PDF Version

January 19, 2015

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 58

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers

I would

just like to take a minute to welcome everybody back to the House of Assembly.

I was not really expecting to see you all so soon, but welcome.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have members'

statements from the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the Member for

the District of St. John's North; the Member for the District of Mount Pearl

South; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the

District of Port de Grave; and the Member for the District of Labrador West.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize Lisa Young, a teacher at Sacred Heart Elementary

School in Curling.

Lisa is

the Physical Education teacher at the school and is a true proponent of healthy

living and physical activity. She is

always promoting ways to ensure her students have the opportunity to be involved

in various physical activities, achieve their personal best while developing

self-esteem and confidence.

Lisa is

a teacher sponsor for three school teams, co-ordinates the school's intramural

programs, organizes a primary division skating program and special events such

as the Terry Fox Run, Walk for Breakfast and other sporting activities.

She is also a coach with the Silver Blades Figure Skating Club in Corner

Brook.

I know,

first hand, the difference Lisa has made in her students' lives in her approach

to sports, education and the well-being of her students.

recognition of her continued commitment in helping her students and encouraging

them to become physically active, Lisa was named the District Physical Educator

of the Year for the western region by the Physical Education Special Interest

Council of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Lisa on receiving this

prestigious award and commend her for her contribution to students' life at her

school. Well done, Lisa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize a group of volunteers in the District of St. John's North who are

making a difference in the lives of their neighbours and in our community.

The

Wishingwell Road Algerine Place Tenant Association was founded about seventeen

years ago. From the beginning, one

of the aims of the association was to brighten up the Christmas season for

families in their neighbourhood.

They have grown their Christmastime volunteer activity from providing a single

food hamper for one family to providing about thirty food hampers each year and

these offerings include turkey and vegetables for a traditional Christmas Day

meal, as well as gifts for children.

Over the

past seventeen years, many people have contributed their time to the

association. In recent years, the

core volunteer group has included Lillian Parmenter, Helen Caines, Sharon

Clarke, and Carol Clarke. When I

dropped by to visit them, Mr. Speaker, just before Christmas I noted that Mrs.

Parmenter's hallway was stacked with boxes as they were just about to assemble

their Christmas hampers.

I ask

all hon. members to join me in thanking Lillian, Helen, Sharon, and Carol and

recognizing the efforts of the Wishingwell Algerine Place Tenant Association.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, on February 5,

the City of Mount Pearl will come alive with the fun and excitement which is the

thirty-third annual Mount Pearl Frosty Festival.

This

year's festival will be jam packed with many events and activities for people of

all ages and interests. Some of this

year's highlights include: an opening night extravaganza, three community

breakfasts, an Irish pub night, Frosty lip sync, Battle of the Brains, Frosty

movie night, an old fashioned jiggs dinner and variety show, comedy night, a

dinner theatre featuring Spirit of Newfoundland, and a concert and dance

featuring Shanneyganok, the Irish Descendants, and Siochana.

Mr.

Speaker, as I am sure you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude would

not be possible if not for the hard work of many.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the

City of Mount Pearl, Frosty Festival Board of Directors, the various community

groups and organizations, the corporate sponsors, and all of the

community-minded volunteers who will be contributing to this year's festival,

and encourage all residents and non-residents alike to come out and enjoy the

many activities planned for Frosty Festival 2015.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE:

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues,

I would like to commend the members of the Portland-Jamestown-Winter Brook

Recreation Committee and its volunteers on their outstanding work and commitment

in developing the Jordan Wells Memorial Playground in memory of a young man who

tragically passed away in February of 2012.

The

committee has spent countless hours fundraising and hosting events for this

special project with assistance from programs and donations from individuals,

businesses, and corporate sponsors.

Their dedication to create an outdoor area of recreation and play for children

of the local service district is superb.

The committee also has future plans of a park for family fun days and a

walking trail for people of all ages to enjoy.

Many

people from the surrounding communities volunteered to help make this adventure

a success. This committee and its

volunteers have demonstrated that when people work together, substantial

projects can be achieved.

Honourable colleagues, please join me in acknowledging the

Portland-Jamestown-Winter Brook Recreation Committee: Jackie Dean, Remanda

Muggridge, Janice O'Brien, Lisa Skeffington, Joanne Reid, Donna Frye, and its

many volunteers for their continued dedication, hard work, and many

accomplishments, and all the best in their future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Port

de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this House to recognize St. Peter's Anglican Church in Upper Island

Cove on their 200 th anniversary.

The present church, built in 1890, is celebrating its 125 th

anniversary this year.

celebration of this occasion took place yesterday with a special service and

anniversary dinner. The occasion was

celebrated with the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Most Reverend

Frederick Hiltz, who was born and raised in Nova Scotia.

Accompanying the Archbishop was Bishop the Right Reverend Dr. Geoff

Peddle for Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador.

In his

address to the congregation, the Archbishop spoke of the dedication and

perseverance of those individuals who created the foundation of the church in

Upper Island Cove. Speaking about

the church and its wooden structure, he mused about the people, those master

carpenters whose hands and skills created some of the intricate detail found

throughout the church. He referred

to the church as the rock of the community much like Peter was referred in the

Bible as being the rock. It is a

gathering place where people have come to worship for two centuries.

I ask

all members to join me in congratulating the St. Peter's Anglican Church on 200

years of history and Christian faith.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member

representing the District of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize Makaila Hudson, a sixteen-year-old Level II student at Menihek High in

Labrador City. This year will be

Makaila's third year as a member of the Cross Country Newfoundland and Labrador

Ski Team. Involved in many local and

community sports, she has represented Labrador West and our Province in her

athletic pursuits.

This

season will be Makaila's busiest yet as a member of the Menihek Nordic Ski Club.

She attended dry land training camps in Corner Brook, Eastport and Gros

Morne this summer. This fall she

participated in training camps in Alberta, the Labrador Snow Camp, and the

Labrador Open Races. She just

returned from the World Junior Trials in Ontario placing eighth overall.

This

weekend she attended the Newfoundland and Labrador Team Selection Races in

Corner Brook for the Canada Winter Games.

She will also be participating in the Eastern Championships in Quebec,

Provincial Championships in Clarenville, National Championships in Ontario, and

the Canada Winter Games, if selected, in British Columbia.

She will finish her season this year at home skiing the Great Labrador

Loppet.

Mckayla

Hudson is an inspiring young athlete and an inspiration to the youth in our

Province. I ask that all colleagues

in this House join me in wishing Mckayla the best in this season.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

pleased to rise in this hon. House to provide an update on the success of the

Premier's Summit on Health Care which took place on Wednesday of last week.

It was my privilege to join the Premier and over 300 delegates to discuss

real issues faced by residents and health care providers in Newfoundland and

Labrador today. Attendees included

residents, researchers, health care professionals, representatives from the

regional health authorities and the education system, and a vast and inclusive

array of organizations and key stakeholders.

I would also recognize members of this hon. House from all parties who

joined us for this daylong event.

Feedback

obtained from thirteen regional consultations held from Mount Pearl to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay helped set the agenda for the summit.

Numerous other methods including online and written submissions have also

been utilized and the wealth of information obtained is already proving to be an

extremely valuable resource.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier's Summit has allowed us to identify a number of key areas

of consensus on which we must place greater emphasis moving forward.

These areas include the need for interdisciplinary primary health care

teams in our communities, shared electronic health records, improved access to

health care services and supports, improved collaboration and co-ordination and

a renewed focus on health promotion and disease prevention.

During

the day we also saw a renewed focus on the theme of taking an upstream

approach to systemic challenges within our health care system.

Integrating this approach, which has been part of the work of the

provincial government for a number of years, puts a focus on the underlying root

cause of any problem such as the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes or obesity,

rather than treating the issue on the surface, over and over again.

A number of participants discussed the concept, including guess speaker

Dr. Ryan Meili.

Mr.

Speaker, another key theme considered was the effect of the social determinants

of health which include where people are born, grow, live, work and age.

Applying a Health in All Policies lens across government is a direction

we will certainly consider as we move forward.

another key outcome of the summit, we announced the expansion of our Primary

Health Care Advisory Committee through the addition of representation from the

general public. Those interested in

being considered for this opportunity are asked to contact the department for

more information.

The

Premier's Summit on Health Care provided an opportunity for all participants to

make their views known and to build strong and lasting partnerships between

government, stakeholders and residents.

As we move forward in the development of a primary health care framework,

we will continue to strive to create real and lasting change for the benefit of

all residents in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I, too, attended this summit and I was certainly very impressed with the

quality of comments and the level of expertise in the room.

These people should be commended for taking their time to contribute to

such an important topic. My only

hope is that the information collected does not get put into a report that is

stored on a shelf somewhere.

The only

thing the Office of Public Engagement did not poll was the level of skepticism

in the room, and for good reason.

Back in 2003, there was a primary health care framework completed by the

department. This government then, in

2006, cut the Office of Primary Health Care.

Provinces across Canada have done significant work in primary health care

but this government has failed to provide any direction.

