PDF Version

October 25, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 31

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I would like to welcome Harry Cuff and Rosalind

Hayward, who are the subject of a Member's statement today. They are joined by

several members of their family, as you can see: Juanita, Brian, Dale and

Brittany Cuff, and Gary and Tony Cuff. I have Lori and Dion Upward, Elina Upward

and Charlie Hayward.

Welcome

to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Joining us in the public

gallery today, I would like to recognize Gordon Hawco, who will also be

referenced in a Member's statement today. He is join by his wife Donna Hawco,

daughter Suzanne Hawco, and grandchildren Prezley Curan and Zachary

Hawco-Crowley.

Welcome

to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova,

Ferryland, Humber - Bay of Islands, Harbour Main and Bonavista.

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker,

I have often said that no community can exist without

the helping hand of the committed volunteers. On Saturday night, I had the

distinct honour of attending the 40th anniversary celebration of Alton United

Church in my home community of Port Blandford.

The vision to construct a new church originated in

1978, when a newly formed Building Committee had a dream. Members of this

committee were honoured by the more than 100 residents, including Rev. A. George

Demmons, who attended the celebration organized by Yvonne Pardy and the UCW.

The members of that Building Committee executive were:

chairman and treasurer, George Efford; past chairman, Laban Davis; secretary,

Alonzo Holloway. Other members included: Jesse Stead, James Oldford, Freeman

Oldford, Lindberg Greening and the only surviving member, Sidney Matthews.

I have many fond memories in this church. It is where I

attended as a child, sang in the youth choir and I volunteered, like my mother

and father, on the board of trustees and the official board.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the

original members of the Alton United Church Building Committee and the

achievement of the church's 40th anniversary milestone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in the hon. House to recognize the Kinsmen

Club of Witless Bay on their 13th annual Puffin Festival and the fundraising

contributions they make to groups and the organizations in their area.

On July 28 and 29, the Kinsmen Club of Witless Bay held

their 13th annual festival. I was certainly pleased to be in attendance on

Sunday afternoon to see, again, their extraordinary volunteer efforts.

The members' commitment to this event raises a lot of

funds and is the main fundraiser for the year. Funds raised over the years have

been donated to our local schools, sports teams, community groups, people in

need, organizations as CF, MS and the Autism Society.

Each year, the festival is a great success, and

showcases the hard work and dedication of our Kinsmen Club of Witless Bay and

the spirit of friendship of the residents of the area to make each year such a

great success.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me

in recognizing the Witless Bay Kinsmen Club in the great work they do for the

region.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR.

JOYCE:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize McAuley Bellows of

Summerside.

McAuley

is one of the four recipients across Canada for the 4-H Canada Leadership

Excellence Awards of Distinction, awarded for the community engagement and

communication pillar component. He will receive a $20,000 scholarship towards

four years of post-secondary studies and be matched with a mentor who plays a

leadership role in their industry and community.

McAuley

has been an active member of the Summerside 4-H Rockets since age five and has

taken on various leadership roles with the club over the years. He is an avid

volunteer in his community and, while in high school, was an active member of

Templeton Academy Cadet Corps, rising through the ranks to Master Corporal.

He is a

recipient of the Newfoundland and Labrador High School Volunteer Award, a Duke

of Edinburgh gold medal. McAuley is also a member of the Premier's Youth

Council. He is currently in his first year of business studies at Grenfell

College and hopes to pursue a career in law.

I ask

all Members to join with me in congratulating McAuley on his achievement and

wish him well in his future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, volunteers are

the heart of our communities. They are the people who make our communities

thrive by giving generously.

Gordon

Hawco of Harbour Main has been dedicating his time and skill to the people of

his community for several decades. Perhaps we need to look at his examples of

contribution and what he may receive in return. While not material, the joy and

freedom brought to others undoubtedly provides a tremendous sense of

satisfaction and pride.

Between

1985 and 1986, Gordon was a member of the Avondale Recreation Committee and,

along with other members, created a ball field enjoyed by many – still to this

day. In 1986, he joined the Avondale Volunteer Fire Department where he held the

position of chief for 23 years until recently stepping down. Gordon remains the

president of the CBC Volunteer Fire Department, a position he has held for 23

years.

In 2001,

Gordon received a Certificate of Recognition in honour of his activities as a

volunteer – International Year of Volunteers. In 2001, Gordon received the

Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

From

helping his parish with fundraising, repairs and cleaning, to serving as the

chairperson of the Parish Finance Committee, Gordon is a true example of an

individual willing to lend time and skill in any capacity needed for the

enhancement of a community.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in recognizing Gordon Hawco of Harbour

Main for his outstanding volunteerism and positive leadership within his

community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, heroics in the

face of danger are nothing new in our province. That is certainly true for

recent cancer survivor Harry Cuff, formerly of Bonavista.

On the

morning of January 14, 1958, Gary, Tony and Rosalind Cuff, all five and under,

were playing on Bake Pot Pond in Bonavista. While playing, Rosalind fell through

some newly formed ice. Gary ran home to get his older brother Harry, while Tony

stood by with Rosalind.

Not

thinking twice, Harry rushed to the scene in just his boots and underwear as he

had been sleeping when the news came. Upon arrival, Rosalind had been submerged

for approximately 10 minutes with only a piece of her red jacket showing under

the water. This didn't stop 21-year-old Harry, who braved the frigid water, and

after two attempts rescued the unresponsive little girl. Having been away to the

Mainland and learning CPR, he was successful in the resuscitation, thus saving

her life.

Earlier

this year, Harry's brother Gary and I nominated him for a NL bravery award.

Unfortunately, and understandingly, he was turned down because only acts after

1983 are considered.

However,

please join me in recognizing Harry here today in the people's House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

And while we're on our feet,

I would like to also advise this House that it's the birthday, today, for the

Member for Mount Pearl North.

Happy

birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in

this hon. House to highlight the importance of getting your flu shot.

Monday past, the regional health authorities started their annual public

immunization clinics and they're offering the vaccine for free. Getting a flu

shot is a simple action that can save lives by protecting yourself if you're

exposed to the virus.

By being

vaccinated, you are also helping to protect other vulnerable people, such as

young children, seniors over the age of 65 and those with chronic illnesses like

lung disease or weakened immune systems.

The

vaccine protects against four strains of the influenza virus, including H1N1 and

H3N2. Approximately 125,000 people received the flu shot last year through the

provincial government's publicly funded vaccination program.

I am

pleased to note that to further increase vaccine access, the number of public

clinics will be increased again this year.

For more

information on scheduled clinic locations, people can visit the website of their

regional health authority or call 811. People can also get their flu shot from

their family doctor or local pharmacy if offered. Remember to bring your MCP

card and wear a short-sleeved shirt.

encourage all residents, along with my hon. colleagues, to lower the risk of

getting sick this year. Protect yourself. Protect your loved ones. Find a clinic

near you and get your flu shot.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. For many groups that are

particularly vulnerable contracting the flu, like our seniors, obtaining the flu

shot is critical for prevention.

This

past year, the chief medical officer for health for Newfoundland and Labrador

said we have not seen the high rates of influenza cases like this in the last

five years. Making the flu shot accessible and making the public aware of the

fact is a critical component to preventing sickness and even death in vulnerable

groups.

Even if

you're a member of a group that is not at high risk, it is still important to

get a flu shot. This not only protects your own health but also the health of

people who are less protected against influenza, those that cannot get the flu

shot and those that feel the effects of influenza more severely.

encourage those that can get the flu shot to do their part and get vaccinated.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. Public flu clinics are essential to minimize the effects of the

flu on our people, so this is a good move.

I also

encourage government to cover the cost of pharmacists providing free vaccines

through our universal health care program. This will increase the number of

people getting the flu shot, both in urban and rural communities by making it

more accessible. Pharmacists are part of a universal program in eight out of 10

provinces and it should happen here too.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in St. John's yesterday I had the pleasure of participating in the

third Minister's Roundtable on Immigration; an initiative of

The Way Forward .

It has

been almost two years since we launched the Immigration Action Plan, a

collaborative, partnership-driven plan to increase the number of newcomers to

our province to 1,700 annually by 2022.

Throughout the province, we are already seeing the positive results from that

plan. Since January of this year, the provincial government has received 25 per

cent more immigration applications compared to the same time period in 2017. In

2017, 547 newcomers were nominated under the Newfoundland and Labrador

Provincial Nominee Program and an additional 285 newcomers under the Atlantic

Immigration Pilot Program, for a total of 832 individuals.

Yesterday's round table brought together representatives of the business

community, labour, K-12 education system, post-secondary institutions,

municipalities, community organizations and service providers. Together, we

discussed potential new initiatives for year three of the Immigration Action

Plan as part of our ongoing efforts to increase newcomer attraction and

retention. The input that we received will inform our planning as we identify

priority actions to help retain newcomers, strengthen our communities and grow

the economy.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in commending the members of the

Minister's Roundtable on Immigration for their dedication to the province's

prosperity and to our future growth.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We commend the members of

the Roundtable on Immigration and every concerned citizen for stepping up to

help come up with solutions that will help this province turn the corner from

decline to growth. The issue impacts all of us, and generations to come.

Business, labour, students and educators, municipalities, community

organizations, service providers – all of them and all of us have an interest

and a stake in making our province more welcoming to immigrants. And it's not

just welcoming people, it's also retaining the people who come here and who

already live here.

Our

province's population has been declining desperately and needs to grow. Our most

profound challenges come from shrinking, thinning population because the loss of

people is raising the per-capita costs of serving our people and reducing the

transfers that help pay for those services. Canada is growing while this

province spirals downwards.

