Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 20 June 2019 (49th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIX No. 8)

2019-06-20

Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)

PDF Version

June 20, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 8

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

We do

have a visitor today. It's actually a visitor and a very good friend of mine,

Mr. Bruce Fraser, who is a scientist with Environment Canada. He's here for the

Noia conference. Mr. Fraser and I worked together in Russia 20 years ago doing

crazy expeditions into the Arctic Ocean.

Good to

see you, my friend. Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members' statements

we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, St. John's

Centre, Topsail - Paradise, Placentia West - Bellevue and Torngat Mountains.

The hon.

the Member for Windsor Lake.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to

recognize an individual known by many in the House, Andrew Furneaux. Members of

all parties understand the vital work of political parties can never be done

without the dedication of their volunteers. We, in the PC Party, have few

volunteers as devoted as Andrew. His passion for politics is inspirational.

While a

devoted partisan, Andrew is always ready with a hand of friendship for all.

Members may remember Andrew from his time here in this House as a Page, his work

in the public service or at a pub politics that he did all this with a smile and

no complaint.

The

Premier thoughtfully asked after Andrew recently. Andrew is battling grave

health issues in hospital and I thought it right, Mr. Speaker, that we send

Andrew and his family a message of our support and appreciation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to pay tribute to Dana Burridge – a friend, a colleague and a teacher.

Dana began his teaching career in Jackson's Arm, White Bay 1977 and retired 30

years later from Pasadena Academy.

Through

my involvement with the NL Teachers' Association I knew Dana – a passionate and

tireless advocate for teachers and students. Like so many teachers, dedication

and service defined Dana's career and his life – dedication and service to his

students, colleagues, community and family.

Dana's

community involvement paralleled his teaching career and he served with numerous

associations and societies. Dana was a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to the

core, a master of recitations, a tour guide, pirate treasure storyteller, the

keeper of history, family news and local trivia. He was compassionate and had a

soft spot for the underdog. Were it not for his commitment to the NLTA and

putting five children through university, he would have run for provincial

politics which he had a deep interest in.

This

weekend past, Dana Burridge passed away after a long and courageous battle with

cancer. I had hoped he would be alive to hear this tribute but he knew the

difference he made in the lives of his community, his colleagues, his students

and his family.

I ask

hon. Members present to join me in recognizing Dana for his commitment to the

teaching profession, his community, his friends and his family.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

year the month of June is recognized as Seniors' Month and today I would like to

recognize a seniors' group from my District of Topsail - Paradise, the Paradise

Adventure 50+ Group.

Since

its inception in 1987, this group has been providing quality opportunities to

its members and, as a result, has grown to become a well-operated and physically

active group of over 150 members. This active group is primarily comprised of

residents of the Town of Paradise, Conception Bay South, Mount Pearl and

Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. On a weekly basis, they participate in various

regular activities such as dancing, card games, shuffle board, dart tournaments

and once a month they enjoy a social, which I had the honour of attending just

this past weekend.

The

Paradise Adventure 50+ Group is a network of supports of fully active members

and is a great example of a group that is proactive, fostering both active,

healthy lifestyles and close friendships among its participants.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the Paradise Adventure

50+ Group and wish them continued success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House, amongst my colleagues, to inform you of an event I attended

a few weeks ago in my beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

I had

the pleasure of attending the 66th Annual Ceremonial Review of the Royal

Canadian Sea Cadet Corps of the 121 Mary Rose in Marystown. I met with their

commanding officer Lieutenant Roxanne Breon and Ms. Nora Tremblett, the daughter

of the late Cyril Butler, a corps founder.

The

cadets of 121 Mary Rose demonstrated their understanding of the year's training

with ease. Their drill was exemplary. I was most impressed by the Colour Party.

They handled their colours with such grace and one was a first-year cadet who is

actually in grade six.

presented an award to PO2 Chase Adams, a cadet who took great interest in the

past year's election. I was very honoured. It was a great pleasure, Mr. Speaker,

to address the sea cadet corps as it is the corps that contributed to me being

the person I am today.

behalf of the great District of Placentia West - Bellevue, I ask this House to

join me in congratulating RCSCC 121 Mary Rose on their 66th Annual Ceremonial

Review and wish them a great summer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

morning I had the privilege of giving the keynote speech at the 2019 Noia Oil &

Gas Conference and Exhibition.

The

theme of this year's conference is Realizing Our Potential; a theme that could

not be more applicable to our oil and gas industry. Through investments in

exploration, research and development, innovation, education, training and

communities – our oil and gas industry is harnessing its potential.

Since we

released Advance 2030 , the development

plan our government created in partnership with industry players, stakeholders,

we have been working diligently to ensure key initiatives and priority areas are

implemented. Mr. Speaker, today at the Noia conference I had the opportunity to

present an update on progress with Advance 2030 .

than 95 per cent of immediate priority actions are in progress or complete. Our

plan will continue to position Newfoundland and Labrador as an internationally

preferred location for oil and gas exploration and development – driven by an

innovative, sustainable, local industry that is globally competitive,

environmentally responsible, and one that maximizes benefits to the people of

the province.

The Oil

and Gas Industry Development Council, with representation from the provincial

government, Noia, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and various

industry representatives, have made a significant commitment to advancing our

vision for the oil and gas industry in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, our Advance 2030

implementation update shows significant progress on immediate priority actions

and specific initiatives that have been undertaken by stakeholders over the

first year of the plan. Collaboration is a core principle of

Advance 2030 , and industry

stakeholders are working together to realize the growth potential in our

offshore oil and gas industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I also would like to take a

moment to thank the minister and her officials with the department for their

thorough answers and discussions in the Estimates meeting this morning.

Mr.

Speaker, I agree that our offshore has an immense potential, and I fully support

the goal to position this province as the international preference location for

oil and gas development. Our province has a strong local supply and service

industry. We have a knowledgeable workforce and we're able to produce oil in a

sustainable and environmentally responsible way.

However,

Mr. Speaker, our oil and gas industry and the growth in the sector is at risk

because of Bill C-69. The bill has the ability to undermine the principle of

joint management which the Atlantic Accord gives us. It has the ability to hold

up exploration and development of projects, and thus oil and gas companies may

decide to take their investments elsewhere.

I urge

the minister and the Premier to stand up to the federal government and to ensure

that our province is the investment of choice for the industry so that our

people and our province can benefit from our resources.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. While I appreciate the

minister's enthusiasm for supporting sustainable industries in our province, I

must correct the minister that oil and gas are non-renewable resources;

sustainable is simply not the right word.

If the

minister is serious about ensuring the industry is environmentally responsible

and maximize the benefits to the people of this province, government must ensure

the appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are in place for this

important industry.

I urge

the Premier and the minister to seriously consider our call for an independent

offshore safety and environmental authority as the best way to prepare for the

unfortunate event of an oil spill or other such events –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

Thank

you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For more than 20

years, the Becoming an Outdoors Woman workshop has provided a wonderful

opportunity for participants to learn new outdoor recreation skills and enhance

their knowledge of fishing, hunting and other activities.

During a weekend

in the wilderness, participants hone their skills with the help of experienced

instructors, who teach in a variety of areas such as canoeing, fishing, target

shooting, outdoor cooking, and wildlife and plant identification.

The most recent

Becoming an Outdoors Woman workshop was held at the Lavrock Camp and Conference

Centre on Salmonier Line. This was just the latest resoundingly successful event

for the program. Over the span of 20 years, more than 40 events have been held

with more than 2,000 women having completed the workshop.

Becoming an

Outdoors Woman workshops are not only opportunities for women to participate in

activities that have influenced so much of our province's culture, they are also

opportunities for participants to meet like-minded individuals with whom they

can develop meaningful and lasting connections and continued interest in our

outdoor heritage.

Mr. Speaker, our

government is committed to engaging all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the

culture and traditions of our province. Through this workshop we are promoting

safe, responsible and sustainable participation in all outdoor activities.

I congratulate

and extend my sincere gratitude to everyone involved in making the 2019 Becoming

an Outdoors Woman workshop a success, including Friends of Salmonier Nature

Park, the staff of Fisheries and Land Resources, and the many volunteer

instructors who have graciously given their time to support this program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Official Opposition, I join with the minister in celebrating the success of the

Becoming an Outdoors Woman workshop.

Through

expert instruction, participants explore areas such as canoeing, fishing, target

shooting, outdoor cooking, and wildlife and plant identification. These

workshops not only increase the skill level of the participants but also promote

recreational activities which can take place in our vast wilderness. For

example, one individual with an interest in canoeing may discover a new interest

in target shooting.

Mr.

Speaker, this province offers a wide range of outdoor experiences. It is

programs like these which encourage residents to take advantage of our natural

beauty while encouraging safe and responsible outdoor practices.

congratulate the participants and I thank all the instructors, volunteers and

staff.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I, too, thank the many staff,

volunteers and participants involved in organizing this year's Becoming an

Outdoors Woman workshop for making this program a continued success.

This

workshop helps promote healthy living, increased engagement in our province's

rich outdoor traditions, and is a great opportunity for community building among

women. I'm delighted to know that more than 2,000 women have already

participated in this workshop over the last 20 years and I wish the program

continued success for many years into the future.

Thank

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act requires that an applicant's

identity is kept confidential and only disclosed to the ATIPP co-ordinator.

Violation of this requirement would be a serious privacy breach.

I ask

the Premier: Does he accept the denial of the Minister of Advanced Education

that a privacy breach occurred?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

respond as the Minister Responsible for the Access to Information and Protection

of Privacy Act. What we're seeing today, and what we saw yesterday, is that the

Members of the Official Opposition have some concerns about an alleged privacy

breach that affects one of their Members.