It has been eight years since they cut the Office of Primary Health Care,

but I am glad they have acknowledged the error in their ways.

I want

to see a new plan. It has to happen.

I look forward to seeing the results.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

It was my pleasure to attend the Premier's Summit on Health Care last

week. I, too, learned a great deal

from listening to people talk of their experiences and ideas for change in

primary health care, and also hearing them express their frustration with more

consultations and their wish for action.

I am

glad the minister is committing to bring back the program that set up primary

health care teams across the Province until it was dropped by this government a

decade ago. I want to remind the

minister that the 2003 report on mobilizing primary health care provides already

an existing blueprint for how to build a primary health care framework and I

suggest to him that he does not have to reinvent the wheel.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to note our government's commitment to supporting innovation

in the provincial seafood sector through our Fisheries Technology and New

Opportunities Program. Originally

launched in 2007, this program will soon reach the significant milestone of

having supported 300 research and development projects.

Mr.

Speaker, research and development plays a key role in helping any industry adapt

to changing conditions and stay competitive in the marketplace.

The Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program supports new

developments in the areas of harvesting, fish farming, processing, and marketing

by providing funding that fosters innovation among industry players.

To date,

more than 270 research and development projects have been made possible through

the provincial government's commitment of $16 million to the program.

This funding has helped industry pursue valuable research, often in

partnership with organizations like the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation

and the Marine Institute.

Mr.

Speaker, this government's support of research and development in the seafood

industry enhances job opportunities, promotes economic growth, and provides

brighter futures for families and communities throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Examples

of initiatives that have received Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities

funding include: the development shrimp trawls that are more energy efficient

and have less contact with the seabed; research into new processing technology

that can increase product yield, product quality, and energy efficiency; and the

pursuit of new marketing initiatives that are helping the provincial aquaculture

industry build new clientele in various parts of the world, and helping the

sealing industry pursue clients in Asia.

Mr.

Speaker, the provincial seafood industry has generated $1 billion annually for

the past several years, and is a key driver of the economy in Newfoundland and

Labrador. The industry is subject to

change, challenge, and international competition on a continuous basis and our

government continues to help industry adapt and succeed with supports like the

Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program.

As a

government, we look forward to continued collaboration with industry that builds

on the strong reputation that Newfoundland and Labrador seafood already enjoys

on the world stage.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Research and development is important in any industry, especially in the

seafood industry, and we should support these initiatives.

It is not simply good enough for this government to rest on their laurels

on a research and development component as their greatest achievement.

As the

minister indicated, the industry generated $1 billion this past year; but again,

I remind this government that in 1992, nearly twenty-three years ago under a

Liberal government, the industry was worth $1 billion.

It is clear that this government has failed to grow this important

industry. Our fishery could be worth

so much more.

I say to

government, we have to do more for the fishery.

That is one small aspect; we need to think big.

This government has not done that.

They have failed to grow this fishery by the lack of vision and missed

opportunities. Amid all these

failures regarding our fisheries since 2003, we have a government that is now

trying to use FTNOP to distract from the uncertainties this government has

plunged us into.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

We all support innovation in the seafood sector and, for that matter, in

all sectors of the economy in this Province.

The timing of this release is interesting as government's disagreement

with the federal government over the $400 million CETA agreement is currently

ongoing.

The

minister is talking of $16 million invested in 270 projects in this statement.

I ask the minister: If the federal government proceeds with CETA as it

has planned and the $400 million agreement with the federal government does not

materialize, does the Province still plan to honour its own commitment to invest

$120 million share of the original agreement?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In March

2013, Premier Dunderdale announced that due to the fiscal situation of the

Province she was cutting one Cabinet position and reducing the number of

Executive officials in government by ten.

She said these cuts would save $1.5 million a year.

Additionally, former Premier Williams announced a leaner Cabinet in 2003,

saying that they were leading by example during those significant fiscal

challenges.

I ask

the Premier: Given the current fiscal situation of our Province, will you lead

by example and immediately cut the size of your Cabinet by three members?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. member opposite for his question.

We are very cognizant of the very serious fiscal challenges that we face

as a government and not only as a government, but as a Province.

I can tell you, as I have said publicly before and I have said several

times before, that all options are on the table all options are on the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is

that all options are still on the table, and we are still not realizing the

significant savings that it would have for people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, also, Nova Scotia does not have parliamentary secretaries, PEI does not

have parliamentary secretaries, New Brunswick does not have parliamentary

secretaries, but our Premier has five parliamentary secretaries in this

government.

So I ask

the Premier: Given the current situation of your government, will you

immediately cut those five parliamentary secretaries?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I

say that everything is on the table, all options are on the table, Mr. Speaker,

that means everything. That means

everything is on the table. Just

last week I announced what we intended to do with the size of the House of

Assembly.

The

Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, has clearly said he agrees and supports

the reduction in the size of the House of Assembly.

He said it on TV yesterday afternoon.

Now, we did see a flip-flop on him before Thursday night was over, Mr.

Speaker. I do not know if he wants

to hold the line on his position or not, but I can tell you, for us over here on

this side of the House

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

all options are on the

table. All options are on the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

flip-flop, Mr. Speaker, I would say, because two years ago in March 2013, I

spoke about reducing the size of the House of Assembly.

Where was this minister where was the Premier at that time, I say?

September 30, the Premier increased the size of his Cabinet increased the size

of the Cabinet to fifteen ministers, then on November 27 he announced a hiring

freeze and a cut to discretionary spending, but he did not cut the size of

Cabinet or did not cut parliamentary secretaries.

So I ask

the Premier: Since you could have saved millions of dollars by cutting your

Cabinet and cutting parliamentary secretaries, why have you not implemented

those reductions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I have said it twice and I will say it again that all options are on

the table. I will remind the member

opposite that just last week when I was talking about reducing the size of the

House

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

which he agrees with what

he said was instead of doing that, why don't we reduce communication staff.

He wants to go after public servants before he reduces his own politics,

before he reduces his own political staff.

He turned it immediately to public servants.

Mr.

Speaker, I have said it and I will say it again, all options are on the table,

we need to start in our own house, get our own business in order, and lead by

example. I am willing to do that,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

leading by example means leading; it means making those decisions first.

Cut the Cabinet ministers and reduce the number of parliamentary

secretaries, I say, Mr. Speaker.

January 6 there is a letter that government January 6, 2015 letter to CETA

says that they are pulling provincial support for any trade agreement currently

under negotiation by Canada.

However, in today's press release the minister says that the provincial

government is pulling support from all trade agreements, not just agreements

that are currently being negotiated.

I ask

the Premier: Which is it, and how will this action impact and affect NAFTA?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

been quite clear. When the federal

government came to us and they asked us to give up MPRs

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

minimum processing

deal, we said we supported a CETA deal on the condition that we have our

cost-shared fisheries innovation fund, cost shared 70-30; $280 million from the

federal government and $120 million from our government.

We continue to support that.

Mr.

Speaker, it is hard to get in a room and negotiate with a government that does

not agree to its own agreements. It

does not abide by its own agreements.

This is about principle. This

is about treating Newfoundlanders and Labradorians fairly by the federal

How can

you negotiate and work with a government that is not going to work with the

people who they are partnering with, Mr. Speaker?

I just came from an Atlantic Premiers meeting where other Atlantic

Premiers agree with Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government's letter on pulling support for trade agreements currently under

negotiation is dated January 6, 2015.

This was a full week before the two ministers went to Ottawa, and

thirteen days before notifying the people of the Province that the support for

international trade agreements had been pulled.

I ask

the Premier: Why did you keep this important information secret from the people

for almost two weeks?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, since the House adjourned in December, I can tell you throughout the

Christmas season the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs continues to work on

the CETA file on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Both ministers, the Ministers of Business and Intergovernmental Affairs,

went to Ottawa. They visited with

numerous industry organizations and numerous individuals who wanted to have

meetings, who wanted to have discussions.

They

wanted to know where are we in this agreement, how did we get to where we are,

and they wanted to understand the agreement.

They have done that very well, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you, on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, these two

ministers have represented our best interests well, and we will continue to

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

question for the Premier is a very simple one, actually, and I am assuming the

Premier would know the answer to this.

question is: The letter that was sent on January 6, 2015, why did you keep that

from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

You have still not answered the impact that this would have on NAFTA.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we are not keeping anything from the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We have a process that is

alive, Mr. Speaker. There are

numerous pieces of work and actions that are being taken in regard to our

I suppose we could just open a door and have someone follow us around and

watch every move and every step we are taking, Mr. Speaker, but we are making

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are going to continue to make those efforts.

As I

just said, I just came from the Atlantic Premiers, Mr. Speaker.

I met with them in the last two days.

We had a good discussion this morning.

Just now at a press briefing before coming here this afternoon, all three

premiers support Newfoundland and Labrador in its efforts to ensure the

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, the Department

of Justice is the lead department on Bill 42 to amend the electoral boundaries.

The Minister of Justice is responsible for presenting this report in the

House, but she cannot because she is not elected and she is not allowed in this

House. I assume the minister took

part in Cabinet deliberations and had to present the plan to Cabinet, but she

has yet to speak publicly on the rationale.

