has had is to put

people in bankruptcy, is to make people decide what they're going to do, how

they're going to pay their light bills.

I'd say

every Member in this House has spoken to residents and their constituents and

realized that people are in a difficult time. Again, just speaking to different

companies that in are in my district, I have three or four of them that are home

builders. Right now, nobody's hired back because the construction of new homes

is down so much.

It's a

great time if you're going to be building a house. It'd be a great time if

you're going to do some renovations, because it's a dog-eat-dog situation out

there right now. It's to the point now that it's only going to be the fittest

and the people who got a little bit of revenue and if they kept something for a

few years ago when the economy was booming that they can survive. The regular

business out there today, small businesses in this province are in dire straits

because people are not spending money, because they don't have the money to

spend.

Again,

while I say and I like to see the 8.5 cents taxes, I like the reduction, but

there's too much more. There are so many more other things that can help our

economy grow, that can help young people in the province be able to start a home

and be able to build a home.

Last

year, a big issue in my district, and I spoke to a lot of seniors about it, was

the point that they have to pay over-the-counter drugs. Now, while some people

might say that's only small items, it's five, six, seven dollars, but that adds

up. If you talk to people that have to go now and pay for over-the-counter drugs

that they were used to getting for years and years and all of a sudden that

person has to pay an extra $20 or $30 a month, over a year that adds up. That's

$400 or $500 more they got to come up with.

Again,

last year's budget is no different than this year's budget. The same increases

are still there. In this province we saw people stand up before, we saw them

stand up and protest here on the steps of the Confederation Building because

they didn't like what was happening.

Now

meanwhile, government did draw its horns in on a few things. We looked at the

libraries, what happened with the libraries. They agreed to keep the libraries

open after we debated here and filibustered in the House and read out emails

from all over the province. They did come back, but all they did on the report

that came up, they basically just downloaded to the municipalities. Again, it's

more money that's going to have to come out of municipalities in this province

to pay to keep libraries open. It's an important part of who we are as a

province. It's important to small communities in the province.

Madam

Chair, while I look at this today and understand it's good to have the 8.5 cents

reduction and another 4.5 in December, but again I ask government to really

reconsider what they're doing to the people of the province; reconsider the

effects this is having on our economy. We're going to see more families a big

issue in my district now, and I'm after seeing it over the last number of

months, people can't get work. Young families, real young families are moving

away. It's heart wrenching when you hear of a young man or a young lady that has

to leave their homes and go elsewhere to find work because there's nothing here.

Our economy is on such a down (inaudible) now.

I look

at people that are doing the trades. We encouraged our young people to get a

trade. It's the way to go, get your plumbing, get your electrical, get your

instrumentation. It's what we encouraged people to do. We've told them all to go

out there and get this, but most of these people are just going to leave our

province because like I said, the building trades itself has just reduced so

much that people are not people just haven't got the money to spend. When you

take $6,000 out of a household income, it's so difficult for people to be able

come up with the extra money to be able to do what they have to do.

Once you

create a job and once you create work for people in the trades that has a

snowball effect. That increases the amount of spending they do. It increases the

amount of spending they'll do at the local grocery store. It will increase the

amount of spending they'll do at the supermarkets, whatever. At the end of the

day, once the spending gets spent people will hire people. That's how the

economy works, but once you take all this money out and people do not do

renovations, do not go and spend their money like they should, it's a real hard

effect that it has on everybody in this province.

Again,

Madam Chair, I applaud government for taking 8.5 but I really want them to look

at all the bills.

Thank

you very much.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a

pleasure to get up and speak to this bill which is going to be lowering the gas

tax, which is good for the economy and good for consumers in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I'm

listening to the Member opposite and I don't know who does their research or

where they get their facts, but we've had to clarify time and time again they

don't understand how the economy works. They don't understand the budgeting

process. They have a poor process when it comes to PC math and when it comes to

how they run the economy.