What I

would suggest is that they refer to

section 73 of the act which permits anybody

to make a complaint, a privacy complaint to the independent office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I would

suggest to the Members of the Opposition, or any member of the public who feels

that their privacy has been breached, they should take advantage of that

opportunity.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister for that

answer.

Mr.

Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador oceans industries association, or Noia,

has resorted to taking out public radio ads in total frustration with the

government's failure on Trudeau Bill C-69 – the no more offshore bill.

Why is

the Premier continuing to ignore the voice of the leading offshore industry

association in the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

obviously, the Leader of the Opposition wasn't in the room last week when key

members of Noia, as he's referring to, actually complimenting myself and the

minister for the work that we've been doing with the oceans – with Bill C-69.

We've

been very open and we've made our position publicly on Bill C-69. Unfortunately,

the Leader of the Opposition continues to forget, as he said here in this House

a few days ago, that we refer to CEAA in a fond way. Actually, I say to the

Leader of the Opposition, we're very disappointed with CEAA. We're not fond of

the fact that seven years ago it was actually your buddy, Stephen Harper, that

took joint management away from this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I said the

Premier is fond of referring to that piece of legislation, which he's proved by

referring to it yet again.

Platitudes offer little comfort to a multi-billion dollar industry that fears it

will grind to a halt under Trudeau's Bill C-69. Radio ads started the day after

the Premier's speech. Our invisible regional Minister O'Regan sent a ghost

message yesterday to the Noia conference which was greeted with stunned silence

and demonstrated his isolation.

Will the

Premier now reach out to his good friend, Prime Minister Trudeau, before it's

too late?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

there's one thing that has been very obvious and evident based on the

conversations that we've just heard here, is that the Leader of the Opposition

continues to want to make this very political.

The

issue here that we're talking about is natural resource development, not just

offshore but, indeed, our mining industry as well. We should never forget, to

the Leader of the Opposition, that this includes our mining industry, which is

where we've seen significant growth over the last few years. Our industries,

through Advance 2030 and the work that

our ministers have been doing, have seen significant progress in some of the

most challenging times as a result of CEAA 2012.

So when

I was at that conference a couple of days ago and attended a meeting with them

the same evening, there was a fair amount of optimism, I will say, about the

future of our offshore resources. In this piece of C-69 we will continue to

advocate, and as I said, leave no stone unturned to protect joint management for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the mining

industry is not the industry crying out in pain over this Bill C-69.

Minister

O'Regan and the rest of the silent seven have failed to protect our offshore

interests. Don't listen to me, turn on the radio. There are billions of dollars

in royalties and thousands of jobs involved.

Why does

the Premier sit on his hands and instead not pick up the phone to Mr. Trudeau?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker I will tell you

that this is a government that has not sat on their hands at all. As a matter of

fact, we've been working with all people that have been impacted by this, or

potentially impacted by this, but he cannot forget why we're doing this.

Every

premier across this country right now, if you sit at the tables that we've been

at, agree that CEAA 2012 was not working for natural resource development. Mr.

Speaker, changes had to be made.

The C-69

still has a lot of work that would need to be done to put this province where it

needs to be. I will guarantee you, and I would suspect every single Member in

this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, will join with us as we once again position

this province for joint management under the Atlantic Accord and fight for the

rights and the benefits that we deserve in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Since

this government called an early election, retroactive payments for the removal

of tax on auto insurance is required.

Can the

minister advise us what the cost is to the insurance companies to make these

retroactive payments, and will he ensure that this cost doesn't be passed on to

consumers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know

that officials in my department had consulted with the insurance industry, Mr.

Speaker. It's my understanding that the insurance industry are more than

prepared to provide the rebates, and that's the way it's going to roll out.

I don't

know if there are costs, or if any costs are there to the insurance companies,

Mr. Speaker, but the important thing is consumers will get the rebate of any

taxes that they've paid since April 15 of this year, up to the point that this

becomes legal.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I can assure the minister

that the insurance companies are reaching out to us also and there is a huge

cost to it.

Can you

inform the consumers when they can expect to receive their refunds?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

been assured by the officials in my department who have consulted with the

insurance industry that this will happen as expeditiously as possible. I guess

depending on the insurance provider, some may be able to provide it quicker than

others, but we do understand that they're going to get it done as quickly as

they can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Can the

minister explain what will happen in instances of policy bundling where home and

auto insurance is combined and the insurance company is unable to break down the

premiums?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if

this is a concern or not. It has not been brought to my attention. I'm certainly

prepared to ask and look into it; but, up to this point, no insurance company

has contacted me with this concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

executive direction of the Autism Society is in the media today confirming

massive layoffs and cuts to services.

Given

the significant uptake in services in recent years, why has the minister

continued to freeze the Autism Society's level of funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Autism Society have been funded consistently over the last couple of years

through combined grants from Advanced Education, Skills and Labour because of

their labour market work and CSSD.

Because

of the difficulties that the society had experienced, we organized a governance

review which government paid $30,000 for on their behalf, and we also gave them

one-off transition funding of $125,000 to allow them to realign their services.

They are wanting to focus on what they do best, which is to support families in

a way that no one else can because of their lived experience.

We, on

our Autism Action Plan, are going to take over the programing and delivery of

services, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Autism Society provides invaluable programs and services that many families and

clients rely on. Demand is growing. Yesterday morning, the executive director

confirmed the Autism Action Plan does not include any new funding to the Autism

Society.

How does

the minister expect the society to survive? Does

The Way Forward on Autism

even include the Autism Society?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question.

Mr.

Speaker, the Autism Society board are fully supportive of the Autism Action

Plan. There is $2.5 million allocated this year, annualizing to at least $5

million next year when we bring in the things that they asked for: the removal

of IQ70; the increase in diagnostic clinics; the access to ABA up to age 21;

JASPER for all.

This is

a comprehensive plan which they support, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

executive director of the Autism Society has also confirmed that the funding

crunch has been compounded by fundraising challenges which is directly

attributed to the poor state of the economy.

Mr.

Speaker, why won't the minister direct some of the Autism Action Plan funding to

the very group who works most closely working with families and individuals

facing autism?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's the

responsibility of government to look after its citizens. It's the responsibility

of the Health and Community Services to introduce the action plan which we

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are

hearing that changes were made to the quality of food items that are served to

residents in the Carbonear long-term care facility.

Can the

minister explain what changes have been made?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

regional health authorities are tasked with managing the day-to-day operations

of our RHA long-term care facilities. If the Member opposite has an issue that

he likes to bring forward around food in a particular facility, I would be happy

to look into. We have received no complaints from that facility at government

level. As I say, if he as a Member of this House, has an issue, or a constituent

who has an issue, please bring it forward to my department and we'll look into

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a large number of personal care homes in my district, likely the

most in the province.

On their

behalf, let me ask a question: Would a senior presenting with mental well-being

issues such as loneliness, anxiety, depression, stress and fear of living alone

be eligible for admission into a personal care home today? Yes or no, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

requirements for care needs for a personal care home stipulate a personal care

need. They do not distinguish between physical or mental or psychological. We

are admitting patients with mental health issues as their sole admission

criteria to personal care homes for those people for whom we have a subsidy

responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

What we

are doing is working with both personal care home operator groups to make those

criteria even more nuanced, but there have been no changes to the criteria,

physical or psychological, and they are still the ones that were put in place by

that crowd opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to remind the minister that crowd are the Official Opposition, the PC Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much.

MR. BRAZIL:

Elected by the people.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes, elected by the people,

right.

Mr.

Speaker, I heard on the campaign trail, just as I'm sure the minister and all

Members of this House have heard, that seniors with mental health issues are

experiencing challenges gaining admission to personal care homes.

How can

the minister and this government justify to seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador

that their mental well-being needs are insignificant and their wishes do not

matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I can do little better than

repeat my previous answer, Mr. Speaker. The personal care home admission

criteria for assessment for level 1 and level 2 needs are based on personal care

needs. They have criteria in there for mental health. They have criteria in

there for physical health. They have not changed. People with mental health

issues are being admitted to personal care homes.

Indeed,

on the campaign trail, I heard from one of the executives of the personal care

home operators' association that he had patients with mental health issues being

admitted to his facilities at that particular time, Mr. Speaker.

there's an individual who is challenged or their family is concerned, by all

means bring those details to my attention and we'll look into it for them.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Obviously, the minister was

on the campaign trail and I was told that the candidates weren't allowed in most

of these homes. Personal care owners are very frustrated, Mr. Speaker, and we're

asking the questions for them. The minister and this government will not listen

but we're listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

According to ATIPP

information, the vacancy rates in personal care homes all across the province

are increasing, not because, as the minister said, the new ones are opening –

only two homes have opened in the last year – but because assessments are

backlogged and mental wellness needs are being dismissed.

What is

causing the delay in getting assessments completed, even for private-pay

residents when there are acknowledged vacancies?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

The question is founded on

some interesting and erroneous facts. What I am intrigued about is that the

Member opposite seems to think it's all right for a previous PC minister of

Health to deny admission to a candidate to a person's dwelling place in order to

inform them of their choices around the election. That happened in at least

three districts to colleagues who were running for party on this side of the

House. I have documented evidence of that.

Indeed,

I am of the impression that there's been a complaint to the Chief Electoral

Officer on that basis, Mr. Speaker. It's a human rights issue.

The

facts of the case are there has been no change to mental health criteria. The

reason that there has been an increased in vacancy is there have been 1,000

extra beds opened.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Human

rights issue – it's been their ignorance of these seniors and their needs,

that's the human rights issue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

You can forget about all this

other smoke and mirrors. That's what the issue is.