I ask

the Premier: How can government justify placing such a responsibility in the

hands of an unelected minister who refuses to face the people of the Province

and cannot answer questions from this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I have said time and time again that we, as a government, would bring

legislation before this House. We

will conduct the affairs of the Province.

We will continue to deliver legislation no matter what department it

comes from, and if it is Justice and Public Safety, we are going to continue to

deliver those legislations. Mr.

Speaker, we are here doing that in January because it is an important piece of

legislation.

If we

are truly committed to electoral reform, if we are committed to changing our

boundaries and updating our boundaries, Mr. Speaker, we need to come into the

Legislature to do that. We are doing

that now. We have government here

who are ready to deliver on that. We

are ready to debate it. We are here

in the House to do it, and we are looking forward to the opportunity to debate

the substance of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, Judy Manning is

getting paid to hold a responsibility that she cannot discharge.

How can the Premier justify having a paid unelected minister who is

incapable of discharging her own duties?

I ask

the Premier: Everything is on the table; is Judy Manning's position on the

table, too?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister continues to carry out the work that she has been tasked with doing.

She has been part of this process like all ministers have, Mr. Speaker.

We have been very engaged in the process that brings us to this

Legislature today. We have been

engaged as a Cabinet. We have been

engaged as a caucus, Mr. Speaker, and we have heard from numerous people

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is

not a new discussion, Mr. Speaker. I

had very significant discussions. I did.

The Minister of Health has had numerous discussions on this in the last

year about the importance that people place on House of Assembly reform.

Reforming pensions for MHAs; I have said I am going to do it, and I am

doing it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

The day-to-day operations of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I said I am

going to do it; I am doing it, Mr. Speaker.

We are here today to debate the size of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Virginia Waters.

MS C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2013

this government announced a ten-year plan for sustainability.

Clearly, that has not worked.

A $560 million deficit has ballooned to almost a billion dollars, and now the

minister is proposing a five-year plan.

I ask

the minister: Is the goal of the strategy now to actually eliminate the deficit

and the debt, or is it to alleviate the concerns from bond agencies about his

government's ability to pay debt as well as equity payments into Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the member

opposite is absolutely correct. The

government back in 2003, our Administration back in 2003, laid out a ten-year

sustainability plan and we mapped out how we were going to achieve that.

At that particular time, we also had some very strategic, insightful

advice from a number of individuals who were forecasting what the price of oil

would have been over the course of that ten-year period, and we all know what

happened in July.

The

price of oil has changed dramatically.

It has dropped dramatically. What

we have witnessed in the last well, since July month.

What we have witnessed is such an extreme change in the price of oil that

it has had an impact on our provincial budget unlike any other event in our

history has had such a significant impact, and we need to adjust the course,

readjust the course, and that is what we are doing over the next five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters.

MS C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, last year

government gave $552 million to Nalcor.

The year before it was $531 million.

That is over $1 billion in two years.

I ask

the minister: How much do you plan to give Nalcor next year?

Will you consider decreasing this amount given our financial situation

and the fact that you say everything is on the table?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Let me repeat what the

Premier has said on any number of occasions in recent weeks.

As we go through a review of the current fiscal position of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are examining every aspect of our

operations.

We are

examining all of our revenue streams.

We are examining all of our expenditures.

All the plans, all the strategies we have mapped out for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador unfortunately requires us to revisit.

We need to examine whether we have the capacity to do it today.

They are

still wonderful things. They are

still things that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should have within

this Province. We need to re-examine the

time frames in which we are going to be able to deliver that, whether it is the

investments in Nalcor, whether it is the investments in other strategic

infrastructure that we have in the Province.

We need to examine all aspects, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters.

MS C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, if I was going

to go out and buy a really big thing, I would make sure I had the money in the

bank before I made that commitment.

This government has made a commitment on behalf of the people of the Province.

It did not do its homework to make sure it had the money in the bank.

I ask

the government: What are you doing to make sure you get the money ready to pay

all those commitments that you have made in the future?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I will give the

member opposite the benefit of the doubt because she was not around in 2003 when

we took over government. She was not

around when her colleagues, the Liberal Party, handed over a debt to this

Province that almost had us bankrupt.

We were spending twenty-four cents on every dollar we raised to service

the debt alone, not just reduce it but just to pay the interest on the debt.

When the

member opposite stands and starts to preach to us about what we should or should

not do, I would suggest she take a look in the mirror.

Look at what her party had done to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Look at what we had to do

in 2003. Our commitment, Mr.

Speaker, is we will not leave this Province in that kind of derelict position as

they handed it to us in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is currently running radio ads promoting

social housing as an option for people who need it.

I ask

the minister responsible: Why are you advertising Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing when people are now on a wait-list?

Don't you think people know they need housing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I think it is

quite obvious; the member opposite has missed the entire point, or he chose to

miss the point.

We know,

Mr. Speaker, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, in hearing from its

constituents, recognize there was a stigma often attached with Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing. This is about

eliminating the stigma that is attached to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

support the campaign, Mr. Speaker. I

think it is a wonderful initiative by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has

imposed a freeze on discretionary spending.

I ask

the minister responsible again: How much has government spent on these radio

ads, including air time and production?

How do you justify spending money to promote a program that already

cannot meet its demand? In a time of

cutbacks, isn't this irresponsible?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, this is done

under contract. I certainly make no

apologies to it. Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing heard from their constituents.

This is one of the things they wanted to do.

Look at

what they did. They took a senior,

Mr. Speaker, someone who has a disability, they work with these people.

They are promoting a positive image around Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing.

Mr.

Speaker, I commend the work that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is doing in

their entirety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

This money would have been

better spent on leaky roofs or leaky windows, Mr. Speaker.

Not only

is government spending money to promote a wait-listed housing program, it is

spending money to advertise the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.

I ask

the minister responsible for that: Including air time and production, what have

these radio ads cost? Do you really

think the Province needs to advertise the liquor corporation?

People in this Province know where to buy liquor.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation is a Crown corporation that

operates independent; they have their own board.

They have their board that makes their own independent decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN:

They are accountable to the

government, as a Crown corporation, but I will undertake to find out how much

those ads would cost.

I just

want to remind the member opposite, the corporation is an independent body that

operates and returns their profits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on

an annual basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, the Senior Crown

Attorney in Happy Valley-Goose Bay has resigned.

This leaves the office, with two Crown prosecutors, three positions short

of a full complement. This office

has the second highest caseload in the Province, the highest outside of St.

John's.

I ask

the Minister of Justice: What steps are you taking to deal with the continued

substandard service being offered in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

very serious issue, and I certainly thank the member opposite for raising it.

It has been a concern for government for some time: our ability to

attract and retain Crown prosecutors in Labrador.

First of

all, I want to assure the member that there will be no break in service provided

there. Staff and the Director of

Public Prosecutions have made arrangements so that there will be travelling

Crown prosecutors to ensure that the justice system proceeds and there will be

no break in service.

I can

also say to the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that there are a couple of things

happening he might want to be aware of.

One is that human resources are engaged with a number of other possible

prospects right now, and I am certainly prepared to keep you updated on that as

we move forward.

The

second piece of information, Mr. Speaker, is that we, through our department,

have engaged with a discussion around alternate means of attracting and

retaining people in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Department of Justice, as the minister alluded to, is flying in two Crown

Attorneys from St. John's to handle court circuits in Nain and Natuashish; yet,

I have recently received a resume from a qualified Nunatsiavut beneficiary who

applied for a position with the Crown Attorney's Office and was turned down.

So I ask

the minister: What steps are you taking to ensure equal opportunities for

qualified Aboriginal professionals, as per your government's commitment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

member would certainly appreciate, I am sure, that I am not in a position to be

able to talk about individual hirings and human resource processes respecting

individuals here in the House of Assembly.

I can certainly commit to have a chat with the member outside of Question

Period if he would like, but what I will say is that I am not aware that any

qualified individual from Labrador has applied and been turned down.

I am suggesting the member is misleading me, but if you want to share it

with me outside, I will certainly have a look at it.

I will

say, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one thing we are committed to, it is to work

with the member to get the full complement in Labrador.

It has been an ongoing issue; I have been directly dealing with it myself

now for pushing three-plus years. We

need to find a way forward. If we

can find a way to deal with the compensation and other benefits that attract

people into Labrador that is where we want to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

Mr. Speaker, the Corner Brook

Hospital Action Committee met with the Minister of Health in November, at which

time he committed to having the hospital design to them within two or three

weeks. That is his words, not mine.

This commitment is now again broken.

So I ask

the minister: When will you provide the functional design to the action

committee and the residents of Western Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the final design

and functional plan will be available in the very near future.

I am committed to providing regular updates to the people of the West

Coast and also the hospital action committee.

I had a very productive meeting with them before Christmas, and I look

forward to continued discussions as well.

continue to make progress on the project.

We are very committed to the project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

stood in this House on December 15, when asked the question on the number of

ultrasound units that would be in the new hospital, and he committed to getting

that information and providing it to the House.

