PDF Version

March 4, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 50

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome the Members to this session and, as we begin today, I would like

to begin with a very important tradition of Parliament.

I do

have today the pleasant task of formally welcoming a new Member who was duly

elected in the by-election of January 24, 2019. The new Member is Mr. Paul Dinn,

representing the District of Topsail - Paradise. I've been advised by the Clerk

of the House that the Member has taken the Oath of Office and the Oath of

Allegiance to the Crown, as required by the Constitution, and has signed the

Members' Roll.

(The new

Member for Topsail - Paradise, along with the Leader of the Official Opposition,

enter the Chamber through the main doors, approach the Chair and bow to the

Speaker.)

(Applause.)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, may I introduce

Mr. Paul Dinn, the Member for Topsail - Paradise, who appears before you to

claim his rightful place in this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER:

Let the Member take his seat.

(The new

Member and the leader then approach the Chair and exchange greetings with the

Speaker. The new Member is escorted to his seat by the leader.)

(Applause.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege.

O'Brien

and Bosc, in the House of Commons

Procedure and Practice, states that a Member must satisfy the Speaker that

he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as

possible after becoming aware of the situation.

indicated through the email on Saturday, March 2, 2019, I asked for your

guidance on making a point of privilege. I've given you notice and a written

copy of the point of privilege this morning, March 4, 2019. Mr. Speaker, this is

new and very relevant information that was made public on Saturday, March 2,

2019. This is the earliest possible opportunity for me to bring this matter to

your attention.

Sources

within the Management Commission informed me that Chaulk did tell MHAs that

Joyce was unavailable for an interview. This was reported by

CBC News and they had the information

confirmed and that was actually said. This is critical to the investigation that

has been widely circulated on local, national and international media. Mr.

Speaker, as you are aware, there were harassment and bullying complaints made

against myself and the Member for Mount Scio. There was an investigation and

there was no basis to these allegations or complaints.

Mr.

Bruce Chaulk, Commission for Legislative Standards, in a CBC interview on May 3,

2018, made statements that were very serious and alarming. He stated: “'You

might say they can be fired,' Chaulk said, the grin returning to his face. 'I

have the ability to recommend that they can be fired.'” This was before any

complaint was ever received and expressed the gravity of a situation without

receiving a complaint.

The CBC

report says: “But a grin comes across his face as he talks about the power he

wields to hire any help he needs to get to the bottom of the issues unfolding in

Newfoundland and Labrador's House of Assembly.” He is quoted as saying: “I'm not

a harassment investigator, but I'll certainly have an experienced one to do the

work.” Mr. Chaulk informed the general public that he was not qualified to carry

out these investigations and he will be using outside help. The firm eventually

used was Rubin Thomlinson and, to date, this report has not been made public but

there was no foundation to their harassment and bullying complaints.

Mr.

Speaker, the reports were handed to you, my lawyer and myself on October 19,

2018. I received the final report. In it, it found that I had violated the Code

of Conduct Principle 10.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it very clear and unequivocal that I was never

interviewed by the firm Rubin Thomlinson or Mr. Bruce Chaulk. The rule of

natural justice, the right to be heard was not followed. In any court of law,

from a speeding ticket to first degree murder, the accused has the right to be

heard. The Supreme Court of Canada allows people to be heard in person.

Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to

outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that

the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality

and lack of bias, then procedural justice is enhanced. This is Leventhal, 1980.

Mr.

Speaker, I was never heard in the process, and the characteristics mentioned

above were not evident in either the report for myself or the Member for Mount

Scio.

In a

technical briefing with the Management Commission on October 24, 2018, Mr. Bruce

Chaulk made the following statement: I interviewed witnesses – he named a number

– and one refused to participate and wouldn't be interviewed. When asked who

that person was, it was stated it was Eddie Joyce.

Mr.

Speaker, may I remind you of your response to me on November 6, 2018 at 9:18

p.m. You stated: As the request refers to an in-camera technical briefing,

technical briefings of Members are not bound by confidentiality. I must remind

the House, on many occasions in the House of Assembly, ministers are asked

questions arising from a technical briefing, which is very common. Members can

speak openly and freely, and I expect you will inform them.

Mr.

Speaker, I received an email on Monday, October 29, 2018 from Mr. Chaulk

stating: You were not required to appear, nor was it expected. The act provides

that you can make representation in writing or in person, or by counsel or by

representative. Your counsel provided very extensive submissions. I will table

that document, Mr. Speaker.

If this

was the case, why would Bruce Chaulk state that I refused to participate in the

Management Commission October 24? On the following floor of the House of

Assembly I produced the letters from my lawyers which clearly showed that I

would have met. Your statement to me was: This is not what he said; you were

definitely willing to meet. I approached Bruce Chaulk immediately after showing

the letters and he stated: I will correct to the letter. Mr. Speaker, you were

present for that.

Mr.

Speaker, you were present and you confirmed that you heard that exchange. Mr.

Speaker, I am tabling the letters from my lawyers dated July 26, 2018 and August

1, 2018, and an email from Mr. Chaulk on August 1, 2018 at 8:32 a.m. The letter

on July 26 states: This is further to our telephone conversation of July 24 and

your office's request to interview our client on August 1, 2018. As I advise,

the undersigned is out of the office – that is the lawyer.

The

letter clearly indicated that Mr. Chaulk's office did request an interview with

me on August 1, 2018. This was the only date given and there was no alternate

dates provided or even asked if we could have an alternate date. Mr. Speaker,

August 1 was Regatta Day in St. John's and my lawyer could not be present, and

this was communicated to Mr. Chaulk. Without my lawyer being able to be present,

I agreed to meet with the investigator.

The

letter states: If, however, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, you feel

that any aspect of the request for the opinion has not been fully addressed or

requires further clarification or amplification, our client will agree to meet

with you and the investigator or to respond in writing, questions from the

investigator, within the time frame indicated. Please be advised that this was

against the advice of my lawyer that felt strongly that legal counsel should be

present at this interview.

Mr.

Speaker, with an ultimatum of August 1, 2018 only, and no other opportunity, I

wanted and was looking forward to presenting my side which never happened. On

August 1, 2018, my lawyer wrote Mr. Chaulk and has not received confirmation

from your office or any respect of the request for opinion has not been

addressed, or that further clarification or amplification is required, we

interpret your silence to mean that your office no longer considers it necessary

that our client meets with the investigator on Wednesday, August 1.

Mr.

Chaulk wrote back to Ms. Wells on 8:32 a.m. on August 1 and replied: Hi, Ms.

Wells, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part, I wasn't expecting you or your

client.

Mr.

Speaker, the documentation provided clearly disputes Mr. Chaulk's statement to

the Management Commission that I refused to participate. This is clearly false,

baseless and without foundation or truth. This reckless statement shows the bias

towards myself and a predetermined decision without all the facts. This

credibility and ability to conduct his findings in both reports should be called

into question, and he stated publicly that he personally does not have the

expertise.

Mr.

Speaker, as I stated earlier, my lawyer was given one date, August 1, 2018, to

meet, the only day available and no compromise for another date. Without my

lawyer being present, Mr. Speaker, I agreed to meet with the investigator. No

meeting occurred that day and I needed and expected to give my version and list

of witnesses. Evidence will show that there were five later days of interviews –

five different dates and people made arrangements with Mr. Chaulk for dates that

could fit their schedule. Mr. Speaker, with such implications on my professional

life, personal life, family and friends, I should have been given the due

process and an opportunity to present evidence and provide witnesses.

Mr.

Speaker, I wrote you on November 6, 2018, advising that I had this statement

from Mr. Chaulk and asked you if it was necessary to have an emergency

Management Commission meeting to discuss the vital piece of damaging

information. This meeting never occurred. This document I will table. I will

also table the letters from my lawyer to prove that I was willing to meet.

If you

make a decision that this is a prima facie case, I'm asking that you refer the

Joyce report of October 19 and the Kirby report of October 6 back to the House

of Assembly. I want to make it quite clear, if you decide this is a prima facie

case and this is referred back to the House of Assembly, we'll be discussing the

process. Not the merit of what's in the reports but the process alone, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, O'Brien and Bosc states: “It is impossible to codify all incidents

which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation

or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases … However, some matters

found to be prima facie include” – this is very important, Mr. Speaker – “the

damaging of a Member's reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of

Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before

committees, and the provision of misleading information.”

O'Brien

and Bosc quote Maingot is stating: “The purpose of raising matters of

'privilege' in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and

credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to

uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its

Members. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be

reckoned with lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised

in the House of Commons.”

I refer

to O'Brien and Bosc page 141 where matters involving privilege before the House

of Commons are treated with the utmost seriousness. As you outlined this week,

there is a formal process to be followed. I have followed that process and

notified the Speaker of my intentions to raise the issue of privilege and this

is the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr.

Speaker, for the record, I would like to table the letters from my lawyer, and

also the letter that I sent you on November 6 because it was before the House of

Assembly had their vote. I wanted to make sure – which the Members weren't aware

– that I was refused the opportunity. The statements made by Mr. Chaulk were

that I refused to participate; these legal letters will prove that's just

absolutely false.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Are

there other Members who wish to speak to this matter?

Seeing

none, I will take the request to consider this point of privilege under

advisement and I'll be reporting back to this House of Assembly.

Thank

you.

I will

now return to our routine proceedings.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lewisporte -

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

Placentia West - Bellevue, and Windsor Lake.

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

AN HON. MEMBER:

He's sick. He's not here.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm sorry.