Prior to

the election –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

– the minister said: If MHAs

knew seniors experience difficulty in accessing personal care homes, it was

their responsibility to contact him. That's sad commentary if political pressure

determines which seniors are approved for admission to our personal care homes.

Why are

current admission policies causing so many seniors to be deemed ineligible for

admission?

I'm not

making this stuff up, Minister. Answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

To deal

with some facts, which are always useful in this situation, there are more

seniors subsidized in personal care homes this year than last year. There are

more subsidies available this year than last year. Level 1 client care needs are

being placed this year as they were last year.

There is

a problem in that the supply has rapidly expanded at a time when the market is

oversubscribed in some areas. There have been 1,000 extra beds and there are

another 1,700 projected behind that from personal care home operators, Mr.

Speaker.

That is

the challenge. The vacancy rate is now 20 per cent. It was 17.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

So there's a bit of confusion

there. These issues we're expressing, they're from the families and the

residents that want to get in these homes. This is not about homeowners.

I know a

lot of these homeowners in my district, they're good people, they're business

people. It's about the people trying to get in these homes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

It's about the people. This

is what I keep saying, it's about the people. They need to start listening to

the people.

Does the

government have a plan to hijack independently owned personal care homes that

have been built entirely by private business developers and repurpose them for

other demands?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Please continue.

Order,

please!

MR. PETTEN:

How can this be justified to

those homeowners? Where does this leave our seniors?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for what

I think is a question, Mr. Speaker. The facts of the case are seniors who need

care that can only be provided in personal care homes undergo a clinical

assessment. If they have a clinical need, psychological or physical, they are

then assessed for financial subsidy where eligible.

We have

opened up those criteria and made that process so much simpler. People who need

care and are eligible for subsidies are getting it, Mr. Speaker. Level 1 are

getting in; level 2 are getting in. There are more in this year than there were

last year and we are spending more on subsidies this year than last year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

personal care home in Mary's Harbour, Labrador has had its funding cut by

government and are turning to fundraising to keep the lights on.

We know

that in Labrador the cost of living is higher and therefore extra costs for

food, heating and mostly everything, but does the minister think it's acceptable

for a personal care home to fundraise to provide care for our seniors?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Small

and medium personal care homes are crucial to a lot of smaller communities. The

home the Member opposite references is almost unique in that it is run by a

non-for-profit which has traditionally fundraised and relied on donations as

well as government subsidies. They have been eligible for a small-homes subsidy

and they are receiving it. We were aware of some of their financial challenges.

With Labrador-Grenfell Health, who actually have the flowing of funds, we have

worked with them to rationalize their finances to help them achieve efficiencies

and to look at their staffing costs. We reassessed the care needs of every

individual in that home last year.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I wonder

if we could just have one conversation going on the floor, please.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

personal care home, of course, is encountering financial challenges. There are a

lot of cost pressures with operating in Labrador, especially when we look at our

seniors, our elders, they're very important to us.

This

home has asked for help with the hydro cost by being designated as

consumer-based rather than business-based. The same deal on hydro is given to

schools and fish plants.

So I ask

the minister: What's he doing to help this personal care home address cost

pressures?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

The

challenges around this home are in part related to its geography, but they're in

part related to its size. It is a 20-bed home and it is currently full. A

significant number of the individuals in there, if not all of them, are actually

in receipt of subsidies. They do get a small-homes allowance.

We have

commissioned a review of funding models for all personal care homes, with

particular emphasis on small and medium ones, to see exactly what we can do to

improve their business case and their funding. That report will hopefully come

to my department some time over the summer.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, a report on

Memorial University's School of Nursing has raised some troubling concerns. The

panel of external reviewers found that the current building is cramped, with

below-par resources and a disturbing rodent problem.

What is

government's plan to deal with these serious concerns?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. As we all know in this House of Assembly,

Memorial University has autonomy over its infrastructure and they set priorities

and we're guided by those priorities that they set. They have a deferred

maintenance plan that prioritizes where they want the money to go.

This

provincial government, over the past year, has invested $25.1 million in the

Core Science Facility; $10.8 million toward the construction of the Animal

Resource Centre; $2.4 million for the general maintenance of the university as a

whole; and $430,000 for the Signal Hill campus.

We're

trying to do what we can, given the financial circumstances that we have, and

we're willing to work with Memorial on anything that comes up of this nature.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

question was related to a specific issue that was highlighted in a report that

was completed.

Mr.

Speaker, during Estimates we learned that government is not giving any money to

MUN for capital repairs and maintenance.

While we

all appreciate the new construction and acquisitions that MUN has done over the

past few years, what is the plan to address the troubling concerns with this

nursing school? Can the minister table the infrastructure capital plan and

deferred maintenance plan for Memorial?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

As I said, Mr. Speaker,

Memorial University has autonomy, and the hon. Member across the way would know

that. They identify the infrastructure needs that they have. They try to

prioritize them. We work with them to do that, with the limited resources that

we do have.

One of

the things that we are doing, as I've mentioned before, we have invested in

infrastructure at the university. The university has gotten (inaudible). There

are some situations that are occurring at the university with respect to

deferred maintenance. We're working with the president of the administration at

the university to find solutions for those, working with our federal

counterparts and the university on a daily basis to try to fix these solutions

that the Member has highlighted.

I will

remind the hon. Member that the university has autonomy over that and guides us

with the infrastructure plan and their priorities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Time for

one more quick question, the hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During

Estimates, we learned that $400,000 of unbudgeted expenditure was allocated for

Mr.

Speaker, can the minister tell the House was there a request for proposals for

the spending of this money?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour for a quick response, please.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

speaks out of both sides of his mouth here on the immigration issue all the

time. He wants us to do more. Not allowing us to evaluate trying to get

individuals to this province – it's very, very important that we reach out to

the members where they are and individuals that are trying to come to this

It's an important aspect of reaching out to those individuals.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Nalcor claims the North Spur is safe and stable, but at least three

reputable independent experts are saying the formula on which these claims are

being made is outdated and does not apply to the unique clays and soils of the

North Spur.

I ask

the Premier: Will he appoint, as recommended by the Concerned Citizens

Coalition, an independent panel of geotechnical engineers to review the work of

Nalcor, SNC-Lavalin before the reservoir is filled in August?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

an important topic. As you know in the public, there has been a lot of

discussion around the North Spur. I can assure the people of the province there

have been over 30 geological studies of the North Spur. There have been most

recent reviews of the North Spur design. The North Spur design and the dam

required safety under the Canadian dam safety standards.

Mr.

Speaker, these are all assurances that I can give the province. As we move

forward with the Muskrat Falls Project and as we move forward with coming into

first power and first light, we'll continue to assess the geological

requirements around the North Spur and ensure that safety is paramount.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Mr. Speaker, a more recent

formula predicts problems with the North Spur stability. International hydro

expert James Gordon in his March letter to the minister said the problem of

conflicting formulas could be resolved through stress-strain tests.

I ask

the minister have these stress- strain tests been done and, if so, would she

make the results public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, the North Spur

has been reinforced and stabilized using industry standards and requirements

under the dam safety guidelines. Those guidelines are Canadian guidelines; they

must be adhered to. I can assure the Member opposite it's not just SNC-Lavalin

but Hatch and many, many other reviews have been undertaken, including reviews –

and they're all on the website for Nalcor under the Lower Churchill Project, Mr.

Speaker, if anyone would like to see those studies.

They

have been reviewed. It has been reviewed by reviewers. All of this is under the

engineering standards that are complying with the Canadian dam safety

guidelines, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to monitor. We have MAE responsible for

dam safety in the province and they'll continue to monitor as well.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not

hearing any reference to stress-strain tests and, given the potential for the

loss of life and infrastructure, I'm asking the minister would she have the

stress-strain tests done now.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

a dam safety expert, nor do I pretend to be an engineer. I will ask Nalcor if

there has been any of those stress and strain tests that are required that have

been carried out. I can assure the Member opposite that professional engineering

groups like Hatch and SNC-Lavalin have done the work that is required. Their

professional reputations – they have to sign off on this requirement. They have

to meet the Canadian dam safety regulations, Mr. Speaker. That is all a

requirement.

We know

they're stringent, Mr. Speaker, but I will indeed go back and ask if there are

further things that we need to do.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While

the minister is not an engineer, she is the person responsible for this.

The

Concerned Citizens Coalition submitted an ATIPP last year asking for the signed

(inaudible) from engineers confirming the safety and stability of the dam.

Nalcor replied that they had no responsive records.

I ask

the minister: Where are the safety sign offs from the engineers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He's

referring to an ATIPP from Nalcor, a Crown corporation, Mr. Speaker. I can't

offer anything at this point in time until I investigate that particular

circumstance. I'd be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker; but, again, it's an ATIPP

request to a Crown corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

Resenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports

by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of

the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources; the Department of Natural

Resources; the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour; and the

Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

I'd like

to thank all Members for their participation on this Committee, and the

ministers who appeared before the Committee and the officials as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, Sir.

Further

reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Document

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, in accordance

with

section 56 of the Automobile

Insurance Act , I am pleased to submit the 2018-19 annual report of the Board

of Commissioners of Public Utilities on operations carried out under the

Automobile Insurance Act .

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in Question Period, the Member for Torngat Mountains asked a question

about policing, and I promised that I would provide a response.

I have

prepared to table a statement here that the RCMP have advised that the house

rented for their members in Postville was sold by the property owner and there

was a vacate notice given for the end of June. Working with the town and the

Nunatsiavut Government, the RCMP have identified a potential alternative

location.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

I am ready.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North. Quick off the gate.