He failed again to table the information, as committed, the next sitting

day. Residents are concerned about

their health, particularly the women.

I ask

the minister: Will you honour your commitment and table this information

immediately? We have sent letters

and we have asked the questions here in the House.

It is time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is

a lot of passion on the other side of the House today it seems.

I am happy to provide the information that the member has asked for.

There will, in fact, be more ultrasound units in the new hospital based

on the draft functional plan, not less.

We are

increasing the ultrasound units by two, Mr. Speaker.

That is the current proposal.

This is the first opportunity I have had to provide the information to the

House, and I am happy to answer the member's question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked

the thirtieth anniversary of the sinking of the

Manolis L with 500 tons of fuel and

oil. For years, oil leaks and seeps

have been having environmental and wildlife impacts.

I ask

the Minister of Environment: Have you pushed for a commitment from the federal

government to remove the remaining oil, or are you willing to accept inadequate

cofferdam as a permanent solution?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, myself and my

colleague, the MHA for The Isles of Notre Dame, attended a meeting with the

Manolis L concerned citizens' committee.

We also attended a rally where people talked about exactly what was going

on there. Everybody who was there

all agreed that a permanent solution is what needs to be done.

Mr.

Speaker, we are all aligned; we are all on the same side.

There were political stripes of every party sitting in the room together.

We all agreed that this is exactly what needs to be done.

Mr.

Speaker, I called the federal minister just before Christmas.

I had a conversation with Minister Gail Shea.

I put it to her exactly what was going on.

We talked about the temporary solution with the cofferdam.

It is not a solution that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want; it is

not what they need. We need this

fixed. We need it fixed immediately,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Premier has told the people of this Province that he is going to reduce the

number of electoral districts to thirty-eight from the current forty-eight.

Coming up with a new number of districts is a complex process.

I ask

the Premier: Who did they consult with in order to come up with this very

specific number, or did they just pluck it out of mid-air?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite is on record that we need to reduce the size of the

House of Assembly. The process we

have initiated is to do exactly that, Mr. Speaker.

It is to do that.

Under

current legislation, that process is required to take place in 2016.

It would not become effective until 2019.

That is another full, four-year term, which can equate, with a ten seat

reduction, to a difference of $10 million.

It is in the range of $10 million, Mr. Speaker, difference to the

taxpayers, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We have nine months available to us between now and when the election is

scheduled. The last date the

election should be in October; nine months, Mr. Speaker.

The 1996

process took nine months. There is

no reason if we work together and we co-operate and get on with it, we can get

this done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

This

person is on record for saying she is open for a discussion with regard to the

number of seats in this House.

I am

asking the Premier, why is he planning to bypass the democratic process

currently outlined in our Electoral Boundaries Act?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, to the contrary;

the member opposite must misunderstand, because we are following what the

legislation what we are doing in the proposed legislation that is going to

come to the House this week is to move that process up.

It is to move that process up to do it now.

The

current legislation lays out the number of seats.

The new legislation we are proposing is to lay out the number of seats

and go to an independent commission with a chair appointed by the Chief Justice

of Newfoundland and Labrador and four members appointed by the Speaker of this

House. Mr. Speaker, an independent

commission to determine the boundaries.

Not for us as politicians to do it, but for an independent commission to

do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I still

have not received an answer to my first question.

The

Premier stated publicly that we need to reduce the number of electoral districts

in the Province as a cost-saving measure, saving $2.4 million a year let's

name it as a year; that is how much less than 1 per cent of the current

deficit.

I ask

the Premier: With such a small annual saving, is his plan really a cost-saving

measure? Is that what it is?

I do not think so.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if

the Leader of the Third Party yet understands the enormity and the seriousness

of the fiscal challenges we face as a Province.

It is important upon us

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

It is important upon us to

take every step and every action that is available to us to be responsible and

to deal with the fiscal challenges that we face, Mr. Speaker.

We have no control over the world oil

prices. It is a direct result of the

world oil prices. The impact is not

only impacting us, it is impacting other provinces in Canada.

It is having serious impacts in other provinces, including Alberta, as an

example, Mr. Speaker, who are dealing with a serious crisis in their province as

well.

We have

to do the responsible thing. We have

to govern. We have to make hard and

difficult decisions, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you as Premier, I am willing to

make those hard decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

current Electoral Boundaries Act stipulates that Labrador have four districts,

but the Premier has said he will let the electoral boundaries commission decide

if Labrador will keep four districts.

I ask

the Premier: Will he commit to protecting these four districts so Labradorians

can be fairly represented and their voices heard?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the legislation

lays out an independent commission to determine the boundaries.

It is supposed to happen every ten years.

It happened in 2006; it is supposed to occur again in 2016.

The

circumstances we face today, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the

Leader of the Third Party, and I, as Premier, are all in agreement that the size

of the House of Assembly needs to be reduced.

Mr. Speaker, we can do it today.

We do not have to wait until 2019.

That is $10 million that we are going to find, and I can tell you, there

are a lot more $10 million blocks that we need to find, Mr. Speaker, between now

and when we bring the Budget down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

We are facing a difficult

time. Every $10 million counts.

It is not a small amount of money.

It is a large amount of money, and the people of the Province expect us

to do what is right, Mr. Speaker, starting in our own house.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader, with notices of motion.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

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

An Act To Amend The

Electoral Boundaries Act, Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that the resolution that the Member for St. John's Centre gave notice of

on December 15 will be debated on Wednesday, January 21.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a

petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be appointed in 2016 to

determine any changes to the electoral districts in the Province; and

WHEREAS

the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of electoral seats; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the necessary public

consultations; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the population and

demographics of each district and properly calculate the necessary adjustments

for a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the geographical

implications of a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint the electoral

boundaries commission early;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or without the

completion of the work of the electoral boundaries commission as a result of

appointing the commission early, it will not interfere with the legislated and

mandated requirement to hold a provincial general election in 2015.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, the people I spoke with who signed this petition feel very strongly

that there is a little bit of politics involved here, and that politics is

trying to push the election into 2016.

It is

an act, a desperate act by a desperate group of people.

Another

person who signed the petition told me, Mr. Speaker, a desperate act by a

desperate group of people who know that if the election were called today they

would lose that election. They know

that if the election were called in June or July they would lose that election.

The

election has to be called, Mr. Speaker, before September.

They know they are desperate to hang on to power.

That is what I have been told by the people who have signed.

They are desperate to hang on to power to the point that they are trying

to push this out to 2016. That is

the fear of the people who have signed this petition, Mr. Speaker, and they want

to ensure that with or without the completion of the work by the electoral

boundaries commission this government does not push the election into 2016.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

mental health programs and services are crucial to the health of individuals,

families and communities; and

WHEREAS

despite mental health program and services being delivered by government,

community-based organizations and informally by families and friends, there are

still large gaps in services and programs in the Province; and

WHEREAS

despite these efforts, stigma remains a significant barrier for people needing

to access mental health services and participate in society; and

WHEREAS

new directions and priorities are needed for mental health programs and service

delivery, especially for unique groups such as youth, Aboriginal people,

immigrants and refugees; and

WHEREAS

deep fiscal cuts in the last Budget have placed a great strain on organizations

delivering mental health services in the Province;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately strike an all-party committee on

mental health which, through extensive public consultation, will review the

current state of provincial mental health services, receive expert testimony on

best practices in mental health care delivery, and report their findings with

the intent to provide guidance and oversight in redesigning mental health

programs and services to better serve the needs of all the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this petition, which has been signed by thousands of people across the

Province because people know the desperate situation of mental health services

across the Province, is asking for immediate action.

It has been a few months now since this was first introduced.

The people across the Province know

because they live with the reality of the shortage of services of people who are

suffering with mental health issues.

It is a critical issue and it requires a critical solution.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the fortune to attend the Premier's Health Summit.

Everybody at my table were people who were very experienced in the health

care profession, who worked in the health care profession for years.

We all came with the knowledge of the number of reports and consultations

that have been done and that have simply not been tabled.

We know

with the report on the landlord tenancy act, that report was supposed to be

tabled to this House. It was done

over two years ago. We have not seen

hide nor hair of it. The same thing

with the housing and homelessness report.

Mr.

Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we have an all-party committee so that

we deal with this in a thorough and in a comprehensive manner.

The whole House of Assembly must be committed to dealing with this

critical problem that affects the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their

families.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters.

MS C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be appointed in 2016 to

determine any changes to electoral districts in the Province; and

WHEREAS

the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of electoral seats; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the necessary public

consultations; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the population and

demographics of each district and properly calculate the necessary adjustments

for the change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the geographical

implications of a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint the electoral

boundaries commission early;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or without completion of

the work of the electoral boundaries commission as a result of appointing the

commission early, it will not interfere with the legislated and mandated

requirement to hold a provincial general election in 2015.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, over the last three days I have had many conversations with members of

my caucus, but more importantly, I have had discussions with people in my

district. Many people believe that

this government, although it professes to be altruistic in its motives, is

focused singularly and solely on extending their shelf life.

That is a real concern to democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If the

commission needs extra time to be able to do its work, it should be allowed to

do that and should not interfere with an election as planned.