We have

a very clear process as to how we will after all their mess and all their poor

decision making get the province back on track and get back to surplus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

When it comes to removing 8

cents of the gas tax, that is going to have a great positive impact, plus the

HST on that, so that's a total of 9.8 cents that will be reflected at the pumps.

But when

the Member opposite gets up and talks about how this has created perils to the

economy, it's nothing further from the truth. You have to look at the president

of the board of trade was on the real estate show this afternoon talking about

how retail sales spending has remained stable. If you look at car and truck

sales in the province, there was a record quarter this past quarter way up

and even the bigger trucks that are gas guzzlers are being purchased. These are

types of things that are actually happening in the economy that are being

reported, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

They are saying one thing,

but they don't have the facts. They just want to put out alternative facts and

they just hope people will believe.

The fact

is that we are doing things to get the province back on track. If you look at

the impact on the economy last year, Madam Chair, you just entered in a private

Member's resolution talking about how last year was the busiest year in summer

the busiest year in the St. John's airport history. They saw 837,000 people from

May to September, driven primarily by the demand for tourism visitation.

When you

talk about the operators saying we have issues in the fact that there are so

many people coming to Newfoundland and Labrador that there are limitations as to

how much taxi service and public transportation there's opportunity for more

car rentals, for growth in tours. There's ability here where more business

opportunities can happen. We're doing things to benefit people and the province

back on track.

This

piece of legislation I don't know why Members opposite are reluctantly not

wanting to support giving back 8.5 cents per litre when it comes to a reduction

in gas tax.

I wanted

to set the record straight when it comes to what the Member for Cape St. Francis

is putting out there because it's simply not the facts, it's not true, it's

inaccurate and we have to correct the record when Members opposite are putting

out complete alternative facts in this Legislature.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's an

honour again to get up and have open debate here when it comes to relevance to

particularly the increases, but in this case we, on this side, agree that the

gas tax should be eliminated completely. It's a positive sign that it's being

eliminated by 8.5 cents right now and another 4 cents later on, but our

contentious issue was prior to that, this time last year this is where the big

debate comes around and I have to clarify the hon. Members who have spoken

before about some of the real data that's out there.

The

issue was in 2016 when we were most vulnerable and wanted to try to stimulate

the economy, the plan by the administration across the floor here was to tax

everybody out of prosperity, and that's what happened. We taxed people into

moving out of the province. We taxed organizations from not being able to fund

their programs and services. We taxed organizations and businesses into laying

off people. We taxed our institutions here into having to come up with

additional revenue. So one of the other taxes that were part and parcel of that

was the gas tax and it did have, as my colleague for Cape St. Francis noted, an

impact on a number of things: housing development; it had an impact on car

sales.

Contrary

to popular belief and I know the Minister of Justice the last time I spoke

before the break cherry-picked what was relevant, but we're talking about 2016.

We now know things have picked up because you've already announced it in

advance. People knew what was coming. People knew the layoffs that were planned

in budget two didn't happen, so people came back and had an understanding.

Let's

just talk about the real facts: car sales, Department of Finance 2016, down by 4

per cent. I can table that if you like. They are your notices here. These are

your tax, sales down

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. BRAZIL:

This quarter, yes, but it

makes sense because you've reversed everything. The flip-flop process started to

happen here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

So now people are saying we

better take advantage of what's happening now and go out and buy our few

amenities and our few supports because, at the end of the day, we have no idea

what this administration is going to do in the future to hurt the economy again,

so we have to take advantage. So that's what they done here.

So 4 per

cent down in 2016, that was an indication obviously that the economy had done.

Again, as my colleague had mentioned earlier, record bankruptcies; companies

laying off; highest unemployment rates than we've seen in years; companies not

expanding; people leaving Newfoundland and Labrador. So these are all indicators

that the economy has stalled. Things are not moving forward. The plan is not

working.