It's

time for the government to really listen to what people are saying about the

challenges they face here, the challenges that are driving them away. Issues

like high taxes that drive up the cost of living and leave employers with less

money to hire and create jobs for people in order to stay here. None of that

will change until we get a government that really listens to the people.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

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

with him in congratulating round-table members on their work to date. It's good

to see an increase in the numbers of people coming to the province, but the

minister knows, more important than the number of newcomers, is the retention

rate. A recent report pegged our five-year immigration retention rate at 56 per

cent, Mr. Speaker.

Does the

minister have information on any improvements in that number?

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister for Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

like to report to the House some information about the incredibly positive

transformation that is underway, a transformation in our province's agricultural

industry.

Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, from 2011 to 2015 one in five farms in Newfoundland

and Labrador shut their gates permanently. This is no longer acceptable and is

not acceptable from our government; that's why we're acting. No long is this

very viable industry going to left fallow. We are working with new entrants, Mr.

Speaker, supporting farmers who, by their very nature, are innovative and

entrepreneurial to take the agricultural industry to the next level in our

province.

Mr.

Speaker, the culture of the agriculture industry is strong and it is

transforming to improve. Our government recognized that if the industry is to

remain competitive, it must become a more professionalized, competitive and

sustainable sector that, in turn, attracts the brightest and the best, and that

is exactly what is happening now today.

I have

seen what new entrants are bringing to this field. They are bursting with

innovative ideas. They see efficiencies; they embrace technology. We are

fostering that.

Under

the Canadian Agricultural Partnership between the federal and provincial

governments, our government is supporting 23 new entrants into the farming

industry, with a total committed funding of $1.3 million, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE:

And under the Provincial

Agrifoods Assistance Program, 33 new entrants have received a commitment of just

over $500,000.

And we,

Mr. Speaker, are just getting started.

These

new entrants are developing land for agriculture, installing innovative

equipment, working smarter and more efficiently.

Our

farmers and producers told us point blank, Mr. Speaker, what the agriculture

industry needs, and we are listening. We listened and we are getting the job

done. We are delivering on our Way Forward commitments and we are transforming

the agricultural sector in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the

better.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I would like to thank the

minister for an advance copy of his partial statement.

I would

like to commend the government for the recognition of the need to expand our

agriculture industry and the, I guess, committed support. And while his

statement was very poetic and complimentary – and by the way, I thank you for

that as a farmer – the rollout of this funding has been very much a

disappointment.

In this

past spring session, I highlighted that it was an unprecedented delay of getting

these applications into the farmers' hands and it was going to cost hardship

down the road, and that's what we're seeing right now. Normally, it's in the

hands by the 1st of April. This year, it's the end of summer.

Producers are now pressed to complete the projects before this fiscal year end.

If this administration is serious about reversing this declining number of

farmer trend, they're going to have to put a lot more effort and attention and

focus on it.

I would

like to remind the minister and the administration that photo opportunities and

political announcements do not feed people – farmers do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

And I,

too, thank the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

I, too, thank the minister

for the advance copy of his statement.

I'm

pleased to hear all this good news about the important agricultural industry,

but what I didn't hear from the minister is information about what we need to

significantly improve our province's food security. We have the lowest number of

farms in Canada. When cut off from Canada by weather, we have a mere three days

supply of produce. We import 71 per cent of all of our food.

I ask

the minister: How many more acres of land are needed under cultivation? Give us

the key statistic to reaching food security.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. the Premier or the Minister of Natural

Resources, as the case may be.

After

weeks of public discussion regarding fiscal and legal troubles being endured by

Astaldi, Nalcor issued a stop-work order to them on Thursday, October 18. Today

is payday for these employees and Astaldi has failed to pay them. Employees are

now concerned about how they will pay their bills.

I ask

the minister, or the Premier: How long will employees have to wait for

paycheques, and who will be making the payments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

some of the ongoing issues that all of us have had to deal with, with the

Muskrat Falls Project, and today is certainly something that we're very

disappointed to see, that those hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians –

some 500 people have been working, doing the job that they have asked to do by a

company that was put in place by the former administration. I'm sure the Leader

of the Opposition is very much aware of that.

Mr.

Speaker, right now, I've already met with the executive director, Trades NL,

Darin King. I've had a couple of conversations with him, as well as the CEO,

Stan Marshall of Nalcor. These wages will be paid.

It's

important that workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, when they go to work, they

would get the paycheque that they so rightfully deserve. Right now, Nalcor is

working at the ways that logistically this could happen, but those workers will

get paid.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I was under the

impression that it was Nalcor that hired Astaldi.

I ask

the Premier: Will the health and pension and other benefit plans be paid at the

same time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as you know,

there are ongoing problems with this project of which right now there are

performance bonds, there are sureties in place. There are about $400 million in

bonds that are in place to take care of the deficiencies that people are

experiencing now with Astaldi.

So, Mr.

Speaker, right now, CEO Stan Marshall with Nalcor is working with those bonding

companies. As the Leader of the Opposition would be very much aware, this is an

issue right now between Nalcor and those companies, and they are telling me and

confirming with me that under the bonding process, mechanics' lien and so on,

logistically there is obviously some work that would have to be done with

performance bonds and sureties in place up to some $400 million, to make sure,

number one, this project can get finished, people could get paid and that we can

mitigate any further damage that has been caused by (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

What I draw from what the

Premier just told us, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be some delay before these

things are sorted out; the health and benefit and pension issues.

Can the

Premier assure these hard-working individuals that there will be no long-term

damage to their interests?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as I just said,

I've been working closely with the CEO of Nalcor who put in preventative measure

to make sure that those people that deserve to be paid, will be paid.

This is

a long list of the issues that we've had to deal with as this administration

that we inherited; the mess that was put in place by the administration that you

lead.

We will

take every effort to make sure that those hard-working Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians get paid, and people that have put and made their own investments

in time and so on in this project, they get what they rightfully deserve.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the former administration, the administration that

the Leader of the Opposition now leads, has left this on the backs of taxpayers

in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are working hard. I would like to know, do

you consider this project a mistake?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your

time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, as the Premier

knows, this is not a new issue; and, in fact, it developed three years into his

watch.

The

media has been reporting that Astaldi has been experiencing financial trouble

for weeks.

So I ask

the Premier: Are you disappointed in Nalcor's lack of planning? Why wasn't there

a preventative plan in place to get workers home, ensure they were paid and

protect their benefits?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as the Member to

the right there looks at his leader and says, good job – well, what is not a

good job was the highlight of what the Leader of the Opposition just said. He

said: Am I disappointed with the preplanning by Astaldi? I'm extremely

disappointed by the planning by Astaldi; extremely disappointed with Nalcor.

In the

beginning of this, when this very administration that he leads said that Nalcor

and their government had done the preplanning that was required, that this

project would be on budget, maybe even below budget and on

schedule and it would

not double the rates of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, how does he feel? How

does he feel about the preplanning that was done by the administration that he

now leads?

Will the

Leader of the Opposition please stand in his place, let people in this province

know, was this project a big mistake?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind all –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

all Members, it's been a challenging three days; even though it's a short week.

I want to keep the temperature down. I am not going to tolerate heckling,

chirping, whatever you want to call it. I want to hear only from the person

being addressed.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

The last

time I looked, I wasn't the head of an administration. I'm more interested in

what's happening now.

Nalcor's

CEO indicated that Nalcor would assist workers in returning home.

Premier,

has Nalcor provided an update to you? Have all workers returned home safely?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And you

had mentioned already, this has been a challenging three days, and it has been.

It has been, Mr. Speaker. But I will say this, when it comes to Muskrat Falls

it's been a challenging three years, Mr. Speaker, and the challenges still

exist. Because even though he likes to distance himself from the people that are

sitting with him right now, he says I was not part of that administration but

you had sat with this administration. You asked to be there. You asked to be

there right now.

I can

see some of your Members are getting upset because they know – they know. They

don't know where you stand, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to know so we can have

a good debate. Answer the questions that need to be answered. Are you now

defending the project with the colleagues that you currently sit with? Leader of

the Opposition, was it a mistake, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I must be

misinformed, but I thought that Question Period was for the Opposition to ask

questions –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

– and not the other way

around.

Nalcor

will now need to find a new company to complete the remaining Astaldi work.

Those who are now being laid off by Astaldi are starting to look for jobs

elsewhere.

Will the

Premier ensure that the workers who are negatively impacted this last week,

including Indigenous persons, will receive hiring priority?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I would

understand why the Leader of the Opposition would not want to answer that

question and why he would prefer that we answer the questions that he is asking

us in this House of Assembly. I get that. He is obviously very disappointed with

the administration that he now leads, very disappointed – or should be, I would

say should be very disappointed with the decisions that they make.

Mr.

Speaker, we are taking every measure we can to make sure that people in this

province find gainful employment. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance gave us a

full list of the hours of employment and people, person-years of work that we

were able to put in place under this challenging environment that we've

inherited.

We were

dealing with all the issues that we've inherited with the Muskrat Falls Project,

and I can guarantee the people of this province their electricity rates will not

double, and ratepayers will not have to pay (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, with the date

set for the general election in current legislation, I don't think I'll be the

leader of an administration until next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

When will Nalcor hire a new

company to complete this work? How will Nalcor ensure that these issues don't

cause more

schedule delays or cost overruns?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

that all started with some decisions that we had made by putting a new CEO in

place, as the Leader of the Opposition would very well know. Mr. Speaker, they

made a commitment then to get this project finished on a new

schedule with the

budget that was in place, a more appropriate budget.

I would

suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, all you need to do is just tune in to

the inquiry and you would get a better understanding of the challenges that

we've inherited: the poor planning that was done in the beginning; the double of

electricity rates. We are dealing with all those issues. Taking the PUB out of

the decision by the group that you lead, I know I would not want to call them an

administration either – and yes, I would be ashamed of the decisions that they

made.

