PDF Version

March 5, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 51

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

Today we

have several guests visiting us and I'd like to recognize them. First of all, in

the Speaker's gallery I would like to welcome Ms. Alison Coffin, the new Leader

of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Joining us today in the

public gallery, I'd like to welcome Kevin O'Shea and Nicole Kieley who we will

recognize in a Ministerial Statement this afternoon.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We'd also like to welcome

Terry Pike from Pasadena who's visiting. Where's Terry?

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also, I have two neighbours

joining me. I have Alexander and Elizabeth Saunders from Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Alexander just had his tonsils out, so he's going to be rather quiet up there

today but he's feeling better.

Good to

have you both here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

And finally, watching us out

on the broadcast, I would like to acknowledge that we are being viewed by Mr.

Blackler's Social Studies 1201 class from Grandy's River Collegiate in Burnt

Islands. They are watching us this afternoon.

Hello to

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As I said, our ratings are

going up. It's good to see.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Topsail

- Paradise, Torngat Mountains, Bonavista and Terra Nova.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to mark the recent passing of Jim Kennedy of Bishop's Falls on

Friday, February 1, 2019.

Jimmie

left in his wake a legacy of hockey prowess and community service highlighted by

Herder Memorial Trophy championships with the Conception Bay CeeBees, Corner

Brook Royals, and the Grand Falls Cataracts, culminating with his induction into

the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Volunteering, be it for

coaching, civic events or being a member of the Lions Club were just some of his

vast array of community involvement as well.

The

giving spirit and social fabric of the Town of Bishop's Falls, and, indeed, our

province, is all the better because of his having been here.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in raising our hockey sticks to salute the

master of the poke check, Jimmie Kennedy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I recognize the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize Mrs. Bertha Parsons, a resident of Meadow Creek Retirement Centre in

the beautiful District of Topsail - Paradise, who celebrated her 100th birthday

on January 24, 2019.

Born in

1919, Mrs. Parsons celebrated her birthday always on February 4 until she

applied for her passport a number of years later, and to her surprise she

determined she was born on January 24.

Mrs.

Parsons was born and raised in Salmon Cove. There, she met her husband, Reg

Parsons, and they were married in 1939 at George Street Church in St. John's and

together they raised three children. Mrs. Parsons was a stay-at-home mom who

never got her licence, but was an active member in the church. She earned extra

money back in the '50s and '60s by doing clothing alterations such as cuffing

and hemming pants for a dollar.

Mrs.

Parsons said her favourite story was when she was 14 years old where she went to

Labrador on her father's schooner for the summer fishery and she got shipwrecked

off Smokey, Labrador. After being stranded for two days, they were picked up by

the SS Kyle. Onboard they gave her the best bowl of rice soup that she'd ever

tasted, and she had her first cup of coffee.

Up until

the passing of Mr. Parsons in June of 1991, Mrs. Parsons has lived alone and

kept house until September of 2017, until her move into Meadow Creek Retirement

Centre.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in wishing Mrs. Bertha Parsons a

happy 100th birthday.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I think 100 years gets you a

few more seconds.

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize some incredible talent that comes from the

North Coast of Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, in preservation of our culture, the Indigenous people of our land

sometimes look towards language, but we also look towards preservation of

tradition when it comes to everyday life in our customs.

Mr.

Speaker, our heritage is an integral part of preservation of Indigenous culture

and an important piece of preservation of traditional garments. In our case, Ms.

Chantelle Evans of Makkovik and Ms. Donna Dicker of Nain earlier this year

designed traditional garments for the renowned extreme cold clothing company,

Canada Goose.

Chantelle and Donna were among 14 Inuit seamstresses from across Northern Canada

that made the traditional and unique Atigis as part of a Canada Goose program

and campaign highlighting Indigenous clothing. Atigis is the Inuit word for

Parka.

Mr.

Speaker, Donna and Chantelle descend from a long line of families who, for many

generations, made traditional clothing from materials harvested by our people

along the coast. Chantelle and Donna are both very honoured to have their

traditional garments showcased by the Canada Goose Company in New York City

earlier this year. Their traditional garments of Atigis, Mr. Speaker, are valued

at anywhere between $5,000 and $7,500.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Chantelle and Donna

on their creativity, and in the preservation of our cultural clothing by

bringing it to a part of the world eager to learn about it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, on February 12,

I had the privilege of attending Canada's Agriculture Day at Anthony Paddon

Elementary in Musgravetown. Supported by Agriculture in the Classroom NL,

students were first introduced to a number of different displays and hands-on

exhibits that support the agriculture industry. This included vermicomposting,

beekeeping, getting a milk moustache, having their blood pressure taken and even

seeing a hen lay an egg.

Students, teachers, staff and guests were entertained by The Swinging Belles and

bored by us politicians, including the MHA for Corner Brook, who tried to answer

questions on agriculture. Finally, Chef Roger Dewling and his team provided a

healthy lunch with locally sourced products, including from Lester Farms.

An event

such as this couldn't happen without significant support. I'd like to

acknowledge the NL Federation of Agriculture, NL Beekeepers Association,

Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada, Fisheries and Land Resources, Dairy Farmers

NL, School Milk Foundation, Eastern Health, local farmers and countless

volunteers.

The

communities which Anthony Paddon serves have a significant agricultural history

and it is important to acknowledge this. I ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating the students, teachers and staff of Anthony Paddon on hosting

such a successful event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker, in the summer of

2017, the idea of establishing a farm and market in Clarenville came to life.

For

some, a farm and market in a community that is mainly known to be a service

centre was timely, innovative and unique.

The

initial response from vendors, the business community and residents living

throughout Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador was positive and steady, topping at

18,900 visitors in the first year. In 2018, following the construction of a

permanent building, the number of visitors increased to 24,600.

February 28, the Farm and Market's board of directors received the 2019 CBDC

Tourism Business Award of Excellence during the annual Hospitality Newfoundland

and Labrador conference in Gander. The award is given in recognition of

outstanding commitment and passion in the Newfoundland and Labrador tourism

industry. Mr. Speaker, what remarkable achievement!

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in extending congratulations to board members Keith

Pardy, Bonnie Critch, Krista Reader-Chatman, Lori Hann, Krista Butler, Steve

Cardoulis, Ross Traverse and Danilo Diaz.

Together, you have demonstrated that with a strong vision, dedicated volunteers

and support from the community, great things are possible.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I

begin, just a shout-out to those bright, young minds in Burnt Islands that are

watching, and their principal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

stand here today to mark the success of the Sexual Violence Legal Support

Service, a program that in its first six months of operation has served over 50

clients.

When

someone is exposed to sexual violence, the experience can be life altering and

the impact profound. We recognize that the survivors of sexual violence need

support on many levels – and they need to know their options.

Mr.

Speaker, the Sexual Violence Legal Support Service trained 20 lawyers who

provide up to four free hours of legal advice to survivors of sexual violence

and is available anywhere in the province, and by phone or email for those who

experienced sexual violence here but now live elsewhere.

Mr.

Speaker, the program is a partnership with the Public Legal Information

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre and was made possible through

federal funding. The success of this program can largely be attributed to Kevin

O'Shea, Nicole Kieley and their teams. I want to take this opportunity to thank

them for making this service possible and for helping survivors, who are

primarily women, regain a sense of control.

Mr.

Speaker, I know there is still work to be done to expand this service as we

further our goal of increasing access to justice for all. And I can tell you

that this government is committed to doing just that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister.

commend the Public Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and Labrador,

PLIAN, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention

Centre for collaborating with the government on June 19, 2018 to launch the

Sexual Violence Legal Support Service. I particularly want to congratulate Kevin

O'Shea and Nicole Kieley for being instrumental in making this program a

success.

As the

minister said, the support provided through this program enables survivors,

primarily women, to learn their rights, talk about their options and take charge

of the circumstances they find themselves in.

For the

more than 50 survivors of sexual violence who have availed of this service, the

support they have been receiving is invaluable. Having endured life-changing

trauma, they are now able to reach out and find a helping hand of someone who

will walk with them, listen, offer sound information and provide the resources

they need to regain their sense of control. This is the kind of program that

needs to be expanded so that other survivors can also have access.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. Congratulations to Nicole Kieley, Kevin O'Shea and all the lawyers

who have made the Sexual Violence Legal Support Service such a worthwhile

service.

Sexual

violence is endemic in our society and still much more work must be done to

address this terrible fact. Not only must this service be expanded but

educational programs for men and boys on male violence and toxic masculinity are

needed to change this culture.

Bravo to

the ongoing work and bravo to every woman who finds the courage to step up and

report what is happening to her and to seek justice. Hopefully, this will

empower more women to seek justice.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements my

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize Stigma Awareness Week which began on Sunday,

March 3, and will conclude Saturday, March 9.

This

annual initiative was established in 2016 by CHANNAL to bring attention to the

negative impacts of stigma and discrimination on the lives of individuals and

families living with mental health and addictions issues.

Stigma

is a negative stereotype that often creates an invisible barrier preventing

people from accessing crucial supports to help them recover.