It is not the problem for the electorate that the current government

could not get a leadership campaign off the ground.

That is what delayed, in essence, an election date.

People

of the Province expect an election to happen this year.

I look forward to the debate we are going to have in the next few days on

this piece of legislation that government is going to introduce.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Bay

of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to present a petition. I will

not read the petition because we already heard it.

It is the same one that was heard before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I will reread it

for the record for the House of Assembly.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be appointed in 2016 to

determine any changes to the electoral districts in the Province; and

WHEREAS

the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of electoral seats; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the necessary public

consultations; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the population and

demographics of each district and properly calculate the necessary adjustments

for a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed a sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the geographical

implications of a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint the electoral

boundaries commission early;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or without the

completion of the work of the electoral boundaries commission as a result of

appointing the commission early, it will not interfere with the legislated and

mandated requirement to hold a provincial general election in 2015.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I tell you what I find so if it was not so serious, it would almost

be part of Revue 2015. Here we have

an unelected minister who is coming into the Cabinet, asking to make changes

early to the electoral boundaries of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

who is not even elected, and we cannot even ask questions.

Counting

on people who are elected, here is what should happen.

She is going to take it she is unelected, is not going to run, telling

the Premier of this Province I am not running until the next general election

and walking in and telling all of us, everybody, not just on this side, not just

the Third Party but everybody, telling everybody who put their name on the

ballot: Here is what I am recommending, here is what I am going to bring to

Cabinet, here is what I am going to do, but I am not going to speak about it.

I can assure you that it is fundamentally wrong.

I will

tell you what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

I go back to Bill 29. You

think back, you go back to that, Mr. Speaker.

I feel it is fundamentally wrong that the person who is doing it cannot

be answering questions in the House of Assembly.

Bill 29

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

member's time has expired.

The hon.

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS

the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be appointed in 2016 to

determine any changes to electoral districts in the Province; and

WHEREAS

the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of electoral seats; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the necessary public

consultations; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the population and

demographics of each district and properly calculate the necessary adjustments

for a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the geographical

implications of a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint the electoral

boundaries commission early;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that with or without the completion

of the work of the electoral boundaries commission as a result of appointing the

commission early, it will not interfere with the legislated and mandated

requirement to hold a provincial general election in 2015.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I have sat over here for about a year and a half, and there have been a

lot of things happen that I have not been pleased with.

I have lived in Labrador my whole life, and there have been decades of

things that I have not been pleased with.

I can

tell you now, Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador have been completely outraged

that a Premier without a mandate, a Premier who was elected by less than 400

people in the Province, can turn around and look at four seats that were

protected in Labrador. Seventy per

cent of the landmass of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he expects it to be

represented by less than 10 per cent of the people in the House.

There

was a reason that provision was made for these four seats.

This is a blatant attack on democracy.

Let the commission do its work.

Let's go to the polls. If we

are serious about saving taxpayers' dollars seven by-elections, Mr. Speaker,

costing taxpayers about $100,000 each.

Let's go to the polls, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to add that the petition I am presenting is on behalf of the people of Lake

Melville. I want the minister for

Labrador to know that the petition I am presenting is from the people of Lake

Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS DEMPSTER:

Labrador has lost enough.

We need to stand up, and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister

for Labrador, sometimes that means standing alone because it means standing for

the right thing. I believe we have

to be united here, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot

wait to get into the debate when we look at what happened in the other reforms

and to see the gall and the audacity of this Premier and his government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

To the hon. House of Assembly

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS

the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be appointed in 2016 to

determine any changes in the electoral districts in the Province; and

WHEREAS

the undersigned agrees with the reduction in the number of electoral seats; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed the time necessary to properly carry out the necessary public

consultations; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the population and

demographics of each district and properly calculate the necessary adjustments

for a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the geographical

implications of a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint the electoral

boundaries commission early;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or without the

completion of the work of the electoral boundaries commission as a result of

appointing the commission early, it will not interfere with the legislated and

mandated requirement to hold a provincial general election in 2015.

As in

duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I received that petition from members in the Lake Melville area because

they knew I was born and raised in Labrador part of my life.

I decided to move to the West Coast, but they really had no choice

because the minister representing Lake Melville could not speak up at the

Cabinet table and receive a four seat mandate to move forward and it is really

putting Labrador at a disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

To the hon. House of Assembly

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS

the electoral boundaries commission was legislated to be appointed in 2016 to

determine any changes to electoral districts in the Province; and

WHEREAS

the undersigned agree with a reduction in the number of electoral seats; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed the time necessary to properly carry out necessary public consultations;

and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the population and

demographics of each district and properly calculate the necessary adjustments

for a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the appointment of the electoral boundaries commission in 2016 would have

allowed sufficient time necessary to properly evaluate the geographical

implications of a change in the number of electoral districts; and

WHEREAS

the government is attempting to change legislation to appoint the electoral

boundaries commission early;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that, with or without the

completion of the work of the electoral boundaries commission as a result of

appointing the commission early, it will not interfere with the legislated and

mandated requirement to hold a provincial general election in 2015.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I am presenting this petition today on behalf of residents of St.

John's and residents of Mount Pearl who are speaking out.

They are saying they do not support

pushing out the general election beyond what this current government has in its

mandate. Any further than that, they

do not have a mandate to go beyond the 2015 general election.

They are saying there is opportunity to look at seat reduction, but it

has to be done right.

One of

my MHA responsibilities is looking at the Office of Public Engagement.

When we look at their Web site and we look at the dated data that came

out, when you make decisions and you have imperfect information and you try and

fast track things, well, you usually result in failure, as the Leader of the

Official Opposition has said. The

Census information does not come out until 2016.

These

were reasons why the electoral boundaries commission would have been

kick-started in 2016 to allow for sufficient time, sufficient consultation, and

also look at all the other things.

This government is looking at completely changing the law as it exists,

weakening the voice of Labrador and not looking at the vast geography that

exists there. These petitions as we

have presented today come from across the Province, and looking at it from a

Mount Pearl and St. John's perspective, they would not want to see the election

changed.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the member his time has expired.

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to call from the Order Paper, Order 1, Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER:

Address in Reply.

The hon.

the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

For

those folks who are watching at home and wondering we convened the House to

bring a bill forward on the Electoral Boundaries Act I think it would be

prudent for me just to take a couple of minutes to explain to people at home why

I am on my feet today and why we are talking to Address in Reply.

MR. FLYNN:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I would

ask the Member for Humber East to withdraw his comment.

MR. FLYNN:

I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier, to

continue.

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, before Christmas in Address in Reply I used some of my time as

Premier, I get sixty minutes to speak in Address in Reply.

I have thirty-eight minutes left of my sixty-minute allotment.

In order

for a bill to be debated in the House, the Electoral Boundaries Act, which we

have convened the House of Assembly to debate, there are a number of steps that

take place. The first step in the

first day is that notice has to be given to table a bill, which the Government

House Leader has done here today.

The next step, which generally happens on the next sitting day, is for first

reading of the bill, and then subsequent to that there will be second reading of

the bill. It is not until second

reading of the bill that debate actually occurs, and debate occurs during second

reading and through Committee processes and third reading after that.

So until we get to that stage of our parliamentary process, then debate

on the bill will not actually occur.

This

afternoon I would like to use, as I said, my remaining thirty-eight minutes

now just over thirty-six minutes remaining in Address in Reply.

Under Address in Reply, we are very broad on the topics that we can

discuss and the matters that we can discuss and debate here in the House of

Assembly.

There

are a couple that I want to talk about this afternoon.

I will get to the Electoral Boundaries Act, but I think the most

important topics in the Province that I have heard from people repeatedly is

where we are as a Province in regard to the Comprehensive Economic Trade

Agreement and our discussions with the federal government, a very important

matter for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, important for us as a Province.

The CETA agreement is a perpetuity agreement; it will be forever, so it

forever will obviously have long-lasting effects and impacts on Newfoundland and

Labrador.

What

happened, Mr. Speaker, by way of background, so all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians understand the entire process that is taking place and also

members of the House as well is that through the CETA negotiation process the

federal government is negotiating with the European Union on a trade agreement.

Newfoundland and Labrador has been part of those negotiations.

Canada is the signatory and the lead entity in leading those discussions

with the European Union and its member states, but we have been part of that

process. Part of that process, the

federal government came to Newfoundland and Labrador in the spring of 2013 and

signified, indicated, that they required MPRs in order for CETA to be

accomplished.

I will

explain what that means. Mr.

Speaker, by the way, I am referring to a document here which outlines everything

I am going to say today. It is a

document that has been produced by us as a government.

It is our position on the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic

Trade Agreement. If the members

opposite would like, I can table a copy of it here now if you want to have a

look at it, if you do not already have a copy.

Mr. Speaker, actually I will table that and maybe our Pages can share

that with Members of the House of Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, in early 2013 the federal government came to Newfoundland and Labrador

and said, look, in order to achieve the agreement with the European Union they

required MPRs, which are minimum processing requirements in our fishery.