Mr.

Speaker, once and for all, we are dealing with those challenging issues. But,

answer the question: Was it a mistake or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Again, I'm more interested in

today than in yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor's

CEO says that this stop-work order will not cause more cost overrun or

schedule

delay. I ask the Premier: Will he direct Nalcor to release publicly

documentation that supports these conclusions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the CEO of

Nalcor now, Stan Marshall, has made some public comments that the current

disruption by Astaldi would not lead to a change in

schedule and the budget

would be intact.

Mr.

Speaker, we are working with those challenges. CEO Marshall at Nalcor is working

with the challenges that we have faced. I've heard the Leader of the Opposition,

and I think that this is the appropriate forum, as he talked about honesty in

politics – he talked about honesty in politics. So don't continue waffling.

Answer the question: Was it a mistake or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

On the subject of honesty in

politics, Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us if he has met with the CEO of

Nalcor specifically on the issue of the possibility of cost overruns caused by

the present events and

schedule delay, and when was that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, last night I

talked to the CEO of Nalcor on the issue around wages. I talked to them again

this morning, along with the Minister of Natural Resources. We've met with the

executive director of Trades NL to deal with this issue about wages. That's a

priority for us today: getting people paid.

there's anyone that understands loss of

schedule and the doubling of the budget,

doubling of electricity rates, you don't need only to ask me, ask the people

that you're sitting with. And please let them know: Do you feel that it was a

mistake or not? Be honest with the people in this province. You are now Leader

of the Opposition; people deserve to know where you stand. Was it a mistake or

not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Perhaps it's in order to take a breather from the level of rhetoric that has

been attained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

And I'd, therefore, like to

ask the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL: Approximately 85 former Marystown

Shipyard workers represented by the Marystown Shipyard Families Alliance

committee are requesting the establishment of an intake clinic to collect their

medical history and history of workplace toxic exposures.

As we

draw closer to the announcement of the purchase and leasing of the former

shipyard and the disposition of its environmental liabilities, would the

Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL commit to addressing the environmental

impact on human health by establishing an intake clinic to assist in resolving

these claims?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, to date, we have

reviewed 99 claims with the Marystown Shipyard, and I am actually in discussion

right now with my staff regarding theses files and plan on meeting with the

alliance in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Can you give the public some

indication of when the intake clinics might be set up?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite brings forth a very important topic for the individuals around

Marystown but I really cannot give an exact date right now; however, I can

certainly follow up and when we get more information on how we're going to move

forward on this particular situation I can inform the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister.

Again,

depending on who has the cooler head, I leave it to the Premier or the Minister

of Natural Resources to decide. Bill C-69 is currently working its way through

the federal Senate. This bill has the potential to diminish the jurisdiction of

the C-NLOPB and the principle of joint management.

I ask:

What, if any, representation have you made to your federal colleagues to protect

our industry?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Welcome to the information

and work that we've been doing for the last two years. I'm glad they finally

woke to Bill C-69, Mr. Speaker. We've been dealing with this very important

issue for the last two years. We've had multiple meetings and roundtables with

industry on this very important issue.

Allow me

to inform the Member opposite, who probably is not aware, that in 2012,

actually, the role of C-NLOPB was diminished it wasn't under this legislation.

However, I will say this, Mr. Speaker, we have been working with our federal

colleagues to ensure that an office of CEAA is here in St. John's. The first

time ever the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has an office here, and

the industry applauds that.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been working to have exploration on the project list. We've been

working to ensure a role of C-NLOPB. I'm glad he's finally woken up to this very

important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, given that many

people in the industry, and beyond the industry, are very concerned that

jurisdiction will be taken away from C-NLOPB where we have joint management, and

given to the Canadian Environmental protection agency, how is it that the

minister is able to offer the establishment of an office by that group in St.

John's as progress?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Allow me to inform the Member

opposite – I realize he's new to the House, Mr. Speaker, but he's certainly not

new to industry here in the province. Allow me to inform him that back in 2012

the former Conservative administration, under the former Progressive

Conservative administration here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the role of

C-NLOPB was diminished.

While

we're working on them, I'll advise him what industry is really concerned about –

again, things that happened in 2012 – the timing of the environmental

assessments. They're worried about a project list, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that

exploration is on the project list so you'd have these regional environmental

assessments. We're working very closely with industry on developing the regional

environmental assessments. There is a role for C-NLOPB; they're very active on

this file.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I perhaps should go back to the Premier in order to get a fresh and less

rhetorical set of answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. CROSBIE:

Minister – or my question is for the minister.

Local

industry has spoken out against the initiatives contained in C-69, as she

acknowledges.

Does

this minister believe the bill could negatively impact the goal of the

government's oil and gas plan, Advance 2030, to double oil production by 2030,

and what measures does this government intend to take in the future to ensure

that that plan is not undermined?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I thought I heard there an endorsement of our plan, and I'm glad to hear that.

I'm very glad to hear that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

(Inaudible) 150 stakeholders to develop that plan.

Allow me

to advise the Member opposite, that we have been back and forth with Ottawa.

We've been working with industry on Bill C-69; very concerned about it, Mr.

Speaker. As I said earlier, we're working on ensuring the tightest time frame

possible for environmental assessment. We're working on having a regional

environmental assessment. We've been on that day in, day out for the last number

of years.

We've

been waiting to see the regulations around Bill C-69, Mr. Speaker. That's going

to be very, very important to this province. We're working to see those

regulations, and making sure that what is contained therein is reflective of the

commitments that we have from Ottawa to remain (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Could I ask the minister if her government is working with Newfoundland and,

indeed, other senators who are critical of Bill C-69?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as I've said repeatedly now, I've been working very diligently on

this file for at least a couple of years. I can tell him exactly the day. I

think it was in 2016 when I wrote a letter to Ottawa saying my concerns early,

early on in this process.

So I

have worked with my colleagues across the country. I've raised it at federal,

provincial and territorial meetings, I've raised it in various forums. I've

spoken to senators. I've spoken to industry. I've spoken to supply and service

industry, at Noia and CAPP. I've worked with everyone to get the best results

for this province.

We are

committed to Advance 2030 to ensuring that we could have a hundred new

exploration wells in the next 12 years, Mr. Speaker. And to ensuring that by

2030 we're pumping 650,000 barrels a day in this province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

September 24, your government announced that it would pay $1 million to McKinsey

& Company to help develop an economic development plan for this province.

I ask

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation: By bringing in the

consultant company, are you acknowledging that your way forward is, indeed,

backwards?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

I answered this question yesterday, but in case the Member didn't hear it. In

the last three years, Mr. Speaker, we've had our infrastructure plan, which is

responsible for 53 person-hours of employment; our health care infrastructure

plan, 4,600 person-hours of employment; Husky Energy, 5,000 person-hours of

employment; Equinor, 11,000 person-hours of employment; Vale underground, 2,135

person-hours of employment; PAL Aerospace, 150 jobs; Canada Fluorspar, 525

spin-off jobs, in addition to 3,000 person-years of employment; S&P Data, 500

jobs; Quorum, 24 jobs; Grieg aquaculture, 800 new jobs.

understand my time is up. There are many more, I can keep going.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I

thank the minister for highlighting a lot of initiatives that we started under

our administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Party with a vision over

here, Mr. Speaker.

After

being in office for three years, this government still hasn't demonstrated

economic growth in action. There has been the 2015 Red Book,

The Way Forward , the LEAP: Liberal Economic Action Plan, and the

Cabinet Committee on Jobs; yet, this government still needs to pay over $1

million to an outside firm from New York.

I ask

the Premier: Will you admit that after three years your government is out of

ideas?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, Mr. Speaker, we are not

out of ideas, and the Minister of Finance just gave a full list of the work

that's being created.

But I

will tell you, the administration that she is talking about, we were expecting

the New Energy just a few years ago.

The New Energy turned out to be a flop

and electricity rates, as a result of the administration that you are a part of,

would double electricity in our province. Is that the legacy you really want to

talk about, I say, Mr. Speaker?

We are

very proud of The Way Forward . We're

very proud of the work that we've been doing throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador, in rural communities, right here in the Northeast Avalon, Mr. Speaker.

In Labrador as well, mining, the fishery, agriculture, aquaculture, offshore oil

and gas, Mr. Speaker, the text sector and much more to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, the people of

this province are looking for vision, not rhetoric.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Despite continually

announcing plans to make plans, employment has dropped in this province by 5,700

jobs since the Liberals have taken office.

I ask

the Premier: How can you say that your plans are working if Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians can't find jobs and are leaving the province in record numbers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, let me clear up

the record for a second, but before I do let me say this, we've created a great

number of jobs in this province based on the ideas we've put forward. And the $1

million to try to diversify and continue to grow those jobs pales in comparison

to the millions and millions, in fact, billions of dollars that they invested

into Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, because that doesn't pay back nearly as much, I

anticipate, as this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Now, Mr. Speaker, last month,

September this year over September last year there were 6,600 more jobs in this

province. Mr. Speaker, in August of this year over last year there was an

increase in jobs. In July of this year over last year there was an increase in

jobs. I think our plan is working.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for a final question.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I

repeat, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see vision and action,

not rhetoric and deflection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Minister, did you or your

officials have any conversations with McKinsey & Company or any of its

representatives before the RFP was released in July?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe officials in the department reached out to a number of the companies to

inform them that this RFP was going to be going out, Mr. Speaker. I understand

that we wanted as many people to bid on this RFP as possible, and I understand

that a number of them were reached.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday, government announced their Made in Newfoundland and Labrador Carbon

Tax in compliance with the federal government.