MR. LESTER:

For once.

Mr.

Speaker, the loss of the jawbone collection program for moose and caribou in the

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

Jawbone collection represents a random sample of the entire moose and caribou

population throughout the Island. The jawbone is the first indication of animal

health. Jawbone data provides a clear indication of animal health, and any

nutrient deficiency or disease 'compromisation' is provided through this data.

maintain an animal resource, like the moose and caribou which are important as

food sources to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also important to

economic activity in rural Newfoundland, the population needs to be sustained

and managed through its food source and its overall health. If there is no

scientific data other than population surveys, we are unable to determine the

health of big game animals and the physical condition of the animals or

condition of their habitat.

Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the jawbone collection

program for the moose and caribou of this province.

Mr.

Speaker, this is, I believe, the third time I presented this particular

petition, and we did have the grace of the minister to reply to this the last

time I presented. I would like to correct a couple of statements he did make in

his reply. He referred to this program as being cancelled under the previous PC

administration. This was actually totally false. It was cancelled in 2016 under

budgetary measures taken by the previous administration, which was a Liberal

government.

The

economic activity is almost as important. It's probably more important than the

cultural significance of the populations. How many dollars do we bring into our

province when we're able to attract big game hunters from outside our province

and outside our country? This is something that needs to be managed more like a

business. If you're not watching the assets of your business, you'll pretty soon

find yourself in big trouble. Those assets will start to depreciate and

disappear.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to refer to the withdrawal of this program as shooting in the

dark. Right now, big game allocations are a shot in the dark, and our shots are

going to extinct that species.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, who I'm sure has a response.

MR. BYRNE:

Oh, you are so correct, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to verify with the hon. Member. He's talked about commercializing, creating a

business sense, commercializing our wildlife management in this province. I

don't agree with that.

Commercializing a wildlife management situation for our province is not the

right approach, but that is indeed what was forced upon us. Because, as the hon.

Member might be able to recognize, was that the stockpile of jawbones that had

accumulated within the Wildlife division had gotten so significant that there

was an impossibility of analyzing this data. It had to be farmed out to the

private sector in some respects. So when the stockpile became so large that the

analysis could not be performed, our government took action.

We are

building a $300,000 wildlife lab in Pasadena to be able to create the resources,

the environment to do the right work for wildlife and wildlife management.

That's the right approach; not commercializing, not privatizing, not creating

the business case for our wildlife management as he suggests.

This

should be held within the public sector, the public sector, Mr. Speaker, but

what the previous administration did, they were so concerned about our wildlife,

they would only conduct two to three moose surveys on an annual basis. What did

this government do last year? We did nine moose surveys last year, but we're

going to bring it up to an average of five each and every year.

We are

protecting our wildlife, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much,

Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

That's great.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS

current means of transportation for persons who are unable to access

inefficient, expensive and inadequate; and

WHEREAS

the availability of a suitable transportation system is crucial to the enhancing

and participation in all aspects of community life, accessible, affordable

transportation must be provided in a dignified and respectful manner; and

WHEREAS

throughout the province individuals living with mobility challenges identify

transportation as one of their greatest needs;

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

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to take a more proactive approach to ensuring

affordable and inclusive transportation is available for all individuals who

Mr.

Speaker, I've met with a number of groups in the last number of months

advocating for the visually impaired, advocating for those who have mobility

issues, and the key concern they have is access to affordable, reliable and

frequent transportation.

If we

really are truly trying to promote a more inclusive province than we need to

look at expanding our transportation services and coming up with different modes

of transportation that address the needs of our individuals that have issues

with accessible transportation and getting around.

I sat in

with a group on visual impairment and we actually conducted a meeting

blindfolded. That's just a two-hour meeting. I can't even imagine if you're

dealing with that on a daily basis in terms of trying to get around.

Most of

these individuals – not all – are elderly, but then you also have a younger

population dealing with similar challenges. These people want to be involved in

their communities, want to get to where they're going. They want to contribute

to the economy. They want to contribute to our volunteer community but,

unfortunately, they're unable to do so because they can't get to the places they

would like to get to.

We know

just looking at seniors alone, by 2025-26, over one-quarter of our population

will be 65 plus; 45 per cent of 65 plus live on the Avalon Peninsula. So,

transportation has to include accessible transportation; has to include

affordable transportation.

We've

taken many steps in the right direction; we're not there yet. Taxi cabs are more

accessible, but they are expensive. We have services like the GoBus that can get

around, but it doesn't go everywhere.

Again,

this is a serious issue for this population and I'd love to see us do something

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development for a response, please.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the hon. Member for the petition because it gives me an opportunity to

stand and talk about some of the work we are doing around inclusion and

accessibly, Mr. Speaker. We're certainly committed to working with community

partners to ensure that our programs, policies and services are responsible to

the needs of those in the disability community, to the needs of seniors in our

province.

The

Member did reference some of the work we're doing around the accessible taxi. I

remember when we launched that in the summer of 2017. Yes, you have to pay to

get in a taxi, but there were some pretty powerful stories of people who didn't

even have that option to call to get out, whether it was getting to a wedding,

to a funeral, whatever, Mr. Speaker.

addition to the accessible taxis, we have the Newfoundland and Labrador

Community Transportation Program. We've done some work with Metrobus. There's

also a program where individuals may be able to apply for an accessible program.

I believe right up in your area, Mr. Speaker, in Lake Melville, we've seen a

lovely story there of somebody who was raising funds for an accessible vehicle

and we were able to come in and assist with that.

Is there

more we can do? Absolutely. There is always room for improvement, but it's

certainly a priority for us. We value inclusion and we will continue to do what

we can with the accessible community. There's certainly a whole other list of

things I could – time won't permit me to outline the things that we're doing for

the seniors' population, recognizing that is a growing large percentage of the

people that make up Newfoundland and Labrador right now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

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

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

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

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

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

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to the

government's failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes

the mandatory establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents

in long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing

persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating

conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries,

proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would include the

creation of a specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and

intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.

Today's

petition is signed by people from Victoria Cove, Coomb's Cove, Clarkes Head,

Musgrave Harbour, Carmanville, Twillingate, Cottlesville, Gander Bay, Gambo and

Herring Neck. As we continue to present these petitions day after day, as you

could see they're coming from every region throughout the province. I would

suggest there's probably not someone from a community anywhere in Newfoundland

and Labrador now that hasn't signed this petition.

The

reason for that is because we're all impacted by this. We all have moms and dads

and grandparents that are in long-term care. We all know people with family

members in long-term care, and one of these days it could impact you or I

personally. So it is a very important issue for people. We need to make sure

that we take care of our seniors, particularly seniors that find themselves at a

point in their lives where long-term care is required. We must ensure that there

is adequate staffing there to provide those people, those seniors, with the care

that they require. It's not asking really for a lot. It's just to ensure that

there are appropriate staffing ratios in place.

There's

certainly lot of anecdotal evidence that would suggest that that's not always

the case and really it's ensuring that that will be the case in the future. I

support the petition and the group presenting it. I thank you for your time, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to stand again to present a petition on behalf of the people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador concerning the hospital in Corner Brook.

WHEREAS

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

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

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

experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;

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

To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage companies that

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

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

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

every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, these petitions are here are St. John's, Harbour Grace, Clarenville.

It's not just Western Newfoundland that people are looking; there will be people

from all over the province. There is St. John's and Marysvale (inaudible). So

there are petitions from people all over the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I'm

encouraged by the minister who said that they're going to work on trying to get

up to 90 per cent of the local employment in the area. I'm encouraged by that

and I understand he's working with the Newfoundland and Labrador Construction

Association and Trades NL. That's very encouraging signs that government is

working with it and the minister personally is getting involved, and I thank the

minister for that.

I'm just

hoping, Mr. Speaker, that this year when it starts, there won't be any need for

a big protest to highlight this issue. This why I'm presenting the petitions to

try to ensure that we all work together somehow, some form with the companies,

with the government, with the unions, with the local people who aren't in the

unions so that we can head this off so when construction starts, we can all have

and ensure that the best benefit for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going

to be at the hospital in Corner Brook.

They're

very experienced. They're very good tradespeople. They're very good labourers

that can do the job as well as anybody can do the job. So I'm just encouraged by

the Minister of Transportation and Works, his involvement with it and I

understand, as the Premier said, the announcement is going to be in a couple of

weeks. That was eight, 10 days ago, so I'm assuming it's going to be made soon

and there's going to be a great announcement for all of Newfoundland and

Labrador, especially the West Coast.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this

time, I would call from the Order Paper, Motion 4, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me a great honour once again to rise and speak on behalf of not only the

District of Mount Pearl North, but the people of the province. It's always a

pleasure and a privilege to be able to stand here and represent the issues that

face our district and our province.

course today we speak to the budget – the budget that almost was and is yet to

be. This is probably the longest duration of introduction of a budget to the

passing of a budget and, in the meantime, the province stands in limbo. Not only

has this theatrical staging of this budget debate put many people and

organizations in compromised situations because they're waiting on the approval

of funding to go ahead with projects or approval of funding to keep their staff

employed, this is another situation where our economy is falling victim to

political theatrics.

If we

are truly intent and have the virtuous agenda of making this province a better

place, that is something that basically has to disappear from our whole

political landscape. And how we accomplish that may be something that we will

not be able to figure out in our lifetimes, but, my gosh, I think we should die

trying.