MR. KING:

(Inaudible) he notified me

just before (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, thank you.

The

House was not notified.

Okay,

thank you. I will continue, then.

The

Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

welcome back.

Thank

you for the opportunity to rise in this hon. House and highlight exciting things

happening in my District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

The good

folks of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity and Indian Bay, along with their mascot,

Willie Melt, just celebrated the most successful 26th annual winter festival.

The week

started with a huge crowd attending the opening ceremony where fun and laughter

filled the room. Their sense of community pride is alive and well. There was

song and dance, mummers and feasts, events starting early in the morning and

others ending late in the evening.

Each and

every event was sold out days in advance. The number of volunteers that were

dedicated to this event was outstanding. I had the opportunity to attend many of

the events, to be made fun off and to make fun.

My mere

words cannot express the magnitude of success of this annual event. You have to

experience it and its people to get the true picture.

I would

like to thank the host committee and amazing volunteers from

Centreville-Wareham-Trinity and Indian Bay for another successful winter event.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

today to acknowledge an organization in my district that, in less than two years

of existence, has had a major impact on both outlining the many noted attractive

amenities the community of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's offers, along with

modernizing the business community into a professional, inclusive and focused

entity.

I speak

of the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's Chamber of Commerce. In only a short period of

time they have developed a membership of over 60 businesses and organizations

who see the value of working together to enhance our community socially and

economically. These businesses and organizations range from farming to

manufacturing and everything in between.

Their focus to engage not only the business community,

but all residents through round-table discussions and presentations by expert in

many fields, shows the true meaning of how business is an equal partner in the

community. Their focus on developing a tourism strategic plan that not only

includes the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's area but many adjacent communities is

another example of how they show a true desire to ensure as many as possible in

the region benefit from their work.

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the support

from the officials and councillors from the Town of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's,

along with the officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation who have all worked with the Chamber these past number of months to

achieve their goals.

A special thank you to the Chamber's board of directors

and its president, Mr. Mike Murray, for showing true leadership and commitment

to the community.

I ask all Members in this House to join me in wishing

the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's Chamber of Commerce best wishes in the future.

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 mark the passing of a pioneer of the fishery, a man

of unparalleled passion who has been rightly hailed as a visionary in his field:

Mr. Bruce Wareham.

On January 4, Bruce's battle with cancer came to an end

but his legacy lives on in Arnold's Cove and beyond.

In the words of his own family – and I quote:

“While his career brought him to many countries around

the world, his greatest commitment remained to the town, plant and people of

Arnold's Cove. Bruce often modestly attributed the success he experienced in

life to the people of Arnold's Cove. This commitment was the driving force

behind Bruce's decision in 2004, at the age of 61, to form the Icewater Group of

Companies. Bruce's hard work, determination and vision not only kept a

groundfish processing plant open in Arnold's Cove, but built it into a

successful operation with a worldwide reputation for quality. Bruce remained

passionate and optimistic about the future of the fishing industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador until his passing and will be remembered as a man of

his word and a true gentleman.”

Mr. Speaker, I can say no more or no better than those

who loved and cherished him most.

I ask all hon. Members of this hon. House to join me in

extending our condolences to his wife, Hilda, of 50 years, his sons, Alberto and

Ken, and all members of their family on their personal loss.

On behalf of the people of Arnold's Cove I say thank

you, Bruce, and Godspeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to

recognize the outstanding work and community service of Windsor Lake resident,

Dr. Lloydetta Quaicoe

I was honoured to

be in attendance at Government House in January to witness Dr. Quaicoe receive

the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador for her many cultural contributions in

our province.

A human rights

champion, Dr. Quaicoe was founder and CEO of Sharing Our Cultures, an

organization that works to address the needs of migrant

children and fosters

intercultural connections. Dr. Quaicoe's work beyond the organization includes

work with the African Canadian Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

Multicultural Women's Organization.

In 2013,

she was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal for promoting

multicultural and intercultural relations.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Dr. Lloydetta

Quaicoe on receiving the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and for her

significant cultural contributions and community service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight our government's recent

announcement of the expansion to the Fire Protection Vehicle Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

We have made changes to the

program so that it works better for communities, fire departments and the

residents they serve.

We have

expanded the program to allow communities to apply for cost-shared funding under

one of three funding streams, depending on which stream best suits their

financial needs. Communities can now apply for cost-shared funding for used fire

protection vehicles, as well as for a fixed contribution for new vehicles.

The

program has been improved so that our fire protection budget will make a bigger

impact in more areas of the province. The changes will also provide increased

opportunity for communities to collaborate and take a shared approach to fire

services.

I would

like to thank all the firefighters, their families and fire departments in this

province for their dedication and sacrifices. I would also like to acknowledge

the good work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services. We

look forward to continuing to work with our fire services partners to strengthen

the level of fire and emergency services for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It's good to see

this program has expanded to include more options for communities to access

funds for new and used fire protection equipment. We all recognize the

importance of strong fire protection, and I certainly hope that this will allow

more communities to improve their services.

Firefighters play an important role in our community, protecting the public and

responding to emergencies. I hope these increased resources will help them in

their very important and, often, difficult job.

I would

also like to commend all fire departments across the province. I know many are

volunteer and I thank all firefighters for everything they do to protect our

communities.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm delighted to join

with him in recognizing the volunteers who work in firefighting. Anything that

helps communities and volunteers who struggle with the cost of firefighting is

good to see.

It's

interesting, though; this statement does not include any details on what the

cost-sharing ratios will be for participating communities. No community who

needs the financial assistance to obtain appropriate firefighting equipment

should be denied it because they cannot afford it. Volunteer firefighters in

small communities provide an invaluable service and government must ensure that

they get the equipment they need.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, March 3-9 is Education Week in Newfoundland and Labrador, with opening

ceremonies held this morning at Memorial Academy in Botwood.

The

theme this year is “Go the Extra Mile.” For students, going the extra mile shows

that they are working hard and doing their best to succeed. The theme also

speaks to teachers, who go above and beyond to help our students achieve.

As a

government, we understand the importance of a quality education for our students

and the role that it plays in the future growth and continued prosperity of our

province.

Through

the Education Action Plan, we are implementing over 82 actions, including hiring

350 teacher resources over the next three years so that our children and our

youth have access to the supports that they need.

behalf of the provincial government, thank you to the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association, to teachers, to school districts and school councils for

their hard work, professionalism and dedication to the youth and education in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

encourage all students to take

part in the many activities that will be

happening during Education Week. You all have much to contribute and can learn

and grow from your involvement in this very special week.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in celebrating Education Week. The

opportunity for education never ends.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to join the minister in recognizing the start of Education Week here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Education Week is about celebrating learning in our

communities. This year's theme is Go the Extra Mile. And I'm happy to say, Mr.

Speaker, that the people in our education system are world class. Our students,

teachers, parents, volunteers and staff are the ones that make this a reality by

going the extra mile every day.

behalf of the Official Opposition, I wish everyone involved in the K-12

education in our province a fun-filled week of activities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for a copy of his statement. I commend and thank the teachers

who work so hard and face challenges to reaching every student and making sure

they have a good educational experience. They are all going the extra mile.

I would

like to see government go the extra mile as well and reduce the class-size caps

and ensure that teachers have the resources they need to provide for a good

teaching and learning environment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would

the Premier agree that at stake in the 2005 Atlantic Accord fiscal arrangement

review are hundreds of millions of dollars to this province on an annual basis?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the review of

the Atlantic Accord, based on the amended agreement that was put in place in

2005, outlines five principles of what a review would look like. Mr. Speaker,

right now it really goes back, when you look at the history of the Accord, it

really started in the early '80s. It was finalized around 1986 and we had an

amendment that was made in 2005.

So what

we're currently undergoing now is a review. But I will assure you, Mr. Speaker,

we will make sure that the principal beneficiary of the Atlantic Accord will be

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

These are the people that

will get the full benefit of this review by the Atlantic Accord.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I'm gratified to hear the

Premier endorse the principal beneficiary right.

This is

actually being conducted pursuant to

section 8 of the 2005 Atlantic Accord

fiscal arrangement which states that, “No later than March 31, 2019, the parties

agree to review the current arrangement.”

The

Premier could have commenced the review of the current arrangement in 2015 when

he took office. Why did he wait until last year to commence the review?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we started the

review by sending a letter to the prime minister last February. We made the

commitment and the prime minister has made the commitment that this review would

be finalized by March.

You

could pick any point in time – I would say to your party, you had every

opportunity to do the same thing. As a matter of fact, you had every opportunity

not to take away Muskrat Falls from the Public Utilities Board but your party

decided not to do that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

So you can pick any point in

time, Mr. Speaker, we are having meaningful negotiations with the federal

government. I can assure you we will stand up for the people of this province.

We will not play politics, which is exactly what you are doing, trying to create

a diversion from a plan you do not have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, you and I could

perhaps agree that part of the respectful workplace training that we just

enjoyed is that when a colleague asks a question, the answer is responsive and

not irrelevant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Former Premier Brian

Peckford, one of the fathers of the Atlantic Accord, has released an open letter

containing his thoughts on the review.

He asks:

“Has the provincial government made public its position on this review?”

And I

ask the Premier: What is the need for secrecy and what is his response to this

father of the Accord?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we released the

letter based on the five principles and the amended agreement that was signed in

2005. That letter was released. The Leader of the Opposition should, if he

hasn't, take an opportunity to read that. That really outlines the framework of

the discussions that we're having right now.