CHANNAL

is organizing several events through the province in recognition of this week.

In St. John's, they are hosing a Wellness Wednesday event, as well as an Open

House on Friday. Later this month, there will be a variety show – showcasing

amazing talent from the community. It's still not too late to participate, so I

encourage people to go to the CHANNAL Facebook page for entry details.

There's

also going to be a variety show in Stephenville and mini wellness workshops in

Grand Falls-Windsor.

Government is committed to addressing gaps in mental health and addictions

through Towards Recovery: The Mental

Health and Addictions Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador . One of the

accomplishments worthy of noting is that the wait-list for counselling services

has been reduced by 68 per cent.

Mr.

Speaker, we take great pride in working with organizations such as CHANNAL to

strengthen programs and services for those with mental health and addictions

issues.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his remarks. Mr. Speaker, Stigma Awareness

Week is a time when Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can come together to reach

out a hand and help some of our most vulnerable. For those living with mental

health or addictions issues, stigma can create challenges in coping with

day-to-day activities and leave them feeling alone, even amongst their family

and friends.

The good

work of the people of CHANNAL has helped to break down barriers in this regard.

They have worked tirelessly to inspire hope for recovery and improve the quality

of life for individuals living with mental health and addictions issues.

Mr.

Speaker, it is also good to see that the work of the All-Party Committee on

Mental Health and Addictions is indeed going into effect. Thanks to the

Towards Recovery plan we are now

seeing real improvements in mental health and addictions treatment for the

people of this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. And I want to thank all those who have helped start the process of

transforming our mental health and addictions programs. It was the passion and

compassion and commitment of individuals like Andy Jones, Mary-Lynn Bernard,

Mary Walsh and Mark Gruchy who were leaders in pushing for change and who so

courageously stepped forward, and groups like the Canadian Mental Health

Association and CHANNAL and Turnings and people living with mental health

issues.

Together

we created the Community Coalition for Mental Health, and together we pushed for

the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. It was there that the

real transformation started. There's still more work to do and there is no

turning back.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Before I

continue with Oral Questions, I would like to recognize Marcella Drover. She's

the town clerk from Gaultois.

Thank

you for joining us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Premier said that the Atlantic Accord fiscal arrangement review is

now a bit of a math exercise and that there's a very fulsome analysis being done

for that negotiating table.

I ask

the Premier: Why did he not do the math and the fulsome analysis before he

started negotiating with the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, just imagine,

here we are – we stand in this House today with the number one priority facing

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that would be electricity rates and many other

issues that people are dealing with. We are negotiating with the Government of

Canada.

The

Leader of the Opposition would prefer that we do this publicly, maybe on

FaceTime or on Twitter, like some of the other people he aligns himself with.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are having, currently, productive discussions with the

some confusion from the Leader of the Opposition even about that deadline,

because yesterday he was asking questions and saying start it sooner.

Mr.

Speaker, I know I'm running out of time, but this is an important issue and we

are having productive discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is

essentially asking the public to trust him to do secret negotiations.

Yesterday, when asked by the media, the Premier said: Of course, we're looking

for a dollar figure – but would not tell the media what figure it was.

In the

interest of creating public support for this critical negotiation: Will the

Premier table in the House the amount he is looking for and the analysis that

informs his request?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, how stupid would

that be? How stupid would it be to put your negotiating – what you're looking

for on the table so that everybody could see? That would not be in the best

interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will not negotiate in public,

Mr. Speaker. That would not be a good negotiation.

Right

now, Mr. Speaker, I want to point to some of the success that we have seen in

negotiations for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; I speak of Canada Fluorspar,

Grieg Aquaculture, Tacora in Lab West. The Wabush Mines when the PC government

walked away from that, Mr. Speaker, restoring benefits and pensions to people

that the PCs had walked away from. We have had successful negotiations. Mr.

Speaker, we will not negotiate in public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Look at how (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

In the world that I come

from, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier refers to is called a monetary demand and

you tell your client what you're asking for, in this case the public of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Premier could not tell this House what years were under

review. Now that the Premier has a chance to check on this, what years are under

review?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we come from

different worlds. The Leader of the Opposition comes from a world – for the very

disclosure of that amount of money, what the Leader of the Opposition would do

is charge contingency fee. So it's in his own best interest to actually get that

number there.

What we

are negotiating to is a successful negotiation – building on the successive

negotiations that we've had for the last 3½ years, Mr. Speaker.

I will

remind the Leader of the Opposition about Vale going underground, creating jobs

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the Leader of

the Opposition that some of the work that's been done with West White Rose,

which they could not get done, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned CFI that took 17 years

and could not get done. We will build on successes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I can't help but think, Mr.

Speaker, that if the government opposite was put on contingency fee it might

spur some activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

The ironically titled

The Way Forward stated: our government's primary focus is

encouraging conditions that support private sector job creation and economic

sustainability through private sector growth and entrepreneurship. Yet, from

December 2015 to December 2018 employment levels dropped by 5,000.

I ask

the Premier: What happened to his focus on job creation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, to the

preamble;

when he talked about contingency fees, obviously, he was referring to put the

contingency fees into people like himself. What we are interested in doing is

putting money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when I talked

about successful negotiations, I also want to mention the success we've had with

our collective bargaining. We have gone through some of the worst times in the

history of this province, based on former administration decisions that's been

made, Mr. Speaker, and what we've come out of there with is labour certainty

which was important for services that are delivered to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Sir.

The

Department of Finance 2018 economic update states that from July 1, 2017 to July

1, 2018, 9,328 people moved forward from Newfoundland and Labrador toward a

future in another province. That's more like the fail forward.

Mr.

Premier, why are people moving away under fail forward, and when will the

government learn to fail fast by calling an election?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Good question, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

looking forward to that election –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

– because I want to remind the people of the Opposition here today, where is the

plan that you plan on taking to the people during that election? We have seen

nothing only crickets, I would say, Mr. Speaker, from the Leader of the

Opposition.

Mr.

Speaker, here is what we have done in the last 3½ years. Next year, Newfoundland

and Labrador will lead this country in GDP. That's economic activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Lead the country, Mr. Speaker.

We have

seen six consecutive months of job growth in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is

what The Way Forward is doing, Mr.

Speaker, fixing the mess of the past and creating a bright future for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order!

MR. CROSBIE:

We all admire GDP growth, but perhaps the Premier could explain to the House how

GDP growth equals job growth.

The PC

caucus counted more than 25 businesses that have closed their doors in the last

year or two. These closures are happening because consumers have to make tough

choices with their disposable income.

Will

this upcoming budget provide relief for consumers and businesses?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

What the upcoming budget will do, Mr. Speaker, is continue with the stability

that we've put this province back. We will be fixing electricity rates;

electricity rates that were caused by a decision of the party that you now lead

– shoulder the burden.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, what doesn't get discussed often enough is I did

not support that project. Your party did support that project, I say, Mr.

Speaker; that is the PC party. They went as far to put in legislation to make

sure that ratepayers would shoulder the burden of the complete cost.

We will

change that, Mr. Speaker, because ratepayers cannot afford it. That will put

money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in the forth and final year in office of this government, they have

admitted they cannot grow the economy and hired McKinsey & Company to develop an

economic plan; however, this plan has not yet been received by the taxpayers.

I ask

the minister: Can you provide an update, and when will this be released to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

indicated publicly and to the Member opposite that the report that's done will

inform budget 2019 and the report will be released to the general public after

the budget.

Officials in all government departments that are affected by the report, Mr.

Speaker, need time to analyze what's in the report and to make recommendations

to government and to Cabinet on how we carry forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Has he received the million dollar report, and is there any

updated cost on the economic diversification report?

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

I did receive the report, Mr. Speaker, on February 28. And I didn't hear the

second part of his question but I'll be happy to answer it.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked

the minister was there any update in the cost. Originally, it was little over a

million dollars. Is that cost still constant of what it originally was thought

it would be?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

The contract for the report

that was done was a fixed-price contract. The price did not change. The contract

was the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister said that Cabinet – and he just referenced this a few minutes ago –

will need some time to review, and government plans to form a committee made up

of key individuals who will help steer government on the right action based on

this report after 3½ years.

I ask

the minister: Who are these key individuals and why haven't you had access to

those key individuals over the past 3½ years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I thank the Member for his

question.

We have

had access to those key individuals. They've put ideas forward that have been

used in The Way Forward . We've

diversified the aquaculture industry; we've diversified the agriculture industry

and grown both of those, creating thousands of jobs.

We've

done The Way Forward on

Advance 2030 . We've got 85 exploration wells off the coast of the

province right now that are registered with the province that we can't wait to

drill and find more profitable oil projects in this province. We've got

Mining the Future , which is going to

see five new mines by 2030.