Mr. Speaker, our fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, you cannot

overstate the importance of it to our Province, particularly to rural parts of

our Province and to rural and remote communities throughout the Province,

throughout the Island portion and also throughout Labrador.

We, as a

Province, even though we are so based on the fishery and the fishery is so

important to us, we have two authorities.

We have two authorities that give us authority over the fishery: one is

licensing of processing facilities and the other one is MPRs, or minimum

processing requirements. The MPRs

require that fish go through a minimum processing before it leaves the Province,

before it is being exported.

It is

the hammer that ensures processing facilities, fish plants, throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador continue to operate.

It is the jurisdictional authority that ensures people continue to have

employment in the fish plants throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

us to secure CETA Newfoundland and Labrador would have to relinquish that

long-standing policy, that long-standing insurance for our agreement with the

European Union. It only has

implication for the European Union.

Significant trading partners like the US, China, and other countries are not

impacted by this; it is only for the European Union.

As we

looked at it as a government, the first thought that anybody would reach would

be: That could have an impact are they going to now ship unprocessed seafood

products out of Newfoundland and Labrador to the European Union unprocessed and

have a negative impact on our fish processors?

That is the first reaction I think that anybody would reach during this

type of a discussion.

Mr.

Speaker, we looked at it too. We

consulted with industry, and we talked to industry members and stakeholders.

We looked at the considerations.

We know that fish processing in the European Union is costly.

Water costs are high, electricity costs are high, and labour costs are

competitive. After all of the

consideration given to it, it is not believed today that our MPRs would put our

fish plants at risk in this Province.

We do not believe that. The

fishing industry does not believe that.

The processors do not believe it.

We do not believe it today.

Mr.

Speaker, it is a perpetuity agreement; it is forever.

So it was important for us to make sure that because we cannot predict

the future. We do not know what is

going to happen in five years down the road, or six or seven years down the

road. We do not know what is going

to happen, Mr. Speaker. We could see

a case where one of the member states, one of the countries in the EU decide

they are going to invest millions and billions of dollars now into fish

processing so that fish processors could become competitive.

We do not know; they could do that.

They could try to do something like that.

We do not know what is going to happen.

So we

wanted to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishery.

What happened during the discussion was we reached an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, that agreement was reached during late May and early June

2013. That is when we negotiated

that agreement with the federal government to exchange MPRs for a cost-shared

fund of $400 million. It is cost

shared on a 70-30 basis. The federal

government pays 70 per cent of it, and we, as a Province, pay 30 per cent of it.

Mr.

Speaker, through a number of exchanges between the federal government and the

Province, May 27 to June 2, there were a number of discussions that took place.

I am just going to highlight a couple of them, Mr. Speaker.

Again, they are highlighted in this document that is publicly available.

On June

1, a letter from the federal government noted specifically and I quote, Mr.

Speaker with respect to the proposed transition program of up to $400

million, we note your willingness to agree to a 70/30, federal/provincial

cost-sharing formula. In the context

of this commitment on cost-sharing, we are prepared to instruct our officials

that the transition program address industry development and renewal as well as

worker displacement.

Now,

this is an important part, Mr. Speaker, because today the federal government's

position is this is about worker displacement.

This is a fund for losses, is their position today, because they have

introduced demonstrated loss, and I will get to that.

Clearly, back on June 1, 2013, they indicate industry development and

renewal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

That is what it is about, Mr.

Speaker.

On June

2, the very next day, another letter from the federal government acknowledged

the Province's acceptance of the, proposed terms regarding MPRs and the

transition program. They have

acknowledged that. They have

acknowledged the proposed terms regarding MPRs.

October 18, Mr. Speaker, an agreement in principle was reached between the

federal government and our Province. On

the same day the Province wrote the Federal Government noting specifically that

and I will quote again 'with respect to the commitment to the $400 million

70/30 Federal/Provincial cost-shared program, which was confirmed in previous

correspondence and in our telephone conversation on October 15, 2013, so it

was relating to a telephone conversation that took place shortly before it we

welcome a joint announcement between our Governments as soon as possible.'

Shortly

after that, Mr. Speaker, on October 23, a phone conversation took place between

the federal minister and the provincial minister responsible for trade of the

day; I think it was the Minister of Finance, Minister Johnson at the time.

They had a telephone conversation.

During the telephone conversation they wanted to clear up this language

regarding up to. There has been

some discussion about what does that up to mean up to $400 million, up to

$280 million?

During

that conversation up to means the federal government and the Province have

agreed to a 70-30 cost-shared ratio, 70 per cent by the federal government and

30 per cent by the Province, a 70-30 cost-shared ratio.

Up to means they will put in $280 million as long as we put in our $120

million. If the Province decided we

only want to put in $60 million, well then on a cost-shared 70-30 basis, the

federal government would only put in $140 million.

They would put in up to the $280 million, Mr. Speaker, and only up to the

$280 million.

Mr.

Speaker, that is what the up to referred to.

If we wanted to put in $500 million, they are still only going to put in

$280 million because it is up to $280 million.

If it is lower than that, it would be cost.

If we put in less, the ratio is 70-30.

If we put in more, they are only still going to put in $280 million.

Mr.

Speaker, that discussion happened.

On October 23 that discussion occurred.

Then there was an e-mail, there was an exchange as well.

It happened shortly after that in which there were the details of the

fund that they were following up on.

In the outcome of the conversation it was confirmed the following day, on

October 24, where the Province specifically outlined, and I will quote again,

that we will provide $120 million towards the industry transition fund.

This represents our 30 per cent share as I have just indicated of

the program, to which you have confirmed that the Federal Government will

contribute $280 million. We will

announce this exciting new $400 million funding partnership on Tuesday, October

29, 2013. That was pertaining to

the con v er s ation

that had taken place between Minister Fast and Minister Johnson.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, provincial officials had contact with the federal minister's office

after that. Mr. Bill Hawkins, who is

involved in the discussions as well, currently works in the Prime Minister's

Office. That occurred between

October 23 and October 29. There was

continuation of discussions, Mr. Speaker.

During

that process, On October 23, 2013, federal officials clearly indicated that the

federal government was fully aware of the Province 'is intending to soon

announce/make a public reference to our governments' intent to develop a

cost-shared (70/30 fed/prov) transitional program of up to a combined total to

$400M that would address fish and seafood industry development here it is

again, fish and seafood industry development and renewal as well as workers

whose jobs who are displaced in future as result of MPRs no longer being applied

to products destined for the EU.'

So, Mr.

Speaker, it is clear again what the fund was supposed to be for.

These are e-mails from officials in the federal government, ministers in

the federal government.

October 22, the provincial official e-mailed Mr. Hawkins to advise that we are

going to move forward with this event that we talked about to announce the

fund that we had agreed to between both levels of government.

Mr. Hawkins, who now works in the Prime Minister's Office, responded, We

(federal govt, but likely not through Minister Fast's office here in Trade) look

fwd to addressing inquiries that come in re this program, both tomorrow and in

the days ahead as the policy details get fleshed out by our respective

officials.

Mr.

Speaker, he acknowledges we are going to go ahead and make the announcement.

He says we are going to get inquiries about this.

We look forward to it. It is

quite clear, Mr. Speaker, we were on the same page.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, from that point onwards, the federal government moved the fund from

Minister Fast to Minister Moore, who is the minister who represents Newfoundland

and Labrador in the federal Cabinet.

He is also the Minister of ACOA. It

is kind of ironic he represents our best interests in the federal Cabinet, but

in January Minister Moore represents ACOA.

ACOA, by

the way, is about opportunities for development.

It is about creating jobs. It

is about stimulating the economy, providing opportunities throughout the

Atlantic Region. It is about

innovation. It is about driving new

industry. That is what it is about,

Mr. Speaker. It is about all of the

things that we said the fund was supposed to be for.

It is about providing opportunities for things like research and

development and so on. Minister

Moore was assigned this duty from the Prime Minister to take this over.

January, 2014, a year ago, Minister Moore as I said, minister for ACOA and

his officials met with Newfoundland representatives.

Also, by the way, in early 2014 Minister Moore also went to the St.

John's Board of Trade. He met with

officials here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he never mentioned for some

reason it just slipped his mind I suppose.

There was no mention of demonstrated loss.

There was no mention at all of demonstrated loss at this time period.

Mr.

Speaker, it did not slip his mind because it did not exist.

The requirement for demonstrated loss did not exist in the agreement that

we had reached. That is why there

was no mention of it. Through 2014,

there was no mention of it.

In May,

the Minister of Fisheries of the day, currently the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs, wrote the federal minister about the fund and said to

him: it is time to move this forward; where are you on it?

He wanted to make some advancement in it and move it ahead.

Now we are in August, last summer, 2014, when Canada EU chief negotiators

signed off on the final negotiating text, and then signed off in September.

They

continued to do the work with CETA.

They continued to do the work with the EU, based on a premise.

We had an agreement. They

continued the process, their agreement with the European Union, and on September

26 there was a negotiation. Then,

guess what happened? All of a sudden

things started to change.

Now they

are in a place with the European Union and they are in a place with CETA that

they have signed off on the agreement, the negotiations and the text and so on.