I ask

the Premier: What is his projected revenue from his carbon tax plan, and what is

his government planning to do with this revenue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

That's one of my titles, yes,

thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

week we were very happy to announce that the federal government has endorsed our

plan for climate change and for carbon pricing in this province. And I'm glad to

see at least the Members of the NDP agree that climate change is real, unlike

some of the Members on the other side.

The fact

is that this is not about generating revenue for the Treasury, this is about

reducing emissions. And I'm happy to see that unlike other provinces where

people will be paying more for home heating fuels, more at the pumps, here,

people are going to keep their money in the province.

But what

I can say is that we will be working with the federal government. In fact, we

have one from the climate change action fund where there's going to be $300

million over 10 years invested in this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, we're still a little bit vague on details, so I'll ask the Premier:

Government says they will participate in federal green programs with matching

funds for various projects. That's not the same as putting our carbon tax money

into a permanent provincial green fund.

So I ask

the Premier: How much carbon tax revenue will he commit to green programs, and

how much will be going into general revenue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, and hopefully I'll

be a little more clear to the Member and she will understand the good work that

this government has done in not only achieving a carbon pricing scheme that fits

into the federal plan, but we're also going to see money staying in the pockets

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

One of

the things that we're very proud of is our Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund.

Well, we will be investing $44.7 million that will be going into efficiency

projects and green infrastructure in this province. And that will be matched by

the federal government. But that's not the same, actually, as the Investing in

Canada Infrastructure Program, which I just mentioned, which will see $300

million invested in this province over the next 10 years.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

One way

that jurisdictions use carbon tax revenues is by creating a fund to help local

residents, businesses and non-profit organizations retrofit homes and provinces.

But programs in this province are only available to a fraction of those who need

them.

I ask

the Premier: Will his government commit to creating a dedicated carbon tax

retrofit fund to help more people prepare for the onslaught of Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, there are a

number of people that benefit from a carbon pricing scheme, and we all know that

– I know there are people out there that deny it. I mean, the fact is even the

latest Nobel Prize winner acknowledged that we need carbon pricing imposed on

all provinces and it should be universal.

The

people that really benefit from this and from our plan is every man, woman and

child in this province who will be keeping money in their pockets, instead of

paying it out – everybody in this province is going to benefit from the scheme

that we've had endorsed by the federal government. We're going to see money

staying in their pockets, and at the same time we will be reducing emissions in

this province.

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.

Transportation is a large greenhouse gas emitter in our province at 34 per cent,

but the new carbon tax only replaces the existing gas tax. It won't be a further

incentive to reduce emissions which is the purpose for costing carbon.

I ask

the Premier. What is his government's incentives to improve public

transportation which would cut emissions and stimulate the economy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

what I took from that question is that the NDP would like to raise taxes on

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's what I took from the question that she

asked.

We,

however, would prefer a scheme and a plan that's been endorsed by the federal

government that will see emissions being reduced, but at the same time we have

had exemptions approved that will allow for home heating fuel, allow for

aviation, allow for transportation. Because I can guarantee you, there are a

number of people in this province that rely on transportation to get to major

centres to have health care and education. We want to make sure they're able to

do that and at the same time are not hard hit by a tax like the Members opposite

would like to see.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi for a very quick question, please

MS. MICHAEL:

Well, I ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker, we know people want to get to places and we know that he wants money in

their pocket to get there, but if there's no transportation system across the

province, how are they going to do it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

actually is a transportation system across this province. A number of my

constituents are forced to take aircraft to get from one side to the other. We

got an exemption for that.

A number

of people are forced to take their own cars, they're actually not going to see a

significant increase at all. Actually, a 60 litre fill up will see an increase

of about 25 cents. And we have other exemptions across the board that will do

two things: it's going to keep money in people's pockets, unlike what the

Members want, but we're also going to reduce emissions in this province. We need

to do something better for our children and grandchildren.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Question

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Sanding and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to

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

An Act To Amend

The Forestry Act, which will be titled Bill 29. It will be a different bill.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

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

Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Private

Investigation And Security Services Act, Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The House Of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, Bill 31.

And, Mr.

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

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act, Bill 28.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, on this

momentous day, being the first day following the approval of the EU single

plastics ban, I present the following:

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to reduce litter and plastic pollution, and reduce the

impact on wildlife by introducing a ban on the supply of lightweight,

single-use, supermarket-style plastic shopping bags. We also call on the

government to urge consumers to take reusable bags when shopping, instead of

using single-use plastic bags, and to keep a reusable bag with them so that they

are always prepared.

Single-use plastic bags are polluting our natural environment. While so much

focus has been given to carbon reduction, very little has been given to physical

pollution, such as that that the plastic bags contribute to. Right now, it is

speculated there is actually more plastic in our oceans worldwide than there is

fish. And as of last week, it has been documented for the very first time that

micro-plastics are just about through all of our digestive systems. That means

it's in the food we eat.

The

health concerns with this is not documented, but a foreign object such as

plastic in your system is not a good thing by any means. Our environment is

being contaminated, wildlife are being physically hampered by it, and we'll see

these damages years down the road as well. We have to stop that now.

challenge anybody who does not support the ban to go to the city dump, down at

dump site A on a windy day, and while they may only be less than 1 per cent of

the garbage we produce, it is one of the most mobile forms of waste, and it does

get in our ocean in a very short time frame.

So, as I

said, we urge the government to implement this ban. Why do we have to be the one

wagging the tail? Why do we have to be on the hind quarter? Australia has done

it, other places throughout Canada has done it, and now the EU has also done it.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

again today on another petition that I presented the other day, and I'm going to

present it again today.

The

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

no sidewalks or traffic lights or through areas without crosswalks. It puts the

safety of these children at risk.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety of all children by removing the

restrictive 1.6 kilometre busing policy where safety is concerned.

brought this up the other day and I had a response from the minister. I was very

pleased with the response that I did have from the minister and we spoke about

it afterwards.

understand the courtesy busing rule that's in place but it limits the number of

seats that are on that bus. I went back to the school and checked and in the

area which I was talking about the other day, was an area in Torbay where the

sides of the road are in hard shape and it's very difficult for children to walk

along the side of the road there. Those buses going past that have 63 children

on them and that apparently is the full that they can have before any courtesy

busing.

Areas

that I'm talking about are places where safety is a concern. On a normal day in

the Town of Torbay 17,000 cars a day travel along that road, when there's a very

small shoulder on the road. You're talking about children that have to go on the

road that are anywhere from five or six years old to 17 or 18 years old. So

we're talking young children on the side of a road that has 17,000 cars a day,

where the side of the road is washed out. They have to go up on the road.

Parents

have contacted me. They're very, very concerned, and I'm concerned and I'm sure

everyone in this House is concerned. We're all concerned about the safety of

children. We're concerned about the safety of anyone.

The 1.6

kilometre busing policy has to be reduced, has to be eliminated when safety is a

concern. It's about our children and it's about safety when our children leave

to go to school.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I

had a response, if I may.

There's

a response from the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills, probably

representing the Department of Education, I would suggest.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly appreciate the petitions that the Members opposite have put forward in

this House. Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of – we talk about safety and I just hope

that the Members opposite are not inferring that safety is not important to this

side of the House, because it is. We understand there are some challenges out

there throughout out province and the conditions that we have now just really

didn't happen overnight. I mean these conditions have been there for quite some

time.

Mr.

Speaker, it concerns me as well as minister, and I've had a number of

discussions with the school board. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, during the

summer and getting ready for September, I really put it on the top of the list

because we've all heard of stories of buses that are passing students and there

are empty seats on those buses.

So I've

asked the school board that we would put not only courtesy seating in place, but

we've also put in a courtesy stop, which is a little different than just

courtesy seating. The courtesy stop, we've tried to look at a range of somewhere

around 0.8 kilometres, which of course right now puts us better than any other

province in Canada at 0.8.

So we're

continuing to work with that, Mr. Speaker, and it's a concern that I do have,

and I've asked my staff as well to look at, and continue to look at, the 1.6

kilometres.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies and many are being forced to choose between food, heat and

medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are

continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities

Board. Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to

further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of

our province.

While

government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to mitigate rates, they

have provided no detailed plan as to how they intend to do so. Therefore, we

petition the House of Assembly as follows:

To urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all of the

potential options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive detailed plan

to deal with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be

provided to the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and

potential suggestions for improvement.

Mr.

Speaker, the petition I have here today, mainly from the CBS area, but I know

there are others that are coming in.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say right from the get-go, as I've said in this House numerous

times, I've acknowledged, I voted for Muskrat Falls at the time. I don't mind

saying it. There are times now as I look back, as I've seen how things have

turned out, I wish I didn't; however, at the time I went on the best information

that was provided to me by who I felt had the appropriate information, the

officials from Nalcor, Department of Natural Resources and so on.

I voted

for it in good faith. I believe that my colleagues at the time also voted for it

in good faith. I can't say that there was nobody who may have been in Cabinet at

the time in positions of power who may have known more than I know, I don't

know. Hopefully the inquiry will flush all that out as to who knew what.

We are

certainly hearing some disturbing things already coming from the inquiry, but

this is not about Muskrat Falls. Well, it is about Muskrat Falls in terms of

this is what's going to be driving cost but the question is, where from here? We

could all talk about blame and how we got to this point, but we're at this point

now.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has indicated he has a plan and government has a plan that

will result in nobody's electricity rates going up and taxpayers are not going

to be on the hook either. So neither ratepayers nor taxpayers will be on the

hook. That sounds wonderful, and if he has a magic wand or a money tree that can

make that happen, I would ask for him to present that money tree to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will gladly accept that gift but it's very

difficult to believe that that's the case and I'm asking for a plan.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon.