The

bureaucrats and government in this province have been doing a solid job on

diversifying the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they've

done a solid job, but now he still needs to spend over a million dollars to tell

him what to do after 3½ years. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

One of

the focus areas for McKinsey and Company is to develop opportunities for

expansion of the ocean and aerospace technology sectors. Given their importance

of developing this province's ocean technology sector, and success we had with

our administration over a 10-year period, why did the minister and the Premier

stand by and let the Ocean Frontier Institute awarded to Dalhousie and not the

Marine Institute or Memorial here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Why did you let

it go?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, our success in

this area has been proven. We've negotiated with the federal government on the

Ocean Supercluster, which is a huge benefit to the Atlantic region and, in

particular, this province. More than 50 per cent of this country's ocean

business, ocean economy, is right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We saw

the announcement on PAL Aerospace just yesterday. Part of the reason they got

that announcement yesterday, I would say, is because of the investment we put

into PAL just a couple of years ago, creating 150 jobs for the Force Multiplier

project, which allowed them to get this contract again.

Our

reputation, our record, is solid on fixing the mistakes from that

administration, where they refused and did not diversify the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The minister has just defined

why the Ocean Frontier Institute should be here in Newfoundland and Labrador and

not in Dalhousie, and they sat quietly by when the federal government put it in

Nova Scotia.

Mr.

Speaker, he mentioned the oceans cluster. Maybe the minister can tell us: How

much money is guaranteed coming to Newfoundland and Labrador under the ocean

cluster plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

very pleased with the work that we've been doing to grow our ocean economy – the

largest ocean economy in the country. And when it comes to the Ocean Frontier

Institute, there was $40 million invested in Memorial University – the largest

single investment in the history of the university. That is quite significant as

to what's happening.

We're

working with industry. We're working with academia. This is why we created

Regional Innovation Systems pilot projects in last year's budget, working with

the industry, working with academia, working with government to grow the

economy. The Ocean Supercluster is hundreds of millions of dollars. Just Kraken,

for example, secured another significant contract. They're growing their space,

a 20,000 square foot space. The contract with PAL was $128 million and over 250

new jobs. This is quite significant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The

Member's time has expired.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

another minister confirming why that Ocean Frontier Institute should be right

here in Newfoundland and Labrador and not in Nova Scotia.

So I'll

the minister again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I will

not tolerate interruptions – final warning.

Please

continue.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the minister again: How much money is guaranteed to come to Newfoundland and

Labrador through the ocean cluster program – what's the number?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the Ocean

Frontier Institute is here. There is significant investment that's happening

with Memorial University with the Ocean Frontier Institute, in terms of senior

management, in terms of research and other activities.

When it

comes to the Ocean Supercluster and our ocean economy, this is something that

companies within Atlantic Canada and other parts of the country competitively

put research dollars and investment dollars on the table. Some people have put

millions of dollars, whether they're in the oil and gas economy, whether they're

in aquaculture or the fishery. These are our local companies who put dollars on

to say we believe in the ocean opportunities here in our province. That's being

matched by federal government dollars, and it's going to lead to thousands of

jobs in the ocean economy, and that's going to lead to opportunities here in our

province, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And what

an opportunity to have that Ocean Frontier Institute right here in Newfoundland

and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

– that was missed.

So I'll

go back to the Minister of Finance and ask him. He referenced before the report

wouldn't be available until after the budget, yet it's going to be involved in

the budget process.

If you

have it now and it's available, why not release it to the public? People can

have a discussion on it and that can flow into any budgetary process. Why not

release it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, again, officials

in the department need to analyze what's in that report so that we can continue

the momentum that we've seen with The Way

Forward . I did hear the Member say a week or so ago that he was afraid that

we'd use this report to do our election platform.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, what I will say

is we've seen absolutely nothing in terms of a platform by the Opposition. We

will have the report released in time for them to use it. Maybe we'll actually

see something sensible from them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, last year

Newfoundland and Labrador attracted a measly 1,275 immigrants – the lowest

number of any province in the country.

Mr.

Speaker, will the minister now admit that

The Way Forward is not working?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to

thank the hon. Member for the question. He should know better; he was in this

department before. The highest number of immigrants coming to this province came

this past year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

It was 1,525.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

Year-over-year growth of 25

per cent, the previous year, which was 25 per cent over the year before that.

It's working; it's only a two-year plan. I'd like to ask the other

administration when they gutted that department, when they were here in

government, that's the reason why we're not further ahead than we are today. But

we're doing very well and we're continuing to do well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, the Maritime

average is 3,784. Why is the minister satisfied that we only have one-third of

that? What specifically is The Way Forward

doing to address it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

We're not satisfied with

1,525. We want more than that. That's why we created The Way Forward on

Immigration – something that you guys

never did. We're competing for immigrants to come to our province. Our success

rate is strong. Our retention rate is in the top tier of the Atlantic provinces.

We're doing the best we can.

There's

a three -year plan coming forward in the very near future, an additional

three-year plan. I look forward to seeing how you're going to try and poke holes

in that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, the nearest

province to Newfoundland and Labrador in attracting immigrants is Prince Edward

Island, with over 2,100 new immigrants in 2018.

Why is

the minister satisfied to be attracting half the number of the lowest province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

What I'm not satisfied is a

16 per cent retention rate, which is what PEI has. That's not what we have. Our

retention rate is very good. So, we're attracting the immigrants coming to our

province with the plan that we had. In two short years, we've increased 25 per

cent year over year in 2017; 25 per cent again in 2018. We're impressed with

where we're to. Do we have further to go? Absolutely, and we're going to do that

with the launch of the next three years in this plan, something that was not

done in the previous administration at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker,

The Way Forward set immigration targets of 1,700 by 2022, which at

the current trend we will not hit. Ontario, by comparison, welcomed over

132,000. PEI, on the other end, welcomed 2,100.

Why is

the minister satisfied that we lag so far behind the rest of the country?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

It's your colleague that

wants to slow this process down in Ottawa, it's not us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. DAVIS:

We've hit 90 per cent of our

target as of this year; this current year, 90 per cent. Our target is 1,700 new

immigrants, or new immigrants coming to this province by 2022. We're going to

hit that target this year and we're going to exceed it. We're going to focus

hard on trying to go much further than that, and I'd like to see what you're

going to try to do with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, in the seven

years previous to this administration taking over, the annual immigrant increase

was 515 in year seven. The Way Forward

sets that target at 1,700 by the year 2022. So, a seven year period from when

they took office. Sadly, by the trend they're going, they might hit 310 in

addition in that annual.

I ask

the minister: Is this a way forward or a way backward?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

I invited the Member to come

over and talk to me any time he has questions about anything that we're doing

because, obviously, the numbers he's quoting are not accurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

I just told him that 1,525

new permanent residents came here in 2018. That is impressive; 25 per cent more

than it was the previous year before.

I would

like to point out that the department, under the previous PC administration, was

absolutely gutted. We built that department back up. So not only did we have to

start hiring new employees and getting people back into the system again to try

to handle the backlog that was created by them – lack of inaction. They can't

stick their head in the sand years ago and try to make us responsible for their

inaction then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we've received a number of calls from families located on Thorburn Road

for years. This year it was provided busing to the local school; however,

they've been notified that they will lose their bus in the upcoming year because

they are now only 1.56 kilometres over the 1.6 policy. Now these kids will have

to walk down Thorburn Road on icy sidewalks with four lanes of traffic. In fact,

we have heard numerous stories like this one from families from all over the

province.

I ask

the minister: When will you finally do away with this outdated policy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And

certainly a pleasure for me to speak on this 1.6, as I have continued the

message over the last number of times that I've stood here in this House, that

the 1.6 policy really goes back – it's not just something new that this

government has created. The policy has been in existence for quite a number of

years. They had every opportunity in the world to change it when they were in

office. They did nothing about it. We have done something about it. We have put

in a courtesy stop within the 1.6 to accommodate students –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

– that have an opportunity

within that 1.6 to take advantage of a courtesy stop. They did absolutely

nothing with that policy while they were in office, and we have done something

with it. We're continuing to work with it. We now have 72 courtesy stops put in

place, and we continue to do that as we have the requests come in.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I need

to remind the minister that it was our administration that had put in the

courtesy seating, initially.

In the

last four years there have been growth areas that now do not have access to

seats on these buses. Courtesy stops mean nothing if there's not a seat for a

kid to get on. That's a reality.

Mr.

Speaker, Witless Bay has also fallen victim of some bureaucratic

interpretations

of the 1.6 policy. For some students, they travel more than 1.6 on the way to

school because of a one-way street; however, when returning from school they

travel slightly less than 1.6 kilometres. For this reason, they are not provided

busing. Once again, we hear many stories like this one from a policy that is not

working.

I ask

the minister: When will you finally do away with this policy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the first thing I'd like to acknowledge is that courtesy seating is different

from a courtesy stop. And a courtesy stop –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

A courtesy stop enables a bus

to stop within the 1.6 kilometres at a safe stop to enable students, where there

are empty seats, to get on the bus.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I challenge the Members opposite – within the country of Canada there

is a policy, and the policy is that if you're within the 1.6 it's the parental

responsibility to get students to school in a safe manner. Like every other

province in Canada. There is not one single province in Canada that does not

have a busing policy, and there must be a good reason for that, Mr. Speaker

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, while other

provinces have policies, we worry about the safety of the children that are

going to and from schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

So our policy should reflect,

our primary objective here, Mr. Speaker. And I do have to clarify again,

courtesy seats were ensuring within the 1.6 that people had a seat on that bus.

