PDF Version

May 3, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 17

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome to the public gallery today Mr. Dan Goodyear, he is the chief

executive officer of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of

Stephenville - Port au Port, Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Harbour Grace -

Port de Grave, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, and Conception Bay South.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to recognize an outstanding young

volunteer. Abigail Pinsent is

the daughter of Paul Pinsent and Dara Best-Pinsent from Stephenville. The level

II Stephenville High School student has been a very active member in the Girl

Guides movement for a number of years; and, in addition to recently receiving

the bronze Chief Commissioners Award, she is a mentor to young Guides and

volunteers as junior Sparks leader.

Abigail

is also a talented artist whose murals can be seen at the provincial courthouse

and the middle school in Stephenville. While maintaining first-class honours,

she's a member of the school choir, concert band, drama club and volunteers as a

peer tutor.

Abigail

has also recently completed the bronze and silver components of the Duke of

Edinburgh's Award program and is in the process of completing the gold. It is

due to these accomplishments and volunteer efforts that Abigail was recently

named Youth of the Year at the annual Stephen Awards banquet.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Abigail Pinsent on being named the 2018

Youth of the Year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

today to acknowledge the Town of Portugal Cove - St. Philip's who were the host

of the recent 2018 best of Portugal Cove - St. Philip's community awards during

Volunteer Week. This year's awards had dozens of nominations received by the

organizing committee who had a tough job to recognize only one in each category.

The 11

categories included all sectors of the community including age, gender, business

and various levels of sports.

This

year's recipients included: Youth of the Year, Madelyn Drover; Senior of the

Year, Betty Tucker; Service Group of the Year, the Portugal Cove - St. Philip's

Volunteer Fire Department; Volunteer of the Year, Edward Sharpe; Female Athlete

of the Year, Maria Chafe; Male Athlete of the Year, Ryan Drover; Coach of the

Year, Neil Hackett; Team of the Year, Brookside Intermediate grade nine Girls

Volleyball Team; Employee of the Year, Jo-Ann Squires of Tilt House Bakery; New

Business of the Year, The Grounds Café; and Business of the Year, Stable Life

Inc. - Spirit Horse NL.

I would

like to thank the Town of Portugal Cove - St. Philip's and staff for

acknowledging the great group of volunteers, businesses and athletes we have in

Portugal Cove - St. Philip's.

This is

a great community to live and play.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I am proud to recognize a very talented young woman from my district,

17-year-old Anna Mercer of Coley's Point. Although so young, she is blessed with

an amazingly mature talent. She is a soprano, and on March 22 she won the

prestigious Senior Rose Bowl award at the annual Carbonear Kiwanis Music

Festival.

This is

Anna's third Rose Bowl win, after claiming the Junior Rose Bowl at age 14 and

again at age 16. Anna will now move on to compete in the provincials in Corner

Brook this month.

When

preparing to perform, she studies voice with retired Canadian Opera Company

Soprano Sonya Gosse of Bay Roberts, who we saw here today. Anna also plans to

pursue a career in opera upon completion of her high school. Amid her success,

she has already been noticed by the opera elite, and was invited to study with

Metropolitan Opera Soprano Wendy Nielsen in 2017. She will travel to New

Brunswick again this summer to continue her studies and follow her dreams. The

art of opera is both prestigious and unique.

behalf of all Members and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I

congratulate Anna on her talent and determination.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Darlene Jensen Royale,

recipient of the second annual Exploits Valley SPCA Animal Hero Award. Darlene

has a special place in her heart for animals and has devoted over 17 years

working voluntarily with the SPCA. She is very well known in our district for

bringing hundreds of cats to safety and caring for them in her own home. Having

rescued over 70 kittens in 2017 alone, it is wonderful to see her get this much

deserved recognition for all the work she has done.

Darlene's passion and commitment to addressing the growing stray cat population

raise funds to support the SPCA. This month she will be helping conduct a trap,

neuter and return clinic with a veterinarian in her hometown of Belleoram. This

program ensures that community cats are humanely trapped and spayed or neutered,

vaccinated, ear tipped and then returned to their outdoor home. For this year's

effort, with the support of her community and donors, Darlene has raised over

$3,100.

Mr.

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

Darlene for her outstanding dedication to rescuing animals and wish her and her

partners a successful effort to humanely stabilize the cat population in her

community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Salvation Army

Conception Bay South Corps on the occasion of their 110th anniversary.

On April

20, I had the pleasure of attending the 110th anniversary dinner celebration.

The CBS Corps had many events planned to commemorate this special occasion

including a family skate, an evening of Christian Choral Music, and a morning

and evening worship service to end the weekend of celebrations.

Special

guests, Commissioner Susan McMillan and General Andrea Cox, were in attendance .

The theme of the anniversary celebrations was: Blessed Heritage - Brilliant

Future.

The CBS Corps are led by Majors Lorne and Barbara Pritchett

who play an active role in our community. The CBS Corps provide a warming

centre, contribute to the CBS/Paradise Food Bank and donate to the school lunch

program at St. George's Elementary. They provide services for youth such as the

Pioneers Club and Vocation Bible School programs all free of charge. The

Salvation Army Thrift Store in Long Pond receives donations and provides items

to families at a minimal cost.

The CBS Corps has been, and continues to be, a very special

congregation helping generations of families in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating the Salvation Army Conception Bay South Corps on their 110th

anniversary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE: I

rise today to recognize May 7 to 13 as Mental Health Week in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this year's theme is #Get Loud about what

mental health really is. Silence hurts and Stigma kills. I encourage everyone to

stand up, speak out and talk openly about mental health.

I will participate in the Canadian Mental Health

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador's Launch the Light kick-off event on

Signal Hill tonight.

I acknowledge the work of the national association and

their 100th anniversary as champions of mental health. Your efforts are making a

difference for people and families living in communities throughout this

province. Here's to 100 more years.

Through the Towards Recovery Action Plan, we are making

progress to create greater awareness and improve access to needed supports and

services. Initiatives like Doorways, TAO or Therapist Assisted Online, and Roots

of Hope on the Burin Peninsula, are all making a real difference.

The impact of these services, in particular walk-in

clinics, have already resulted in reduced wait times of between 10 to 20 per

cent for counselling services throughout the province.

Wait times have gone from as high as 180 days just a few

months ago down to zero wait time on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE: In

Corner Brook, the numbers waiting for adult mental health and addictions

counselling have been reduced from 192 people waiting last March to 19 this

month.

It is through partnerships like the one we have with the

association that we can build on this progress to better support those

experiencing challenges.

On behalf of all Members in this hon. House, I thank the

many groups, organizations and individuals who continue to advocate for mental

health throughout the year.

Let's get loud for mental health.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister of Health for an advance

copy of his statement. We join with government in recognizing May 7 to 13 as

Mental Health Week in our province. We've long recognized the stigma that

surrounds mental health was and remains the reason why many people do not talk

about it or attempt to address their own matters, so having this year's theme as

Get Loud is so appropriate. As we all need to get loud about mental health,

including us as parliamentarians in our own leadership roles, each and every one

of us should take this message out into our districts and communities and spread

the word very loudly.

While we

have made great progress in this country and in this province on mental health

issues, much still remains to be done. Let's continue to work with the community

partners and people who've lived experiences. Together, we can make a

difference. We need to speak out louder and in support.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister. I want to thank the myriads of activists across the province who has

had the courage to get loud about what mental health really is. Their

insistence, their persistence, their leadership has changed the way we

understand mental health, what we need to do together and how to go forward.

Congratulations to the Canadian Mental Health Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador, 100 years of lifesaving service. Let's get loud and give a great big

bravo to all those who showed us the way.

Bravo,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to update Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about the steps our

government is taking to improve highway infrastructure in our province.

February, the Department of Transportation and Works updated its five-year roads

plan that outlines the projects we will complete.

Our

approach has been praised by the Heavy Civil Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador as a way for contractors to plan their expenditures, plan their work

and keep Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in the province.

The plan

allows us to take better advantage of our short construction season through

early tendering, which leads to more competitive bidding and ultimately better

value for taxpayers.

Mr.

Speaker, this approach to transportation infrastructure delivers on the

commitments in The Way Forward to

strengthen the province's economic foundation, operate a more efficient public

sector and deliver better services and outcomes for residents.