Member will remember that when he sanctioned Muskrat Falls, indications were

that at the time, and at the time that the former administration sanctioned the

project, electricity rates were going to be up over 16 cents a kilowatt hour,

Mr. Speaker.

What the

Premier has said, and I'll repeat it here, he said that the full burden of

Muskrat Falls, which is what the former – the Member opposite had sanctioned –

the full burden of Muskrat Falls will fall upon the ratepayers of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, even though it was a project where only 40 per

cent of the electricity was going to go to the ratepayers. So when in the due

diligence that the Member opposite talked about, it was important to note that

the rates were going to increase to about 16-plus cents, Mr. Speaker, and that

the full burden was going to fall on the ratepayers.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we are working on a plan. The Premier has been very clear, it's not

going to – the full burden will not fall on the ratepayers of this province, Mr.

Speaker, that's not fair. We cannot have rates going up the way that they would

go up because of the cost of Muskrat Falls.

We are

working on a plan to bridge the gap, to bridge the cost that it is going to cost

the taxpayers and the ratepayers if we were to use the former administration's

plan. We're bridging that gap between what the available revenue is. We're

working on revenue plans, we're working on expense plans, we're working on a

number of plans to bring down that burden, Mr. Speaker, and that's how we're

going to move forward.

Thank

you for the opportunity, and we'll certainly have plans going forward to ensure

that we do the best with Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I present the following petition:

The 15

per cent retail sales tax on insurance premiums that the provincial government

imposed in 2016 has significantly increased the cost of insurance.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate the 15 per cent retail sales tax on

insurance premiums.

This

goes back, Mr. Speaker, to the 2016 budget, and we've talked for a long – we've

debated this issue and we continue to talk about it.

To put

it in perspective, that tax actually costs the average household $500 to $1,000

per family, if you're dealing with the average family of four, or with children

getting their licence driving, which is higher premiums. That's not the

insurance, that's the tax. That's the tax on the actual insurance. You got to

put it into account how much that actual insurance is to a family. Then you're

adding on 15 per cent. That was not there for a long time under the previous

administration. This was a revenue generating exercise in 2016. We argued

against it then and we continue to argue against it.

recently as the most recent by-election in Windsor Lake, me and my colleagues,

and our leader, we knocked a lot of doors. That was an issue that came up at a

lot of people's houses. Taxation was always an issue. They identified – it's an

insurance tax.

So we're

not in here – like, this is not created out of thin air just to have something

to petition. This is an actual real issue. It's an issue in my district. It's an

issue, I think, in all our districts right across, both sides of this House, all

sides. It's 15 per cent, and to reduce it by 1 per cent or 2 per cent is

insulting, Mr. Speaker.

We got

an economy, we got a population that are taxed too heavily. The economy is

crumbling. Even though you might want to say – and the blame goes around in this

House and everywhere. I mean people are tired of hearing the blame game. The

problem is you got an economy that's struggling, you got a 15 per cent insurance

tax. We've been listening to it for years, whether it's the captains of

industry, it's a way forward, it's a way backward, there's a brighter tomorrow,

we're looking for a solution, Mr. Speaker. Drop the tax, among other things.

I'm

petitioning on the tax. There are a lot of things in that 300 new taxes and fees

that we're living with since 2016 we can all argue against, but right now,

today, I'm going to concentre on the 15 per cent. But give us some answers, give

us some details. The rhetoric, the blame game is growing tired with everybody.

All you

got to do in Question Period is pick up your phone and the messages from people

watching on television, they're laughing. They're not laughing in a good way,

though, Mr. Speaker. They're laughing out of frustration.

It's

time for this government to take some action and do what's right for the people.

Get rid of this tax and maybe look at the other 300 taxes and fees before people

can really seriously look at them again.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER:

A point of privilege.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, O'Brien and

Bosc, in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, state: A Member must

satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of

the House as soon as possible after becoming aware of the situation.

As you

indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, before entering a question of privilege in

this hon. House, and I quote you: “Before rising to speak in the House, the

Member must first give the Speaker written notice of the matter; oral notice may

also be given privately to the Speaker.”

And this

is why I'm raising this point now, since it was yesterday that the House

indicated a concern with the public release of the reports written by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards. Until that time, I was not aware of this

issue since the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, by his own admission

yesterday, has no statutory authority to direct Members to keep reports secret,

nor did he make a request for confidentiality regarding these reports, either to

the complainants or to the accused.

Following the adoption of the Opposition motion yesterday, I notified the

Speaker of my intention to make this statement and transmitted the required

information prior to the afternoon sitting of the House, and at 6:03 p.m.

yesterday the Speaker advised me of receipt of this text. I refer to O'Brien and

Bosc, page 141, where matters involving privilege before the House are treated

with the utmost seriousness.

As you

outlined yesterday, there is a formal process to be followed. I have followed

the process and notified the Speaker of my intention to raise this issue of

privilege, and this is the earliest possible opportunity for me to raise my

issue.

O'Brien

and Bosc state: “It is impossible to codify all incidents” that “might be

interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation

and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters

found to be prima facie” case “include … damaging” the “Member's reputation, the

usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and

their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading

information.”

O'Brien

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the House of Commons.”

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on a motion from the Official Opposition and

found there to be a prima facie case of privilege regarding my release of two

reports I received from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. I received

one of these reports on August 24 and I received the other on October 3.

finding of contempt falls under the umbrella of privilege and the House has a

right to punish, as a contempt, any action which may not be a specific breach

but tends to obstruct or impede Members of the House in discharging their duties

or as an offence to the dignity of the House including disobedience of

legitimate commands.

As I

noted yesterday, an August 28 report from CBC News, which is available online,

states the following regarding two reports from the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards that were issued on August 24. I quote: “CBC News obtained copies of

the report, handed over by Holloway himself, that show he believed the two

cabinet ministers bullied, harassed and isolated him.”

In the

interest of consistency and fairness and equal treatment, I ask that as per your

ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you find that this action by the Member for Terra

Nova constituted a prima facie case of privilege. I further ask you to direct

the House to proceed to debate the following motion:

WHEREAS

the Speaker has ruled that the release of reports produced recently by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards constitute a prima facie case of

privilege; and

WHEREAS

the Member for Terra Nova released two of the reports produced by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards to the CBC in August prior to those being

tabled in the House.

BE IT

RESOLVED this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and

Elections for an appropriate action as per the motion adopted by the House on

October 24.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:

This motion is seconded by

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Do I

have further speakers to this point of privilege before I render my decision?

Seeing

none, I will – I'm sorry, the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker, you'll have to

direct me if I'm out of line, I guess.

response to this, I'd like to offer this to the House. It's dated Friday, August

24, 4:38 p.m.

Hello,

Mr. Holloway – the email is from Ariana Kelland, she's a reporter with the CBC –

I am a reporter with CBC in St. John's. I'm reaching out to you to see if you

have confirmation that Eddie Joyce and Dale Kirby have been cleared of

wrongdoing in relation to your complaint and if there is anything further you

can add.

Her

email continues: it sources, breaking – sources tell me province's Commissioner

for Legislative Standards has cleared MHAs Eddie Joyce and Dale Kirby of any

wrongdoing regarding harassment complaints filed by fellow MHA Colin Holloway.

Watch NTV News tonight at 6 p.m. for details. Thanks, Ariana.

Mr.

Speaker, that is evidence I'm prepared to table in this House that the reports

were already out there on the 24th of August as of this email at 4:38 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to this at this time before I will recess to make my decision

and report back to this House?

Seeing

no further speakers, we will be in recess and I will come back shortly.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Regarding the motion on the point of privilege by the Member for Mount Scio, I

find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege by way of contempt.

I would

now ask the Member for Mount Scio to move his motion.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I

just want to – oh, restate the motion?

MR. SPEAKER:

Please.

MR. KIRBY:

WHEREAS the Speaker has ruled

that the release of reports produced recently by the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards constitute a prima facie beach of privilege; and

WHEREAS

the Member for Terra Nova released two of the reports produced by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards to CBC in August prior to those being

tabled in the House.

BE IT

RESOLVED that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges

and Elections for an appropriate action as per the motion adopted by the House

on October 24.

Moved by

me, and seconded by the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

As in

previous in the week, I'd like to instruct the House as to how we will proceed.

We'll be following regular rules of debate. We'll now commence on the debate

before – I'd like to indicate that all Members who wish to speak to the vote, I

need you to be relevant.

The

question before us is whether or not to refer this determination as to whether

or not there's been a breach to the Privileges and Elections Committee or not.

Given

that this does affect the Member for Terra Nova in a personal way, and as I

ruled earlier in the week, I will grant him leeway to express his remarks, if he

chooses to speak; but, if he does speak I would ask him then to recuse himself,

withdraw from this Chamber until we go to a vote.

With

that, I will now start with the Member for Mount Scio.

Thank

you.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is that

the right amount of time on the clock there, by the way? Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER:

I've been instructed as it's

not a government motion, it's 20 minutes.

MR. KIRBY:

Okay. Good, good.

Sort of

like tabling documents. Because I would table, Mr. Speaker, the CBC story that I

had there. As I noted yesterday, the Member had said that I was inaccurate in my

assertion. I don't know a Ryan Cooke. I do know his stuff, and I think he's a

journalist of fairly high integrity. So I don't see why Mr. Cooke would have

misled anyone into believing that what he probably published was anything other

than what he did.

I would

just like to start off by saying, Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a dime for every

person who's approached me in the past few days and said something to the effect

of: Don't you crowd have anything better to do but to bicker amongst yourselves?

And to which I said: These issues are serious allegations and we treat them as

such, and that's why the House is devoting this much time. So folks who are

watching the broadcast are wondering why we're using our time as we are, it's

because these are very serious matters.