In this case, courtesy stops mean nothing again if there's not a seat available.

Mr.

Speaker, I've heard from a number of people in the busing industry that the

numbers being put out there about the costing of offering or reducing or

eliminating the 1.6 busing is not accurate.

Can the

minister tell me where these numbers came from to justify keeping this 1.6

outdated policy in place?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development for a quick response, please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Courtesy

seating makes no availability either if they don't have them on the bus. So, Mr.

Speaker, we have continued to work with that. We are making progress.

As I

said, Mr. Speaker, we have 72 – we have 166 different routes have now been

reviewed. There are 72 courtesy stops that are in place that will enable

students to take advantage of the empty seats that are on buses. This is

something we are continuing to work on, Mr. Speaker, and we want to make sure

that safety is number one, and we've always said that from the beginning and

we'll continue to say that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

February 19, the Minister of Natural Resources spoke to the media about the PUB

interim report on rate mitigation, saying we are cleaning up Muskrat Falls.

Concerns about skyrocketing Muskrat Falls power rates were already concerns to

people when her Liberal government took the reins almost four years ago.

I ask

the Premier: Why has he and his minister only now chosen to deal with this

problem?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, first of all,

it's just not now choosing to deal with this problem. If the Member opposite

would remember, that it's under my leadership that we led the longest filibuster

in the history of this province against this project. Unfortunately, at the time

the project got sanctioned.

Mr.

Speaker, what we did in taking government was to put in place a review of the

project. Mr. Speaker, that was done. We put in a new CEO. We put in a new board.

As a

matter of fact, if you're looking through some of the information that's coming

out of the inquiry that I called, Mr. Speaker, you would see that more oversight

should have been there from the beginning. It also expressed the fact that there

needed to be more expertise on that board. So we have taken a number of steps,

Mr. Speaker, to get this project under control.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister said she would like to see a rate mitigation plan presented to the

public before the general election.

I ask

the Premier: How could his government in their fourth year not already have a

plan for rate mitigation to present to the people of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you

that our party will have the electricity rate mitigation plan in place; however,

based on the requests that I saw yesterday, I doubt very much that the NDP would

be ready for a rate mitigation plan. And I know that the current PC Party won't

be ready because all they've come up with is bail out or blame it on somebody

else, because they would never want to take credit for their own actions.

Mr.

Speaker, we will have a rate mitigation plan in place. I fully suspect this will

be a priority for all of us that are in this election.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been very clear, I did not support this project, and this project

should never leave this tax burden on the backs of ratepayers or taxpayers, Mr.

Speaker, and it will not.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, since the

release of the PUB interim report, the Minister of Natural Resources has been

musing on options for reducing crippling Muskrat Falls power rate increases.

When speaking to the media, the minister talked about doing a full series of

work around electrifying vehicles.

I ask

the Premier: When will he instruct his minister to end her musings and bring

something concrete to this House and to the people of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, well, I think

the word musing – we take this very seriously and this is not a joke, I can tell

you. People that I'm talking to – in particular, we're seeing people within all

parts of society, our seniors, our middle-class families and business leaders

that understand the impact of electricity rates will be very profound on this

province.

Mr.

Speaker, we are dealing with this issue. We've put in place a number of

measures. We've brought back the PUB, Mr. Speaker. The PC Party did not do that.

They actually, in fact, kicked him out during the early stages. I doubt very

much we'd be in this situation today if that wasn't done.

Mr.

Speaker, we are taking this issue very seriously. We will have a rate mitigation

plan in place to take to the people of this province that will not shoulder the

burden of this project on ratepayers or taxpayers.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, electrification

of this province such as converting public buildings to electric heat and

promoting electric cars will not be cheap, we all know that.

I ask

the Premier: Has the minister done the cost benefit analysis on what appears to

be simply musings to date, and will government table this evidence that the work

has actually been done?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we all know that

under the current legislation that was put in place by the PC Party that

regardless of the amount of electricity that was used in this province,

ratepayers will have to pay all of it. That is in legislation that we're seeing

that was put in place.

We also

know that if you increase the demand through electrification using vehicles or

buildings that are currently on fossil fuels that we convert those to

electricity, but you have to do the cost analysis that would make sense. So,

we've identified a number of areas right now, a number of facilities around our

province that would be able to actually electrify. Mr. Speaker, we are also

working with the federal government on some of the clean energy money that's

available to support those upgrades.

Mr.

Speaker, we will not leave any stones unturned to keep electricity rates down in

this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Thank

you.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

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

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

Her Majesty, Bill 55.

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 Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The loss

of the jawbone collection program for moose and caribou in the province has

resulted in the loss of important data and research about big game. Jawbone

collection represents the entire moose population.

The

jawbone is the first indication of animal health. To maintain the resource like

the moose and caribou, which are important as food sources to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the population needs to be sustainable by the food

source that is available to them. If there is no scientific data collection, we

are unable to determine the health of the big game animals and the physical

condition of the animals or condition of their habitat.

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

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the jawbone collection program for moose

and caribou in the province.

Mr.

Speaker, it is widely known that both moose and caribou populations are in

decline throughout North America, and Newfoundland is no exception to that.

Within the past five years, the monitoring of our moose herd has been, I guess,

put on the backburner. There has actually only been five aerial surveys in four

years,

whereas biologists recommend five per year. This population is not only

important as a food source, but having a healthy moose population in our

province is also a big economic contributor.

Many of

the small towns in rural Newfoundland benefit by the recreational hunting and

purchase of supplies and overnight stays. They also benefit from imported

hunters, and big game outfitters employ many people in rural areas and, you

know, without a healthy population this will not be able to continue, and rural

Newfoundland and the province as a whole will suffer economically.

It's

very important that we reinstate the scientific evaluation of our moose and

caribou population, not only for economic and immediate food sustainability, but

also for the future generations of our province who will also want to enjoy

them.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources for a response, please.

MR. BYRNE:

Well, thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the intervention

of the hon. Member.

expressed the concerns that he would reflect on from the petitioners about the

scientific integrity of our moose studies, of our moose evaluations. He

indicated that there have been five moose surveys of moose management areas in

the last four years. That is absolutely false and incorrect. In fact, this past

year alone, the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources, our experts in the

Wildlife Division, have conducted over seven moose management surveys in this

one year alone and we may get up to 10 moose management surveys in this year

alone.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, speaking about the jawbone program, which is a way to assay the

overall, the age structure and sex of the moose herds and what's been harvested.

What I can tell the hon. Member is that because of a lack of resources that were

in place while the PC government was in place, there has been a stockpile of

jawbones that have not been able to be assessed and assayed. So that has

resulted in a pause of the program.

I see

the value of this. This government brought back – we brought back our coyote and

wolf subsidy, our bounty program. We're looking at the jawbone program, but what

I can express to the hon. Member, do not promote false information on the floor

of this House.

Up to 10

surveys will be done this year –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, your time has

expired.

Thank

you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

in this House today, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS

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

be announced in the spring, with construction anticipated to begin in the fall,

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

experienced local tradespeople and labourers 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 extra cost to the taxpayers so that they can work in their own

area, support the local economy and be able to return home to their families

every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, I was very encouraged by the minister's statement yesterday that they

are working with local companies to encourage local hiring and to encourage

companies to buy local. I am very encouraged in that.

Last

year, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the ironworkers were heavily involved

up on the site and they petitioned the site. I was told by certain people that

they were going to be hired and it never happened. It just never happened. For

whatever reason, it didn't happen.

Again,

I'm very pleased that the government is taking steps to ensure that local

workers will be hired. The petition that I have here is people from Lark Harbour

and Benoit's Cove. There are people here from Meadows, Gillams, Meadows again,

all around the whole Humber - Bay of Islands, the Corner Brook area, that people

are concerned about the work in the area.

These

people – and I spoke to the ironworkers union last Friday – assured me, the

ironworkers, that they can get enough workers from the Humber - Bay of Islands,

Stephenville - Port au Port area, maybe out Baie Verte that way, down the

Northern Peninsula, that they would have enough workers, ironworkers, to do that

job, four-year job, in the immediate area.

So I'm

encouraged that the government is looking at it and meeting with local

contractors in the area, working with local contractors in the area. Last year I

must say if those tradespeople were hired, there was going to be no extra cost

because the deal that we worked out with the company was that it'd be no extra

cost to bring the workers in – they did from PEI – and the ironworkers put up

$100,000 from their kitty to try to get local people working. That is what you

call true commitment for their workers in the area.

I ask

the government to consider this and work, where possible, to ensure that local

workers are being hired.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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, and he outlined some important issues. You

know, any time we're doing projects in this province, and they're publicly

funded projects, it's important that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians benefit

from those projects.

Just

yesterday morning, I met with TradesNL and had a discussion around ways that,

going forward on projects that the province are actually in partnering with,

that we can make sure that we're doing our best to engage workers from this

province.