I am

happy to report that 29 tendered projects from the five-year roads plan have

already been closed this year, enabling contractors to hit the ground running as

soon asphalt plants are up and running in the coming weeks.

We've

also taken steps to improve our summer maintenance activities. We know our

municipalities have concerns about highway infrastructure in and near their

communities. Earlier this week, I wrote all municipalities in the province,

asking them to work with us to identify infrastructure issues, such as potholes,

guiderails and highway shoulders that are most important to them.

Mr.

Speaker, we anticipate a busy construction season ramping up in the coming

weeks. While we take great pride in our province's road plans, we must stress

that our top priority for motorists in our province, Mr. Speaker, is safety. We

remind all motorists to be patient and drive slowly and cautiously in

construction zones.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, if the state

of the roads throughout this province is any indication, then we too anticipate

and hope for a busy road construction season this year, as well as a successful

summer maintenance program.

I feel a

full and transparent update on the provincial roads plan would include the

scoring that shows where all roads throughout the province rank in that plan.

That is the only way the public will know exactly where the roads fall in terms

of being considered for maintenance and construction, and that, Mr. Speaker, is

very important.

I will

continue to ask for this entire list to be released. It is the only way we can

be certain that government has truly taken the politics out of paving. I know

many people throughout the province are looking forward to the road improvements

that are scheduled to occur this summer. The safety of the motoring public and

construction crews must indeed be a top priority, and I wish everyone involved a

safe construction season.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We, of course, approve

of the five-year roads plan and early tendering policy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL:

– as we are on record as

being the first ones to call for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

The problem is many of our

highways and secondary roads are in atrocious condition, and a lot more money

will be needed than is being spent this year. It's interesting not to hear

anything from the minister about night construction this season. I understand

the project wasn't as successful as he had hoped. Is he going to come with a

report to us about that?

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, this hon. House unanimously adopted a private Member's resolution,

that the House will adopt a Legislature-specific harassment policy, similar in

principle to the policy in effect in Nova Scotia. This policy, Mr. Speaker,

would be complaint driven.

Is the

Premier committed to move forward immediately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well

first of all, I want to clear up some of the, I guess, misunderstanding that

occurred in this House yesterday when it comes to how reports are presented and

who they are reported to.

There

was almost a bit of an assumption that occurred in the House that reports would

all come to the Premier's office. Well, that is not the case. That is not the

case, Mr. Speaker. The review process that's in place right now could see

reviews that the reports would go to the House Management Commission. So I want

to clarify that statement. And the complaints need not necessarily go to the

Premier, as well. These complaints can actually be complaint-driven by the MHA,

directly to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair that publicly we clarify that. That people would seem

to be – that they have been concerned that reports would go through my office.

That is simply not the case.

Only

complaints that come through me, and I've been asked to put them to the

Commissioner, are the ones that we have driven that way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

The Member for Virginia

Waters has been reported in the media as calling for a review process with a

public report and public recommendations for change to the toxic workplace

culture that impedes our ability to have a functioning democracy.

Is the

Premier willing to cause such a review process to be conducted?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

If you look at the

announcement and the press release that went out just last week – I think it was

Thursday morning – that is the kind of process that was engaged.

When you

look at the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, let's not forget that this

office can come in to review this, without even requesting. He has the authority

to come in, meet with Members; actually compel people to bring evidence and so

on to this whole process.

So this

is not about the Commissioner being the appropriate person – that is already

within our legislation. As I said last week, we are more than welling to engage

independent expertise along the way. I've said that, that has been very clear

last week.

In the

cases that we have to the review commissioner right now, every step along the

way, individuals have been involved who understood the complaint process and I

have been asked, on their behalf, to send this to the review for the

Commissioner.

These

are the only ones that I have been involved in, simply at the request of those

complaints.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: To ensure that the review into harassment complaints are

independent, as well as seem to be independent, will the Premier commit to

request the Management Commission to engage an independent body with the

expertise to investigate these complaints?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, all along the

way what I've said to the individuals that would be engaged in this process is

that they have every right to speak to the Commissioner at any step they want.

I've said that very openly and very clearly.

I have

met with the Commissioner last week, and he will do the review or can do the

review, and those that are engaged in the process can actually ask and seek the

expert advice that's required. We have said this publicly, Mr. Speaker. And this

need not necessarily go through my office.

Let's be

very clear about this. Any MHA themselves can go through the review process

without coming through this office. When that happens, there needs to be a

report that would go to somebody. The process that was outlined yesterday by the

Opposition would mean comparing it to the ombudsman in Nova Scotia would mean

that the report would be through their House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I

stated that I was not comfortable submitting a complaint until the rules for an

investigation are changed to ensure the investigation is completely independent

of government.

Will the

Premier do the right thing and commit today to make a change and support the

engagement of an independent body to investigate these complaints?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

first thing I would say is that the Member opposite certainly knows the Premier

is not a part of that. The Commissioner for Legislative Standards is an

independent Officer of this House of Assembly and actually was appointed by all

40 Members of this House unanimously. His appointment was actually supported by

the Members of the Opposition who spoke to it on record; the NDP, who spoke to

it on record.

I would

also point out that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – again, a

non-partisan, independent Officer of this House – serves the House of Assembly

and has every power to get investigators in, to get expert advice and also has

the power to compel witnesses and to order a Member to vacate their seat. It's

quite a significant power.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Fortune

Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier,

were any other options considered for another avenue to review the harassment

complaints?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the options that were available are the ones that been outlined and they were

described, through me, with meetings that I would've had within the Green

report. The legislation that has put this review process in place comes from the

Green report.

Mr.

Speaker, many people in other jurisdictions, when you compare what we have in

this province, people are telling me that what we have is the envy of the

nation. It's the envy of the nation.

People

are looking at this, when you compare it to other jurisdictions, and the one

that was described yesterday would've been in Nova Scotia, would've been to the

ombudsman. But when the ombudsman reports, that person must report to somebody.

In their case, it would be to their legislature, Mr. Speaker. So this reporting,

as I said all along, must be done. These steps, everyone needs to be comfortable

with the process (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Order,

please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Fortune Bay -

Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

The model used in Nova Scotia

is certainly one I would be comfortable with.

Will the

Premier be prepared to ensure that we change the process and ensure the report

is submitted to the Speaker of this hon. House?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I do

remind the Member again, as I said yesterday, that matters which are the purview

of the Legislature should not be directed to the Executive. We're skating, but

I'll watch it. I'll leave it to the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, with all due

respect, I think you answered the question quite well. The fact is that we have

an independent process that's been determined by the Members, every Member of

this House. We have a Code of Conduct which is the only enforceable Code of

Conduct in country and it's governed by an Officer that was voted on by every

single Member of this House unanimously.

Again,

the Member opposite knows that the question she's asking should not be directed

towards the Premier. It should be directed at her own Opposition leader who sits

on the Management Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the

Premier concerned that the only complaint which has been actually made to the

Commissioner to date was the one made by him?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Member opposite to withdraw that statement

because she is completely wrong in that statement. I have not issued a complaint

to the Commissioner. I want to make this very loud and clear; I've not issued

any complaint to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. So I'd ask the

Member opposite to withdraw that comment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will

withdraw that comment and apologize. I understood that the Premier had submitted

a complaint on behalf of the other individuals.

Mr.

Speaker, would the Premier inform the House whether any employees of the public

service have made complaints to the Premier, or his staff, about the conduct of

ministers towards them?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest with you, it's a little bewildering today.

There is a harassment policy in place within our departments. I think, at this

stage, Members in this House of Assembly would be aware of how that harassment

policy would work. That would not necessarily come to me at all.

Mr.

Speaker, I think the line of questioning that we're going down today is really

questioning the powers of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. This is a

person that went to the Independent Appointments Commission, a group of

individuals with a reputable reputation.

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to remind people the quotes from the Members opposite on

this particular line of questioning, it was the leader of the Opposition that

said the person has experience, knowledge and the expertise, he is non-biased as

the operational sides by also the legislative standards (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

I would

remind everyone in the room to please understand the differences between the

Legislature and the Executive in your questioning.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, when asked if she had seen the kind of bullying and intimidation

referenced by her colleagues, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women

responded: “Did I feel it was bullying, intimidation to me? No.”