I will

tell you, we will leave no stone unturned, Mr. Speaker, in finding benefits for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We need to because this province has been left

in an unprecedented mess by the party that the Leader of the Opposition leads.

We will

leave no stone unturned in those negotiations to find money, to find revenue and

ideas to solve the problems that we've been left with by your party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, in light of that

determination to find every available benefit, the Premier should not mind

enlightening the House as to which years are under review with the purpose of

establishing the allocation of benefit from the offshore, and therefore the

fiscal payments to Newfoundland and Labrador that may be required to obtain our

right as principal beneficiary.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, there's an

ongoing process, as I've just mentioned.

I find

it ironic when the Leader of the Opposition stands up here and talks about

transparency, talks about accountability. Yet it's the Leader of the Opposition

that is out there making these statements publicly in our province right now and

he fails to tell the people of this province.

He says

there will be no – he would have balanced budgets. That would mean right now, in

this year – this fiscal year – the Leader of the Opposition would need to come

up with almost $600 million.

I say if

you want to be truly transparent, a man of your word, why don't you tell the

people what it is you're going to cut in health care and education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of

respectful interaction between colleagues, I'll simply remind the Premier that I

did ask what years are under review.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we

are leaving no stone unturned when you look at the opportunities within the

Atlantic Accord to find benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

This is

not to a date; this is about the principles that are outlined during a

negotiation. I think the people of this province – I can give you an example

around legislation that could have an impact on our offshore, Mr. Speaker. When

you think of the statements that I made just last week in front of the Senate,

these are examples of what I am doing to improve revenue for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, making sure that we get full value of our offshore resources.

We are

working hard to make sure that we are the principal beneficiary. You can call it

the primary beneficiary, call it what you want, our objective is to bring

benefits – more benefits to Newfoundlanders and –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

The

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I don't doubt the hon.

Premier's good intentions, but it's clear at this point that he either is

incapable or unwilling to tell the House what years are under review.

Let me

ask: What mechanism will be built in to ensure that we maintain our principal

beneficiary status as 100 per cent beneficiary of offshore resources in future

years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what the Leader

of the Opposition is referring to – what he's really referring to – is the

mistakes by the PC Party when this was negotiated in the beginning. If he had

done the job at the beginning we would not be identifying the very things that

the Leader of the Opposition is identifying right now.

The

Leader of the Opposition knows quite clearly that there was no formula attached

to the 1986 Accord that was signed by previous federal and provincial PC

Parties. He knows there's no formula there. What we have to do now is look at

the benefits that we see are rightfully ours as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. That is the history of the Accord. There is no

formula attached to this.

Mr.

Speaker, I am telling you right now – and I'll make it quite clear one more time

– we will leave no stone unturned looking for benefits for this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Again, it appears that the opposite side is not able to tell us what is the

period during which the review is being conducted, which years.

Mr.

Speaker,

section 8 of the Accord fiscal arrangement – inserted by Premier

Williams by the way – does not state that the parties must complete their review

by March 31. Many would agree that the review should proceed until the province

has fully obtained its rights under the Accord.

Why the

artificial deadline of March 31 to complete the review?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, there are a

couple things I want to make reference to. Number one, in the previous question

the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the incompetence. I will tell you, Mr.

Speaker, people in this province have been watching quite clearly the

incompetence of your party and we just call it: Daily coverage of the Muskrat

Falls Inquiry. Which you, the Leader of the Opposition, still sits in his chair

and laughs at me while I'm talking about doubling electricity rates in this

province.

I take

exception when the Leader of the Opposition smiles and grins at me when I make

those comments. This is serious stuff we're dealing with here, the future of

this province, Mr. Speaker.

What I

say right now – as I said – we were looking for whatever options we have

available to us within the Accord right now, looking for every revenue

opportunity that we can have. Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is no formula in

place in any of those accords, including the amendment that the Leader of the

Opposition has just mentioned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I can only say I don't know how it comports with a respectful workplace for the

minister or the Premier being questioned to go on the attack with irrelevancies

against the questioner.

Is the

Premier concerned that the constitutional crisis, which has engulfed Prime

Minister Trudeau as a result of allegations he interfered with the criminal law

independence of the Attorney General for Canada, will delay the March 31

deadline?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Former Premier Peckford states in his open letter that there should be no

trade-offs for other things.

Will the

Premier commit that these negotiations will not be influenced by any other files

or demands?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I'd

like for, as a matter of comment to be, when you look at clarification and so

on, right now I have not spoken to former Premier Peckford that he's mentioning

right now. I'm not so sure about the conversation the Leader of the Opposition

would have had, although there are many people in our province right now that

were some of the early architects.

As I

said, the architecture of the Accord really goes back to around 1981, in some of

the early days the drafts and iterations that went, that was back and forth.

I've talked to a number of people that would have been involved in this.

Mr.

Speaker, the Accord is an important document for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. I can assure you that based on the five principles that we are

negotiating and having discussions right now, we fully intend to have this

review completed – a successful review completed by March 31.

Mr.

Speaker, it is my thinking that what would be a successful review for us would

not be a good day for the Leader of the Opposition because he seems clearly more

about (inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

The

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm clearly

about getting answers that the people of the province are seeking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Former PC Premier Peckford

also asked in his open letter whether “the provincial government sought advice

from any of those who were involved in the successful negotiations that led to

the Accord.”

Has the

Premier reached out to those involved in these successful negotiations? If not,

why not?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we have a number

of people that work within government. A number of groups of people would have

been in our JPS, our Justice and Public Safety division, Mr. Speaker. We have a

lot of people right now who are involved in the review of the Atlantic Accord.

Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made reference to getting answers. Isn't

it ironic today that we had to do an inquiry to get the truth and to get answers

from the Muskrat Falls Project? Isn't it ironic that you have the gall to stand

up here today and talk about getting answers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

We will put the information

from the Atlantic Accord, once the review is finished, on or before March 31,

Mr. Speaker. We're hoping for a successful completion of this review to bring

benefits for our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I take it the answer is, no,

he has not reached out.

Who is

on your negotiating team, Mr. Premier, including outside experts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the negotiating

team right now primarily consists of people inside of government: people within

the Department of Finance, people within the Department of Natural Resources and

people within the Justice and Public Safety Department. I will assure you

there's a strong group of officials right now. They have a network of people

that are negotiating on behalf of this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll tell you this: We're not relying on some outside agency to conduct

those negotiations with us because we've learned a lesson from that. We've

learned a lesson. The bureaucrats and the officials within government are

directly involved. We are not leaving this to CEOs of an agency, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

I think Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have learned a lesson from that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd like to remind all

Members that this is still the same Speaker that was here in December. I still

will not tolerate interruptions – warning.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

When PC Premier Danny

Williams entered negotiations with Ottawa, he had the benefit of the findings of

the 2003 report of the Royal Commission on our place in Confederation;

specifically, that 80 per cent of the benefits were going to the federal

government and only 20 per cent to us.

What

analysis as to the distribution of offshore benefits did the Premier have

conducted before he started these review negotiations? Who authored it and what

did it conclude?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, there has been a

complete analysis that's been done on a number of options that would be

available to get to those numbers. The 2003 submissions – I'm guessing the

Leader of the Opposition would have read them because I know I've certainly read

them. Based on the press release that he did last week about primary versus

principal, if you go back and read the 2003 submission – some of which was done

by your own father – used the word, by the way, “primary”; did not use in every

single incidence the word “principal.”

Mr.

Speaker, right now this is a bit of a math exercise, there's no question about

it, when you look at the benefits, and trying to find where the principal

beneficiary would be. I can tell you there's a very fulsome analysis that is

being done for that negotiating table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Fortune

Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Years

ago, The Way Forward document

committed to hosting a women's leadership conference. Last week, many amazing

female leaders were disappointed with how this conference was delivered.

I ask

the Premier: Is this the standard he expects in delivering on his

Way Forward commitments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker,

The Way Forward , which is the vision for the growth and

sustainability of Newfoundland and Labrador, is having a significant impact. We

know now that in 2019-2020 Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the growth in GDP

for all of Canada; we're seeing jobs created in our province.

To the

question of the women's leadership conference, Mr. Speaker, no other government

in the history of this province – no other government in this history of this

province – no other government in Canada has set aside a department for the

Status of Women. That is our commitment to women's leadership.

Even

with our boards and agencies just last year we are seeing progress – significant

progress – in the number of women that are in leadership roles on our boards,

agencies and commissions, Mr. Speaker. That will continue under the leadership

of the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Fortune Bay -

Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I ask the minister: With

almost 350 attending, did you reach out to any of our province's esteemed female

leaders and ask them to facilitate the networking session? If so, how many did

you try to contact?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

thank the hon. Member for her question.

Mr.

Speaker, yes, we hosted a leadership conference last week, attended by more than

350 people from all diverse backgrounds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

It was a great day, Mr.

Speaker.

The

conference was a tremendous opportunity that allowed a range of opinions and

thoughts to be shared, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge that there were issues with

the networking session and I apologize for that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Fortune

Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Did you reach out to any

status of women councils, advisory councils on the status of women, or other

women's groups to ask them for suggestions on speakers or presenters?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this was not an exclusive event. As you can see, we had 12 female

speakers that day at the conference. An invitation was extended to extensive

community groups. The room was filled to capacity and it was on a first-come,

first-serve basis, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Fortune Bay -

Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whose

decision was it to use the Dale Carnegie networking program and who selected the

facilitator?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Status of Women.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

thank the hon. Member for her question.