Just

last fall, we were in Corner Brook and we hosted a day where we had the two

proponents that had been selected to actually bid on the new acute-care facility

in Corner Brook to come in, and we had a hundred businesses from the province

show up in Corner Brook that day. We actually exposed these businesses to the

companies, one of which would be building the building – it was almost like a

speed dating, Mr. Speaker, where companies had an opportunity in two separate

rooms to go in and to present to the proponents that will be building these

facilities of the things that we can offer as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Because

there's one thing that I heard yesterday in the meeting with Trades NL: If you

look at the productivity of Newfoundland and Labrador workers, it's unmatched by

anybody else in this country. I agree with the hon. Member, it's something that

as a government we need to do and we will continue to work with groups like

Trades NL and the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Association to ensure

that every single opportunity is afforded to Newfoundland and Labrador companies

and Newfoundland and Labrador workers.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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 own waste for

extended periods of time.

believe this is directly related to government's failure to ensure adequate

staffing at those facilities. Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly

as follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate

legislation which includes the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of

one staff to three residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional

health 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 all other required care. This

law would 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, today we have petitions here from people in Carmanville, Clarke's Head,

Wings Point, Gander Bay, Bonavista, Stephenville, Carter's Cove, Georges Point,

Rogers Cove, Victoria Cove and so on. A lot of these are certainly from the

Gander Bay area, Mr. Speaker. Others that have been presented and others that I

know are coming in are coming from all throughout the province and from Labrador

as well.

This is

a very important issue. I'm sure there will be debate that could be had on

perhaps what the appropriate ratios should be and could be, what the mix of

staff should be and so on in long-term care facilities. Obviously, the

petitioners have done their homework and they believe that they've come up with

what they believe is an acceptable ratio, what they believe should be in place

for seniors but, at the end of the day, we're talking about our moms and dads,

our grandparents and one of these days, God willing, us, if we live that long

and end up in a long-term care facility.

I don't

think there's anybody in this House of Assembly that would believe that it would

be acceptable for a person to go an extended period of time without being fed,

for someone to be capable of being injured, for people who could be lying in

their own waste for an extended period of time – I know the staff don't want

that, but there has to be enough staff to go around (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Your

time has expired.

The hon.

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

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

delighted to stand here and, once again, like to recognize the sterling work

done by the staff in long-term care centres throughout the province. I was

fortunate enough to spend a morning at Lakeside Homes in Gander last week and,

indeed, to the points raised by the gentleman opposite, watched with what care

the staff in both the kitchen and on the floors made sure that the meals were

served to the residents, hot and ready to eat. We have full-time dieticians

available to provide consultation for long-term care facilities. I would

challenge the assertion that the food supplied there is anything but healthy and

nutritious.

We,

through the RHAs, are working on pilot schemes to involve local growers of

produce to strengthen the agricultural industry, particularly in Central and

Western, whereby fresh, local produce will be supplied to long-term care. I was

pleased to announce in Goose Bay there will be culturally appropriate country

foods at least once a month for those residents of Indigenous background in

Goose Bay who wish to avail of those. As that rolls out and is successful and

cost allows, we will increase that.

So, I

would really challenge some of the assertions here. We also have patient safety

legislation which mandates the RHAs do just what the Member opposite is calling

for with regard to long-term care residents.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

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

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents of school-aged children throughout the province who live

do not qualify for busing; and

WHEREAS

the policy cannot override the safety of our children;

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

of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all

elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where

safety is a concern.

Mr.

Speaker, we speak on this, we stand on it, we talk on it. We've had public

meetings. We ask questions in the House of Assembly, and anyone who wants to

listen to us, we continue to talk about an issue.

I do not

care what happened pre-2015. I was elected in 2015, and I've said that before.

I'll say it again and I'll say it again today, it doesn't matter to me. The past

is the past. On a go-forward basis, we're living in the here and now. Time is

now, it's 2019. It's time to change the policy.

listen to the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development get up day

after day after day and tell us what the previous crowd never done – what they

did do, what they didn't do. That means nothing to the children of this province

that are walking to school day in, day out with no sidewalks, with icy

shoulders. A lot of time there's nowhere to walk.

I live

in a rural area. My district hasn't got a lot of sidewalks. I live in Conception

Bay South, but that – trust me, part of my district is very rural. No different

than anyone else across the way. The parental zone is, if you haven't got a

vehicle to drive your children to school and you can't afford to pay for a taxi,

there's no public transport. No different than a lot of rural areas. But I'm in

a growth region, Mr. Speaker, and that's the problem. It's a lot of young

children. The schools are at capacity. Every school up there is brimming. There

are new schools being built. It's a growing area.

The

minister stands up day and day and also speaks about the courtesy stops they

implemented. But this administration implemented courtesy seats. Most of the

routes in my district are at capacity, the buses are full. So you can put 50

stops between 1.6 and the school, it means nothing – absolutely nothing. It

sounds nice. It's confusing, it's muddying the waters.

The

problem is children have not got a way to school. They have to find their own

way to school. It's putting a lot of stress on young families, and it's time for

it to change. I don't care who changes it. I really don't care. It should be

changed. This blame game is silly. It's nonsense, and I'm tired of it, Mr.

Speaker.

Then you

read in the media recently, this week, it's going to cost $8 million. Well, tell

us how you arrived at $8 million, because in lots of parts of this province

that's not an issue. School busing is not an issue in certain parts of this

province, Mr. Speaker. To say it is a blanket cost of $8 million, tell us how

you are going to get to that figure. But every time – it's insulting to the

people and the families of my district, and my colleagues districts, to stand up

and say: oh, we done this and you never done that. Do something about it and

make a change.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development for a response.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What's

muddying the waters is the fact that they're trying to play politics with 1.6

busing, Mr. Speaker, and that's really unfortunate.

The

Member opposite talks about $8 million. As a matter of fact, it is north of $10

million to remove the busing.

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. HAWKINS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask

the Member, or give me an opportunity to respond.

I'd like

to ask the Member, if in fact it's $12 million, where would the Member opposite

suggest we get the $12 million? It equates to 112 teachers. You want to take it

out of the classroom, is that what they're suggesting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

They want to add it to the

debt, maybe, like they did the last time, that $2.7 billion debt because nothing

meant anything to them. They could put on whatever they wanted to put on.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very serious issue. As I've said before, there's not one

single province in this country that does not have a busing policy, and there

must be a reason for that.

Mr.

Speaker, what does he mean by eliminating 1.6? Does that mean you pick every

single student up? We're doing a taxi service, we pick up every single student

at their door? Because if we don't – what they're arguing is a safety issue. So

if any person has to walk any distance, it's a safety issue; if that's the

argument you're putting in there.

So, Mr.

Speaker, it's important for all of us to understand that we work through this

process. The courtesy stops we put in are working in the areas that were looked

at, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 46.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker I move, seconded

by the Minister of Service NL, that Bill 46,

An Act to Amend the Marriage Act,

be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Marriage Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and

its title be as on the Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Marriage Act,” read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation – I got it right this time – that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 49.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 49,

An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.” (Bill 49)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did

speak at second reading but one thing I neglected to do, shame on me for doing

so, I did want to make mention of the tremendous work that's taking place at the

Admiralty House Museum and archives and the annex in terms of our culture, our

heritage, doing an amazing job down there. In an effort to stay relevant, I

didn't make mention of that but, for the record, just hats off to those people.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One

question that I had about the bill is how does government determine the amount

of grant that the foundation gets? Each year we've noticed it has been

decreasing. So can you explain why the grant has been decreasing?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When it

comes to the Heritage Foundation, it's one component of organizations that would

be funded through Heritage within the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry

and Innovation. We would also have a Heritage division in the department that

would support entities, like the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands would have

mentioned, Admiralty House. We provide CEDP heritage grants to over 120

organizations throughout this province.

Whenever

anybody is looking at allocation, it would be going through the normal budgetary

process. So that would be done in consultation with the board and the executive

director. When they have put forward their budget, they had highlighted where

they could find efficiencies within their budget over the last couple of years.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Minister.

This is

the second time we've made this change. Today it's the

Historic Resources Act and we previously did the

Arts Council Act . So are there many

more acts that we can expect this change will be required?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I thank the Member opposite

for her question. I remember when we had brought the

Arts Council Act forward, the Member

asked that question. At that time, I had highlighted that when the Comptroller

General had done the review, we had become aware that the

Historic Resources Act , our Heritage

Foundation, would not be falling in line with the FAA and we would be bringing

forward this legislation.

To my

knowledge, this is the only other entity and the only other piece that would be

required within the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation to

meet these standards. So this was the piece that I had identified in the fall,

and it's brought here in the spring to bring our entities in compliance with the

Comptroller General. But to ensure that there is proper accountability, the

Auditor General will continue to do an annual audit, and that's basically what

we're here talking today in this particular bill.

So I

thank the Member opposite for her question.