A lot of

people have said to me it's a minority government and a minority government is

going to be good for the people. I guess in theory, yes, but my concern with a

minority government is that we will not be bold enough to make the assertive

decisions that are necessary to keep this province going in the positive –

actually, to put this province in a positive direction. We have ample resources,

be it human, be it natural, whatever it may be, we have potential. Is it

intellectual? Yes, we have all those resources, but we need to facilitate the

environment for the opportunity for those resources to be capitalized on and

generate profit right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to share with you a little story that I often reflect on. It

took me quite a while to really apply this situation to life. We'll go back some

35 years ago. I was not even in my teens and, as I often did, I went to the barn

with my grandfather, and today was the black book day, this particular day.

Black book day was when my grandfather went up and down the aisles of cows in

the barn and looked at his paper and saw how much milk the cow gave and decided

whether, yeah, okay, she's paying her way; we'll keep her around.

If you

didn't make the grade, then you went to a higher purpose if you were that cow.

Finally, we were moving along the barn and we came to this one cow and everybody

knew which cow this was. This was Pabst Duchess; that was her name. This

particular cow was a descendent of the first cow my great-great-great

grandfather had bought. So her lineage had been in our family for almost six

generations at that point.

You

could tell that she was pretty much of an archaic beast because she was shorter

and she was chunky; didn't have quite the same characteristics as all the rest

of the modern-day cows. My grandfather shook his head when he looked at the

paper and he said Jamsey – that's what he used to call me at times – this poor

old girl doesn't even give enough milk to colour your tea. So it came to the

point where, this cow, not only was it revered as part of our heritage, part of

our existence as a farm in Newfoundland and Labrador, not only was our immediate

farm family concerned with the existence of this cow, even our distant

relatives: Oh, you know, is she still there? Is the family line still carrying

on?

It was a

big decision to decide well, listen, you have to go – poor ole Pabst, she hadn't

had a calf in four or five years and she was just idling along. This was back in

the late '80s when of course our farm, like most farms in Newfoundland and

Labrador, were really feeling the pinch of high interest rates and it was tough.

I mean, we came to a point at one time where we were contemplating having to

leave this province and set up business elsewhere and sell off everything we had

here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I went

home that evening and I was really disturbed that we were going to have to sell

Pabst Duchess. I got up the next morning, as I often did, and went out in the

barn with my grandfather and I said I was going to bring it up to my

grandfather. Now my grandfather was probably four inches taller than I am now

and a good bit heavier so even though he was a big, burly man he had great set

of ears, always listened.

I said

to him: Pop, you can't sell Pabst Duchess. She's part of our family; she's part

of our history. He said: Jim, there comes a time when you have to make a

decision and it's a decision for the future. Yes, history and past is good to

remember but once history and past starts to affect what could be done in the

future, well that's when it's time to cut loose. So poor ole Pabst Duchess went

aboard the truck that day and that was the last we seen of her.

Now, why

am I talking about cows here in this hon. House? Well, Mr. Speaker, we're in a

position right now, as my grandfather was in the late '80s. As a province, we

have lots of resources. Yes, huge potential for the future, but we have to make

decisions that we ensure that the future is there for us to capitalize upon and

take opportunity of.

Mr.

Speaker, as I said in my opening statements, even though we're in a minority

position, we, collectively, as a Legislature, must act as the biggest, most firm

majority that has ever existed. We must fearlessly go forward and make the

decisions that are needed; needed to put our province in the right fiscal place.

Where that is, is where we have no deficit no more.

It's

said almost to the point that I'm almost going to quote the Minister of Justice

and Public Safety. It's almost been quoted to the level of ad nauseam. We don't

have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Do you know what? No, we

don't. We have an indecision problem because we haven't done anything about that

spending. That's where the problem is. We know we need to reduce expenditures,

but where are we going to decide to get rid of the expenses to bring us back in

line with our budget?

Another

thing that's often been said: Well, you wouldn't operate your house like it and

you wouldn't operate your business like it. So, why are we continuing to operate

this province like it? That's a good question. The answer to that question is

probably something that we, as legislators, need to look in the mirror and ask

ourselves that, and I'm sure we'll realize that we need to take the politics out

of our decisions and put the practical in.

Now,

yesterday, the Minister of Finance said we're addressing our debt. No, we're

not. We're addressing that we have debt. We're acknowledging that we have debt.

We're increasing our debt. We're only servicing our debt. We're not amortizing

our debt.

I'm sure

all of us can, I guess, relate one time or another when you look at your credit

card statement and if you have to carry a balance from one month to the next on

occasion, and you look down at it and say: Oh, gosh, if I make this minimum

payment, I'll pay my $1,000 off in 75 years and three month. Well, guess what?

When we look at our financial statement, there is no amortization period. There

is no plan to pay down the debt. We are only paying interest, which I stand to

be corrected on because I thought it was our third biggest expense, but wrong,

it's actually our second biggest expense.

Do you

know what? At the rate we're going, one of these days I'm sure we'll be able to

say it will be our largest expense.

Mr.

Speaker, I was quoted as saying, yes, I'm in support of jurisdictional scans,

and, yes, that is true. I am always in support of any sort of investigative

action that will apprise us and enable us to make the best decision possible,

but, again, there's the word: decision. The decision has to be made. We cannot

use a jurisdictional scan to say, okay, well, we're third best, that's

satisfactory. We need to aim high. We need to aim that we are the best. We have

to make sure we are the best, our people deserve it.

Jurisdictional scans are information-gathering tools. They're not to be used as

a delay tactic or a tactic to make us say, well, you know, we're not as bad as

them. We're not as good as those, but we're not as bad as seven other provinces.

That's not acceptable.

When you

look at another region or another jurisdiction, you must think that, well, you

look at their successes and their failures. When we produce our own, as a

province, our own direction, our own policy, we have to look just as certainly

on the failures and the successes.

I know

in our business, when we go on to something new, we often highlight more

investigation into the negative because it is a true tragedy if a business or

policy will fail because of a mistake somebody has already made.

Mr.

Speaker, last week, what's come to light in this House and in the media has been

the study by Goss Gilroy. There was a fair bit of scrubbing on that material and

one of the big phrases that was scrubbed out was the reference to cronyism and

nepotism.

Cronyism

and nepotism in itself is a big fear when it comes to investment. As a business

owner, if you're looking at investing in a business, be it in this province or

anywhere else in the world, you do a business plan, you line up what you can

forecast as being risks and what directions that you feel will be most positive

to take your business in, but all of a sudden, you have cronyism and nepotism

thrown into the pressure of an already stressful establishment of a new

business.

That's a

non-game starter for many people, and so it should be because that cronyism and

nepotism has no real pattern or real direction because that is where the

government picks the winners. It may not be the best application. It may not be

the most successful or the best business idea. It is a political action based on

no merit at all, no substantial merit and no credible merit.

I can

tell you a little personal situation that I'm aware of actually. A couple of

years ago, there was a gentleman who decided to get involved in politics. Him

and his family, they had a very well-to-do business. It was growing. There was a

future there for the next generation. Their business was largely based on use of

land. This one particular piece of land, which the enterprise was leasing, it

came up for sale, and the business tried to buy that land, but, unfortunately,

they were not the successful bidders. They were outbid by another bidder.

Mr.

Speaker, you wouldn't guess who the other bidder was. It was actually a

government. A government outbid that enterprise. So, all of a sudden, we now had

political interference in private business. Now, what business person in their

right mind would invest in an economy when government interferes with private

business? Not a good plan of action.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, do you know what? Not only did that decision to purchase that land

compromise the existing viability of that enterprise, the government actually

allocated that piece of property to the business's competition. Now, all of a

sudden, that business lays off six people; lays off six local people because

they did not have the land any more to continue to produce the employment hours

for those six people.

Guess

what, Mr. Speaker. That other business that took over that piece of property

brought in six temporary seasonal workers who have no interest in becoming

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The only interest they have in Newfoundland

and Labrador is to get their paycheques and take them back home. Now, is that

sustainable, Mr. Speaker?

Okay, so

beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the nepotism and cronyism, let's look at the surf

clams. Same situation, politicians interfered with a very viable business, a

very viable industry and stuck their fingers where it didn't really belong.

That, again, shook the confidence in our fishery, shook the confidence. Should I

invest in that boat? Should I invest in upgrading my plant? Should I invest in

the future in the fishery when one day some politician can wake up and say, I

don't think that business is one of my friends. I think this one's my friend,

I'm going to give them the quota instead.

Mr.

Speaker, as we all know, that was a situation with the surf clams where the

ethics commissioner got involved. It was not the actions of this government that

reversed it. It was the ethics commissioner.

Why did

the ethics commissioner get involved if there was nothing wrong with that

decision? Do you know why? Because there was and we all know it. Those are the

types of things that shake the confidence of our economy and business people

investing in our economy.

Our

unemployment rate is one of the highest in our history, but yet we also have the

highest vacancy in certain levels of jobs. Through the campaign and going door

to door, I came across many young people, able-bodied young people, and I said:

How's life? They said: We're loving it here, don't have to work, everything is

taken care of. I said: But there are help wanted signs all over our town, all

over our district, why don't you go out and get a job? They said to me: It

doesn't pay to get a job. If I go get a job I'm going to lose this, I'm going

lose that, I'm going to lose where I live. All those types of things have

created that void in that bottom echelon of jobs.

Minimum

wage jobs and minimum wage, plus a little bit, jobs, some people – and I'm not

one of those people, I was always taught that if there's a job to do, that's an

important job to be at. Those jobs need to be filled. They need to be filled by

people who are not working and are able to work, but because of the high cost of

living here in our province, people have got themselves in the shelter of the

social system. They have to put themselves there.

A lot of

times, when you look at it, as I said, I look at most things on a business case.