As I

said – I will reiterate – I acknowledge there were issues with the networking

session, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that. We will take that feedback into

consideration as we move forward with new sessions.

There

were lots of positives that came out of this conference, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Fortune Bay -

Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Was the facilitator for this

keynote suggested by the Premier's office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't

suggested by the Premier's office – not at all. What I looked at – I did attend

that conference and brought some opening remarks.

As the

minister just mentioned, it wasn't a perfect day, but I will tell you that when

you look at where we are in our province today, when you look at the key focus

areas around violence, gender-based violence and prevention of gender-based

violence, when you look at a gender analysis, from step one of the things that

we do within government, Mr. Speaker, advancing women in leadership roles, these

are areas that never existed within any government within our province.

And I

just remind the Member opposite, her government, when she sat in government, did

not go as far as this government is going today, and this is just the beginning

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Order,

please!

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, why did you only invite the female Members of the Liberal caucus and

exclude all other female leaders in the House of Assembly from this conference?

Was this intentional or was it a mistake?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

thank the hon. Member for her question. This was not an exclusive event. The

invitation was provided to an extensive list of contacts in the community,

asking them to distribute to their network. I'm surprised that the Member

opposite, given the network that she has, wasn't reached out by the network that

we sent the invitations to.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I didn't get a clear answer

on that at all, but certainly I feel that myself and the other female leaders in

this House, it was very unfortunate that we found out about it after the fiasco

of the speaker hit the news.

Moving

on now to another topic, and that is that of busing, 1.6-kilometre busing. On

two occasions, we brought forward private Members' resolutions to eliminate

1.6-kilometre busing restrictions. The Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women voted both times to water down those resolutions, leaving students without

that coverage that we were asking in our resolution.

August 17, 2018, in a letter to the Education Minister, she describes the

1.6-kilometre busing as a regressive move where safety is compromised.

I ask

the minister: If this was such a safety concern for the children of your

district and across the province, why didn't you vote in favour of our

resolution to eliminate this regressive policy?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly my pleasure to speak on this 1.6 kilometre because we have made a

significant difference in the 1.6, contrary to what was done in the last 12

years when they were in office when nothing was done.

Since

September of this year, we have done 166 different routes; we have 72 courtesy

stops in place. We are continuing to work on that and where certainly safety is

always number one – you have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that safety is important

to us, even outside the 1.6 kilometres.

So we

are addressing that. We are addressing the courtesy stops that we have put in

place. We have made changes contrary to what was done before when nothing was

done for safety of busing.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Acknowledging that the 1.6-kilometre busing policy compromises safety for

children across this province, I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women and Member for Burin - Grand Bank, do you support elimination of this

regressive policy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really

want to say a thank you to the Member opposite for the real concern that they

have now in 2019 with regard to safety of children on busing. Because, as I said

before and stated, there was simply nothing done – nothing done – with regard to

busing.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they had Deloitte do a study in 2013 and guess what

they left out of it. They left out the 1.6 kilometre. They didn't even address

it. So, Mr. Speaker, when you get over there, it is somewhat disingenuous for

them to speak the way they are speaking with regard to something that's very,

very important.

Mr.

Speaker, we're continuing to work on that and we're continuing to make sure that

safety is important to all of us. We will continue to ensure that we have safety

as the number one priority for all of us within the school system.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland for a quick question, please.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, since the Atlantic Accord was last amended, the federal government has

signed on to the UN Law of the Sea, which requires a royalty from 1 to 7 per

cent for oil production in areas like Bay du Nord basin.

I ask

the Premier: Has the prime minister promised that the federal government will

pick up these royalties and not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we have taken

the position as a province that when you sign on to UNCLOS, that the Member is

just mentioning there right now, that is the responsibility of the federal

government. So there's no need in our role to have that discussion because our

view is that's a responsibility of the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women held what they called a women's

leadership conference, inviting women from around the province for five hours of

passive listening; no scheduled time for questions or even to discuss the

important issues affecting women. Instead, he had a man speak for 1½ hours about

being nice and to smile and to pray.

Women

were rightfully frustrated and angry. This was not a conference on women's

leadership but a hastily organized PR event for the Premier and the new

minister.

I ask

the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier why did he invite all these women leaders and change makers from around

the province but leave absolutely no time to hear from them and for meaningful

work.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, this is the

beginning of what will be change in women's leadership in our province. It

started off on Wednesday of last week. There have been three key focus areas

that have been identified.

Mr.

Speaker, to suggest that Lorraine Mitchelmore, a women leader from Newfoundland

and Labrador who's left a mark across North America, to suggest that her

comments were not important, I find that a little hard to take.

I find

it very hard to take that a panel of five female women leaders across our

province sat on a panel for nearly an hour that was facilitated by a well-known

women from St. John's, I find that was not irrelevant today. It was very

relevant on the day that occurred, which was last Wednesday,

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, women were

invited on short notice and no travel assistance was given to women from outside

St. John's. He knows how desperate women's organizations are for funding for

their life-saving work. He invited his Liberal colleagues but not myself nor

women colleagues in Opposition.

I ask

the Premier: How much of taxpayers' money did he spend on his personal, partisan

PR event?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, politics at its worst.

I would

say that from the Status of Women and what we've had on last Wednesday, although

the day was not perfect, and that's been acknowledged, as we said, there was a

lot of progress that has been made.

To the

women leaders that exist outside – they're playing key roles outside of St.

John's. The minister has already made a commitment that she will be travelling

this province, holding sessions in communities around Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is

the first time in the history of this province we're seeing such a focus on

women and women in leadership and issues that face women in our society, Mr.

Speaker. It's the first time that we've seen that in the history of this

province, and we're going to continue to put a larger focus.

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.

One of

the promises made by the Premier and by the minister last week at this

conference was that this government was going to do a gender-based analysis of

everything that happens in government.

I've

been sitting here, along with my colleague, listening to that promise, both from

the former government and from this government now for a number of years. I want

the concrete proof that they do gender-based analysis, not that they're going to

do it, because the budgets that they've brought in do not show a concern for

women.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

that is one of the three areas that we've made a commitment from the department

of the Status of Women to focus on. The gender-based analysis is now from step

one, but the funding will be put in place, first of all, to put the training in

place for decision-makers within government. These are the people that are

putting budgets together, these are the people that are putting training

together and these are the people that review legislation within our province.

So, Mr.

Speaker, for the first time, you're going to see it occur from step one. That is

what these training allowances will be all about it, and it's one of the three

focus areas that I've just mentioned coming out of last Wednesday's conference.

The other one was about prevention of gender-based violence, Mr. Speaker, and

making sure that we have more women in leadership roles within our province.

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 find

it very interesting, what the Premier has just said. We have in this House had

Members of his Cabinet tell us that gender-based analysis was done, that it was

the tool that was put together by Status of Women Canada, and it was used

throughout his government.

Is he

now saying there was no training and people didn't know what they were doing

about gender-based analysis?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

What we're saying, Mr.

Speaker, we were not satisfied with the level that was done, so now we're going

to do it from step one. Isn't that better? Aren't we in a better position now

beginning that at step one?

I say to

the former leader of the Third Party, do you use those analyses within your own

party? Do you use that within your own party, Mr. Speaker? Because I got to tell

you, as a government, from step one, the training will begin and we will be

using that when it comes to legislation, when it comes to budgeting and so on.

Mr.

Speaker, we acknowledge by putting this in a key focus area last Wednesday that

we were not satisfied, and that is a reason why we're improving the analysis

based on the focus area that we put in place last Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions are over.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act , I am tabling

one order-in-council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the fiscal year

2019-2020.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

here for tabling a report of the Standing Orders Committee dated March 4, 2019.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

as Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi to give notice of the following

motion:

WHEREAS

the PUB has confirmed when Muskrat Falls power comes online in 2021, electricity

rates will double to 23 cents a kilowatt hour but, alternatively, keeping

current rates, will create an estimated annual budget shortfall of $744 million,

restricting government's ability to provide the public services people rely on;

and

WHEREAS

the Muskrat Falls Inquiry is revealing that past and present governments made

disastrous decisions leading to this financial crisis; and

WHEREAS

government efforts have not resulted in practical solutions, other than to

direct the PUB to exam rate mitigation options; and

WHEREAS

the PUB can only address part of what needs to be done and experts have advised

government of the work it must do immediately; and

WHEREAS

the people of the province have lost confidence in government's ability to solve

this crucial and complex problem and need and want all Members of the House of

Assembly to work together;

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to immediately strike an

all-party select committee to work in an open, transparent and collaborative

manner on behalf of the people to identify all possible solutions for rate

mitigation –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

– and the future of Muskrat

Falls.

And,

this motion was seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.

Mr.

Speaker, I add that this private Member's resolution will be presented on

Wednesday, March 6.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

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

Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of

certain loans made under The

Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 , Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. OSBORNE:

Further, I give notice that I

will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Public Bodies

Reporting Act, Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Historic

Resources Act, Bill 49.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

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

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 48.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

MR. DAVIS:

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

Act Respecting Student Financial Assistance, Bill 52.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Now, I

think the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources has (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE:

Save the best for last.

Mr.

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

Act To Amend The Forestry Act; otherwise, it will be known as Bill 51.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Remove Anomalies

And Errors In The Statue Law, Bill 54.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, move the following motion that

the amendment to Standing Order 92, which was adopted provisionally on February

27, 2018, be adopted permanently with sub-order 92(2) amended by the

substitution of 60 seconds for 90-second speaking time, and that this change

come into force on the date of its approval.