CHAIR:

Shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Historic

Resources Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move, Mr. Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 49.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 49.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 49 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed him to report Bill 49 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently,

by leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4,

third reading of Bill 49.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of TCII, that Bill 49,

An Act To Amend The Historic Resources

Act, Bill 49, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Historic Resources Act. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

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

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act,” read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting Act, Bill

50, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Public Bodies Reporting

Act, Bill 50, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt

the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is

carried.

Motion, the hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat to introduce a

bill, “

An Act To Amend

The Public Bodies Reporting Act,” carried. (Bill 14)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Public Bodies Reporting Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 50 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I moved,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 51, and I

further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 51, and that

the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources to introduce a bill, “An

Act To Amend The Forestry Act,” carried. (Bill 51)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 51 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue

Law, Bill 54, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety shall have leave to introduce

a bill entitled,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, Bill

54, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act

To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law,” carried. (Bill 54)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

Thank

you.

motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this

time, I'm going to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1 – or sorry, Motion 2; my

apologizes. I would move the following motion:

THAT the

amendment to Standing Order 92, which was adopted provisionally on February 27,

2018 be adopted permanently with suborder 92(2) amended by the substitution of

60 seconds for 90 seconds speaking time; and

THAT

this change comes into force on the date of its approval.

The

permanent Standing Order will read as follows:

(1) Every Member offering a

petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the

parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the

material allegations it contains. In no case shall the Member occupy more than

three minutes in so doing, unless by permission of the House upon question put.

(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 the

petition is presented or the next sitting day only.

(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 a petition with the same subject matter may be made on

each sitting day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Are

there speakers to the motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Mr. Speaker, (inaudible)?

MR. A. PARSONS:

I was going to –

MR. SPEAKER:

He's going to.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) oh, okay.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I

appreciate the enthusiasm for the Member that – to speak to the Standing Orders.

MR. SPEAKER:

We have a lineup, yeah.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I say that with all

sincerity, actually.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a motion, and we've done this – I'm proud to say that in the

last three years we've probably stood up more in this House with motions for

amendments to Standing Orders than you saw in maybe the decade or two prior to

that, and I don't think I'm exaggerating by any means when I say that. I can say

that in my first four years in this House when I sat on the other side, I don't

know if there was a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee let alone an

amendment or a change.

So I'm

very proud to say that, and the credit for that has to go to the people that sit

on that committee, which I would note for anybody that's watching, it's a

bipartisan committee. It's made up of Members of all sides, as well as the staff

of the House. The Speaker sits not as a voting Member but as someone that

oversees the House and its procedures.

So I

look across the way to my colleague, the Deputy House Leader for the Official

Opposition, to the House Leader for the NDP, my colleague in the back from – the

Highway District, I call it –

MR. REID:

St. George's - Humber.

MR. A. PARSONS:

– St. George's - Humber, and

my colleague the Deputy House Leader for government, the Minister of Natural

Resources.

Again,

it's important that we talk about this because people sometimes get lost. When

we talk about committees of the House, sometimes people get confused. Even

people within this House that sit in this House get confused about committees,

committee structures and how they work.

One of

the standing committees of this House, a committee that's struck at the

beginning of the session is the Standing Orders Committee. For people that may

not be aware, the Standing Orders are the guidelines for which Members operate.

It basically guides – in layman's terms, it's a guide to how this House

operates, its procedures and everything that we do here, whether it's a private

Member's resolution, legislation, even the procedures for debating a bill. And,

again, it deals with, in some cases, the comments that we make in the House, the

language that we're allowed to use.

So, what

we did as Members of this Committee is we sat down three years ago and instead

of trying to change everything at once, as Members we decided let's list out all

the things that we'd like to fix with how the House operates and let's go at

them bit by bit and piece by piece, and I think we've done a pretty good job of

that.

One of

the things we've discussed is filibusters in this House, which many people in

this House have sat through. But we changed that procedure, which according to

some training that I received in the last couple of weeks, and we talk about

sleep depravation may not lead to good decision making, well, I would say yeah,

yeah. We could tell by the results of some of those debates, maybe the best

decisions weren't made. But what I would say – and again, I'm being facetious

here – but that's one Standing Order that was changed.

talked about just different resolutions. We talked about the

schedule for which

the House sits, and one of the things we talked about were petitions. Now,

having had the opportunity to sit on both sides of this House, I fully believe

in the importance of petitions in this House, an opportunity for a Member of the

Opposition or a Member of the government to stand up and read into the House an

issue or concern for the people they represent or people across this province,

and it's an opportunity to present that matter in public in the House of

Assembly. It's signed by at least three Members of the House – or of that

community, three Members must sign the petition, and then it's a chance for

three minutes to stand up and read that issue.

And I

can tell you that I've seen the range. I've seen them be repetitive, and I don't

say that in a negative connotation. I say that with positive intent. Sometimes

you have to stand up and present your petition on multiple occasions for it to

get the impact that it needs to have success, and we have seen positive things

come out of this House through the presentation of petitions in this House.

One of

the changes that we made, and we made it on a provisional basis, on a pilot

process or pilot project, if you will, was having been on this side, one of the

things that I brought up some time ago, having been in the Opposition, one of

greatest, I guess, back and forth occasions that I ever saw in this House was

when I was in Opposition and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, Bay of

Islands at the time, was very well known for presenting petitions on the Corner

Brook hospital, and presented them repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. On one

particular occasion, the – I can't remember if he was the premier at the time. I

can say his name, Tom Marshall, whether he was the premier or the Attorney

General, but he was a Member from the Corner Brook area, stood up and responded.

Now, the

amazing thing is the Standing Orders did not allow for him to do that. It was

only done by leave of all Members, and it led to what I consider an excellent

debate by two Members concerned about an important topic that mattered to them,

that mattered to the people they represent, it mattered to a lot of us. And it

was a great example of debate but one that was not allowed by our Standing

Orders.

I've

seen other occasions where Members have stood up and enter petitions, and I know

that ministers – and I can say that when I was in Opposition, and I can say it

now because certainly it frustrated me, because I had a Member on the other side

stand up and make a petition that was relevant to me. I wanted to stand up and

respond to that petition, and in order to do so you had to be given leave by the

other side. I never had the leave given to me to respond to that, and I found

that frustrating.

I also

didn't find it conducive to the purpose of the petition, which is to present to

a Member, to a minister, to a government, what's the government's position on

that issue. Now, not everybody is able to stand up and speak to that, depending

on if it's the first time that you've heard it, depending on the subject.

So what

we did, we brought this issue up and we debated it, Members of the Standing

Orders Committee, and we said why don't we allow for an opportunity for the

relevant minister, on the same day that a petition is entered or a following

day, to be able to stand up and respond to that petition. And we've tried it out

and I'd like to think, given the fact that we're moving here today to make it

permanent, that it was successful.

Now,

like happens on numerous occasions in this House, sometimes the petitions or the

responses can be a bit of that political salesmanship, a bit of that show that

goes on, and that's fine. That's part of the job that we do, but I also think

that on a number of occasions when a Member presented a petition that ministers

were able to stand up and speak to that petition and basically speak directly to

the people that wrote that and give the government position or their position on

this particular item.

I'd like

to think we've made the process better than what it was, and for that the

success goes to the Standing Orders Committee, as well as the Members and

ministers that have made this a success and have tried it, and I think it has

worked out quite well. So what we had to do, where it was only provisional, we

had to come into the House and debate this, making it a permanent feature.

The one

change I will note that we brought up, before it allowed a minute and a half, 90

seconds for the response, and what we've decided is to make the response 60

seconds. Because in many occasions when the Member in the Opposition reads the

petition, they have to read the

preamble, they have to read the text, and that

actually eats up a fair amount of the time, which I think is three minutes that

they get to enter their petition. When they have to read the prayer that comes

with it, that takes up a bit of time but they do get some time to talk about the

issue itself.

We still

have an opportunity for ministers to stand up for 60 seconds, which does not

sound like a lot of time for anybody. It sounds like a small amount of time, but

for anybody that's stood up in this House or have done an interview, we talk

about 45-second questions and 45-second answers. It's a significant amount of

time. It's enough time to allow you to state your position quite clearly. The

fact is with petitions, you know you will get an opportunity to speak again.

So, what

we're standing here today is we're clarifying and making permanent the fact that

this is an opportunity for petitions to come in, for responses to go back. They

will be 60 seconds in length. Everything else with that clause still stays the

same. To those out there that talk about changing, you know, maybe someday

allowing e-petitions and things like that, I say, I agree. Anything we can do to

make this more accessible is something that we're all interested in. But with

that comes technological challenges and comes cost issues as well, which we've

heard about. So these are a work in progress.

But what

I will say is that we've made significant progress with not just this Standing

Order, but a number in the last few years. And on that note, before sitting

down, I would again say to those that say that we cannot make things happen

through committees, I say, you know what, this Committee, in and of itself,

shows that progress can happen when people sit down and use their experiences in

this House to hopefully make our procedures a better thing, and this is

something that I hope will continue on into the future.