If I look at, okay, well, if I go to work and I have a family of two or three

kids and I have to pay daycare, it's not even worth my while to go to work. I'm

better off taking care of kids myself.

Our

party has suggested, through its platform and through asks of, let's look at

child care, let's look at that. We need to put that in for our people. That

would get people to work. That will fill some of these vacancies that exist.

That will remove people from the social system. That will put them back to work

so not only can they contribute, economically, but they can contribute to their

own self confidence.

The

Finance Minister referred to my colleague, some of his suggestions in a former

role, as being draconian. I'm sure that everyone in this House, although some

may not admit it, everyone in this province, that the levy was the most

draconian action ever taken by government in our history. Basically, you are

taxing people's success. You're not even taxing the people's success, you're

taxing their existence. They didn't get anything for it, you're taxing their

existence.

Mr.

Speaker, as my time winds down –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. LESTER:

I can speak for hours, and if

the minister of – whoever it was, I can keep going.

While

I've been slightly critical –

MR. OSBORNE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LESTER:

The Minister of Finance is

chipping me about Muskrat Falls, but do you know what? Ladies and gentlemen, he

voted from Muskrat Falls.

MR. OSBORNE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LESTER:

I forgot. As he said, he was

duped.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I'm

losing control.

Order,

please!

MR. LESTER:

While Muskrat Falls is being

talked about, we have to look at that in a different lens. We have to look at

that as a positive asset to our province. We have to look at, okay – and again I

stand to be corrected on my division of power – a third of it we need; a third

of it we've committed to Nova Scotia. There's one-third we hope to sell on the

international market.

Well, as

I said many a time in this House, I hope we do not sell enough to power a

toaster across that Gulf. I hope that every kilowatt, every little bit of it is

used right here in this province, this glorious Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, where we can put people to work. We don't have to live and survive off

royalties and the stimulation of government spending to sustain our economies.

We need real business people out in the economy creating jobs. We need people

looking to the future, thinking about investing in their own businesses;

thinking about investing in assets throughout the province, not people thinking

about a way out.

Mr.

Speaker, as I've said before, it took us four decades to get up off our knees,

and I sure as heck hope that we don't have to do it again.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to stand and have a few minutes on –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

I know, Mr. Speaker, when I

speak, they all get excited. I can understand. They're only human.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to stand just to have a few minutes to speak on the Budget

Speech also and some of the things that are in the budget. I heard the Member

give a great speech there talking about how we should take politics out of the

budget. I don't want to mention the Member's name here, but I remember one

Member in the PC side who took $500,000 out of the Transportation budget and put

it in the PC district before the election and there was a serious road problem.

I wrote the minister on numerous occasions – he's sitting in this House, I won't

say his name – I was sitting in this House on many occasions and I even said,

keep the $500,000 but fix that road. It wasn't done. There were two accidents,

three accidents on top of that with the ruts going up the road.

please, when you want to talk about taking politics out of it, talk to your own

caucus first. Once they agree to do it, we can reach out more, because I could

tell you, that was a safety concern that I brought up on many occasions that

should've been done for safety reasons. It was approved, the tender was

approved, the money was awarded and they were out there starting the work.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

I know the Member is saying

I'm right, I know, thank you for that, because you were here also when it was

brought up before and I supplied the documentation. I know that.

I agree,

by the way, we should do things for the right reasons. I'm a firm believer in

that. Do people think that there's not politics creeps in sometimes? Sure it

does. If you're involved with any business, any business whatsoever, sometimes

you got to say, well, we got to make a decision but it should never be a life or

death decision over politics. We should try to sit down, and the criteria, let's

try to do things properly. So, sometimes politics do creep in. We're all human.

This is politics. But we should make decisions in the best interest of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I

go any further, I just want to thank, again, the people of the great Humber -

Bay of Islands for electing me again in this General Assembly. I've been humbled

winning with almost 70 per cent as an independent. I have a lot of support in

the district, a lot of friends, family that came out to support me and I'm so

proud that they did.

In the

budget, there is no doubt, I say to the minister, it's always a balancing act –

absolutely no doubt. I've said on many occasions if the Minister of Finance, who

I'm looking at right now, had to just take any four of us right here, if we

wanted everything done in our districts that we go and lobby for, there wouldn't

be enough money in the budget of municipal capital works just for four of us. So

that's where the balancing act comes in.

We can't

get everything done in this province, no matter if it's a Liberal government, if

it's a PC government, NDP, we just can't do it. We have to make the priorities

of the government itself. We have to take care of the basic needs, life and

safety and health. We have no problem with that. I understand the balancing act

the minister has to do.

I know

the Member who just spoke, spoke about the Member and the Minister of Finance,

talking about he voted for Muskrat Falls. I did it before, and I know my

colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, my good friend now, I have

to say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE:

I said it publicly and I'll

say it again – and this goes to the Minister of Finance, this goes to the

Member, and I would say there's probably one, maybe even two. They were not

given the information on Muskrat Falls. When you listen to the inquiry – and I

know when we were in government and we were going across saying, well, you voted

for it, you voted for it, and I know the Minister of Finance. But when you hear

the information coming out of the inquiry – and I said this publicly before – I

feel the Members, the three or four Members that were in this House at the time,

did not have the correct information, and it's obvious in the inquiry. So I said

it, I made a lot of statements, because I assumed they did have the information,

but through the inquiry, you never. So we all know now how much it is and how

important it is to have all the information out before you make an informed

decision. This is just for all the Members that were in the House of Assembly at

the time.

So, Mr.

Speaker, in the Humber - Bay of Islands there are a lot of needs. Some of the

needs go with capital works, water and sewer in Lark Harbour. I know Ms. Gudie

Hutchings, the MP, is looking at making an announcement soon on that. Hopefully

there will be some money there for Lark Harbour. Also, there are some needs

there in Humber Arm South. They had some needs and I think that was approved

through capital works program, so that was already announced, the capital works

funding for Humber Arm South. Mount Moriah has some major concerns also with one

of their roads and some water, a major issue with the water. When you go on the

other side, I know there's funding there for Hughes Brook also that was already

announced last year to upgrade their water station and their pump house. When

you go further on down, there's money.

So there

is money available. Irishtown-Summerside there's a fair amount for water and

sewer. But I can tell you there's not enough here to satisfy all of our needs.

It's just not there – just not there. So this is why we have to set up a ranking

system which is set up to ensure that we do the best that we can for the money

that we have in the province.

I know

McIvers is looking for a lot of money in the area and I'm very pleased that

hopefully they'll receive some this year. I know that once we get the federal

government approval, there will be announcements all throughout the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. But when you look at the budget itself – and I know

the Minister of Transportation and Works, he's working with a lot of his own

people to help out on Route 450. There is a spot there in Copper Mine Brook that

is actually fell. I have pictures there for him. There's about a foot dip. This

is no knock on any worker in Transportation and Works. This was, what they call,

active underneath the road and this happens every 10 or 12 years and it will

happened again. I brought it to the minister's attention. He's working on it.

Also,

with the major floods out in the district, Mr. Speaker, the work wasn't done,

through no one's fault, only Mother Nature and the weather, and that is being

done. I just want to let the people know who are listening that they're out

there working on that in Frenchman's Cove now and also they're working on that

in Johns Beach with the big culvert that was – with the major flood.

There

are a lot of things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. I mentioned

yesterday about the fish plant in the district, the high, very high employment,

Mr. Speaker, extremely high employment through the fisheries and I'm grateful of

that. I know there are a lot of policies that were changed to help with that. If

there was only some way we could get some secondary – it's not doing the

secondary, it's having the markets for the secondary at the rates that they can

get it done. It is something that I know that everybody is working on.

Mr.

Speaker, we spoke yesterday on the levy, and I agree, the levy was a tough

measure. I was a part of it, I don't shirk away from it. It changed a lot. It

was a tough measure, but the government committed that in 2019 the levy would be

taken off and it is going in 2019. That was put in legislation. That was the

commitment that we made that we would have it in legislation and the government

is following through on that legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

It's just a little difficult

trying to hear the speaker. If I could have some co-operation, please.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, that's just

applauding because the levy is gone. I thank the Members opposite for applauding

me on that because it was a commitment the government made.

I ask

any politician in this room: Who wants to make people upset when you got to go

back to the electorate? Not one. Sometimes you got to make a tough decision. I

know, at that time, there were decisions that were made and, in hindsight, if we

had a bit more time, we would've made different decisions. There's absolutely no

doubt, but when you're faced with a crisis that you're coming in here and you

find out in January 2016 that what was being said out in the public during the

election is not the same that was put in there. Mr. Speaker, you've got to make

some major, tough decisions. You have to make major tough decisions. Government,

at the time, made tough decisions.

Where

they liked? Absolutely not. Where they the best for the province? We could have

done things differently but, at the time, it was the best for the province to

put the province on a financial stable basis, Mr. Speaker.

remember after we announced the budget, I went out and the first night I had a

speech, probably that was Thursday night, Friday night I went out and had a

speech and I told people: Here's what we had to do and the reasons why, here's

why. When I explained it out, no one liked it, absolutely no one liked it, but a

lot of the people that I spoke to understood why we had to do it as the

government.

The

taxes on the insurance also is another thing. The first possible opportunity

that we can see that would be taken off, and that was done. Again, gradually, as

you get on a more financial stable footing, you can make those decisions of some

of the harder measures that you had to take at the time. I know the government

is looking at that.

I look

at my time as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I had a great time. I

enjoyed meeting with municipalities. I enjoyed meeting the towns. There are some

people in this room that I met with at the time and we worked well together; we

worked well.