The

permanent Standing Order will read as follows:

(1) Standing Order 92 is amended

by renumbering it as Standing Order 92(1) and by adding immediately after that

the following: (2) a minister, in his or her discretion, may reply to a petition

and the minister's response shall occupy no more than 60 seconds in so doing;

(3) a minister's response under Standing Order 92(2) may be given on the day

that the petition is presented or the next sitting day only; and (4) where in a

session multiple petitions of the same subject matter are presented, a minister

may respond to each petition in the manner contemplated under Standing Order

92(3), but only one response to petition with the same subject matter may be

made on each sitting day.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I present this petition:

WHEREAS

the successful proponents to the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to

be announced this spring, with construction anticipated to begin this fall, and

that is estimated to be a four-year construction period and there are

experienced local tradespeople and Labradorians in the area;

THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

To urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that are

awarded the contracts for the new hospital to hire local tradespeople and

labourers at no cost to the taxpayers so that they can work in their own area,

support their local economy and be able to return home to their families every

evening.

Mr.

Speaker, we know last year that a lot of local people were looking for work in

the Corner Brook area and very few got work. So what I'm urging the government –

I'm sure the Member for Corner Brook is agreeing with me that a lot of local

people, where possible, would like to work on this hospital. We're encouraging

the government that, where possible, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, that

they hire local people.

Last

year, Mr. Speaker, I was involved with trying to get a few things set up for

local people. I know the iron workers were so much involved – they had

negotiations with the company – they were even willing to put in $100,000 of

their own money to ensure that there's no extra cost. That's how desperate the

local workers are for work.

encourage government when you're doing your evaluation and the estimates of the

cost, ensure wherever it's possible for local workers because it would be great

for four years to have local people, instead of have to go away, be able to stay

in their own home. Four years is a long time for a lot of tradespeople, a lot of

labourers, a lot of different skilled people.

I'm from

the understanding – and I spoke to a couple of unions – that there are enough

people on the West Coast – Corner Brook, Stephenville, the whole Bay St. George

area, out past Deer Lake and other places – that we can get that work done with

local people at no extra cost to the taxpayers, as it would cost if you brought

someone in.

So we're

just asking and encouraging government to try to keep that in mind and

encourage, where possible, to get local people hired on because it will benefit

the whole region. We're always talking about a major project that helped the

local people. Here's one over $600 million, $700 million.

I ask

government to keep that in mind when they're speaking for the companies and when

they're determining who's going to get the contract.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works for a 60-second response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. We have been very aggressive in this matter

and this issue. Just last fall, we hosted a business session in Corner Brook

where we invited in the two proponents who have been selected to bid on building

the hospital. We brought in as many local contractors as we could, in

consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Association, to

make sure that our contractors see the opportunities that this long-term care

facility is going to bring, along with other facilities – sorry, the acute-care

hospital.

We also

have the new long-term care facilities in Central Newfoundland that we're going

to be announcing the successful proponent in the following weeks.

And, Mr.

Speaker, it is timely. I did have the opportunity this morning to meet with

TradesNL and that was the agenda for our meeting, is ways to make sure that

Newfoundland and Labrador companies can be a big part of the construction of the

new acute-care facility in Corner Brook and other facilities that we're

constructing in our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and

minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS

proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the

wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS

women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low

minimum wage; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage only rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many

food items rose more than 20 per cent; and

WHEREAS

other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage

as a step towards a living wage;

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

of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum

wage to $15 by 2021 with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial

inflation.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been standing up in this House, almost daily, for the last few

months that the House has been open speaking to this minimum wage petition. Here

we hear the Premier talk about how they're using gender-based analyses and tools

to look at any budget item as it affects women and any law, any legislation, any

policy as to how it affects women.

This is

one of the key issues of lifting women out of poverty, because we know that the

majority of minimum wage earners are women and we know that one of the key

factors in women escaping abusive situations is poverty. We also know one of the

key factors for children to thrive and to do well in school is poverty and the

majority of children who are headed by single-parent moms who are making minimum

wage are living in poverty.

This is

a basis human rights issues, it's a basic justice issue and if this government

is committed to what they're saying, they would do something about improving

minimum wage. Yes, there was a 15-cent increase – a 15-cent increase – but the

problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that the base rate of minimum wage right

now, at the rate that it's being increased, according to the policies of this

government, it will be years down the road – years, more than a decade before it

reaches minimum of $15 an hour. This is a matter of social justice. It's also a

matter of equality. It's a matter about safety for women and children.

Mr.

Speaker, to not do otherwise is short-sighted and does not speak to the

commitment that this government proposes that they have to the status of women

in this province.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much to the hon. Member for bringing forward this petition.

We, as a

government, opened up this process. We had extensive public consultations to

find a balanced approach that balances both the needs of the employee and the

needs of the employer. We've tied it to a harmonized strategy within the

Atlantic provinces to harmonize minimum wage increases to April 1, which we've

done.

We've

recently announced the minimum wage will be going up by 25 cents to $11.40 per

hour, which makes it balanced across the Atlantic provinces, within reason.

We're looking at this option. There was a two-year period which would happen.

Once that two-year period is up, which it is now, we're going to start a review

of the process again and that's what our office is looking at right now.

I thank

the hon. Member for bringing forward the petition and we will take it under

advisement.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

government now requires regional health authorities to strictly enforce a policy

that requires all applicants being assessed to have a physical care need to

qualify for admission to a personal care home. Seniors with issues such as

anxiety, depression, fear of falling and loneliness are no longer eligible. Many

seniors who would have qualified just months ago are now being denied access.

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to revise the policy on personal care home access.

Mr.

Speaker, we've had a conversation here over the last number of years about

improving our health care system here, but also particularly around mental

health. What we're talking about here is a very vulnerable sector of our

society. We're talking about their personal health, but we're particularly

talking about mental health as it covers over with physical health. When we're

talking about seniors, because of no control in their circumstances, have had to

change their needs – and their needs sometimes, basically, are based on the fact

one of the spouses has passed away, or needs another type of special care. And

they now need to have better access to supports that would endeavour them to

have a different quality of life, but as equal as they should be entitled to.

We have

a responsibility here. To deny something that was taken for granted because it

worked, it served a purpose, it kept families united because they knew the

stresses were off them, that their mom or their dad or their aunt or their uncle

or their grandparents were taken care of by professionals in personal care

homes, that they knew there was a quality of life, there was a social component,

and that the anxiety by that individual and the family members would be

eliminated because they knew there were supports and programs and services put

in play.

appears that the government fixed something that was never broken. If it was

about a financial dollar costing, then that should have been discussed with the

general public and talked about the need to find a more efficient way to do it.

An efficient way of denying people a service that they expect because it's

valuable to their quality of life is an injustice to those people. We have

professionals out there who have modified the programs they offer in their

personal care homes, professionals who've gone out of their way to counsel with

the family members to find the most inclusive way to have the family united in

those type of personal care homes and offer programs that engage, in some cases,

seniors who've never been socially as active as they have been in their twilight

years.

Yet,

we've denied that because we say you have to have a physical ailment that's

diagnosed when we know health is a holistic approach here. And mental health not

dealt with or not supported obviously leads to issues around physical health.

When we talk about seniors who may have lived in a two-story home now are not

conducive to being able to do that because they're afraid of slips and falls, or

somebody's moved out of their home, or unfortunately a spouse has passed away,

they need to be in an environment which is positive to their mental well-being

and personal health.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we will be presenting this many times in the sitting of this House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Pleased

to stand up and provide some information to the House to rectify some errors and

misinformation that is out there. There has been no change to the clinical

criteria for eligibility for personal care. We have and are still engaged in

active discussions with the personal care home operators to see if we can

improve still further on those criteria to make them more sensitive to the needs

of the individual.

What we

have done is we have taken a big load off seniors in that we have streamlined

the financial assessment piece for those people who are looking at personal care

home or home support. We are now in line with the rest of Canada. And we now, in

addition to the rest of Canada, have a hardship policy for those people for whom

that financial assessment may produce some hardship.

Just to

correct some further misinformation that's out there, as of the end of calendar

2017, 80 per cent of people in personal care homes had some degree of government

subsidy. As of the end of calendar '18, 83 per cent of people in personal care

homes have some degree of government subsidy – an increase. Subsidies are going

out there and we are increasing the number of people subsidized.

From the

vacancy point of view, Eastern Health has 70 people waiting for personal care

homes, and they're all waiting for a home of their choice. There are vacancies

to be had, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive, debilitating conditions

whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,

not received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities. Therefore, we petition

the House of Assembly as follows:

To urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which

includes the mandatory establishment of adequate ratio of one staff to three

residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health care

facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other

cognitive, debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety,

protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and other required care. This law

will include the creation of a specific job position in these facilities for

monitoring and intervention, as required to ensure the safety of patients.

Mr.

Speaker, this petition, of course, was originated by the group Advocates for

Senior Citizens' Rights. They have termed it as Lillian's Law is basically what

we're talking about here, which a lot of Members may be aware of. I have a lot

of signatures here today, a couple of hundred, primarily from CBS area, Clarke's

Beach, Brigus, Holyrood, a lot here from Lab City and some from St. John's

today.

Mr.