On that

note, I thank my colleagues on the Committee, I thank the Speaker and the staff

– again, these committees are not successful without the staff that help provide

us with the background information, the

interpretation and, in some cases, the

institutional knowledge of how things have worked over time. So I thank the

staff for their efforts as well and I look forward to the comments from my

Members on the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

just stand briefly and then speak on this issue, Mr. Speaker, on the Standing

Orders, and also congratulate the Committee for doing the fine work.

Mr.

Speaker, I remember that debate very well with – he was the premier then – Tom

Marshall. And because of that debate, and as the minister just stated earlier,

that we were giving leave to each other back and forth to have a debate –

because of that debate and that leave, where there was interaction, I remember

when I brought up something to then Tom Marshall – and I always gave him credit

for that – was I gave him names where single bunker units for radiation was used

in PEI and Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Because

of that exchange that we had back and forth, to Tom Marshall's credit to this

day – and I said it then and I'll say it again, probably – that Tom Marshall,

that Sunday morning, picked up the phone and phoned those people. And he was

told then, yes, single bunker units can be used. He then ordered a $500,000

study for a radiation unit for Corner Brook. Right now, with the new hospital,

there's going to be a radiation unit in the new hospital in Corner Brook because

of that exchange and because of Tom Marshall picking up the phone and phoning

two people – one person in Sydney and one person in PEI – to confirm what

we were saying that it could be done. So I just want to recognize what the

minister said and recognize Tom Marshall for his contribution also in that.

The only thing that I look at, if you want to change it a

small bit, is give the ministers

up to a minute and 30 seconds. Some may not take it. I know if I'm going

to present a petition in this House, a prime example, I'm going to give a

heads-up to the minister because I want a response from him; I want him to work

with me to help solve the petition.

I say to

the Minister of Transportation and Works, when we're working together to ensure

local workers are being considered and doing everything possible in Corner

Brook, that's why we're working together, that's the goal that we have.

So, the

petition that I would present – and I'm sure most people here, if I'm going to

present a petition, I'm going to give the minister a heads-up because I want a

government response. I want interaction with the government because I want

results. I just don't want to stand up and start beating your chest and say look

what I'm going. I want results.

remember when I presented petitions on the hospital and the radiation unit in

Corner Brook, it was a tough battle. I had a lot of support in the Liberal

caucus at the time, but, after a while, petition after petition people started

asking questions and people started getting more information on it. As a result,

this year, the new hospital with a radiation unit and a room for the next

available PET scanner or next available best technology is in the hospital.

Mr.

Speaker, petitions do work. They do bring up issues, but I would just consider

that if we're going to revert to a minute, I have no problem personally – now, I

don't know if anyone – I won't even make a motion but if we want to do a

friendly motion to give the ministers a minute and a half if they want to

because, personally, if I stand up like I did the last couple of days with a

petition for the workers in Corner Brook, I want to hear the government's

position. I want to hear what the government is going to do to help out with the

petition. I want to have an exchange back and forth that we can work together to

find solutions, not just to offer problems – let's find solutions together.

Mr.

Speaker, I say to the Committee, great job on bringing this forward with the

Standing Orders. I will be supporting this. I say to all the people, don't be

nervous of petitions, if you're going to put a petition to get results and work

with people to get results because that's how – a lot of times, Mr. Speaker, I

know on both sides, from Opposition to being a part of government back in 1989

and back in 1999 when I was in government, a lot of times there are issues not

brought up and a petition is the way to bring it up. You can start a meaningful

dialogue with the ministers.

Petitions are a way that we should encourage more debate and if the government

and everybody in the House agree a minute is fine, I'm fine. I have no problem

allowing a minute and 30 seconds for a minister to respond, to get a response,

if we're going to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Just a

couple of comments as a Member of the Standing Orders Committee, and I agree

with the Government House Leader that we've been doing more work on that

Committee in one year than I think – I've been sitting on it since 2006 and

we've done more work on it in one year than we did for the whole 15 years before

that.

This

one, this motion, is a good one. I do agree with the 60 seconds because, as the

Government House Leader pointed out, in the presentation of a petition by the

time you read the prayer with all the

preambles leading up to the prayer, the

presenter is not speaking for three minutes. So using the principle of the

minister having half of the time to respond as the presenter has, really 60

seconds is what does it. Because you do use almost half a minute, I think, when

you're presenting the petition itself before you get a chance to speak to it.

So I do

agree with the 60 seconds. One of the reasons why I brought this – I don't know

if I was the one who brought it specifically to the Committee when we worked on

it; we all named different things that we were concerned about. We've all had

the experience of people wanting to know – I've had it many times. I've signed

this petition and I know that it was presented in the House of Assembly, what's

government doing with that petition? So the reason for having the ministers

respond was to meet that need of people to think that it meant something that

they signed the petition. But I also think the ministers' responses have to mean

something as well, and I'm sure the ministers want that as well as I do.

I think

it's very significant. If there's particular information about how the concerns

of the petition are being dealt with, I don't think a minister needs a real long

time to say that. I think it needs to be put out – even if it is to say we know

this is an important issue and we're dealing with it right now at this moment

but we will be down the road. Even that is a response that people get some idea

that government is thinking about the petitions. So, that's the main reason for

having ministers respond. I think 60 seconds is quite sufficient for that to

happen.

One of

the issues that did come up when we were looking at petitions – and I want to

bring this out for people who may be watching – was the whole issue of

electronic petitions, which they have in Ottawa, where you can do petitions

online. We actually did study it. We didn't take it lightly. We looked at other

jurisdictions. I think Ottawa and Quebec – Quebec is the only province that has

electronics I think. It's been a while now since I saw the document, so I think

I'm correct on that. And Ottawa has it as well. But, at this point in time in

the province, it seemed to be something that was going to be a bit beyond us in

terms of, first of all, money and making it work.

So, I

don't think the Committee rejected the concept of electronic petitions, per se,

but, at this point in time, we didn't think that we could take it on as a

province. I remember that discussion. I think that's why we didn't come up with

a motion around electronic petitions.

I think

it's important for the public to know that, because people do ask: Why don't we

do it electronically? But having said, I actually think you get a much more

meaningful petition when you see something that people have actually signed. It

means that they also may have talked to the person who has the petition and that

the issue gets talked about. I'm not saying electronic ones don't count, but I

don't think they actually are the be-all and end-all. You may get a lot more

signatures – that might happen – but it doesn't mean that a lot more people

actually discuss the issues.

So, I

don't think it's the end of the world that we didn't make any recommendations

with regard to electronic petitions when we dealt with the petitions issue, and

I'm sure the Standing Orders Committee will continue to have that on its agenda

as other issues that we do have on the agenda.

Having

said that, I look forward to voting for this motion that came from the Standing

Orders Committee.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to be too long. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a problem with what's been

recommended here. We've been doing it, as the minister has said, as a pilot

project, giving ministers the opportunity to respond to petitions. I think

that's worked well. It think it's a good thing, actually, from a number of

angles. First of all, if a Member is coming forth with a petition and it's

really what people have signed and people want brought forward, I think it's

important to get a response from a minister in terms of where government stands

on that particular issue, what their plans may be in that regard and that's

important.

I think

it's also important as well, in fairness on all sides, to give ministers an

opportunity to respond to any misconceptions, false or misleading information

that could be not necessarily contained within the petition, which could be fed

by the Member who is commenting on the petition, throwing out information that

may not necessarily be accurate, whether intentional or not. So, I think it

creates more fairness and an opportunity to get the appropriate information out

there for the public, which is really what we're supposed to be doing.

From

that perspective, I do agree with maintaining this concept of a minister

responding. You know, when we talk about 60 seconds compared to 90 seconds, if

the Committee has recommended 60 seconds, that's fine by me. As the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands said, if it was 90, he wouldn't have an issue with it.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with it either way; whatever the Committee

has recommended, fine. But if the minister needed a little extra time, assuming

– taking the minister at good faith that they were actually responding to the

petition and not getting on with any rhetoric which we see on all sides of the

House, then if time is needed to do it properly, I certainly wouldn't have a

problem with that.

On the

issue of electronic petitions, personally I'd like to see electronic petitions.

I think if we're trying to engage more people in democracy, particularly younger

people, having electronic petitions could go much further in engaging people and

getting more people involved in that process if they have concerns and so on. I

know there are challenges around the regular petitions in terms of getting them

out there and getting signatures and getting them mailed in and all that kind of

stuff. I mean it's done. Obviously, we present petitions all the time. But if we

can make access to government easier for people, and encourage more people to

get involved in that democratic process, then personally I think that's a good

thing.

There's

nothing to say that it has to be one or the other. There's nothing to say that

you can't have regular petitions the way we do it now, and also have electronic

petitions. There's nothing to say you can't have both. Whatever works,

basically, so people can have their say and have their input. Now, the Member

for St. John's East Quidi - Vidi talked about they had looked at it and it was

cost prohibitive or at least there was a cost associated to it. I would be

interested, as a Member of the House, to know exactly what that cost was and why

it was prohibitive, what kind of money are we talking for this because I don't

know. I'm not on the Committee.