I won't

speak for a lengthy period of time. I just wanted to sort of elaborate a little

bit on what it is that I was accused of, what the implications are.

First, I

want to state that I did vote against the motion yesterday. I guess I voted

against the motion yesterday because I had information that other Members of the

House of Assembly, unfortunately, didn't have, that was subsequently provided by

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards when he stood in the Clerk's chair

and said that – what he did about there being no requirement for confidentiality

in these reports and no direction provided by him to keep them confidential.

sympathize with the Member for Topsail – Paradise who pointed out that he was

unaware of certain details, and that's been our experience. I don't speak for

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, but that's been my experience over the

past number of months that it was often very difficult to get any information,

clarification or timelines from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, and

I don't know why the Commissioner was either unable or refused to do that.

that's why I think Members weren't aware, but I think – my argument is that of

equal and fair treatment. And if one action by one Member, which is sort of

synonymous with the action of the other, why one would be sent for punishment

for contempt when the actions of the other is precisely the same.

Contempt

is a serious matter – to be accused of contempt – but there are rules. I have

contacted the Chair of the Privileges and Elections Committee to ask questions

that I have about the process: what resources are available for our defence,

what the procedure is, what the terms of reference are, who will be allowed to

appear, when that will be and so on and so forth. So there are a lot of

unanswered questions.

I wasn't

able to come up any parliamentary precedents that I felt were very relevant and

I'm not sure what parliamentary precedents the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards may have consulted in making his determinations on these reports, but

I assume we'll find that out at some point.

There

are also legal implications, because the Leader of the Official Opposition stood

up yesterday and he basically said – I think he actually said – that this

Legislature, in this case, was judge and jury, and I hope not executioner, but

various sort of austere implications of what he said.

issues of civil content, when it comes to the law there are a number of rules.

I'm not going to prejudge the decisions or the determinations of the Privileges

and Elections Committee; though I believe, in fact, that it's faulty to make the

sort of determination that we – and now we, if this motion passes – but

certainly that I would somehow be punished for something for which there were no

rules governing.

There

are basically four different elements that have to be proved with regard to the

issue of contempt. The one thing is for certain that the rules have to be clear

and they have to unambiguous. You have to know what the rule is in order to

break it, obviously. And the accused has to have a proper notice of what the

rules are. The accused has to have been shown to have broken the rule that the

accused was aware of and there must be proof of – well, in legal terms they

would say mens rea, which is a fancy way in Latin of saying that you

deliberately broke the rules.

So there

were rules. You knew what the rules were because you were properly informed of

them, and then you intentionally broke them. You did something that you knew was

breaking the rules. So that's what the Committee will be tasked with.

I'm not

going to belabour the process at all. I'll take my seat, but the essence of this

motion is the point that I tried to make yesterday unsuccessfully, is that we

all have a right to be treated equally under the rules of the Legislature. And

yesterday, the Legislature – a majority of the Members voted to refer me to this

Committee for this allegation of contempt, and if you're going to refer me to

the Committee, then it is only fair for the Member who did exactly the same

thing, months before I did, to be referred there as well, regardless of whether

or not it makes any sense to do that. I know that sounds foolish but that's

where we are.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER:

If I could just ask you to –

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Yes, all right.

MR. SPEAKER:

I understand – for the

guidance of the Member for Terra Nova, there's an issue with your microphone, so

we may need you to just stand beside your colleague to your right.

Thank

you.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Okay, I'll try again.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks

for the opportunity to speak to this motion. Unlike the Member opposite, as you

can appreciate, I haven't had much time to prepare.

I'd like

to take this House through the circumstances and the events leading up to those

reports being provided to me on August 24. They came to me electronically by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards at 3:33 p.m. Shortly – and as I commented

before the recess, shortly after four I started receiving – 4 p.m. I started

receiving inquires from media, various media, including NTV and CBC, and each

acknowledging that both the Member for Mount Scio and the Member for Humber -

Bay of Islands had been found not guilty of any of the complaints and if I was

to care to comment.

So I

made two phone calls. I made one to you, Sir, and I also made one to the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards to express my deep concern that these

reports were now out into the media. When I did my interview with the

Commissioner back on July 19, as I was leaving that interview the Commissioner

walked me to the door and he said I'd like for you, if you would, keep this

interview confidential. I said okay.

When the

reports went out to the media – as I said, I called the Commissioner and I said,

how is that possible? And he said, well, the legislation only covers the

Speaker, the Management Commission and his office. It does not cover either

those that were being accused or those that had put in a complaint. So I said,

okay; so I guess what was done today was okay. He said, well, what I'm saying is

that the legislation doesn't cover it.

So the

fact that the reports were out there – and the Member for Mount Scio just got up

and said that we're both the same. I would argue to this House that we are not

the same. I was a person who came forward with a complaint of harassment,

intimidation and bullying against that Member. The reports were released

prematurely, before they could come to this House, so now I was further being

victimized by the people that released that report, and I assure you I did not

do it at that time.

Having

consulted with you, Mr. Speaker, having consulted with the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards, I was now in a protection-of-myself mode. The reports

were out there. I was told by the Commissioner that I could talk about the

details of those reports because they were already in the public domain.

So I

differed in what the motion and what the Member for Mount Scio is saying: I was

not in the same category. I was actually the person who was the complainant and

now my reputation was being trashed in the media because the reports were

already in the public domain.

So that

motion that's brought today is inappropriate and I will not be supporting it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

speakers to this motion?

I would

ask the Member to, first of all, withdraw in case there are further speakers.

I will

summon the chimes when we go to the vote, Sir.

Any

further speakers to this motion?

Are the

House Leaders ready?

Is the

House ready for the question?

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.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

In my opinion the ayes have

it.

This

motion is carried.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

call from the Order Paper, Motion 1,

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish an all-party

Select Committee on Democratic Reform.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this resolution. Actually, I believe

it's an amendment to the resolution we're on now. So perhaps I'll have another

opportunity to the main motion.

Mr.

Speaker, I absolutely support this resolution. I absolutely support the concept

of electoral and democratic reform. I think there are many things we can see

improved in our democratic process here in the province and certainly one of the

things that come to mind, and there are a whole list of things, but one of the

things is the money; the money that's attributed to political campaigns and

political parties.

I really

believe we need to look at, for example, the amount of money that could be

raised by a party for an election. I think that needs to be reduced. I think we

need to look at the amount of money that can be raised by a candidate. I believe

that amount should be reduced because – and we should be looking at the amount

of money that can be given by corporations and unions, either to – if not

eliminate totally, certainly to reduce those amounts.

I think

if we did that we would certainly have a system where it would be more open,

more accessible to members of the general public who are interested in running,

who may not have the financial means to do so, may not have the connections in

the business community, may not have the connections with large labour unions

and so on to support them, that by limiting those amounts it makes it more

achievable for an average citizen to put his or her name forward to run for

public office. Really, that's what our democracy is supposed to be about. It's

supposed to be about encouraging more people to put themselves forward, to offer

themselves for public service.

When you

look at the amounts of money that are spent in elections, as an example, a

political party as such, they'll probably spend, I don't know, half a million

dollars or more on a provincial campaign, probably a lot more than that. Do we

really need big buses with some leader's face on it travelling all around the

province? Do we really need all these TV and radio ads? As candidates, do we

need a sign on every corner?

Why

could we not in an election have a rule, for an example, that in a particular

district in a particular community there would be one location designated in

that particular town, if it's a small town, or one or two – maybe there might be

four or five, or five or six if it's in a larger area, a larger city – where

each candidate for each party or non-party would have a spot where they could

put one sign, period, so that everybody knows these are the candidates? Why do

we need these sign wars where we're going to have 50 signs on every roadway?

Five or six signs on a corner? How often do you see that? You see a big sign;

someone got to put a bigger sign. Then someone got to put two signs, so the next

guy got to put three signs, and on and on it goes, spending thousands and

thousands of dollars, for what?

All it's

doing is that it's littering the environment. People don't like them, anyway.

Totally not necessary. I don't know what we try to prove when we do that, but

we've all done it. I've done it because that's the system as it is now, but we

could eliminate that. We could be eliminating, like I said, the big TV ads, the

radio ads, the print media ads.

Why

should who gets elected be about who has the most brochures or the glossiest

brochures? Why should that be a determining factor as to who you should be

electing? We should be electing the best person to represent the district, and

that person should be elected based on their qualifications, based on their

community involvement, their proven commitment to their community, based on

their individual merits.

We have

leadership debates. We will have a provincial election; there will be there or

four or whatever leadership debates that will be televised. They'll be televised

on NTV, CBC, VOCM and so on, so the people – everybody – have the opportunity to

listen to the debate, listen to what the party is, what the leaders have to say

and make their determination as to who they want to vote for based on that

platform.

shouldn't be about, as I said, who can do the most advertising and who can spend

the most money, who can buy the most votes through manipulating people's –

manipulation is really what you're doing. Sort of creating this impression by

all this signage and glossy brochures that you're the guy or you're the girl,

you're the best person because you've got the most signs around. So that means

somehow that you must be the winner, you're the best candidate. That's what it's

all about. But should it be about that?

believe it should be about electing the best person. So we can absolutely reduce

the amount of money that needs to be spent by candidates, reduce the amount of

money spent by parties, thus eliminating the need for these $500 or $5,000 a

plate dinners. Eliminating the need for it. That is definitely a reform that

could and should be implemented, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the use of all-party committees, particularly for review of

legislation, how much better off would it be here in this House of Assembly, how

much more informed would it be, how much would it do to eliminate some of the

adversary that we see if we had a system whereby, before legislation hit the

floor of the House, there was an all-party committee to review that legislation,

to ask those questions? Not in a briefing a couple of hours before the House

opens, but to have meaningful input into legislation. Because we all know – and

we've seen it, we have seen it, and we all know the reality is that if a piece

of legislation comes before the floor of the House of Assembly – and it doesn't

matter, this is not a slight on this administration. It's absolutely not –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate your protection from the House Leader.