I have

to say on both sides, there are a lot on the Liberal side, not too many on the

NDP side because it's mainly St. John's and you deal with the mayor because it's

not as much as the town, but I know a lot of Members here on the PC side, when

we were working together for councils, we all worked well. We all took off our

hat, put our hat aside and said: What's best for the town? That's the way it

should be.

I know

many Members in the Liberal government now, when we went into municipalities, as

the minister, whatever differences we had, we put them aside in that room and we

worked for the betterment of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That's the way it should be.

I know

when I was dealing with Duane Antle and the firefighters' association, we

brought in presumptive cancer. That was a big issue for a lot of volunteer

firefighters across the province; 6,500, and the professional firefighters.

That's the kind of decisions that government made, even with the financial

strains that you had, you always find a way to get other things done.

Also,

Mr. Speaker, when you look at MADD Canada and the improvement that we made and

the regulations that we made. I remember first meeting with the group from MADD,

I think we were the lowest in Canada in ratings. Within a year, we were on the

top again because we took the bull by the horns and we realized that drinking

and driving was a major issue in the province.

Mr.

Speaker, we wanted to ensure that we were going to make sure that Newfoundland

and Labrador wasn't at the bottom of list. The government, as a whole – I may

have been the minister, but the government, as a whole, went and said, okay, we

support you on this, and we made some major changes to legislation.

I look

at municipalities, I'll give a good example, Mr. Speaker, of how people

understand. Some people in this room may have been at the meeting. I remember

when we changed the cost-shared ratio in the Capital Works and we put down roads

50-50 and buildings 60-40. I remember then there was a big outcry. What it was,

why we did it. We put water and waste water as a priority and we wanted to

leverage every cent we could from Ottawa; every cent we could we wanted to make

sure we got that from Ottawa.

I tell

you why, because when we walked in in 2016 – this is something I'll never forget

– we walked in in 2016, when the Canadian infrastructure fund – this is very

important, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian infrastructure fund that was in place, only

province in 2016 that never used one cent of it was Newfoundland and Labrador;

couldn't leverage one cent of it, couldn't leverage it because of the financial

position we were in.

remember walking into the department and they had something there, it was

supposed to go to Ottawa, $34.6 million ready to be signed off but the

government never had the money to leverage any of the federal funding. That was

the financial position we were in in 2016.

remember changing it around and saying, okay, we got to get this money. Right

away, the money started flowing. We signed it off. Went to Ottawa and got it

done, but I remember changing the cost-shared ratio and making water and waste

water so we could get every cent from Ottawa.

Mr.

Speaker, I remember MNL had their biannual convention out in Gander, and some of

the Members that are in this House were out there. They were upset about the

changes. I said to the group at the time: I'll come out and talk to you about

it, I'll come out.

remember on a Friday night, I said put one hour aside, I'll stand up and answer

any questions. I got up and had a few words and I explained what I just did, the

reason why we had the change it to get every cent we could from Ottawa for

leverage, every cent. I stood up and I explained it to them. I said here's why

we had to do it, no one wanted to do it but we had to because 72 per cent, 73

per cent of the applications that Municipal Affairs received is for water and

waste water and we had to ensure that we leveraged every cent.

By the

time I finished, 20 minutes later, explaining, going through the whole gamut, I

had four questions. Three of them were on Crown lands and one question on when

are we going to try and get the ratio back. I explained to them when we would

try to change the ratios back.

So, when

you explain the situation that you're in to the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, they understand. They accept it. MNL, at the time,

they didn't like it but once you explain it to them, they came part of the

decision that we made. Once you become part of the decision that you made, then

they understand more.

The

electorate in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are a lot wiser than a

lot of us give them credit for. They understand. They have a household. They

understand when your bills are piling up. They understand when your credit card

is getting too full. They understand when you have a priority: do I get a new

car this year or do I do the siding on the house. They understand all that.

What we

need to do, and I always said it, is it's better to be honest and up front and

they'll respect you for it. They may not like it, but they'll respect you for

it. So that's my message today.

I know

the people in the Humber - Bay of Islands are very supportive of both

governments. I'm not being critical here of the former PC government because

there are a lot of things happened in the Humber - Bay of Islands, too, under

the former PC government also.

What

you'll find on many occasions is that everybody gets the impression that we

don't get along in this House, but we do. We do. There are times we're going to

have our differences, we all do, and everybody knows we do, but I can assure

you, I can name people I dealt with in the PC government when I was in

Opposition, that there were major improvements in the District of Humber - Bay

of Islands and Corner Brook.

I know

now with the current government, working with a lot of current ministers and

Members, a lot of backbenchers have a lot of potential also, that there are

still improvements. We're lobbying together, and I'm very proud of that. I

always said before that once you put your differences aside and look at what is

the main priority, it's not hard.

Mr.

Speaker, of course, I can't leave without having a few words, and I promised the

people of Humber - Bay of Islands, about the situation that I found myself in a

year ago. I always said I was going to stand up every opportunity, so I'm going

to take the next two minutes and just speak about the situation I found myself

in a year ago, a year and a half. Just one thing, and I promised the people of

Humber - Bay of Islands I would – they wanted me to. If you knew every door I

knocked on there, if there wasn't nine out of 10 that said: Ed, stand up and

defend yourself.

I'm

going to read a little text message from Mark Browne about a certain person who

made a complaint against me. Mark Browne read it to me. Here's what we had going

on, Mr. Speaker, and talking about how I'm going to hold up the swimming pool in

Placentia. This text was in April, April 11 or something. For everybody to know,

the swimming pool was approved in the budget, approved by Cabinet. It was

announced in the budget and it was done, but I was accused of holding up the

swimming pool in a text message to Mark Browne from the person who made the

allegation.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I just

remind the Member about drawing reference to members who are not in this

Chamber, as per an earlier decision.

is in the room across from me right now.

Here's

the other thing, and I've said this before. I said it on many occasions. Here's

one, Mr. Speaker, and it will come out. This is what I always said. The Member

for Placentia - St. Mary's said this in a text. I said this, publicly; here's

proof that I have: If others come forth, it would solidify the facts.

Here's

the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's sending a text message to another Member

of the government asking them, can people come forward against me. That's what I

had to put up with.

The

swimming pool was approved by Cabinet. It was approved in the budget. It was

approved by the policy committee back in early March; yet, I had to defend that

I threatened the swimming pool, and asking for other people to come forward

against me. This is in the text.

I will

take care of this in my own way, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER:

Your time is over.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

– but I promised the people

that I would do it in the Bay of Islands. That's just one of many.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your

time is expired.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

great to have an opportunity to get up and have a few words today to speak on

the budget debate. I just want to take a few minutes, I probably won't use my

whole time today, to make a few general comments about the budget and some

issues related to the fiscal situation of the province as well.

Before I

do that, I just want to say it's an honour to be here again, to have been

re-elected for the third time to this House. It's great to be here to

participate in this debate. I want to thank the people of the District of St.

George's - Humber for giving me their support again in this last election.

It's

interesting to be here and to listen to the speeches of many of the new Members

and to hear them talk about their experiences going door to door and listening

to the people, and also giving some understanding of the experiences they bring

to this House. It's always been amazing to me when you look and listen to the

people who've been elected to this House, the diverse backgrounds we come from

and the fact that we all bring something a little different to this House and

add to the debate and make the debate more meaningful that we have here.

It's

great to see so many new Members here. I think the complexion of the House has

really changed, and the way we're going to do business, I think, is going to

change as well.

For

example, last Wednesday we had a private Member's motion related to improving

Question Period, improving the way we ask and answer questions in this House. So

it was interesting to watch what happened there. We all got up and gave our

comments on this motion. Some things we liked about it, some things we didn't

like about it. There were amendments made to the motion; but, in the end, we all

arrived at a version of this motion that was acceptable to everyone here in the

House. Because we realized that we have to work together if we're going to make

things work here.

I think

that's one thing that's interesting about the situation that the people of the

province have given us is that we have to work together. When we work together

we all sort of take responsibility as well. We all take responsibility for the

way things are done here, and the way things turn out as well.

So it

was interesting; I was listening to the Minister of Finance the other day as he

was talking about the bill related to removing the tax off automobile insurance.

He said during the debate, I always look for suggestions from Members as to how

we can save money. He invited Members of this House to come forward, to talk to

him in his office or to bring them forward here in the House.

A few

days later, I was interested to listen to the Member for Bonavista. He took the

minister up on the challenge and he provided three, I believe, possible ways

that government could save money. So it was an interesting sort of interaction,

and I think I would encourage other Members as well to make suggestions to the

minister, to make suggestions to this House because I think when we do that, we

add to the debate that's here and we bring forward ideas that the minister may

want to implement as we move forward in the future.

Today

we're debating the budget motion. Will we accept the budget measures that were

presented before the election and reinstated by the Minister of Finance after

the election? That's what we're doing here today.

The

budget process is a number of things. It's not just one debate and it's not just

people talking back and forth, there are a number of things that have to happen.

I'm not sure if people who are listening at home understand the process. When

the House closes in the evening, most evenings this past two weeks we've had

Estimates Committees here where we go through each department line by line. The

officials come in, sit here in this House and the Members of each Estimates

Committee asks them questions. It's a very interesting process to hear the

answers that they have and the suggestion and the questions that are being

asked.

That's

one part of the process of passing the budget. The Estimates in the Estimates

book are the line by line, everything that's spent within that department is

questioned and discussed here in this House and answers are given. Members get

the information they need to make decisions or ask further questions in this

House. So that's part of the process here as well.