When

you, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, don't see a problem,

doesn't this clearly illustrate just how systemic this problem truly is within

your government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. COADY:

I thank the Member opposite for the question.

Harassment, bullying, intimidation of any kind, as I've said repeatedly, and

violence against women, against men, repeatedly I've said in this House, is not

acceptable. It's not to be tolerated. It is to be exercised out of our society.

So I

will say to the Member opposite, when we look at harassment policies, and I

think we have had a good discourse over the last 24 hours in this House, about

what may be able to be changed in the future for this Legislature, and I

supported her rapidly yesterday in her request to send this for further review.

certainly think that we can do better in this House of Assembly and I think that

we all (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You said

yourself that every person is different on how they interpret things. Minister,

your colleagues, myself included, clearly interpreted this behaviour as bullying

and intimidation.

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, shouldn't that be enough to

warrant your full support?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

thank the Member opposite for the question. I will again – and I say again, Mr.

Speaker – reiterate publicly and in this House, my full support, my absolute

full support for anyone who comes forward with a complaint of harassment,

intimidation, abuse of any kind, Mr. Speaker. I've said so publicly. I've said

so in this House. I reiterate it again here, unequivocally, Mr. Speaker.

We have

a process that we have to go through for harassment complaints. I think we need

to go through that process. I support – as this is a tipping point for all of us

in this House of Assembly – a review of the harassment policies for this

Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, historically,

the Provincial Agrifoods Assistance Program was available to producers in early

March. It is now the end of the first week of May and producers are well in to

their season with no applications or associated deadlines. The only thing the

industry knows at this point, Mr. Speaker, is that the program has been cut by

$500,000.

I ask

the minister: What is the current status of this program?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to

talk about the agricultural industry and our programs and services and support

of the agriculture industry because we have so many of them.

In fact,

Mr. Speaker, we have been working with our federal colleagues to unveil, to

release the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Program. That will be a $37

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It includes a suite of programs that

will benefit farmers, but included in that, at that time we will be making

further announcements on a provincial agricultural program as well, Mr. Speaker,

and full details will be provided because I think the hon. Member knows some

interested applicants himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

For the record of the House,

I, as an MHA, am not permitted to apply under any of these programs, kind of

like the ones with NLHC.

The

Canadian Agricultural Adaption Program, or CAAP, is in a similar situation. Mr.

Speaker, this program was known to be on the way for the past two years. There

have been industry consultations.

I ask

the minister: Will you please get to work and get these programs out and

available to producers when they need them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I see an

application there at the top of the list already, I think.

We will

be processing applications very, very soon. We've been working with our federal

government but we'll also be working with other partners in the agricultural

community. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to stand on my feet and talk about

this because – and the Member is so, so anxious and enthusiastic to hear about

it because he knows what a great value this will be for the entire farm

community of Newfoundland and Labrador, and applications will be available very,

very soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Yes, I can understand your

enthusiasm, Minister, but the issue is farmers do not take holidays during the

summer. They don't have time to fill out applications. The rate of approval –

okay, say if the applications get out by the end of next week, I would say and

hazard a guess that those applications will not be approved until the end of

summer, the end of the season.

Can I

ask the minister, if he can commit to have those programs in force within the

next two weeks and approvals in the farmers hands before the end of June?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, to quote a

fellow, a famous, famous parliamentarian: “Just watch me.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister previously laid the blame for inaction on the Sequence Bio proposal on

the complexity of the file and because of challenges with recruiting for the

Health Research Ethics Board; however, since he made those claims new light has

been shed on this issue. A former ethics officer of the provincial board has

come forward alleging unethical and unprofessional behaviour from some members

of the very board they trusted to uphold moral practices.

How does

the minister respond to such serious allegations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue with the Health Research Ethics Board, we are working through. We have

been conscious of criticism. We have external expertise brought in to advise

them on how to improve their processes, and we are working diligently on a very

important file related to oncology studies.

We hope

to have that latter clued up rapidly. And as far as the other is concerned, I

will await the opinion of the external review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Can the minister confirm that while he blamed recruitment challenges for delays

on the Sequence Bio proposal, the former ethics officer was removed from the

file by the director after they had expressed support for it. In actual fact,

that leaving later in the process did little to impact the timelines as she was

not permitted to work on the file.

Do you

think this is appropriate actions by the board?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member opposite is conflating two issues. One is an internal one with staffing,

which did not, as he admits, impact the process in the slightest. The challenge

we had was actually recruiting members with the right expertise to sit on the

Health Research Ethics Board itself. The issue he's referring to is support for

that board, and that was never inadequate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The minister is right; it didn't have an impact on the time frame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL: Mr.

Speaker, do you know why it didn't have an impact? A 30-day process went over

200 days. They did absolutely nothing. They removed somebody who wanted to

support it and did absolutely nothing with the file, and the minister was aware

of that.

The former ethics officer stated in a letter, sent to both

myself and to the minister, that the supervisor, who was the ethics director,

had a personal vendetta against Sequence Bio and individuals associated with

that company. As she stated: the director's goal was to put up as many

roadblocks as possible to prevent Sequence Bio from ever getting approval.

Does the ethics director in question still hold a position

on the board?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Mr.

Speaker, it's an interesting line of questioning. I think if a member of the

public or an employee of an organization feels they have in some way been

unjustly treated, then I think that is something that the Member opposite and I

can work together to address .

However,

I would reiterate that as far as this process is concerned, the target time for

assessment commencing by the Health Research Ethics Board is 30 days, not the

time at which a decision should be received.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I'll just clarify it, that's

not the operational procedures in other provinces, and we do have a need here to

address particularly medical research. So I think the minister needs to move to

ensure that it's done in an appropriate time frame.

Will the

minister immediately launch an investigation into the alleged behaviour and

actions of the province's Ethics Board and report back to the House of Assembly

in a timely manner?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

like to take this opportunity to state that one of the things this province does

very badly is celebrate the things it actually does very well. We have one of

the best pieces of health research ethics legislation in the country, and I take

my hat off to the opposite side who introduced it when they were in government.

It's their creature that we are working with, and it stands in a class on its

own.

I am

quite happy, as I have said, to facilitate a review of those processes because

there is nothing that can't be improved by a second look and a sober, second

thought. And I am happy to support the work of the reviewers, and I await their

report with anticipation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I agree again with the

minister –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

– the legislation is a great

piece of legislation that was implemented a number of years ago. The problem is

enacting that legislation and following the rules put in play. There's the

problem we have here with being able to get medical research done in a timely

fashion, which would help all of us from a medical – some of this is life-saving

research that's necessary.

There

are yet again more issues at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander. The

hospital's obstetrical services have been suspended since February, and to make

matters worse, they won't return until October.

Can the

minister confirm this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't

speak to the personnel issues in specific form, but I do know that once again

there have been challenges with recruitment for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As recently as last night, we had discussions with the interim CEO of Central

Health to find some novel ways of assisting them with recruiting staff.

The

important thing is that there is an obstetrical service available in Central,

and in the not-too-distant future that will be augmented by midwifery. But

unfortunately, for the short term, there is a challenge recruiting obstetricians

to the James Paton site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Will all gynecology services and programs be suspended as well?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

No, Mr. Speaker, for

personnel reasons I will get into, for reasons of privacy. There will be

gynecology services available at both sites through the summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

This is troubling news, not

only for the residents of Gander but for the thousands of people in outlying

areas that rely on the hospital's services.

Does the

minister believe it's reasonable for women to travel, in some cases, 2½ hours to

access this vital service?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, the evidence

shows very clearly – evidence in actual fact, produced in this province, and

nationally recognized by clinicians here – that the outcomes for delivery are

best with shorter travel distances.

That is

why it is crucial in the medium- and long-term, that we have obstetric services

in both James Paton Hospital and Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre.

That is what we are working to, and we are working as fast as the circumstances

will permit, and are prepared to put extra resources into recruitment for

Central Health to get them over this. And I've alluded to that already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I'm just trying to get some

clarification. So if a woman arrives in Gander Hospital in active labour, what

services can she expect?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

She can expect, Mr. Speaker,

quality care. She will be received by physicians and nurses able to deliver that

baby, and in actual fact there are full pediatric supports available in Gander.