It is not officially completed yet.

Then on October 24, Minister Moore finally responds after being asked for

a response. We sought out a

response, and finally in October he suggested that his officials meet with

provincial officials to begin discussions on a fund.

During

the subsequent meeting it happened on October 28, seventeen months after we

had reached an agreement. Seventeen

months after we reached an agreement, Minister Fast talks about this new

measure, this new condition. The new

condition was demonstrated damages, Mr. Speaker, which was never on in the first

place.

Mr.

Speaker, it really makes no sense to us to include demonstrated damages, because

in the work we have done since then, and even in the meeting I had with the

Prime Minister on December 12, he told me the fund is there.

The money is in the bank. It

is in the budget. It is there, Mr.

Speaker. The fund is there for

demonstrated loss.

What is

really interesting, though, is that we are probably a year to two years before

CETA is finalized. What the CETA

agreement says is after CETA becomes applicable there will be a three-year

period before MPRs are relinquished by Newfoundland and Labrador.

That could be five years from now, Mr. Speaker.

If this

was about demonstrated loss, why would it be in the budget today?

Why would it exist in the budget today if this is about demonstrated loss

five years from now? It makes no

sense, Mr. Speaker. It makes no

sense because that was not the deal.

It was not the deal, Mr. Speaker. It

was not about demonstrated loss. It

was about workforce adjustment, if that was to happen.

It was about that.

MR. J. BENNETT:

(Inaudible).

PREMIER DAVIS:

I hear the Member for St.

Barbe over there, the fisheries expert from the Opposition over there, and maybe

he has already said enough today. I

will leave that alone; he will figure that out himself in due time, I am sure.

Mr.

Speaker, that is five years out.

There is no way you could have a demonstrated loss five years from now.

The other thing that I would point out and the Minister of Business has

addressed this recently. He talked

about it publicly and he makes a very good point.

If this was a compensation fund, why would we contribute to a

compensation fund to compensate us?

It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BENNETT:

(Inaudible).

PREMIER DAVIS:

Maybe the Member for St.

Barbe should listen to this; he claims to be interested in the fishery.

Maybe he should listen instead of his going on over there.

He has done that already today and maybe crossed the line I understand,

but he should probably be careful over there because this is important to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, we would not compensate ourselves for a loss; it makes no sense.

Because it was not about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

It was about fisheries

renewal. It was about innovation.

Mr. Speaker, it was about conducting science.

Because we do science, Mr. Speaker.

That is what we do; we do science.

The federal government is not doing it.

Even though they hold the authority over harvesting in Newfoundland and

Labrador fishery, they are not doing the science.

We are doing the science.

So, Mr.

Speaker, our position is clear. As I

have said many, many times, I will do what I have to do to represent

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, CETA is

important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It is important to Newfoundland and Labrador businesses; we know that.

It is of utmost importance to the business community in our Province; we

know that, and I respect that, and it is important to us too.

There is

a fundamental problem that I have when someone comes to you and says we need

something; let's do a deal. We reach

a deal and armed with that deal, you go off and you settle off your own deals.

Now you have all that done, and then you come back and you say no, that

is not what we meant. We are going

to change it now.

Mr.

Speaker, I am going to tell you, I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with that personally.

I have a problem with that on principle that you if you have reached an

agreement, if you have done it in good faith, you have met, you have had

discussions, you have reached agreements

MR. J. BENNETT:

(Inaudible) put it in

writing?

PREMIER DAVIS:

I say to the Member for St.

Barbe, it is all contained in here.

If you cannot contain shouting across the floor over there while we are talking

about this very important matter and he is asking questions about it it is all

in here, I say to the member. Maybe

you should read Twitter, I say to the member opposite.

Maybe you should have a look at Twitter and see what they are saying.

Mr.

Speaker, what it is, is a principle.

It is a principle that we reach an agreement and based on the principle of that,

based on fairness, based on the fact we did it in good faith, we need to stick

to that agreement. Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians expect us to stick to the agreement.

We supported CETA. We said we

support CETA, based on the execution of the agreement that we have reached.

Our support for CETA is clear, based on that agreement that we reached.

That was the deal. We got an

agreement, we got a fund, and our support for CETA will be there.

No fund, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you we have a problem.

We have

to deal with that. The ministers

have done a good job; I talked about it earlier.

We will continue to talk to industry representatives, representing

industry and business throughout Canada.

We will continue to talk to European countries and representatives from

the European Union, Mr. Speaker. We

will continue to talk to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because they want to

know more about it. They want to

know that we are representing their best interests and we will continue to do

that.

Mr.

Speaker, the reason why we are in the House this week is a bill that was brought

to the House today on the Electoral Boundaries Act.

This is not new for me and it is not new for us as a party or as a

government, because last year I began to have discussions about the House of

Assembly and the House of Assembly reform.

I have talked many times about three aspects of reforming the House of

Assembly. One I talked about was MHA

pensions. Because we as a government

went to public servants to make amendments to their pension plan and to make

changes to their pension plan.

Even

though our pension plan was changed in recent years when I came to the House

of Assembly in March 2010, I was the first MHA elected under the new pension

plan in 2010. That was the pension

plan that was designed by Chief Justice Green after he did a full and

comprehensive review of the operations of the House of Assembly.

This was the new pension plan that came forward.

When I came in, I was the first one in under the new pension plan.

It is

prudent, I think, for us as a government to ask the Speaker which I have done,

and the Speaker is quite aware. I

have asked the Speaker to have a look at the pension plan again former Premier

Marshall did the same thing with a view of what we have done with public

servants. I think that is prudent

and the right thing for us to do.

The

second thing I have asked the Speaker to do is to review the day-to-day

operations of the House of Assembly, because I do not believe that we get best

value from all members. I know

members opposite are going to say: How come you are doing it now?

Why didn't you do it before?

Well, I was not Premier before and I am Premier now.

I believe that we have

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. J. BENNETT:

If you are not elected by the

people, you are not.

PREMIER DAVIS:

Well, I certainly was, I say

to the Member for St. Barbe. I was

elected the same way you were. I say

to the Member for St. Barbe, I was elected the same way you were.

I went knocking on doors and I campaigned, and I asked the people to

elect me the same as you and you and you and all of you, Mr. Speaker.

Every one of us were elected (inaudible) this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe we

should reform the day-to-day operations of the House of Assembly, because I do

not think we get best value out of the House of Assembly.

We have members elected on both sides of the House who are not Cabinet

ministers, Opposition members, and what is commonly known, backbenchers here on

the Government side of the House, and I believe we need a process that has

greater engagement for all Members of the House of Assembly.

I believe that will create better outcomes for us as parliamentarians

when we have greater engagement by all of us in the House and we have better

opportunity to discuss what is happening in the House.

As you know

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

As you are aware, Mr.

Speaker, I have also asked you to convene the Standing Orders Committee and to

look at the day-to-day operations to find a more effective way, a more

modernized way for us to do the business right here in the House of Assembly.

The

third thing that I want to do as Premier when we talk about House of Assembly

reform, is the size of the House, and that is what brings us here today.

We know

already, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the

Third Party, and myself, we are in agreement that we can reduce the number of

seats in the House of Assembly. Now,

under current legislation, under the current Electoral Boundaries Act, it

stipulates forty-eight seats, So, in

order to change that, we need to change legislation.

As I said when I got up this afternoon, in my comments, I talked about

how the first day there has to be a notice of motion, the second day is the

first reading of the bill, and then you go to second reading and you go to

Committee and third reading and so on.

It is not until you get to second reading that you actually have a

debate. So that is why it is not

specifically being debated today.

What we

have is a bill coming forward that essentially moves the time ahead.

Instead of waiting for 2016, which is the scheduled time under current

legislation we know all three party leaders agree that when that process was

to take place we are going to reduce the number of seats in the House of

Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it would not

have come into effect until 2019.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going through a vigorous process to find all avenues

available to us to deal with the fiscal challenges that we face as a result of

the world oil prices.

We have

no control over the world oil prices, Mr. Speaker.

Now, some people would say that we should have created a rainy day fund.

When the oil started back in the early 2000s, we should have put money

away. With all respect to everybody

here in the House, we had significant infrastructure challenges facing our

Province. We had significant service

delivery challenges in our Province.

We needed to deal with many, many aspects of what we had to deal with in

government.

I say to

the people of the Province, if you go home tonight and you leave your office,

you leave your place of work, and you are coming home and for whatever reason,

you got a bonus at work and you have some money in your pocket, you say I am

going to take that now and I am going to open a savings account.

I am going to put that away for a rainy day.

That is a good thing to do, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it.

People should save and plan appropriately, no doubt about it.

If I

went home tonight, I pull in my driveway and I have some money in my pocket and

I am thinking I am going to go down now and open a savings account and put it

away for a rainy day, it is probably a good choice of words, rainy day.

Maybe it is a rainy day. I

walk in my house and I have water coming down from my ceiling; I have a leaky

roof. What am I going to do?

Put a bucket out and go on down to the bank and put my money away, or am

I going to fix my roof? You have to

fix your roof before you can start saving.