Mr.

Speaker, as I was saying –

MR. A. PARSONS:

Very simple (inaudible).

MR. LANE:

You finished?

MR. A. PARSONS:

O'Brien and Bosc.

MR. LANE:

Thank you –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Continue, please.

Order,

please!

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

wonder why our democracy is in the state that it is with this type of attitude.

Mr.

Speaker, as I was saying, or trying to say before I was interrupted – and I will

grant the House Leader, when I said two or three hours, that's probably not

fair. You probably get a briefing on a piece of legislation maybe the day

before, probably the day before, and sometimes with very little notice, and you

might have a half hour, maybe up to an hour, depending on the legislation, where

they basically tell you, here's what it is. It's not a case of how would you

like it to be? Do you have concerns with this legislation? Is there anything you

think could be changed to make it better? No, here it is. Here's the way it's

going to be.

Now, I

hear the Member there chirping over from the Marystown area. I forget the name

of the district, but anyway. What is it?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

There you go.

Anyway,

I hear him chirping: well, you can amend it. Can you amend it, though? Can you

really amend it? How many amendments actually pass through the House of

Assembly? How many? I would suggest not a lot. Not a lot that I've seen. I've

been here now for seven years. I have not seen very many amendments actually

pass on legislation.

Generally, the way it works, is the government crafts the legislation and they

bring it in and it goes through as crafted. Even if a Member on the Opposition

points out something, and it's a legitimate – and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be

the first to say, sometimes some of the points that get debated are a bit weak.

You could argue sometimes being a bit political. I know that happens as well,

Mr. Speaker, but I've also seen times in this House where there were very valid

points raised by Opposition Members, very valid points, and things that could

have been changed –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) during Muskrat

Falls.

MR. LANE:

My colleague back there says

Muskrat Falls. Yes, and there were lots of amendments raised there – absolutely.

Mr.

Speaker, there's lots of legislation where there are very valid points, very

valid amendments, but they never go through. They never go through. Why don't

they go through? Because there's never a will for it to go through. I don't

know, is it because we didn't think of it, so therefore we can't bring it in?

We'll look bad because you thought of something that we didn't think of.

I don't

know what the reasons are. I would suggest that's part of it, but the point is

if we had a system with an all-party committee system for legislation, there

wouldn't have to be any one-upmanship. There wouldn't have to be any, you know,

we never thought of it so therefore we're not going to approve it even if it is

a good idea, because it would all be dealt with through this Committee process

where valid points would get flushed out and potentially, when the legislation

hit the floor, it was generally something that everybody agreed with, and agreed

with all the points or most of the points because it was dealt with before the

camera started rolling.

So I

think that's a very valid process that could be used. I understand at one point

it was used. I'm told, before my time –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

Well, I've been told that – I

believe during the Wells administration, I do believe, somebody told me that

during that administration there was a period of time when they used to do that

and it stopped for some reason, but I think it's something that definitely needs

to be revisited.

Mr.

Speaker, there are also things we could be doing, such as recall legislation.

Now recall legislation came up on this floor maybe a couple of years ago, I

believe. I believe it was the former member for Mount Pearl North who actually

introduced it as a private Member's resolution. It did not get passed.

I know

there were some people at the time who were sort of questioning the timing of

it, but I think it was a good idea. It's something that's being done in British

Columbia. It does give the public an opportunity that if they elect somebody and

that person is not representing their best interests in the House of Assembly,

or they do something that's so egregious that the mass majority of the people in

the district want that member removed, there is a process to do just that.

Now, I

have heard people who are sort of counter to that. They'll say: oh, my goodness,

if we done that there would be by-elections every other week; it would cost

taxpayers a fortune. Absolutely untrue, because the process to actually have

somebody removed in terms of the organization and the door to door, to every

door in the district to get people who are actually willing to sign a document

at every single door, or not every single door, but at least 55 per cent or

whatever the case might be of the doors, people are willing to sign their names

and organize it to do that, the chances of that ever actually happening where

people would actually get removed, it could happen but it would be very rare.

One

thing it would do, though, is that if somebody at least tried to do that, even

if they weren't successful, I think it would send a message to that Member and

to all Members that they are accountable to the public not just once every four

years – not just once every four years. So I think that's another thing that we

certainly could be looking at.

When we

talk about finances and so on, I think that should apply to political party

leadership races and so on and such. I think there should be better, stricter

time frames in place for reporting of election contributions and so on to the

Chief Electoral Officer and a quicker process in terms of letting the public

know what donations were made, not a year later.

I think

we need to look at conflict of interest legislation that we have. I think that

needs to be reviewed to see where we stand in that regard. This whole idea of

the so-called conflict walls or – what is it – Chinese walls, a term I never

heard of until about a year ago. There are a lot of people that would feel that,

if you're deciding to run for elected office, then you should sever any business

you have with the government; and even if you put it in a blind trust, there

should be no additional business with the government.

Because

we all know we can talk about blind trusts, but what is a blind trust? I assign

somebody else to look after my business interests. That could be my best friend,

it could be a family member or whatever. They never talk at the dinner table,

never talk at the golf course, never have any conversations about anything?

So there

are a lot of people that question this whole process of blind trust, but

certainly, if you set up a blind trust, there should be something there that

even if it's in a blind trust, that while you are in office you can no longer do

any business, certainly no new business, with government. So this is something

else which a lot of people have raised with me.

So, Mr.

Speaker, there are numerous things. I really think that, you know, we need to do

a better job, although I have to say that with our new Speaker and so on the

last year or so, I have seen an improvement in decorum. I have seen an

improvement in decorum – and the Speaker before him, by the way. And the Speaker

before him; I got to say, in fairness, the last two Speakers. When I said

Speaker, I was forgetting about the other one. But in fairness, the last two

Speakers have done a good job at improving decorum, but I think there's always

room for more improvement.

The

issues we're dealing with now is all part of our whole democratic process, and I

haven't spoken to that yet. I don't intend on getting into the details of any of

it, to be honest with you. I find this whole process, even of dealing with the

harassment issues that we're dealing with now, I find it totally – what would be

a good word. I think it's disgusting, I really do.

To be

debating personal details about Members and smearing it all over the media,

he-said-she-said, everything else, that is something that needs to be improved.

I know we're all committed to working on that, but nowhere else, at no other

workplace there would be a system in place that would be totally private and

confidential, and here we're debating it all in the media, debating it in the

House of Assembly, every little sordid detail, and I think that is wrong. And

that's something else we need to work on improving, and I'm sure we are going

to. I'm sure we're going to.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I guess, in clueing up for now, I think there are many things – those

are just a few – but there are many things we could be doing to make our system

more open, more transparent, more accountable, making it open for more citizens

to engage in the political process, to make it affordable for people to get

engaged in the political process, to promote more unity and collegiality amongst

all Members, regardless of what side of the House it is, in working together;

not an us and them.

There

are a lot of things we can do, we should do, and I will certainly be supporting

this motion to hopefully get us there.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to – again, I'm not going to engage in a debate, because I'm glad the

Member stood up and contributed his positions and thoughts on it, and that's

what we do want to encourage in this debate.

I just

want to correct one inaccuracy. The Member said, he talked about getting

briefings a couple of hours before you go into the House and debate legislation,

and that is simply not true. That is not true. It did happen in the past, but I

can guarantee you that any piece of legislation that's been in this House in the

last three years, you didn't get a briefing and then do the legislation on the

same day.

So for

the Member to say that, that is not true. I need to correct the record. I wasn't

going to do it on a point of order because he has every right to stand up and

speak. I'm not going to get into – we may agree or disagree on points, but that

point is not true. I'm putting that out there now just to correct the record,

and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Thank

you.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, a point of

order.

MR. SPEAKER:

On a point of –?

MR. LANE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Under what?

MR. LANE:

Okay, Mr. Speaker, I would

just like to very quickly respond to the Member (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Are you raising a – sorry; I

ask the Member, is he raising a point of order?

MR. LANE:

Point of order (inaudible),

section 45.

Forty-nine, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate

the minister's comments. I would say if he listened to what I said, after I made

that point I then went on to say, you know what, that's not fair in me saying

that. We actually do get it the day before. I did correct that. So I don't want

to mislead anybody about that point.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

No point of order. It's just

a point of clarification between two Members.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks

for clarifying that up. It was good we worked our way through that, it's

important.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to rise and speak to the motion. Actually, this is an

amendment we're on, but I think it's important to just mention what the original

motion was:

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to establish an all-party Select Committee on

Democratic Reform.

The

amendment that was proposed to the resolution regarding the establishment of an

all-party Select Committee on Democratic Reform to move that the resolution be

amended to delete the words: urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to, and be replaced with:

Be It Resolved that the House of Assembly establish an

all-party Select Committee on Democratic Reform.

So what

that does is bring it back to the Legislature who would be driving the agenda on

the particular committee rather than government itself. It would be a collective

will and motion of the House and of the 40 representatives here to drive that

all-party Select Committee on Democratic Reform.

We know

through the democratic process and through the parliamentary setup here in the

Legislature and with the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, there

are various all-party committees. For various times in our history they have

been used, some are used quite regularly, others are not, but over the past

number of years we've certainly seen the ability to do that.