Speaker, basically what is being referred to here is the care of our seniors in

long-term care facilities. And while it is great to construct new facilities,

brick and mortar, what this speaks to is ensuring that there is adequate

staffing in place. There certainly have been stories – I encourage any Member if

you go on to the Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights Facebook site, you'll see

many stories shared of unfortunate situations that have happened with people's

loved ones in long-term care where there wasn't enough staffing there to take

care of their needs, to make sure that they were fed on time properly, to ensure

they were bathed and so on, and to make sure they don't get injured because

people can be aggressive and so on with Alzheimer's disease, dementia and stuff

like that, and make sure there's someone to monitor and watch them.

That's

what they're asking for. They believe it should be legislation because policy,

of course, can be changed overnight on a whim, and it's not a mandatory thing.

So,

that's what they're asking for, that's why I'm presenting the petition and there

will be more to come.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Delighted to stand and take the opportunity to do something that I think is long

overdue, which is to thank and recognize the hard work of those people who go to

work every day in our long-term care facilities to look after our seniors. They

do a grand job –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

– and I would encourage my

colleagues to support them in that endeavour.

We have

several approaches to the issue of staffing in long-term care. We look at

nursing and we actually provide 3.4 hours of dedicated nursing time per day.

However, that doesn't take into account the fact they have recreational therapy

time, they have music therapy time and they have group activities.

I spent

the whole morning on Friday in Lakeside Homes in Gander. I can tell you that the

atmosphere there was very homelike and solely down to the combined efforts of

management and front-line staff.

We're

not here to defend the indefensible and I have no problem with monitoring a

patient's safety. Indeed, I stood in this House and introduced

an act to that

effect. Every RHA is now responsible for doing just that in their own regional

health authority, and long-term care facilities fall under that act, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

current 1.6-kilometre busing policy results in children walking to school in

areas where there are no sidewalks, no traffic lights and areas without the

proper safety, and this puts the safety of all these children at risk.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of

Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the

safety of all children by removing the restricted 1.6-kilometre busing policy

where safety is a concern.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Member

and the Minister of Education is going to get up after me and he's going to talk

about what they've done in the last number of years and what we haven't done in

the last number of years, but they've been in government now for almost four

years and have done absolutely nothing on this policy. He will also get up, Mr.

Speaker, and he will talk about courtesy seating and how they've given so many

courtesy bus seating to children along the way.

Well, I've spoke to a lot of people from my

area and from the Member for CBS's area where there is courtesy busing that's

put in place, but guess what? There are no seats on those buses – absolutely no

seats on those buses. So you can put it in there all you like, if the children

can't avail of it.

In my district, I have 17,000 cars a day

travelling along Torbay Road – 17,000 cars a day travelling along a road where

there are no sidewalks and children – at this time of year in particular, we've

seen the temperature change from rain to sleet to snow and it's very dangerous.

I'm not asking you, Minister, to say what

we didn't do or what wasn't done or what polices are in place. Are you going to

make any changes to this so the safety of these children are not – every day

that they leave to go to school that the safety of those children should be the

most important thing that we talk about here in the House of Assembly.

You've added some courtesy bus seating but

where they're no seats available, it's no good. Now, you'll get up and say again

what we didn't do, but I'm asking you: What are you going to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development for a response, please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't

say that the problem lies with the previous administration. What I will talk a

little bit about, Mr. Speaker, is that they keep pushing and throwing out the

1.6 kilometres and eliminating the 1.6 kilometres. Mr. Speaker, there's not one

single province in this entire country that does not have a busing policy – not

one single province in this country.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, we talk about safety. Within all of the policies within this province,

within every province in Canada, is that if you live within the 1.6, it's a

responsibility of the parents to get their children to school in a safe manner.

Now,

they always keep talking about within the 1.6. Outside of the 1.6, we do not

pick up every child at every house. Outside of the 1.6 –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Four hundred metres.

MR. HAWKINS:

Four hundred metres.

they're eliminating 1.6 – so are you eliminating 1.6 or you want to put in 400

metres? These are discussions that need to be had because when you go out and

say a blanket we're removing 1.6, what does that really mean? Removing 1.6 is

going to be a significant cost to the province, somewhere in the vicinity of $10

million, which equates really to about 112 teaching positions or resources. So

are you going to replace one? Are you putting your emphasis on teachers or

reduction of teachers for these purposes?

So I can

speak – I hate the rule that's going to come in with 60 seconds because I can go

on for about another hour on this alone, so thank (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

I say thank God for 60

seconds, Mr. Speaker.

The

reason for this petition: The Foxtrap Access Road in CBS is a vital link to the

TCH and Peacekeepers Way, as well as being a heavily populated area. The road is

in need of immediate repairs and needs asphalt resurfacing, as well as shoulder

repairs. The road is listed for resurfacing in 2023 in the five-year roads

program. This is not soon enough, Mr. Speaker, and needs immediate attention.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to provide immediate repairs to the Foxtrap Access

Road.

Mr.

Speaker, this road is unlike other roads. I know Route 60 was a road I spoke

about a lot in the last session and I credit that the department did provide

repairs to that road and I thank them for that, but Foxtrap Access Road is a bit

different. It's a route – it's a trunk road to Trans-Canada, Peacekeepers Way.

Like I said, it's a very heavily populated road.

It's a

provincial road in the true sense of the word and it's in bad need of repair. I

acknowledge it's on the five-year roads program. I mean it has 27 cross-cuts

alone on this road. The shoulders are eroding. There are areas where a small car

would not get through; you got to cut around. The shoulders of the road are

gone. People are veering over the yellow line.

I make

numerous, repeat calls to the depot and they do what they can. Really, unless

you're getting hot patch, doing a proper job, it's not lasting. At the end of

the road, when you butt into Route 60, it's almost a ditch. Again, like any

road, it's not had upgrades for a long time, it's required and people in my

district are asking for these repairs to be carried out.

The

minister may respond, he may not, but I know last time he always responded with

the fact that, this road, probably the town should have taken it over and what

have you. This road is entirely in the province's purview, plus it's listed. So

they've acknowledged – I think it scored 350 out of 400. I got the score of that

one. I've asked for that for two years, but I found that out myself when I

looked and finally it made the list. So now I know what it's actually scored. It

was pretty easy when I looked and it was written down. They must have had that

on their list a while before that.

I want

just to stress the point that this road is in need of immediate repairs. The

patching is just not cutting it. It's a busy road. I don't know the volume of

traffic, but Route 60 has 22,000 cars a day, my guess is that Foxtrap Access

Road is close on that number. It needs repairs. I call upon the minister and the

department to give it, push it – it's already there, but in four years, this

road will not be fit, not for a car, but for a boxcar.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, we've made significant

investments in Route 60, the Peacekeepers Way. Last year, we were able to

actually pave the entirety of Salmonier Line on the north side, which is very

important. Because as the Member points out, there is a lot of traffic on those

roads coming in and accessing into Conception Bay South and the Conception Bay

South area, but the reality is these roads didn't get to these deplorable

conditions overnight.

I agree

with the Member, one of his points he made was the cross-cuts. And one of the

challenges that we have throughout the province is when you have municipal work

on provincial roads. Lots of times, Mr. Speaker, we do find ourselves in a

situation where the cross-cuts are an issue.

Mr.

Speaker, we're very fortunate this year. Through a new agreement with the

federal government, we have an extra $102 million over the next 10 years through

northern and rural to put into roads in our province. This year alone, we're

going to invest over $130 million in roads in our province – unprecedented

spending.

Mr.

Speaker, last year, we paved some 800 kilometres of road. Our roads plan is

working; we're seeing the results. It takes time, but one thing we've done is

we've taken the politics out of paving. If you look at the Auditor General's

report, if you look at the 2014 Auditor General's report, 46 per cent of all

priorities for roads back in their time were MHA priorities, not the priorities

of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 3, second reading of Bill 46.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the MHA for Harbour Main that Bill 46,

An Act To Amend The Marriage Act, be

now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 46,

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

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Marriage Act.” (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured to

stand once again in this hon. House during the first day of this new session. As

the Minister of Service NL, I've had the opportunity to stand on numerous

occasions to speak to amendments to various pieces of legislation such as the

Highway Traffic Act , Pension

Benefits Act , Corporations Act,

and Vital Statistics Act ,

to name a few.

I have

said many times that Service NL is a department that touches the residents of

the province at many points throughout their lives. From birth certificates to

death certificates, obtaining a driver's licence, obtaining a marriage

certificate, legislating real estate transactions, inspection services, renting

a property or regulating pensions, Service NL has a role to play.

Today,

I'm introducing an amendment to the

Marriage Act which governs marriage in our province. When it comes to

marriage in Newfoundland and Labrador the current legislation states that, “A

member of the clergy or marriage commissioner shall not perform a marriage where

either party to the intended marriage is under the age of 16 years.”

This

effectively makes the minimum age of marriage in Newfoundland and Labrador 16

years of age. The act states that where a person is 16 or over consent of a

parent/guardian is required until they reach the age of majority or 19 years of

age, unless they are widowed or divorced. However,

section 13(8) of the act

gives a judge the authority to allow an exception to the marriage under the

prescribed minimum age if the judge believes that a marriage will be in the best

interest of the parties, even though one or both of the parties to the intended

marriage is under the age of 16 years.

Mr.

Speaker, historically, the provision was used in Newfoundland and Labrador for

instances where someone under the age of 16 wanted to or may have been pressured

to get married. One of the reasons would have been in the case of a pregnancy,

where societal norms or families may have placed pressure on the woman or couple

to marry. Such marriages have become very rare in our province. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, our Vital Statistics Division is unaware of any examples within the

last 15 years. Since 2003 when records that allow for searches based on age

became available, 17 years of age is the lowest recorded age of any person

marrying.