It is

simply there is no facility at the present for complex obstetrical services. And

that is why in the PSA it has quite clearly stated that it is in the best

interests of the woman to go earlier rather than to leave it to the last minute.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the

minister commit here today that the obstetrical services will in fact return to

Gander Hospital in October, or is the plan to transition the temporary plan to a

permanent one?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Back in 2016, at my very

first Estimates, I was asked that question by the leader of the Opposition who

was the health critic. I said then, and I've actually said in an answer to an

earlier question, I am committed to having obstetrical services in both

locations henceforth.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South for a very quick question, please.

MR. PETTEN:

According to recent reports

from the Conference Board of Canada, the carbon tax will cost each Canadian

household an extra $2500 annually by 2025.

Minister, do you have any evidence to dispute this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first

question on environment, so I thank the Member opposite. What I would suggest is

that if the Member read down a little bit further than the press release, he

would see the eco-council came out and actually contradicted that.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, for six weeks

over 1,300 workers have been on strike in Labrador West and are now watching IOC

fly in replacement workers to do their jobs. Government still has not passed

anti-replacement worker legislation. IOC is not likely to return to the

bargaining table because they are permitted to bring in these workers from the

outside.

I ask

the Premier: Will he finally stand up for the workers of this province and

immediately amend the Labour Relations Act

to prohibit the use of replacement workers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

made reference many times standing in this House, that it's important for me as

minister I represent both employers and employees. I've stated many, many times

as well that the best settlement is a negotiated settlement, and we respect – we

have provided the services that's within my department to ensure that we have a

negotiated settlement.

Mr.

Speaker, we go through the process. And there is a process that you go through

in any negotiations. And unfortunately there are workers that are on the picket

line. That happens. But, Mr. Speaker, we are going through the process and

hopefully there will be a negotiated settlement as soon as both sides are able

to get back to the table.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker the minister

totally ignored the question. I'm talking about legislation for scab workers –

anti-replacement legislation. Our natural resources must be developed for the

maximum benefit of our people. For decades, government has allowed

multinationals to exploit our resources and our workers. This multinational

corporation reported profits last year of $5.2 billion, $157 million from this

operation alone.

I ask

the Premier: Whose side is government on? Will he do the fair and just thing,

protect our workers' rights, and introduce anti-replacement worker legislation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

information that the honourable Member opposite just quoted would certainly be,

I would consider, means for negotiation. If these numbers are accurate, what

she's saying, then that would become part of a negotiation. Because you see, Mr.

Speaker, the way in which it works is that you go into a collective bargaining

and collective agreement, and through a collective – that's what it says,

collective – which means both sides sit down and try to have what they

considered to be a fair, negotiated settlement for both workers and employers.

Because

not only workers, employers make a significant contribution to this province as

well, Mr. Speaker. So we can't lose sight of that. So that's the whole idea of a

collective bargaining. We give everybody an opportunity to have their say.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

When the

Minister of Health and Community Services was asked in Estimates about dropping

the IQ 70 test that disqualifies people from autism services, he answered: It's

now part of a bigger funding model they are still working on. After three years

of election promises, Way Forward

commitments and mandate letters about eliminating IQ 70, it's now buried in red

tape. Taking care of the needs of people with autism is not a money saving

matter.

I ask

the minister: Will this government immediately discontinue the use of IQ 70

which denies desperately needed services to those living with autism and which

the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador has been asking for, for years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

I think

autism has been a focus of my mandate. We have introduced new and cutting-edge

proven techniques for helping preschool and non-verbal autistic children. I

refer to the JASPER Program – and in Estimates I couldn't remember the acronym.

It's Joint Attention Symbolic Play Engagement Regulation.

The

specific question about the autism action plan is it is not marred in red tape,

Mr. Speaker. We are working through a process to figure out how to replace and

remove the IQ 70 piece in part of a sensible, coordinated response to dealing

with the challenges of folk with autism.

We will

have that plan, and we will announce it in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I say to the

minister, it's as simple as getting rid of it as they've done in other

provinces.

Last

night, I was at the panel that the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador

presented. This is still a major issue. They outlined the levels that need to be

assessed for people with autism, and the intelligent quotient is not the one.

Will the

minister listen to the people in this province who have children who are not

getting the correct treatment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services for a quick response, please.

MR. HAGGIE:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Oral

Questions is over.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Pursuant

section 8 and

section 10 of the Public

Tender Act , I hereby table report of

Public Tender Act Exceptions for February 2018, as presented by the Chief

Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

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

An Act Respecting

Children, Youth And Families, Bill 14.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Jury

Act, 1991, Bill 13.

further give notice under Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 14.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

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

opioid addiction is a very serious problem affecting many individuals and

families in our province and the Bell Island area is no exception; and

WHEREAS

the effect of these problems have implications that negatively impact many

people old and young; and

WHEREAS

support and treatment programs have been proven to break the cycle of addiction

and have helped many into recovery;

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

of Assembly to urge government to establish a Suboxone, methadone treatment plan

for Bell Island which would include a drug addictions counsellor at the hospital

and a drug awareness program in the local school.

And as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've spoken to this and presented this on behalf of the residents of

not only Bell Island, but there are a number of petitions that are going around.

Every week I get a new one in signed by people from all over this great province

who see the benefits of programs and services, particularly in isolated, rural

communities that have some of the amenities to be able to actually support

what's being proposed here.

Unfortunately, there are a number of people who are struggling with addictions

issues on Bell Island. There are a number of organizations there trying to

provide supports. There are all kinds of moral support. There are all kinds of

emotional support, but what's lacking is the professional support in being able

to actually address the addiction issue and that's the interventions, the

weening off, the additional supports that are needed, the medical interventions

that are so important to ensure that the recovery is not only complete, but it's

successful.

What

we're asking here is, because there are a number of individuals challenged with

opioid addictions who are travelling to St. John's to methadone clinics for

Suboxone injections, and for other ones who are also looking at other services

they need, but there's a group who doesn't have any of those services, don't

have the wherewithal, don't have the fortitude right now to jump into one of

those programs by coming over here, either for social reasons, economic reasons,

whatever it may be.

Having

these services provided locally where they're more comfortable, where there are

supports of their families, where there are other professionals who have a stake

in the community, where there's the volunteer sector but where they're in a

comfortable setting because their friends who can encourage them can also

support what they need to do for their recovery.

It all

has an impact on the community, the well-being of the community. It has an

impact on our financial well-being. It definitely has a well-being on being able

to make those individuals who are struggling with opioid addictions be more

productive citizens and get them back more engaged in our society.

What's

being proposed is that we work with Eastern Health and the department to put in

a counselling service that would be beneficial to address these issues.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll present this and have a chance to speak to this again.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the

Ferryland district.

Route 10

on the Southern Avalon forms a large

section of the Irish Loop between Renews

and St. Shott's. This

section of roadway is currently in need of major repairs.

The designation of a World Heritage UNESCO site in Portugal Cove South has

increased traffic in and out of the Southern Avalon. The roadway is an important

link to the UNESCO site and will enable further economic development in the

area.

Therefore, we the undersigned, petition the hon. House of Assembly. The

five-year road program announced on February 7, 2018, the updated one,

identified this road as beginning in 2019. We believe in those to undersign

immediate upgrades to the piece of infrastructure to occur to enhance and

improve the flow of traffic on the Irish Loop. This roadwork would enhance

safety of communities and enable continued economic development for the region,

and certainly as a service.

The

Southern Avalon – and certainly to the economic development piece and the

significant flow of traffic in and out of that region. Last year, if you look at

the Colony of Avalon, it's roughly anywhere between 18,000 and 20,000 visitors

to that particular area. You certainly want to flow them further south on the

Irish Loop, down to areas like Renews and then on to Portugal Cove South,

Trepassey and around further on the Irish Loop.

Last

year, we had about 10,000 visitors to the

interpretation centre in Portugal Cove

South. It's a UNESCO designation. We certainly expect that to continue to

improve.

What

we're looking at here is basic maintenance being done in an opportune time as

the spring season comes on. Then we'll look at further enhancements to the

highway as we move forward through this year.

Over the

past couple of years we've done about 14 kilometres of that highway, rebuilt it.