I guess

that's the other point I wanted to just put out there for the record that when

we talk about the Standing Orders Committee – and they've done good work. I'm

not denying it. I've agreed with, I think, everything that's been put forward,

whether it's this Committee, whether it be the new committee now that the

minister announced on democratic reform and so on. We have three independent

Members of the House of Assembly now – we have three. We don't sit on any of

those committees – neither one of us do.

When we

look at the democratic reform committee and so on, there are going to be four

government Members, I think, and two from the Official Opposition, one NDP. We

have three independent Members who also have no seat, no say, no input. I hope

that, in that process, there's going to be some avenue – even if you don't get a

vote, at least some avenue to participate in some way.

I think

it is important when we talk about how times are changing, we're talking about

democracy and so on that there could be more independents next time. Maybe there

won't be any, I don't know. That's up to the people to decide, but there could

be. Our Standing Orders don't recognize those people, and they don't have a say

in any of this stuff. I think that's something that also needs to be addressed

by this House of Assembly, how you deal with independent Members. Because, like

it or not, they are elected; they represent the same number of people or

proportionately, generally speaking, as every other Member in this House. Those

people should have a say on some of these things as well. Right now, we don't

and I think that's an important point to make, not just on this particular

motion but on all Standing Orders and other things that we do in the House of

Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to stand in the House again today and speak to this motion that's put

forward concerning the Standing Orders Committee itself. It's an honour to be on

that Committee and to work with my colleagues from the other two parties,

particularly around improving the operations in the House of Assembly.

I got to

agree with the Government House Leader that we've come a long way in the last

three years. No doubt, there was a major gap for a period of time that things

should have been looked at, that we could have improved it, but this is about

going forward. We're looking at valid changes to the Standing Orders and how the

operations work here.

I must

note that we do have great co-operation within the Committee. It's not based on

political agendas; it's based on what works best in the House of Assembly, what

makes it more engaging, what makes it more effective and, particularly, what

makes it more understandable for the general public who are watching this and

the procedures and the structure that we use to ensure that it's engaging and

it's fluent when we debate in the House of Assembly around our structure and

even around the time frames that we use to make it more attractive for everybody

involved.

Part of

it – obviously, there is a lot of work to be done and we've started to carve off

particular things in the last three years about night sittings, time frames,

some great successful things. I think we done the calendar. It gives people an

opportunity – because we have a responsibility to the people who elected us, and

those are the people in our district who need us to be there to assist them in

particular challenges they may have or situations they want some advice on. We

have municipalities and individual groups that we work with. So, knowing our

calendar system is very positive in being able to plan around functions and

events and times to meet to get the best productive use of our time. That was

one of the key structures there.

Again,

looking at some of the thing we've done in the past, the operations here. We've

added Wednesday mornings. That's solely for debate of legislation, and that's a

key component. People forget that. Because in the course of an afternoon, when

we go through our process in the House of Assembly, there are a multitude of

other things as part of our structure that have to be looked at.

There is

Question Period, very important. There are Petitions and that that I'll get to

talk about there. There are other notices that are put in fact. There are

responses to questions asked. There's tabling of reports. There is a multitude

of other things that take time and would take away from direct debate. In some

cases, may convolute it a little bit because of what may have happened in

Question Period.

The

Wednesday morning addition adds additional time within the calendar for direct

debate, and what that does then is give us a clean understanding when we come

in. We start on a particular bill, and we go through that morning session

talking about and debating legislation that's going to improve the lives of

people in Newfoundland and Labrador. So that's another thing that we added.

We had

agreed: How do we make this work for everybody in the House of Assembly? So

discussion among everybody was let's improve things.

One of

the philosophies that was brought in about making it family friendly for

candidates, for recruiting people, for making it more attractive for people to

come to the House of Assembly, particularly those who may have young families.

We tried to engage the process, what would be things – what would be stumbling

blocks around those type of challenges?

Even

some of the things about committee structure, and the Government House Leader

talked about that, that we're going to get into looking at how we better use

committees. We've had some of that debate.

I'll

note, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, that there has been and there

will continue to be discussions on how do we include every Member, every elected

Member in this House of Assembly as part of the committee process here. I think

we have a responsibility to do that. They were elected, as everybody else in

this House was, and independence and anybody who represents a party should have

an opportunity to have their voice heard. And particularly when we are touting,

and we've been successful at it to this point, that we're not partisan when it

comes to the politics of this committee. So I see the positives of where we've

gotten.

The

changes we're making here is another change that was made as a provisional

pilot, for want of a better phrase, last sitting, around how do we better engage

the use of petitions. Again, petitions have been around for years and they serve

a very valuable tool in the House of Assembly of getting the views of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador to the public agenda.

In the

House here we have an opportunity, when there's an issue that may not be

directly part of the legislative calendar for that year, but still can be

brought up in the House to be looked at and discussed. But, unfortunately – and

it's a two-way street here. We, in the Opposition, for example, or it could be a

private Member on the government side who are presenting a petition, can very

rarely get a response as to is this on the agenda item of government? Is there

something in the works that can address this? Is there information relevant to

this petition that we're not aware of that may change our philosophy on whether

or not this is a priority?

What

we're doing is representing the people in our district, or the people of this

province who've said, here's an issue, here's a concern of ours. Normally, it's

a multitude of people who do it. You can have as few as three, but very seldom –

every petition that comes in here, we may present the same petition 10 times

during a sitting, but we know there are hundreds of people who've signed most of

these petitions. In some cases, thousands. So that's a reflection that there's a

real issue out there that people want to deal with.

So what

we've done, we adopted in the last sitting that a minister could respond. We've

seen that – that first process seemed to be fairly successful that we're

getting, sometimes it's debate, sometimes it's explaining, sometimes it's

challenging the merits of the petition. In return, it's the petitioners and us

representing the petitioners, get to challenge the minister on the responses

they've given, whether or not they're acceptable or whether or not they fall in

line with how we can solve the particular issue that's being brought to the

forefront by the petitioners.

What

we've done, and we've talked about it, and we talked about expedience and asking

ministers to get to the point of addressing whatever the actual petition intent

is about. So we looked at when you present a petition and you go through the

main clauses of the introduction, the petitioner who's presenting on behalf of

the people is limited in time.

We had

given the minister in a response time of 90 seconds – which may not seem like a

lot, but when you're asking for a particular issue and you're asking what the

government are going to do in response, a lot of time the bill will come back

and say here's our plan, here's what we want to do, or no we don't agree with

this process, or yes we've already done this. This is as far as we're going.

So, for

reasons for expedience in the House and utilizing the time in this House for

adding to some of the other things about debate in legislation, it was felt that

60 seconds would get a minister and ask a minister to be direct and to the point

and answer the reflective petition itself to some degree of explaining what is

being done or what is not going to be done. So we talked about that, and that's

one of many things we're going to tackle over the next period of time.

What I

will say is, and it's been echoed by my colleagues here, the committee structure

that we have in our system, it is good based on what we have allotted. It may

not be as effective in how we institute the use of that allotment. So I think

we've had that discussion here.

I know

the Committee that's set up on parliamentary reform will no doubt discuss the

structure of committees here; how do we make them more effective, how do we make

them more engaging? One of the questions, or one of the comments we had in our

last meeting was about the philosophy that we have certain Standing Committees

and we think they only stand for Estimates, and that's unfortunate, a misnomer,

because at the end of the day, Estimates are just one of their responsibilities

under that Committee.

Those

committees have a multitude of other responsibilities. We just have to find ways

to engage them, and it could be around legislation, it could be around a

particular issue, it could be around tackling a common challenge that we have in

this province. We have an opportunity to moves things forward. What we're doing

here is getting to the next level.

So,

we've pretty well ticked off, you know, five or six things that were important.

As a start, phase 1 of the Standing Orders Committee. Now, I would think from

the discussions we've had recently, we're going to go into a couple of harder,

more integral working things, things that may be a little bit more debatable

until we get something that we feel is exactly where we want to go. So that

process is moving. We've opened that engaged discussion, and I'm looking forward

to the next number of meetings we're going to have with the Standing Orders

Committee.

Before I

sit, Mr. Speaker, I do have to note, too. Every time we take on additional work

as MHAs or we suggest additional things, there is an additional responsibility

that goes to a staff person somewhere in this great Chamber of ours. We can talk

what needs to be done, we can make suggestions, we can ask about jurisdictional

scans and that, but somebody does the legwork for us.

there's a note that has to be noted here, that we have some very valuable staff

who go out of their way to ensure when we're making decisions, and if we're

making proposals here around Standing Orders and the operation of this House,

it's fluent because it has been researched, it has been looked at, it has been

talked, precedent has been outlined and we have an open debate with information

that's very relevant. That's a testament to the staff we have.

We've

got to try to find a way that we cannot overburden them but, at the same time,

move things forward. So, we're going to have all this dialogue to ensure that

what we do best fits the needs of this House and it best fits the needs of those

who represent the people in this House, but particularly the people of this

province.

Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to the changes here and I look forward to the great work

that the Committee will do and what we'll bring back to the House in making this

more inclusive over the next number of months.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just

wanted to make a few comments on this motion as well. I p