One of

the indicators here is and again, the only light at the end of the tunnel here

is that the Liberal government has seen, at the end of it, the error of their

ways, and the error of their ways was we have to start reversing some of the

backward, regressive taxes that were put in play. It makes sense, and that's

fair enough. I compliment you guys for identifying that. I would have liked for

you to have done it earlier, would have liked for you to have had a different

plan at the beginning, but you can't dismiss the fact that it had an impact on

the economy.

Madam

Chair, 2016 was devastating for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

devastating for the people who left here, devastating for the families. We all

received the emails, the emails from people who were packing up. They couldn't

live in this environment here from a financial point of view. They didn't feel

there was any stability here and they were terrified. They were terrified about

what it meant for the next generation so they said, look, while they love

Newfoundland and Labrador, it's where they want to raise their families and

that, but those who have left have said and noted they want to come back when

it's a brighter time, when there's a better plan, when you're not taxed to the

point where you have to leave here.

That's

where we've come to at this point, so let's not be delusional about the issue

here and the issue was people were overtaxed last year. There's nobody in this

House who can't admit that. You don't have 300 plus taxes and not think people

are not going to considering the fact that they're overtaxed. That's a reality.

Between taxes and fee increases, people were hit dramatically.

There

was more money coming out of people's pockets in a six-month period last year

I'd say than in the last 16 years. That's a reality. That's the reality that you

talk to those who deal with small businesses, those who fund small businesses,

those who deal with bankruptcies, have all assessed the situation and it had a

dire impact on the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Small

businesses will tell you, in most cases, their sales were down. The one bright

light was that tourism stayed up. Tourism stayed up for a number of reasons, no

doubt. People weren't aware, when the lot of tourism I'm not saying internal

tourism; I'm saying out-of-province tourists came here. They weren't aware of

the dramatic increases in taxes and fees until they got here.

I'd had

people come to me after and say: Brazil, I never understood why would we have to

pay for this, what is this extra tax here, and why is this so high. You had to

try to explain well, it's a revenue generating you're trying to be coherent to

everybody across the board that this is just a process that it has to go

through. But the impact that it had, the negativity when it went back, people

like I give credit, some of the people in the tourism industry realized that

because we have such a great reputation here, maybe we can weather this storm.

But

what's happening here is that the negativity is going to be passed on to the

next group that wants to come and have to do their budgeting and saying now be

careful, make sure you take extra money because there could be taxes on stuff

that you've never seen. Look at your gas tax down there. Well, we realize that

the further you go east there might be an additional cost for transportation and

that, but there's a difference between 2, 3, 4 and 5 per cent and going 15, 20,

30 and 40 per cent in some cases.

So that

became a deterrent for some people. What we're saying here is good, good; you're

taking this part of it off. We would prefer if you took it all off right now,

but that's the debate we're having here. The debate is around, again, it was

shown that taxation at that level, that extreme level, hasn't worked. You

haven't generated the revenue you'd hoped; you've stalled the economy in a

number of areas. And the economists have told us that; everybody has told us.

I'd be flabbergasted to see a full sector come up and say every tax that was

implemented here were a benefit to that industry. It doesn't happen that way.

Even the

Minister of Justice last time almost inferred to a point and I'll give

him credit, maybe it was just that he was on his flow and he was on his rant

that the gas tax actually almost was a positive; it increased sales. I've never

ever seen any tax that would increase sales of anything or any service. It

doesn't work that way.

Now, are taxes necessary evils? Of course they are. Are

they necessary to generate proper revenue? Is there a proper stream that you do?

You've seen our income taxes over the years that we've upped it a per cent when

we needed to generate more revenue; we've downed it a per cent or two. Sometimes

when we're really fortunate, we'll down it 3, 4 or 5 per cent to stimulate the

economy to get people to invest more.

Every now and then, you may have to reach for that extra

per cent and a half or 2 per cent, like in an HST proposal that was put forth by

our administration at the b