No one is expecting it to be done all in a year but based on the economic

conditions that are available – as well, the residents in that area, acute care

facilities, diagnostic testing is all done through St. John's. So there's a

significant commute for those folks to come in and do that. At the maximum, it's

probably three, three-plus hours. In recognizing to get those health care

services, a lot of those people travel over that highway, so it's extremely

important that that's maintained to a level for service delivery, and certainly

to drive economic opportunity in the Irish Loop.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, third time

lucky, hopefully. These are the reasons for the petition:

The

Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Prescription Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in

Budget 2016 ;

Many

low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care, and

those same individuals can now no longer access dentures leading to many other

digestive and medical issues.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover

low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health and quality of

life and dignity.

Mr.

Speaker, the minister in this capacity is very well educated and experienced

with the benefits of good oral health. I ask him on behalf of the individuals

who signed, who are part of some of our most vulnerable sectors of society, to

address this issue at least with an explanation of why it hasn't been done yet.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader, now in her place.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Order 4,

third reading Bill 5.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Labrador West, that Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The

Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a third time.

MR.

SPEAKER: It is

moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER: All those

against?

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 5)

MR.

SPEAKER: This bill

has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its

title be as on the Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Orders of the Day, Order 3, Concurrence Motion –

Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Concurrence and of

course to the Resource issues. I'd like to initially start off by commenting on

my own industry, being the agriculture industry.

Opportunity exists in all areas of our province. Do you

know why? Because people eat; that's why the opportunity exists. Do you know

what? People have always eaten. The opportunity has always been there

but what has been missing is the viability of our agricultural industry.

Time and

time again, right back from commission government to early Confederation days,

to the mid-60s, agriculture has been in the crosshairs of government as to be an

area where we can expand. It's widely known that we produce a very small

percentage of the food that we can produce here, but since Confederation our

food production has continually declined in all areas except for supply-managed

industries; supply-managed industries being eggs, chicken and dairy.

There

are other livestock industries that are not supply managed and do operate on a

small scale, such as pork, turkey, lamb, goat and beef, but again, it's a

fraction of what it was at Confederation. One of the biggest reasons for that is

the viability of industries; horticulture, a prime example. Horticulture is the

production of edible food crops.

Prior to

Confederation, we were self-sufficient in potatoes, carrots, turnips, cabbage

and many other commodities that now we're only producing a pittance, less than

10 per cent of what we consume. The reasons for that is the viability of those

industries. We're continually having to compete with farmers elsewhere in our

country, elsewhere on our continent where the cost of production is much lower,

they are able to operate on a much larger scale, and they have the logistics of

marketing, packaging and distribution worked out.

Our

grocery industry, our food supply industry is now nationalized. We basically

only have three big players. Yes, we do have some smaller local ones and, I

guess, to their credit, such as Colemans, Belbin's, Bidgood's and any other

independents. We need to see more of those because they are the ones who have

really, really excelled in carrying local products.

Some of

the big players now, they've also shown interest. When we look at pricing of

products, often pricing of products is not reflective of what the product costs

to get here to Newfoundland. Most times, big corporations, be it food supply or

merchandise supply are purchasing or bidding on the supply of a region's goods.

Because we're such a small percentage of the national grocery markets, or our

merchandised markets, often their cost of getting their product to our store

shelves and to our people is not reflected because they're probably making a

larger margin elsewhere in larger centres or on the mainland.

The

product that we sell here – for example, a head of broccoli for 99 cents here in

St. John's is still a head of broccoli for 99 cents in Halifax, Montreal,

Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver. So it's all about national pricing. And

that puts us as an industry at an unfair disadvantage. We're trying to build a

food supply and develop food security, but it's not viably possible.

We see a

big push now to get more new entrants in, but what's actually happening is our

existing consumers are getting really concerned that this new push of new

entrants are going to come in, there's been all sorts of efforts put into

production, very little into the strategic and organized marketing. Without

strategic and organized marketing, we're going to have market floods. We're

going to have price drops and producers who are now in the industry and

producing and supplying food are going to be compromised. Where are we going to

be if our existing producers, who've been here for many years, are compromised?

The

success rate of a new entrant in farming is very, very low. Even in a business,

general business ratios are one in five businesses will survive five years. In

farming, it's one in 10 – long hours, low pay, too many variables. It's actually

worse than fishing, because up until this year, we couldn't collect

unemployment.

What we

need to do is, as a government, we need to look at legislation that would enact

market availability in such that local products get sold first. Local products

get sold first at a fair return for the producer, which would ensure their

long-term viability.

And we

could go beyond agriculture for that. I know there'll be lots of interprovincial

competition and trade barriers, but we, as an island, and as a government are

responsible for the well-being of our people and hungry people are not very

well.

Why

can't we, as a legislature, look at something like that? Why can't we look at

putting in, I guess, a marketing advantage for our producers that would enable

our producers to expand their industries and not deflate the existing markets by

overproduction? That priority would always be given to local products. That's

what we need to look at in addition to production. Because there's no sense in

us filling this room with kale if we could only sell what kale could be put on

that table. And that is what's happening.

We're

looking at producing all sorts of new products where there's no viability and no

market. That's a big issue because it's going to dishearten anybody from getting

into the agriculture industry.

I'd also

like to speak to our mineral resources. I often hear – and yesterday, I did

enjoy the perspectives of the Members opposite about our vast amount of minerals

which are available and yet to be developed. That's absolutely fantastic news

but once that comes out of the ground and we're paying for it, that's the last

dollar we're going to see from that mineral. Why can't we look at, yes, we need

to develop these resources but we need to value add so that when products leave

our province, we're after maximizing the absolute value.

I hear

about the expansion and the quality of ore in Labrador. Forgive me for not

knowing 100 per cent of probably what I should to speak on it, but the thoughts

of oh, look, we got the best ore in the entire world. So the best ore in the

entire world should produce the best steel. There should be a market for the

best steel in the entire world.

Why

can't we, with our abundance of power resources, look at processing the steel on

site? Why does it have to be shipped to Sudbury or why does it have to be

shipped down to Michigan or Detroit or wherever it's going? Why can't it be

developed in Labrador?

There

should be not be one grain – we should look at every resource that we export in

its raw state and ask ourselves before that goes on the boat or on the plane or

however it may be shipped out, ask ourselves: Have we got the maximum benefit

and value to the people and the province from that resource?

Now, as

I say that, I can see some Members around me here on this side and that side,

they're nodding their heads and saying no, that's not. Do you know what? For far

too long that's been the case. As I said, our minerals and our oil resources are

non-renewable. The more we take them out, the less time they're going to be

there for future generations.

Those

monies that we're taking in now are not going to be a continual stream.

Eventually, there will be no more. So what we have to do is we have to

concentrate on maximizing that value. That's through the ultimate processing of

all these resources. We need to look at that. We have power, we have people, we

have land, we have water, so all those elements are there for us to set that up.

What's keeping us from doing that?

What's

keeping us from doing that – and it's not just now; it's been over the course of

the past 60-odd years – it's been get the money in the pocket as fast as you

can, even if it is only a pittance of what we could probably put in over the

course of time. That has to stop. We need to increase the value of everything we

do.

reference to the forestry industry, yes, we're all faced with the big challenge

now with our partner to the south, but we have to look at again this is a bump

in the road. Our forest industry has been here for hundreds of years and we need

it to be here for hundreds of years in the future. We need to continue the

proactive management and, again, maximum use of our forest resources.

Clear-cutting is probably the fastest and easiest way to harvest timber, but it

is not the easiest way or the best way for the environment or for the

maximization of value of a particular resource. We need more approaches such as

what's in Scandinavia where we actually have – in Scandinavia, they have

stewards of a particular forest and their job is to maximize the return on the

piece of forestry property that they have. That's something that we can learn

by.

We need

to look at smaller based industries, smaller based value-added industries, even

in the forestry. We have a pretty good vertically integrated system now between

the harvesters, the mills, the biofuels and lumber and specialty products and

the firewood industry – that can change, but that provides opportunity for the

future. That's why I'm really concerned when I look at the scale back of tree

reforestation, forest management. That's a big concern because trees that we

don't plant today will not be ready in 25 or 30 years' time when we need to

harvest that resource.