You have to get your own house in order, your own home; your own

structure has to be in order before you can put that money away.

Mr.

Speaker, we had a lot of leaky roofs to fix in this Province, and we still have

leaky roofs to fix. We had schools

that were in dilapidated condition.

I say to members opposite with all sincerity, with all due respect to everyone

in the House, with the challenges that were faced back then, we found ourselves

in a circumstance where we were. We

had business to manage and we had decisions to make.

We could not do everything, but we certainly had roads to fix, we

certainly had schools to fix, and we certainly had hospitals to fix.

We had services to build on.

We needed more doctors, we needed more nurses, and we needed more teachers.

needed lots of stuff in the Province, Mr. Speaker, that we never had.

We needed to do work with our post-secondary education.

There was a big demand. We

needed to continue to freeze tuition because there were so many benefits that

came from freezing tuition. There

was a ton of benefits, and I do not have time to get into them today.

By continuation with the freeze, we did that.

We made investments in business.

We made investments with energy, oil, and gas.

We have done all that because we had a lot of work that we needed to do.

The

members opposite, again, with all due respect to them, I do not know if there is

a day gone by where members have not come in the House and I am sure there has

been but if there has, there are not many and ask for more.

They ask for more and ask for more and ask for more.

They ask for more programs.

They ask for more services. They ask

for more structures.

That is

their job, I appreciate that. It is

the members' opposite responsibility to identify what they think are

shortcomings of a government and to come after government and say you should do

that and you should do this, but we cannot be everything to everybody.

We simply cannot be everything to everybody.

You need an awful lot of money to be everything to everybody.

As much as we have had available to us and the investments we have made,

we cannot be everything to everybody.

Mr.

Speaker, nobody saw what began to transpire in 2014 with the world oil prices.

Nobody saw that coming.

Nobody saw it coming. The provinces

in Canada never saw it coming.

Canada never saw it coming. It came

upon us; we are in the circumstances that we had.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was completely beyond our control;

completely beyond the control of Alberta who has significant challenges.

Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Canada are all

impacted by this, but we have to deal with it.

We have a responsibility to deal with it.

I am a

believer in talking to frontline people and looking after your own house and

those kinds of things. It was

referenced here today about the primary health care summit that we held this

week: 300 people in a room, a great exchange of views.

I think it is going to make great advancements in health care because we

have to find a different way to deliver services.

We went

to the people who deliver the services.

I said let's go right to the heart of the people who deliver the

services. Let's put them in a room

and let's find out how we do it better.

Let's ask them how you do it better.

It was a great event. It was

organized very, very well and professionally done.

The response from it, that I received, was overwhelming, Mr. Speaker;

overwhelmingly positive in the work that was done by the staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

All credit, Mr. Speaker, to

the staff and employees in the Department of Public Engagement and the work they

did, and the minister. They did a

fabulous job and collected data. It

could not have been done better anywhere, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

It was very well done.

As we

make those decisions as we move on, every million dollars we find is going to

have an impact on somebody. Every

million dollars we find, and every thousand dollars in a program cut or change

that occurs has an impact on somebody.

I would say if we lined up at the door of the House of Assembly or in

government today, down over the steps of Confederation Building because it is a

long line, and we had a big line of people who receive funding from the

government, and we said come in now and tell us what you think about us reducing

our budget, every one of them, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, will have a reason

why, yes, you should reduce the budget but do not touch me.

Do not reduce mine, and here is why you should not reduce mine.

I know

if I was an organization, a voluntary organization or an organization that

provides important services to people of the Province because they do, Mr.

Speaker. Those types of

organizations are critical to the success of our Province.

They do great things in our Province.

If I was one of them and I knew there was a chance I was going to have my

budget cut, I would be up calling the minister, writing the minister, or

knocking on the door. If I had a

chance to line up and come in and make my case, I would be there.

I would be sitting in a room saying yes, you should reduce the budget,

but here is why you should not touch me.

This is why you should not reduce me.

Mr.

Speaker, we can all do that. Members

of the House can sit here and say yes, we should reduce the number of seats, but

let's not do it today. Do not do it

to me. Do it to everyone else but do

not do it to me. It is easy to do

that.

MR. J. BENNETT:

(Inaudible).

PREMIER DAVIS:

I say to the Member for St. Barbe, yes, it is easier for you to do that.

Do it to someone else but do not do it to me.

I hear you. I hear what the

Member for St. Barbe is saying over there.

Mr.

Speaker, we need to start in our own house.

We already agree; all three parties already agree that we should reduce

the size of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. Barbe standing on a point of order.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind

the Premier saying something that I said, if in fact he did, but I do object to

him saying something that I did not say.

It is a misrepresentation to the people of the Province and to the House,

so I ask him to withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

There is

no point of order.

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

important for us to say if we are going to expect others to feel the

implications of the financial challenges that we face, Mr. Speaker, it is

important for us to do it as well.

We have to be willing to do it.

Let's

look at our pensions. There is an

independent process as well that reviews MHAs' pensions and compensation.

That is why I am asking, let's review those pensions.

That is why I am saying it is important to look at the day-to-day

operations. While it does not have

any direct, significant financial implications, let's look at the day-to-day

operations. Is there a better way to

do it? Also, let's look at the size

of the House.

Mr.

Speaker, we have all agreed to reduce the size of the House.

So instead of waiting to

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, instead of

waiting until 2019 for that to come into effect

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

members for their co-operation.

The hon.

the Premier to continue.

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, in order for us

to do this in the House of Assembly it requires a change in legislation.

The normal budget process which we are all working on and we are all

having discussions about avenues that we can follow to deal with the difficult

fiscal circumstances that we have.

One of those avenues is to reduce the size of the House of Assembly today.

Do it this year before the next election, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, if we reduce the

House by ten members, by a four-year term because the difference in doing 2019

from now is a four-year term; that is forty years, forty years of salaries,

forty years of accruals. It reaches about

a $10 million mark over four years.

Mr.

Speaker, I have heard members opposite talk about, well, $10 million is really

not a big amount of money in the big picture.

It is a small percentage of the total amount, there is no doubt.

The total amount of what we are facing, $10 million is a small amount but

it is a lot of money. It is a lot of

money, Mr. Speaker. It is a lot of

money that we need to consider doing that.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have said and I have been asked questions about so many topics by

members opposite they asked some questions today about Cabinet and

parliamentary secretaries. They

asked about, are you considering this and are you considering that?

When we were down at the health forum last week one of the reporters

asked me: Are you considering cutting the health care budget?

I have said, as I have said again, everything is on the table, Mr.

Speaker.

So we do

that, we make those decisions as we go through a Budget process.

As the Budget time approaches we know the federal government just

announced what seems to be a delay in their budget process.

We have to wait for the federal government to do their budget.

We will get to our Budget, all in due course, Mr. Speaker.

We will get to our Budget in due course, and we are doing that process.

In order for us to do this part, in order for us to bring the reform to

change the size of the House of Assembly, we have to do it today.

Now,

members opposite are making great suggestions.

I welcome all suggestions on how we can reduce the cost to government

all suggestions. I welcome all

suggestions, I say to members opposite, on how to reduce the cost of operations

of government. I am open to all of

that, but the difference in the House of Assembly reform in the number of seats

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

is we have to do it through

legislation. The legislation we are

going to debate later this week is about changing the date.

We will

still have an independent commission.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice will appoint a chairperson.

The Speaker will appoint a four-person committee to work with that

chairperson. It is an independent

process. We will give them a period

of time. It will be laid out in

legislation. It will be discussed at

length in debate, Mr. Speaker as my time runs out.

It will be discussed during debate about what we are proposing in the

bill to amend the act. We will have

a full debate on it.

welcome the debate. That is why we

are here. Let's have the debate.

Let's do it, but let's not delay the process because I think just to

delay the process may be seen as an effort to push it past 2015, which I do not

want that to happen. I do not think

the people of the Province want that to happen.

I think they want the process done so we can have it in effect for the

election in the fall of this year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

I support that process.

What I say to members opposite, let's have the debate.

Let's ask the questions.

Bring forward your amendments. Let's

debate your amendments. Let's have

discussions about your amendments.

Let's consider the amendments that you are proposing.

Let's have a look at them and then we will give consideration to them.

All parliamentarians here in the House should do that.

We should all have a look at that, Mr. Speaker, and then let's move on

with doing the business that we have to do.

Let's be willing to make the hard decisions.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Let's not put off those

decisions until 2019, Mr. Speaker.

Let's do it today and do what is right for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader is standing to speak to Address in Reply?

MR. KING:

No, Mr. Speaker, I am

standing to adjourn debate on Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I move that we

adjourn debate on Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that debate be

now adjourned.

All

those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

motion, debate adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier

today I gave notice of a motion to move forward with electoral boundaries

changes, Bill 42. I am asking if the

House would give leave for me to move that to first reading at this point in

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

Does the Government House

Leader have leave to move to first reading?

AN HON. MEMBER:

No leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

No leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this

time, I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that the

House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House

do now adjourn.

All

those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

This

House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.