Mr.

Speaker, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and

divorce under the Constitution Act, 1867 .

Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to marriage and

divorce,

whereas provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the solemnization of

marriage. This means that provinces have the authority to pass laws relating to

marriage ceremonies, including pre-ceremony requirements such as issuing a

licence, and can stipulate the qualifications of the person performing the

ceremony.

In July

of 2015, Mr. Speaker, the federal Civil

Marriage A ct received Royal Assent. In June of 2015 the federal

Civil Marriage Act was amended to

state that: “No person who is under the age of 16 years may contract marriage.”

Additionally,

section 293.2 of the

Criminal Code of Canada was amended to state that: “Everyone who celebrates,

aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the

persons being married is under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable

offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

Given

the provincial Marriage Act is

inconsistent with the federal Civil

Marriage Act it would not have any merit from a constitutional perspective.

It would also mean that if a judge were to allow an exception to the provincial

age-of-16 requirement, any person who celebrated or participated in such a

marriage ceremony will be committing an offence under the

Criminal Code of Canada.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this means that our provincial legislation does not

align with federal legislation regarding the age of which someone can marry. It

also means that any justice authorizing a marriage under the age of 16 will be

committing an offence under the Criminal

Code of Canada. Given that the act is not aligned with the federal

legislation, and that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in this

area, I'm introducing a bill today that will amend the act to mirror the federal

legislation. This change will ensure that the legal age to marry in Newfoundland

and Labrador is 16 regardless of the circumstances.

Mr.

Speaker, it is important that we also look at the social impacts of marriage

under the age of 16. Research tells us that marriage for persons under the age

of consent disproportionately affects young girls. By prohibiting marriage under

child marriages. These marriages often occur between young girls and older men.

The

United Nations Children's Fund states: “Child marriage often compromises a

girl's development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation,

interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational

advancement and placing her at increased risk of domestic violence.” Preventing

child marriage is important for protecting girls and women and advancing the

status of women throughout their lives.

While

not widely reported, these marriages do occur within Canada or occur in other

countries, with those impacted returning to Canada to live. According to a

September 2013 report by the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, there were 219

confirmed or suspected cases of forced marriage in Ontario and Quebec from 2010

to 2012. Of these, in 57 per cent of the cases, people were taken out of Canada

to get married.

While

amending the legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador would not prevent child

marriages that occur outside of provincial jurisdiction, it is important, given

the role legislation has in setting norms in our society. By changing the

legislation, our government is indicating that child marriage is not acceptable

in the province.

The

forced marriage. In 2017 it announced $650 million over three years in funding

for sexual and reproductive health and rights, which is also aimed at preventing

and responding to child early and forced marriage. Furthermore, the Feminist

International Assistance Policy was launched in June of 2017, which includes a

renewed commitment to support comprehensive approaches to addressing child

marriage, and more funding was also announced for women's organizations.

It is

essential that both federal and provincial lawmakers address such issues in our

society and that we align our legislation. The bill we have introduced on the

floor of the House today will help us do just that.

Mr.

Speaker, as I stated at the beginning of my comments, I have stood many times in

this House regarding amendments to various pieces of legislation. Each amendment

represents another improvement we have made in our efforts to help advance the

lives of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We made

a commitment through The Way Forward

to continue to identify opportunities for better outcomes and better services

for our residents. We recognize the ability we have to change lives for the

better and amendments to legislation affect all residents in all regions of our

province. Part of this commitment is to periodically review and amend the

legislation as required to ensure it is kept current in its purpose of serving

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look

forward to debating the amendment to the

Marriage Act with my hon. colleagues in this House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you, Minister, for that introduction to the bill. There's not a whole lot that I

can add to the debate in terms of the content of the bill because it is, Mr.

Speaker, a very brief bill. It is one clause stating: “Subsection 13(8) of the

Marriage Act is repealed.”

The

minister just did a great job in terms of outlining how this change came about

and it's primarily following a 2015 change to the federal legislation. As the

minister explained, it is unlawful now not just to get married to someone under

the age of 16, but for any person to even participate in any planning of such a

wedding or attending such a wedding. That's considered a criminal offence that

carries up to a five-year sentence.

It was,

of course, Mr. Speaker, prudent of us in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador to ensure that our legislation here is in line with the federal

legislation. Basically, we are removing the one clause that allowed a judge to

have the discretion to approve a marriage licence in special circumstances where

one or more of the people in the marriage were under the age of 16.

Canada, there's some jurisdiction for marriages with the federal government and

some of it with the provincial government. The federal government, under the

Civil Marriage Act , has the

legislative authority over marriage and divorce, but the provincial government

has the authority regarding the solemnization of the marriage or, that is, the

performance of ceremonies and licences. That is where the provincial

jurisdiction comes into play.

In our

province that authority is outlined in the

Marriage Act and it comes under the purview of the Department of Service NL.

Again, at the risk of being repetitive, we are, in making this change, following

the changes that were made at the federal level under the

Civil Marriage Act . I want to reiterate how important it is for

people to know that it is illegal in Canada now for a person to marry someone

under the age of 16 and, as well, for anyone else to participate in the planning

of such an event or attending such an event. It's very important, Mr. Speaker,

that awareness is out there for people to understand this.

colleague and I were just talking a short while ago about how back in the day it

was common probably. I know when my mother got married she was 20. She was

considered getting close to being an old maid then and a spinster at the age of

20; if you weren't married by 20, 21, you were getting old. Many people were

married at the ages of 15 and 16 and, as the minister said, in some cases that

was due to fact that they were carrying children but, in some cases, of course,

it was the way of life.

I also

talked about the boys in school. Today, we don't encourage child labour, but

back in the early '20s and '30s it was nothing for a strong, young man at the

age of 12 or 13 to leave school and go into the woods and start working, or go

fishing and start working.

We are

now in the year 2019 and there is certainly a much stronger resistance to

children getting married at such a young age and there is an opportunity for

women to have the freedom of choice to wait until later. This bill is very

important in addressing that freedom of choice for women as well, Mr. Speaker.

So certainly it's a bill that we, on this side of the House, will be supporting.

Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to talk a little bit, though, before I wrap up –

according to department officials, a number of provinces, BC, Saskatchewan and

Nova Scotia, still have similar references in their legislation, but the rest of

Canada have either repealed it or it didn't exist in the first place. So, we're

certainly happy to be supporting the repeal of clause 13(8). The proposed

amendment will come into force upon Royal Assent, so that will probably happen,

Mr. Speaker, before the session is over or certainly very shortly thereafter.

It is

certainly for me, as a female, a great honour to support this bill. I think it

is crucially important especially where, oftentimes, the party under the age of

16 was usually of the female gender, that I do think this is an important bill.

I certainly am proud to support this bill and I thank the minister for bringing

it forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

Good day, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to be back here in the House with our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I'm very

pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 46,

An Act to Amend the Marriage Act.

Since I became parliamentary secretary for Service NL, I have come to learn a

great deal of interaction our department has with the public on a daily basis. I

want to reiterate the minister's comments earlier by saying there aren't many

services you can avail of in our province that don't touch Service NL in some

way. With this highlight of their interaction also comes the responsibility to

ensure we are providing the best service possible to the people of our province.

Service

NL, through its Regulatory Affairs branch, is responsible for marriage

legislation in the province, through administration of the

Marriage Act . As the Minister of Service NL said in his remarks, our

department is responsible for the laws relating to marriage ceremonies,

including pre-ceremonial requirements such as issuing a marriage licence. We

also stipulate the qualifications of the person performing the ceremony, whether

clergy or a marriage commissioner.

Mr.

Speaker, marriage is defined as the process by which two people make their

relationship public, official and permanent. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there

were 2,158 registered marriages in 2018.

Under

Canada's Constitution, marriage is a federal power. The Canadian government has

passed laws that allows same-sex marriages and prohibits certain people related

by blood or adoption from getting married. They also have made changes to the

federal legislation to make it unlawful for anyone under the age of 16 to marry.

And today we are bringing Newfoundland and Labrador in line with that change.

It is

important to note that the federal changes also make it a criminal offence to

celebrate, aid or participate in a marriage, knowing that one of the individuals

being married is under the age of 16. Before the federal amendment was made, an

exception could be granted for someone under 16 if the judge believed the

marriage would be in the best interest of the parties.

Mr.

Speaker, when we look at other jurisdictions across the country, there are

several which have similar provisions to which that is currently in place in our

province. Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and British Columbia's legislation include

the same provisions. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, however, recently

amended their legislation to eliminate such provisions. In Quebec, a person must

be at least 18 years old to marry; however, they may be able to apply to the

courts for authorization to marry at the age of 16 or 17.

Today,

Mr. Speaker, we are introducing the change to our provincial legislation. We

will bring our act in line with the federal government. The harmonization of

legislation is important for the people that government services, both

provincially and federally. This change also makes the act more modern and

better reflects the society in which we live.

Underage

or child marriage is defined differently in each country and occurs in extremely

high numbers in developing countries, particularly in Africa and the South Asia

region. However, according to Global Citizen, underage brides, who are often

made to leave school, are more likely to experience domestic violence and have a

higher risk of dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications.

Amending

legislation regarding the age of marriage modernizes and updates the

Marriage Act to better reflect today's

society. It is important that the legislation of our province be consistent with

our federal partners in these matters. It is also important, Mr. Speaker, that

we constantly review our legislation to ensure that it's contributing to a

better society.

Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud of our government's continued commitment to improving

outcomes for the people we serve. The changes we are debating today follow a

long list of improvements we have made to legislation that falls within the

mandate of Service NL. All of our legislative changes speak to our government's

commitment to safe and sustainable communities throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I'm

delighted to join my colleagues today for debate of Bill 46 in this hon. House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm glad

to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 46. I thank the minister for the

opening comments that she has made and I join with my other colleagues in the

House in following her and speaking to the bill. I'm not going to repeat all the

things that were said. I don't think that's necessary, but I do want to say how

important it is that we are making this change to our legislation. Because, in

actual fact, since the change that was made to the federal legislation in 2015,

our legislation has been illegal. So now, with the removal of the possibility of

somebody being married under 16, we have brought our legislation in line with

what's happening, not just in Canada, but actually globally.

I'd like

to point out that, for the most part, the types of marriages that we are

considering here, the marriages that have happen with children under 16 and even

over 16, between 16 and 18, the vast majority of the children who are married

and have been married under those rules are girls, not boys. For the majority,

it's girls and older men. And, it's something that's not acceptable and now we

have removed the possibility of there being marriages under 16.

Unfortunately – I'm glad that we've done it but it's surprising that we aren't

the last jurisdiction in Canada to make the change. We still have three other

provinces that haven't done it: British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

I certainly would hope that we soon would have all of our jurisdictions

recognizing the need to disallow children under 16 to be married. Very often

these marriages have been forced marriages; it's children being forced to marry.

We have

a couple of examples that have gone on right here in our own country which have

been disturbing actually, they had to do with religious sects; one was the Lev

Tahor sect which was originally from the US. They moved to Quebec and to Toronto

to avoid child protection laws. They regularly took young girls to certain US

states to be married. They'd get married in the States but bring them back here.

Back then it was considered fine because they were married.

Then we

had the members of the fundamentalist Mormon sect in Bountiful, BC. I think

we'll all remember; it's not that long ago. It was prosecuted for bigamy and

child abuse and the child abuse was forced child marriage. I think in all of

those cases, those forced child marriages were young girls being married to – in

relationship to the young girls, really old men.

What

we're talking about is an abuse and particularly an abuse of girls that has been

going on. I think it's good for us that we have finally joined with a growing

international movement among governments and organizations to prohibit and

prevent early marriage. I'm not going to go into all the details. The minister

did make reference to UNICEF and what UNICEF has said with regard to marriage

before the age of 18; not before the age of 16 but before the age of 18.

Here in

Canada we're included in that, between 16 and 18 there has to be parental

consent. I would like to think here in Canada we may want to move towards

looking at abolishing marriage between 16 and 18 as well. Not just allowing it

with parental consent but actually abolishing it. Then we'd be more in line with

what's being asked by groups like UNICEF.

The

United Nations has really dealing with this very substantially. In the UN

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – to

which Canada is a signatory and therefore, we, as a province are – it says: “The

betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect, and all

necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age

for marriage ….” The 2017 International Human Rights Council resolution was

co-sponsored by Canada, recognizing the need to address child early and forced

marriage in humanitarian contexts and the 2015 human rights convention was

brought in.

The

amendments also criminalize forced marriage ceremonies and the removal of a

child from Canada for the purpose of underage marriage, which was something that

was going on with the religious sect that I talked about. So subsection 13(8) of

our Marriage Act has allowed

something, as I said a minute ago, that has actually been illegal for four years

in Canada.

The UN

Sustainable Development Goals includes target 5.3, which is the elimination of

child early and forced marriage by 2030. The goal is nowhere on a global level

would we have child early and forced marriages existing. Canada committed to

these goals and submitted a 2018 report on our country's contributions, which

included aid given to countries for prevention, plus our domestic statistics on

child marriage. As well, the proportion of women in Canada aged 15 to 19 who

were married or in common-law relationships was 1.1 per cent in 2016, which is

down from 1.5 per cent in 2011.

We are

showing that we can make a difference here in Canada. I think it's very

important that we continue to do that. Canada is considered a leader in the

movement to eliminate child marriage. The 2015 federal amendments, however, only

prohibit marriage under 16. Even though we're seen as a leader, we still do

allow marriage for 16- and 17-year-olds with parental consent.

I don't

think we should sit on our laurels, I think that we are giving leadership. I

think we should show that we do want to bring it down to zero here in this

country, and by doing that being a model for other countries that we work with

in the UN.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I just

want to speak a few minutes on Bill 46, the

Marriage Act . It's an interesting

topic we have here today about marriage itself.

remember my colleague from Conception Bay East - Bell Island last year did a

Member's statement on a couple that was married 70 years. I know that we all

watch the news in the evenings and see a lot of our friends and we'll see people

that will be married for 63, 65 years. It's amazing to see the couples are still

together that long.

I feel

that in years to come there'll be very few of those because people today are

getting married a lot later in lives. You'll see most people getting married in

their late 20s or in their mid-20s and stuff like that, but you hardly see them

getting married at 15 or 16 like they did years ago. I guess times have changed.

Also, when you talk about marriage, Mr. Speaker, I'm a marriage commissioner and

my success rate is very good so far, I have to say that first and foremost.

Today, when we talk about marriage, we just talk about how things have changed.

The traditional way that people got married years ago has changed.

I know a

lot of young people. I've done weddings in the Doctor's House out in Greens

Harbour; I've gone to Jamaica to do one. I've done them in people's kitchens,

I've done them downstairs in their living rooms and I've done them in backyards:

anywhere you can talk about, people today decide to get married and they want to

do that.

actual fact, a couple of weeks ago a real good friend of mine got married. He

never even told anyone about it, he just got married that day. Then he went out

and told his mom and they went out for supper that evening and that's the way it

is. We all know what the traditional marriage was in years gone by and it still

is today. There are still some people who like to go that way but it has

changed.

I'm sure

that everybody in this House supports this bill. It's important that we do

support the bill because I honestly feel that getting married under the age of

16 is too young also. The minister mentioned forced marriages. This is a way to

eliminate that also, so that people are not forced into doing a marriage.

Basically, what we're doing in this bill is we're aligning ourselves with the

federal legislation. The federal government has the responsibility of the

Marriage Act itself so we're just

aligning ourselves to ensure that a person can't go to a judge or to somebody

and just say: I have this reason to get married before the age of 16.

It's

important that even a person like myself that is a marriage commissioner – and I

have to say I'm after doing probably 50 marriages since 2005; I've done a lot of

marriages. It's important that we all know because if I ever performed a

marriage with a person under the age of 16 once this comes in, then I'm liable

also to be – I think the minister said it's up to five years you could be

incarcerated for doing something like this and even people that participate.

I think

we support this. I think it's a good bill; it's a sign of the times. Like I

said, God love all those people on the NTV News

in the evening that are celebrating their 60th and 65th wedding

anniversaries, but I think it's time that we come with the reality that you

shouldn't be married under the age of 16. This is a bill that I'm sure we will

all support here in the House of Assembly.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take long, but I do want to, I guess, just add my voice to the bill as

I always do, Bill 46,

An Act to Amend the Marriage Act. I'm not going to repeat

everything that's been said, but basically what we're saying here is that you're

not able to get married – a judge can't look at a special circumstance and allow

somebody to get married under the age of 16, bringing us in line with federal

legislation, which currently we're not.

Technically, as has been said, a judge right now – if someone got married under

the age of 16 in Newfoundland and Labrador, which would be permitted under the

current act, you'd actually be guilty of a criminal offence based on the federal

legislation. So, I guess in that regard it's sort of a housekeeping thing, but a

very important one albeit, to bring us in line with federal legislation.

course, once we get beyond that, it's all a matter of values and opinions and so

on. You know, we've heard Members talk about the fact that it's going to prevent

forced marriages, and particularly we see that type of thing happen primarily

with young girls that are forced into marriage with older men. Obviously that's

something that we don't want to see in this province or in this country.

Certainly, the vast majority of us don't want to see it for sure in this

country, and so it sort of deals with that.

I would

just like to say for the record that I do agree with my colleague from St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi again – jeez, I agree with her on a lot of stuff,

actually. But I agree with her on this one as well that, you know, for me

personally, because it is sort of a judgment thing I suppose, a value thing or

whatever, and I understand that times have changed, and I understand years ago

people got married at younger age.

I recall

stories – my mother was only 15 years of age when she left Wesleyville in

Bonavista North and went to St. John's to work in service – and I'm sure people

have heard of that concept – by herself and so on. And people were getting

married much younger in those times, but times certainly have changed. Again, to

go back to what the Member from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi said, personally, I

think it should be at the age of majority. That's just my personal belief.

That's

something, from a legal point of view, has been determined by legislators in

Ottawa. They've made the determination that 16 is okay, but for me, personally,

I think it should be the age majority. I still think 16 is too young to enter

into marriage. Any of us who are married or have been married, we all understand

the responsibilities that go along with marriage, the stress that can occur.

It's not always a simple thing, it's not all rosy and I think that young people

below the age of majority, personally, I don't think they're ready.

That's

just my opinion and, like I said, that would be a federal matter that's already

been decided. So, at the very least, we're saying that you have to at least be

16. As I said, we are bringing ourselves in compliance with the

Criminal Code , the federal legislation, so I will certainly be

supporting that.

Again, I

just wanted to put on the record being in support of 16 doesn't mean that I

don't personally believe that it should be higher than that, because I do.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

If the

hon. the Minister for Service NL speaks now, she close debate.

recognize the hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

stand again today to speak one last time to the a