I heard

an interesting commentary on the radio this morning and it was about butter. The

radio announcers were commenting on oh, you know, I like this type of butter. I

like Mom's margarine. I like Eversweet margarine. I like Parkay. Actually, I

said margarine, but they said butter. Then one of the announcers said no, I like

butter. I like the hard stuff. For the life of them, they couldn't figure out

what the difference was between margarine and butter.

Did you

know that in 1949 when we joined Canada, the officials of the day thought it

more important to put in our Terms of Union that we were going to be allowed to

colour our margarine,

whereas everywhere else in Canada it was legislated, not

permitted. We were allowed to colour our margarine. They were more concerned

with that particular clause than joint management of our fishery. That's a

disgrace.

Now,

today we look at those two products. We look at butter and margarine.

AN HON. MEMBER:

What's the difference?

MR. LESTER:

What's the difference? Well,

I guess butter probably really does come from a plant but it goes through a cow

first. Margarine, there is all sorts of speculation about how close it is to

plastic.

The real

thing we have to look at is we need to plan for the future. Nobody back then

thought that our fishery would be in the state it is today. I can never remember

a time when we were satisfied with federal government management of our fishery.

I think it's been to our own determent. Even today and recently, we've seen part

of a resource that's off our shores taken from us and sent to Nova Scotia.

I'd love

to be able to say: Okay, I want to take all of the agricultural land in the

Annapolis Valley and move it to St. John's. You can't do it. Why can't you do

it? Well, it's physically not impossible, but the concept, I think if we did do

that, the Nova Scotians would have a big issue about it and not let us do it.

So why

do we continually – it's almost like we push hard, push hard, push hard. No, we

want this. We want joint management. We want to be in control of resources off

our shore. Just as we almost seem like we're about to get to that pinnacle

point, it just fades away.

I'm not

saying that it's the current government that's doing that. That's happened time

and time again. So I challenge this government to stand up for our resource and

we have to see a completion of action. The people of this province deserve it.

The people of this province need it.

The

ocean resources in the form of our fishery could provide so much more economic

activity and so much more potential for our rural communities.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Adjacency.

MR. LESTER:

Adjacency, that's not

something really – it's not hard to understand but for some reason the federal

government cannot understand that. When it comes to the Arctic Ocean, and you

talk about the Russians encroaching on our Arctic Ocean, the federal will say:

Hey, look, that's next to us; those are our resources.

So why

can't the federal government translate that concept down to us, down to the

provinces? I don't understand it. If it's good for one, why is it not good for

the other?

I guess

I'd be remiss to not mention a small portion of my opportunity to the budget. I

had the opportunity of attending one of the budget consultations. The Minister

of Finance was actually the moderator of the event. The first thing he got up

and said – I apologize if it's not the exact words, so I guess I'll have to

paraphrase it – was ladies and gentlemen, there wasn't many people around the

caucus table that supported the budget of 2016.

I don't

know if that's a real, fair thing for him to say. I would wonder if he could

stand up and say that here in this House.

We went

through the budget consultation process and the questions kind of centred around

secondary schools and the ferries, but when I looked at the budget there wasn't

a whole lot of change. So I kind of question whether, maybe my – well, not my,

but the session I attended to and I saw the results, they were indicating we

need major change, and we didn't see it.

Maybe

next year we should probably bypass the budget consultation processes and save

the people of the province money. Unless we're going to listen to the people of

the province, I don't think we should pull a sham over their face and say: Yay,

we're listening but we're going to do something totally different. We need to

listen to what the people of the province are saying.

I'm

always about opportunity. I'm always about optimism, but do you know what? It

has taken decades and decades to build optimism, industry, economy.

As I

said in my maiden speech, in the '90s it was pretty dark times. We were all so

thrilled with the invention of duct tape because we used to be able to do body

work on all our cars. You'd see so many cars covered in duct tape and spray

painted over. That was because nobody could afford a new car.

Last

week, I was driving down Freshwater Road and I saw a car rebuilt with duct tape.

So, ladies and gentlemen, are we back to the '90s? That's a good question.

It's

taken decades and decades to build up our economy and it's only taken two years

to destroy it.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Oh, Mr. Speaker, it's going

to be a challenge to follow up that speech, but I'll do my best.

Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I'd like to stand here today and congratulate Judy Foote

on becoming our next Lieutenant-Governor, our first female Lieutenant-Governor.

It was certainly quite the spectacle here this morning to see such great

performances, to see a woman such as Judy Foote assume the highest office in

this province. It was second to none.

On top

of that, it was great to see several friends and colleagues, both political and

military –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure

they'll get their turn to speak now the once.

It was;

I got to see a lot of political and military colleagues I haven't seen in a

while. It was certainly one of the highlights of my time as an MHA.

Just to

talk about the duct-tape cars, come on, the economy is destroyed in two years.

Well, they had a good hand in leading us down that road and we've done a great

job getting us back on track, Mr. Speaker.

Let me

remind the Member for Mount Pearl North –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

Let me remind the Member for

Mount Pearl North, when we took office on December 14, 2015, Mr. Speaker, when

the Premier met with the Department of Finance, what did they tell him? You're

not going to make payroll this month. If you don't do anything now, you're not

going to make payroll. Two weeks before Christmas, the previous government led

us down a road with a $2.7 billion deficit and almost not making payroll. That's

their legacy, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member for CBS is chirping over there. He's saying I can't let it go. The Member

for Mount Pearl North just got up and talked about the 2016 budget, that's all

he talked about. They must love the 2018 budget because they haven't mentioned a

word on that one yet.

AN HON. MEMBER:

It's the same thing, the same

budget.

MR. KING:

It's not the same budget.

Let me

give you a little history. What we've done is reduced our deficit from $2.7

billion – that's the gift that keeps on giving from the Tories – down to $1.1

billion in 2016-2017; $852 million in 2017-18, and this year we're projecting a

deficit of $683 million. That's taking almost $2 billion from the deficit in a

span of two years.

When

they put their budget forward in 2015, Mr. Speaker, they said – and I think the

Minister of Transportation and Works has a copy there of

Budget 2015 – the deficit is going to be $1.1 billion and a barrel

of oil is going to be $71 all year. Well, Mr. Speaker, we found that deficit was

$2.7 billion and that barrel of oil went down to $26 in early 2016. Faced with

the mess that was left by the previous government, we had some tough choices to

make but we've been making those tough choices.

We have

a Premier here that I support wholeheartedly who made the tough choices. The

former Leader of the Opposition, the former premier couldn't make those tough

choices. So I'm proud to be a part of a government that makes tough choices.

When making tough choices, you have to move on and keep building your

infrastructure, investing in things that are going to grow our economy.

When

they say things are doom and gloom, the sky is falling, people are not having a

hop in their step, you're putting cars together with duct tape, that's

foolishness, Mr. Speaker. We've been working hard for the past two-and-a-half

years to grow our economy, because what they did, Mr. Speaker, they put all

their eggs in one basket.

They

loved oil – they loved it. They wouldn't focus on anything else. At one point,

25 per cent that all spending was based on was revenue from oil. Just imagine

that. We're down to less than 10 per cent on oil revenue spending right now.

What we

did was we created The Way Forward

document. That's the principle that's going to get us back to fiscal balance in

2022. That's not that far away. We've put ourselves – and we've seen the

reduction in deficit year after year after year. They didn't have the guts to

make the tough decisions. We have the guts to make those tough decisions, Mr.

Speaker.

What

you've seen is major infrastructure in infrastructure renewal, both municipal

and on our highways. We've been able to do that through partnerships with our

federal government and with our municipalities. The Municipal Symposium is

taking place this weekend in Gander. So I'd like to give a shout out to all the

municipalities in my district.

With

that said though, Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to give a big shout out to all the

people who have put their names forward on the upcoming George's Brook-Milton

municipal election, our newest municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador.

They'll be voting on their new council on Tuesday. So congratulations to them,

and I wish them all the best.

Getting

back to municipal infrastructure, I just talked about George's Brook-Milton. Mr.

Speaker, do you know how many years Milton has been without a proper water

source? You'd have to go and measure the height of Lily Pond, the water level of

Lily Pond for several years, three, four or five years, and pray for rain in the

summertime because it would drop that low.