Sometimes there's a non-confidence motion in the budget, sometimes there are

amendments to the non-confidence motion to prolong the debate, but I think this

year we seem to be moving along quicker than we sometimes do because we've just

come off an election where the people of the province have had an opportunity to

speak directly as to how they want to go. It's interesting that we've had that

level of co-operation in the House, that we've had this different sort of

atmosphere here in the House and I think it's very positive that we have that

happening here in the House.

The

other things that we've had in this budget debate are motions in legislation

related to the borrowing that's going to happen. Yesterday, I think it was, or

the day before, we passed a motion to borrow $1.2 billion – a significant amount

of money to be borrowing. So, that's one thing we did.

Also,

usually if there are any changes in tax legislation or any associated changes

with the budget, sometimes that requires legislation as well. So we've had some

debate on taxation, and when we remove the tax on automobile insurance. It was

interesting to hear the debate that was happening about taxation.

Now,

some people say taxation is a cruel act enacted upon people, that government

enacts upon the population. It was interesting when the minister introduced the

motion, he made a statement that: If you ask the people what tax they would like

to pay, they would probably say none. That was an interest sort of statement,

but we had some alternative views here in the House too.

noticed the Member for St. John's Centre, when he rose in the budget debate, he

talked about the importance of taxes and what is done with the taxes, so that

was an interesting sort of exchange about taxation and the importance of

taxation. So we're sort of talking about the fundamentals of government.

I was at

an elementary school in Pasadena in my district a few years ago; it was a grade

two class. One of the students, a young girl, put up her hand to ask and

question. She said: Why do we need government anyway? That's one of the basic

questions, I guess, that we have to justify on a daily basis maybe.

We often

don't think about that: Why do we need government? But it's the basis of some of

the political philosophy that we have, Thomas Hobbes and Ronald Dworkin and all

of these people who've spent a lifetime of thinking about: Why do we need

government and what should the nature of government be? She got right to the

heart of it: Why do we need government anyway?

I think

that sort of related to the debate that we had on taxation: Why should

government be able to take money from some people and give it to others or spend

it on things? The answer that I gave that day was that it allows us to

co-operate. Government is a way for people to come together to co-operate. And

people are willing to give up a little bit of their freedom and a little bit of

their money because they know they can co-operate, they can do things better and

make life better for us all when we co-operate. That's why we need government.

The next

question, I guess – she didn't ask it – but the next question I was thinking

about is: To what extent should we take money from people and how much should we

take? And I guess that's the central question of what we should do. I think most

reasonable people would say okay, taxation is fine but when things fall down is

when government doesn't spend the money, they collect from people, the money

they ripped from people's pockets when they don't spend that prudently, when

there's waste in the system and when they don't see results from the money that

they get.

I think

that's why it's important that we have a good discussion, a good debate and

think about what we're doing in the House. That's why we need to co-operate and

why we need to really think about how we're spending taxpayers' dollars that we

raise. Because we have to make some decisions, hard decisions about what the

priorities are, how we are going to spend the money and how we are going to

invest it. Those are some things I think we need to keep in mind.

I think,

as I look at the fiscal situation and the situation we were in in 2014, the

fiscal crisis that we were in, there are three, sort of, questions we have to

ask when we look at the fiscal state of the province, and the fact that we owe

so much money and we're under a lot of stress to meet these demands that people

have around the province. I think there are three sort of big, basic questions

that we have to ask. The first question is: How did we get to where we are today

in this province? How did we get in the fiscal situation that we are in today?

that's the first question because I think history is important. It's important

to know how we got here. We shouldn't be tied to history totally but we have to

learn from history, learn by the history of other places and our place. The

other thing is: How can we get through this fiscal situation that we're in? What

should we do to get through this situation? And I think the third big question

is: How do we ensure that we don't get in this situation again? How do we ensure

that we have a prosperous future in this province? So I think those are some big

questions that we should be thinking about, that we should be discussing here in

this House and that we should be debating as we move forward.

So the

first question: How did we get where we are? I'm just going to touch on a few

things in terms of our history and in terms of some of the fiscal issues that

we've had to deal with and the public policy issues that we've had to deal with

as a province.

One of

the historical things, you have to go back to the early European settlement in

Newfoundland, if you look at why people came here and why that impacted our

settlement patterns. When Europeans came to this province, we came to prosecute

the fishery. So that resulted in people being spread over a huge geographic

area.

We're a

province, Newfoundland and Labrador, that's about the same size as Great

Britain. It's bigger than Texas, I think, bigger than California – these areas

that have huge populations. But in terms of population, not only do we have a

small population, but we have a population that because of our history, it's

spread all around the province in various locations which make it difficult to

provide services for areas of the province. So that's one of the facts of our

geography, of our history, of our settlement patterns that we have to take into

account when we look at part of the fiscal challenges that we face in this

province.

If we

look at our history in terms of more recent history, we look at the

industrialization attempts by Smallwood, we look at the attempts to

industrialize in the '50s, '60s and '70s, and some of the problems that that led

to and the way that added to the debt we had in this province as well. So that's

an issue as well.

Another

thing we need to look at is the oil revenue. How did we spend the oil revenue

that we had in the early 2000s? We had about $20 billion in oil revenue. Did we

spend it wisely? Did we prepare ourselves for the future in the way we spent

that oil revenue? That's what we have to ask ourselves. I think this is an

important question because it relates to how – I think we're going to have an

oil economy in this province for a considerable time into the future. I think

the oil is going to be part of our economy and it's going to be a significant

part of the revenue that we have in this province.

I think

we have to ask ourselves how did we spend that revenue. If we look at what

happened in this province in terms of our oil revenue, some economists look at

the idea of the paradox of plenty. Sometimes places that get a big influx of

resource revenue end up worse off than places that did not get the oil revenue,

did not have the oil boost.

The

revenue sort of changes the economy, changes the spending patterns of the

government and leads to more problems in the long run than places that didn't

have this influx of revenue. So I think we have to be smart enough as a

province, smart enough as a people to learn from what has happened in other

jurisdictions in terms of oil revenue and learn about how we're going to spend

our oil revenues.

Places

like Norway are often looked at as the model of a way to develop a sustainable

future from offshore oil revenue. But Norway just didn't start off that way,

they went through something similar to what we're going through now or we went

through in 2014. Norway, the oil industry in the 1990s was just starting, then

the price of oil dropped significantly. They were in a similar fiscal situation

that were in in 2014. That, in large part now, we're still in. But what they did

was it was such a shock to the system that the national will developed that we

have to do something differently. We have to put money aside to develop this

legacy fund, to have the revenue into the future. I think that's something that

we have to look at in this province. We have to learn from other jurisdictions.

Other places have had oil as well and ended up worse off than they were. We have

to make the most of it.

So those

are just some thoughts that I have as we do this debate here today. Great to be

here, great to have the chat, great to have the discussion, and I look forward

to hearing what many of you have to say in the future and discussing the

important issues of the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

sure I can stand in the heat and talk for 20 minutes. I always thought that

being direct and to the point and less is more, so 20 minutes will be

challenging for me.

It's an

honour to stand here in the House to represent the people of Torngat Mountains.

I want to thank the people for electing me. I feel very privileged and proud to

serve on their behalf. I also want to congratulate all Members of this House for

being elected by the people to serve. As I said, it's a great privilege, but

it's also a great responsibility.

I look

forward to working together to advance our province. This is very, very

important times. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's valued or not. The

challenges can be great but I was raised to believe that if you serve the

greater good, the rewards are just as great. I was proud to be given the

responsibility for critic for Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs and also

for Labrador Affairs. I thank the Member for Windsor Lake for his confidence in

me and the support of my caucus. I do feel truly blessed. Like I said, the heat

might get to me, Mr. Speaker.

I was

listening to the hon. Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair yesterday and she

spoke about her beautiful land and she was very, very proud of it. I think when

you go to Labrador you understand why she was so proud. I know that when the

Member for Labrador West, when the recount is done and he's sworn in, I'm sure

he will speak highly of his district as well.

There's

something about Labrador. We call it the Big Land, but we could have called it

the beautiful land; Nunatsiavut, our beautiful land. We are all quite proud.

district of Torngat Mountains is filled with wonderful people, and the land is

very rich and very beautiful. I offer say to anyone and everyone, if you do get

the opportunity to travel up there, it is worth your while; very rewarding.

You'll experience the beauty and riches and wildlife and culture that is very,

very hard to find in this day and age.

We have

char, salmon, black bears, polar bears, wildlife, too much to mention. Mr.

Speaker, I know you're – you changed out on me. I was going to say – very, very

familiar with the vast wildlife and the richness of the environment up there.

When we

talk about budget, we talk about economy and we talk about balancing the economy

and being fiscally responsible, which is one of the reasons why we've been

elected here. We want to make sure that we have a future and that we leave a

healthy future for our children.

When I

look at where I live, people in Torngat Mountains, we believe in community and

we believe in preservation of our environment and protection. That ties back

into the economy as well, because if you ruin the land, then you ruin the

environment and you pollute the food sources. As we see a lot in Third World

countries, it does impact the economies. It's very, very difficult to be

sustainable when you impact that.

For us,

it's about quality of life. Earlier we talked about nursing homes. That was

raised, talking about nursing homes, because the people who go into nursing

homes are our elders, our seniors, and the thing is they've raised us. They

looked after us. They scarified for us. So it's very, very important for us now

that we ensure quality of life for them in their old age, that we turn around

and we be responsible for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. EVANS:

My grandmother is in a

nursing home in Goose Bay. We're very, very lucky, because my grandmother is

SOME HON. MEMBER

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2019-06-20
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	2019-06-20
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	15c351bc85b4d24256bce384c7f7866992ade398

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).