I know

in our time, with our administration there was a recommendation to have an

all-party committee related to mental health. I think all concerned certainly

recognized the type of work was done at that particular time on a very important

issue, and still a very important issue facing our province today in terms of

mental health and how we deal with that in regard to a policy, be innovative in

policy in terms of recognizing certain mental health, as any other health, and

the importance of it and the overall health and well-being of people.

In that

committee there was ability for – I know some of the Members of the Legislature

travelled, went to various parts of our province and reached out as an all-party

committee of the Legislature, to hear from people, to hear from Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, to hear from physicians, to hear others in the medical

community, and certainly to hear from the various advocacy groups as part of

that committee, and to hear from mental health professionals, as I said, and for

people who experienced mental health and those that could be experiencing it

today, those that have experienced it in the past and what that has been for

them in their daily lives and how they were able to access appropriate care, or

not able to access appropriate care; therefore, how that information can be fed

into that All-Party Committee on Mental Health that went around the province and

to legislators and law makers, and how they can bring that information back here

and use all of that to generate new legislation, new policy that addresses some

of the concerns.

Out of

that process, the legislative committee – I know there were a number of

recommendations made. The prior minister of Health, and current minister as

well, looked at engraining those in and driving them through policy developments

in health care. I guess that's a classic example, or a very good example of how

an all-party committee of the Legislature can work.

When we

look at that overall from democratic reform, it's fundamental because democracy

in the simplest form means people are heard and people have a right to

participate. That's what it's about in regard to democratic reform and getting

people's views, being able to intertwine them in decisions we make here, or

discussions we have here is fundamental to democracy, and it's certainly tied to

this particular motion.

There

are many aspects to – you know, we talked about democratic reform. I heard my

colleague speak earlier in regard to areas related to financing, in regard to

politics and the rules around that. There are issues in regard to the

functioning of the House, and in regard to actual committees and how they

function.

We've

just gone through a process and started some time ago – and I have the ability

to sit on the Privileges and Elections Committee of the House here with

colleagues on both sides, and to deal with – one of the issues we've been

dealing with over the past number of months, dealing with harassment.

We were

struck through a private Member's resolution here in the House, and the

Privileges and Elections Committee was given that job to do in regard to looking

at other jurisdictions, looking at current practices here, looking at the

realities of the day and a modern and fresh approach and a progressive approach

to the workplace, like this House, as any other workplace, and how we can make

it the environment we want it to be in regard to everybody having the

environment they can work in, they should work in and that everybody feels

comfortable in doing that. So that's another example of a committee doing the

work that needs to be done and ties into democratic reform.

What

this motion, or the amendment we're speaking to, looks to have the House

initiate a select committee on democratic reform to look at some of the things

I've talked about but looking in a broad sense where else we need to go and what

else would be included in democratic reform.

Now, I

understand the current administration in their original 2015 platform did speak

to the importance of democratic reform, and I guess we're here now approaching

the fourth year of the mandate. We're here in the Legislature speaking to

democratic reform, striking the select committee and moving forward with

initiatives to meet the agenda they laid out for the people of the province in

2015. Whether we'll get there or not before the end of this particular term,

four year term, we would hope we will as we move through now and debate it.

If we

strike this committee looking into early 2019, we could look at striking some

specific legislation, bringing it in in the spring session where we can look at

bringing that here to develop that legislation and to start it to meet the

agenda this government has talked about. So we hope to do that and we can start

that process in 2019 and can bring some concrete evidence to this motion as we

bring it through the House of Assembly here, which I'm sure – and the speakers

I've heard to date on the debate, today and prior days, certainly seem to

support the motion as presented.

I can't

presumptively indicate what may happen, but I would think that most in the

Legislature would support it, and all – and then if we do have that opportunity

to do it before recess, before Christmas, certainly there will be an opportunity

as we move forward into 2019.

We have

set elections in this province in October of 2019. We could do some legislative

changes on various topics that are looked at by the select committee and have

that legislation for the spring session, and have some changes made as we head

into the fall election of 2019.

Other

areas the select committee certainly would want to look at – I talked about

current things that are happening now in regard to a new harassment policy,

workplace environment, all of those kinds of things. Even things like the kind

of voting system we have.

The

federal government has talked about proportional representation. Our models have

said first past the post. The federal government, certainly in its mandate as

well, indicated the last election in 2015 for the federal government will be the

last first past the post; but they've pulled back on that and had indicated we

were going through a proportional representation model, but has since rescinded

on that. I assume the federal election in 2019 will again be first past the

post. Nevertheless, we would look at – or the select committee could look at

other models and other jurisdictions around the world.

Many

European countries do have proportional representation where it's looked at

distinctively in regard to regions and the amount of popular votes you receive

and how that popular vote could translate into a number of seats. In our current

system, the popular vote – while recognized at the end of the day, the popular

vote is divided by a number of individual districts and based on how many of

those districts you win, and you had the majority, you get the right to form a

particular government.

Some

would argue it's more democratic if we have a process – maybe a process that

allows for proportional representation but, as well, maintains some of the

current system we have. And that also exists, too – some of a hybrid in terms of

jurisdictions and what they have in regard to representation, and it all gets –

the democracy and people's views, and looking at other jurisdictions and other

examples that are out there. So that would be another – of the select committee

and what it would do in terms of looking at something, and how we have our

democracy and our representations today, and how we send people to the

Legislature to represent them.

That

ties to minority governments and the ability to have minority governments; how

they would work and what would arise from something like proportional

representation or a hybrid system. Again, it's an issue this committee would

look at and have consultations on, and would draw some conclusions or

recommendations.

The

other one that's important and we hear a lot of discussion on is modernizing

election financing rules, certainly about political donations from corporations,

from unions. I know the federal Conservative Party got away from the corporate

donations and went to a set individual contribution and donation where it's much

more open and transparent in regard to who's making the donations and it's

coming from a single individual, as opposed to significant amounts for a number

of companies, corporations, unions, all of that type of thing.

The

question then and debate would be, and discussion would be, whether there'd be

public subsidy for political parties to replace fundraising from corporations or

unions, or a subsidy phased in over a period of time to ease the transition.

Because right now, as we know through Elections Newfoundland and Labrador, the

cost and the expense of the overall election, and some of that, the

administration of it is certainly run and paid by the taxpayers of Newfoundland

and Labrador. When you look at individual candidates that run, there are rules

in place under the Elections Act in

regard to how much votes you would garner, and based on that, if you hit a

certain threshold, you get a return and investment to you on your actual

campaign.

I guess

what we're looking at here, which would be a fundamental question in regard to

democratic reform, is if we take away corporate donations, union donations, then

it becomes an issue of – with that taken out – where does the funding come? The

suggestion would be, or one of the obvious points would be that it would come

from the public purse. So that would mean the amount that would be invested, or

subsidies provided to run election campaigns for candidates, for registered

political parties would come from the public purse.

So that

would have to be a debate on whether that's where the public would want to go.

Would they rather it still come out of corporate and union funding, or would you

want it more coming from the public purse? But a committee like this that's

struck could certainly hear from the populous and from the residents, and we

could have that discussion and bring recommendations back here to the House to

be discussed.

Through

all of that, I mean there are rules on spending by parties and candidates and

others, for pre-writ period as opposed to writ period. When you have set

elections there's some understanding of when that's coming. It was a previous

administration of ours that brought that in in regard to set periods, where

there's an understanding of when that period is going to arise when you go to

the polls. That's related to parties and candidates.

There

today, the past number of years, it's been such a large component to any kind of

marketing or election campaigns and there are rules on that. Is there

modernization needed on that to get our electoral rules and democratic reform up

to those particular mechanisms that are now in place and are used pretty

significantly in provincial campaigns, national campaigns and certainly

internationally?

Rules on

third-party advocacy and advertising, what roles – there's some entity out there

that possess significant dollars and the ability and expertise to lobby against

a particular party, any particular party, and/or a particular candidate. What

should their ability be to influence a particular election through marketing,

through ads, through various avenues that are available to them?

advocate – you know we see it significantly in the United States in regard that

there are actually advocates that are allowed and lobbyists allowed to direct

funds and significant funds to a various party or a various candidate to ensure

that their desires for particular legislation or laws are adhered to. That's a

significant step from where we are in this country and where we are in this

province. So such discussions and a select committee could certainly view that

and look at that as well.

Public

opinion poll rules as well. We look at various times of election times, when

polls are released, near elections or very close to elections looking at how you

make that a playing field that upholds the principles of democracy to make sure

that there's not undue influence at a particular time or someone doesn't have

that ability to release polls and how they're released.

The

other big issue that many jurisdictions in Canada face, and certainly this

province we've seen it before, and we often see it in a municipal level as well,

is encouraging people to vote and how we engage people to make sure that they

engage in the fundamental right that we have to cast a ballot. We've seen, over

the past number of years, some of that fall off in regard to people wanting to

exercise that right. Some people say our youth are not as engaged as they should

be. Myself, I have two young people – my wife and I – 21 and 19 years old and

always try to impress on them the importance of engaging in the process.

You

always encourage them to come to where you are politically, but you understand

their ability. Oftentimes, we have very interesting discussions in regard to

views and how they see the world and how they want to see their future and

what's important to them and what their ideals and values are. So we have great

discussions and sometimes they don't reflect the ads, but that's a good thing.

But, at the end of the day, it's a process to try and encourage them that, no

matter what, get out and exercise your right.

I know

as an elected official over 11 years, I've had the opportunity to have a

by-election and three general elections. I know I talk to people at their doors

and I'm fortunate a lot of people did say we support your candidacy, support

your party. But, at times, you meet people that say – and I've seen it in past

by-elections where you go knock on doors and people say oh, I don't vote, or I

don't think I'm going to vote.

I always

do say – and I make a point of it – well, they may say I don't know I'm not

goin