Their

former member, the former Member for Trinity North, didn't get anything done on

that. Mr. Speaker, through the partnership with the federal government, and with

the former local service district of George's Brook-Milton and ourselves we were

able to take advantage of the clean water, waste water fund to a tune of $1.6

million so Milton actually has a reliable water source, Mr. Speaker. That's

actually action. So there's no doom and gloom for the people of George's

Brook-Milton.

I tell

you, Mr. Speaker, these partnerships have allowed us to do a number of great

things. Conduct water and sewer projects in Bonavista, a new water tower in

Bonavista. We've seen lift stations being funded for Trinity Bay North, a bar

bridge in my hometown of Catalina in Trinity Bay North, among other things.

This

year, I have $6.9 million coming to my district for roadwork. That's 9 per cent

of the provincial roads budget of $77 million. Do you know how that was done,

Mr. Speaker? That wasn't done the way the Tories did it where you do a kilometre

there or a kilometre there, hopefully in a few places where you'd pick up a few

votes. That's how they did it.

If you

look at the Auditor General's report that was released last summer, close to 50

per cent of the roadwork that was done in 2015 was all hand selected by MHAs –

pork-barrel politics, Mr. Speaker. What we've done, we got clear of that

pork-barrel politics that the Tories were good at and we've developed our

five-year Roads Plan where we have a scoring matrix and all roads are evaluated

and scored. Starting with the TCH, major trunk roads and then moving further

down the line.

Last

year, I had the neck, Route 230A done between George's Brook and the Bonavista

highway. Something that should have been done 15 years ago but, thank God, we

got it done. It scored high every year but never got done because the two MHAs

adjacent to each other couldn't determine who wanted it done or it wasn't a

priority to them.

Mr.

Speaker, this summer we're going to finally see the road to Elliston paved. I

know the Minister of Service NL talked about the Markland Road is number four,

the worse one in Atlantic Canada, but Elliston has to be up there, and I think

it was at one point. So thank God we're getting that done. It's long overdue.

We're

getting roadwork done on Route 230, between the Musgrave turnoff and the Winter

Brook turnoff on Route 230 in Lethbridge. As well, we're getting roadwork done

between Musgravetown and Bunyan's Cove. That is a significant amount of work.

We've

seem brush cutting done at an unprecedented level. The safety of our

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, our constituents, our residents, our visitors

– we're seeing that done all over the place, Mr. Speaker.

I can't

forget but talk about my good friend, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry

and Innovation, who has been in my district I think – he spends almost as much

time there as I do, and I spend quite a bit of time there. He's been out time

after time after time promoting just not tourism or culture, but he's been

promoting industry in my district; funding announcement after funding

announcement after funding announcement, helping businesses and non-profit

organizations grow so that we can grow and our economy.

Now, I

have to give a shout-out to my friend, the Member for Twillingate - Lewisporte.

We have a steak dinner on the line to try and determine who is number two and

number three in rural tourism visits. I'll admit, he's number two, I'm number

three – but they're still busy spots, Mr. Speaker.

We've

seen unprecedented tourist visits in the District of Bonavista, and that's

growing right now. Years ago you could drive up the Bonavista Peninsula and get

a hotel anywhere. You could get a hotel anywhere. Now, if you go along anywhere,

you have to book well in advance. You're not getting a spot. If you come down

without a booking you're probably going to have to go up in Clarenville.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) turning away

thousands.

MR. KING:

Yes. The minister is saying

we turned away thousands of people, which is true. We're in very high demand

because of the people we have working in our tourism industry. The people who

come together, they've been working together for 25 years. They've built the

infrastructure that has allowed the Bonavista Peninsula to be a hub of tourism

in the province.

Mr.

Speaker, the Skerwink Trail in Port Rexton alone saw 34,000 hikers last year –

34,000 hikers. If you look around at licence plates – if I go to my office in

Bonavista on a Wednesday afternoon or a Friday morning or a Monday morning,

whenever it is, if I drive around Bonavista, like I normally do before I go to

my office, I like to do that just to see where the licence plates are from, and

they're not all from Newfoundland. You've got them from Ontario, Quebec, other

parts of Canada, but you've got an awful lot that are from the United States and

other places, and that's bringing in revenue.

We have

a goal to increase our tourism revenue from $1 billion, which it currently was

last year, to $1.6 billion. We're well on our way to doing that through support

of TCII, and I think the tourism operators, the industry leaders in my region

are certainly happy with the support. They certainly were very vocal in that

last week when I went to the Bonavista-Trinity Regional Chamber of Commerce

dinner on Thursday night. They talked about the support they had from the

provincial government and they were very happy.

One of

the things we actually have taking place, Mr. Speaker, and the provincial

government is a partner of this, is dream local, the commons. What it is, is an

office space in a public building in Bonavista where anyone can go and use this

office space. So you're not held to trying to rent office space or trying to

come up with the money.

I can't

remember how much it is. I saw the presentation last week and I made a note, but

for a low fee you can rent office space by a month. So you go set up, you can go

in and have a cup of coffee, you can book the boardroom. It's very similar to

what the HUB used to have in Halifax, a place called the HUB. It's a community

place but it puts people together, puts entrepreneurs together so they can work

together, create good ideas and get the economy rolling in the Bonavista region.

Like the

Opposition said, like the Third Party said, this isn't doom and gloom. This is

people working together who know, they're confident that we're doing good, Mr.

Speaker.

Business

is booming on the Bonavista Peninsula. Sexton Lumber in the Lethbridge area is

doing remarkable work. I think I've talked time and time and time again how

Kevin Sexton just wants to keep expanding and do different things; finger

joining. Now he's in to the pressure-treated lumber. That's creating more and

more jobs, bringing in more and more revenue to the province. These aren't

people who are all about doom and gloom. These are entrepreneurs who are working

hard to grow our economy, who have confidence in our economy.

Our

Cabinet Committee on Jobs, the agriculture sector. I know the Member for Mount

Pearl North is part of the agriculture industry. The District of Bonavista has

quite a bit as well. Now, he would like to see it all on the Avalon Peninsula,

all the investments on the Avalon Peninsula, but we have several young farmers

and established farmers who are growing their operations in my district.

Through

PAAP and Growing Forward 2 and our new

funding – I can't remember the name of the new agreement that was put in place.

These funding sources are giving farmers new opportunities to expand and grow.

Three

Mile Ridge ranch, they're open year-round now. They said to me, because of the

opportunities that were provided through these funding programs, they've become

more efficient on their farm. So when the gentleman was working two jobs, he's

focused on farming now.

When we

say we're focused on growing our own food for this province and raising it from

10 per cent up to 20 per cent by 2020 or 2022 – I can't remember, 2020, I

believe – we're well on the right path.

Bonavista Social Club, another success story. They're just getting ready to open

up – the Boreal Diner is opening up this weekend. They have their own gardens at

the Social Club where they use their own product. We've actually helped – we

invested in them last year to buy their own building and to grow their operation

so they can prepackage things and send it out.

One

thing I'm going to mention, Mr. Speaker, and I still haven't gotten through my

speech. This is the second 20-minute time I've gotten up and I still haven't

gotten to my second page because there's so many good things to talk about.

While they talk about doom and gloom, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about growing

our economy.

When I

was at the tech summit – and I know I joke to you about the grey hair – there

wasn't much down there at the tech summit. I can't joke because look at my

hairline, but 40 tech companies, Mr. Speaker, is what we're focusing on right

now, partnering with industry. That's exciting.

Tech

companies, you can set them up anywhere. You can focus them here in Bonavista. I

know there are some in Clarenville. I know they're all throughout the province,

but one thing the Minister of International Trade said, and it stood out to me,

Minister Champlain, he said: Bonavista is no different than Berlin. That's his

exact quote. I wrote that down, as soon as he said it I jotted it down, Mr.

Speaker. He said: Bonavista is no different than Berlin. And in this global

economy that is very much true.

You have

several businesses now that are shipping all over the world. You have East Coast

Glow who are doing remarkable things. They're shipping all over the world.

They're down doing events down in New York City. They're doing events here in

the province, all over the country, but they're able to ship to Berlin. So when

they say Bonavista is no different than Berlin, it's very much true.

Mr.

Speaker, right now, I'd like to give a moment to thank our fishermen and our

plant workers for doing the good work that they do. When you think of the

District of Bonavista you think of the fishery. You've got the men and women in

our fishery who are doing the great work to grow our economy through the

fishery.

Right

now, the Bonavista plant is in full operation so we're hoping to have another

good season. I know the crab numbers, the quotas are down a little bit, but we

have the lobster season. We'll see how the cod turns out. So I want to give a

shout-out to those fine folks.

I know

the Member for Mount Pearl North mentioned that we need to better look after our

fishery. I totally agree. It's always been an important part of my region and

it's still an important part of my region. It's a very big employer. So we have

to find the ways to modernize our fishery, to grow our fishery. With the $100

million Fisheries Fund, which is being rolled out as we speak, there has been

major funds already allocated to different parts of the province.

I tell

people: Get out and apply, get some of that money, modernize your boats,

modernize the technology that you use to harvest the fish because it is very

important that we keep this industry alive in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I

want to give a big shout out to those fine folks as well.

With 15

seconds left, this is my last opportunity I'm going to get a chance to speak in

the House, so I want to wish my mother a Happy Mother's Day. It's the weekend

after next. We're not in next week.

Happy

Mother's Day, Mom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

That's a good son, Mr.

Speaker.

I guess

that's the way. In anticipation, I was going to take it easy on him until he

finishes off with that quote. Yes, his mom is watching.

AN HON. MEMBER:

He's a mommy's boy.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes, there you go.

AN HON. MEMBER:

There's nothing wrong with

that.

MR. PETTEN:

No, there's nothing wrong

with that is right.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and speak today on Concurrence. It's all part

of our budget process and every opportunity I get to speak on the budget is a

good time because we can speak on a wide variety of issues that are important to

us and important to the people of the province. We get a wide variety of views.

You hear

my colleague from Mount Pearl North who was very focused on agriculture and very

much expertise in that region. We learn every day, every time I hear him get on

his feet, I kind of sit and listen because this man has a lifetime of knowledge.

He makes a lot of sense when he talks and he puts things in a lot more

perspective than if you're not around that industry, we don't understand. He

picks up stuff that we don't get. Other Members of this House have their own

interests when they speak. In between the banter, you learn a lot of things from

people because of their unique interests.

Mr.

Speaker, I have just a couple of points on what the Member for Bonavista brought

up. He made reference, specifically, that all he hears me talk about is

Budget 2016 and nothing about

Budget 2018 , meaning that

Budget 2018 is fine. I'd like to

remind them that Budget 2018 is the

same budget as 2016. A few changes here and there. We're still saddled with

those 300 taxes and fees. That's why I keep referring back to 2016.

2018's budget was different, I'd be talking about 2018's budget, and I'd

probably pass along a compliment or two about some reductions. In addition,

we've got a carbon tax that's coming our way too, so we've got to add on to

that.

Question Period today, I referenced one question at the last minute, I never

have enough time, but the Conference Board of Canada are saying now, roughly in

2025, the average family will be charged about $2,500 a year extra as a result

of carbon pricing.

I've

asked that question in this House numerous times. The answers I got back were

well-publicized. I think most Members of this House, at one time or another,

would have seen it in the last week or two. I was glad, actually, because that

was a serious question; that's an important question to a lot of people in this

province who are still living under the pressures of the 2016 budget. People do

want to know what extra costs are coming that are going to hit their families.

$2,500 is the fee, I hope government takes that into consideration when they're

making the decision what they're going to do, and if they're going to fight back

for the people of this province, like I've asked them. My colleagues, our caucus

is basically asking government to stand up for the people because, as I said

before, carbon pricing – the federal government is bringing this in, but there

are a lot of changing dynamics throughout the country.

There's

a lot of – I don't know what the word is – internal debate going on about carbon

pricing now. As I said, you have Ontario, you have Alberta. We don't know what's

going to happen there, the politics. They're uncertain times. I know if the

governments change there, it's a good chance those provinces will oppose the

carbon pricing. That will put an awful lot of pressure on any federal

government, no matter what the stripe.

Ontario goes against the federal government with their weight they have in

federal seats. As we all know, they carry a lot of weight, and from right now

all indications look that if the Ford administration wins in June, he's pretty

well on record that carbon pricing is not on for Ontario. That's going to cause

a lot of debate within the federal government, and rightfully so. Again, it's

not a party thing, that's a fact and that's something that they'll have to deal

with.

I think

when we look at carbon pricing – I get up and ask questions in the House a lot

of times on it. I understand Members of this House and people of the public

maybe don't grasp it, and I get that, it's a dry issue. Sometimes I read over

and over, and I got stuff here, I was just looking at it again, on carbon

pricing. I had to education myself because I was around it in my previous life.

I worked

with the former minister of Environment a few years back and we were dealing

with climate change and what have you then and carbon pricing. I attended a few

conferences with him. I did get a grasp on the concept, but it was a dry issue.

You kept reading and you'd read two pages and you realize that you didn't

remember the second page you just read so you'd have to go back and read the

second page. It just took you forever to penetrate the issue.

saying that, this carbon pricing, I was reading an

article there recently – this

past week actually – it's going to be a valid question in 2019 federally. This

issue, on the national scene, has made more waves than it has here. I think the

reason for that is – and I keep saying this a lot, and I talk to a lot of people

and I've talked to a lot of educated people; they don't grasp it. Everyone has

always been of the notion that carbon pricing only affects big industry; it's

Come by Chance, it's Holyrood, it's IOC and it's Corner Brook – a big polluter.

Holyrood is in my backyard, so I've always been familiar with that and the

residents of CBS and Holyrood experience it. Carbon pricing is going to affect

every single individual, from the groceries on the food shelves to the gas we

put in our vehicles, to the fuel we heat our homes with.

I'll go

back – I don't like to use it, and it is not meant to be brought up, but I can't

resist to bring up the one that caught my attention and will never leave me: the

crematorium. In Alberta, it showed up on a bill. People are going to funerals,

going through a very tragic time in their life and they were seeing a line item

– they were being charged an individual line item, the carbon tax. It changed,

of course, they blended it in but that was big outcry in Alberta.

continue to ask those questions and I continue to seek answers because this

issue is more important to people in the province than probably what they

realize because a lot of people are not really paying attention, and I get that.

I guess our jobs as parliamentarians – we come in the House and represent their

areas, and we represent our critic roles – is to try to make that issue, connect

the dots, bring it together so people do understand it.

It's not

that they don't have the knowledge. It's just they're not engaged. They don't

realize. It's an issue that people glaze over. Like I said, even just trying to

keep my own knowledge base, it's a dry issue and people just don't understand –

not understand again, it's not something that they're really engaged with. It's

a very important issue; it's another tax on existing taxation we have. The

general public, this is going to have a bigger impact than people realize when

you add everything to it.

Speaking

of taxation – I'll go back and I'll say yeah, talk about 2016; I'll say 2018

budget because it's still there – we have to do something. We have to stimulate

our economy. What we're doing now, we're existing. Some areas are still doing

fine and a lot of areas are not. You get the new home construction. I know my

area was one of the fastest growing areas in the province – Atlantic Canada for

a long time.

understand you slow down. You don't stay there; you can't do it. But we've gone

from here to here. It was just this past weekend actually I had a long

conversation with a homebuilding company, a fairly decent-sized operation.

They're managing but there are a lot of changes. They're after having to make an

awful lot of adjustments. What they expected, their profit margins, everything

else has all been readjusted. They're operating in a different world just to

survive, keep your staff on, make a living; no one is getting rich, keep

everything going steady as she goes – everything is dropped.

In that

conversation, he listed off six, maybe seven – and I knew these people quite

well, and their businesses and they were always striving. They give up. They

folded. They've given it up. They are gone trying to find work elsewhere with

other companies and other businesses around. They're travelling.

One guy

took a contract down in Marystown to build a home, just a regular home; where,

two years ago, they were just naming their price and building whatever and a lot

of homes they never had time to even look at. It's a real indication where our

economy is gone, Mr. Speaker. You add the taxation, that's what I always say,

it's the taxation but it's the climate. It's a lot about the climate we operate

in too.

suppose spending sometimes is based on psychology too. It's a nice day out and

in spring of the year, in April and May month, you got a hot day and people tend

to do things differently. You'll see more people out shopping. There are more

people out walking. There are more people in restaurants. The same thing applies

with the psychology of taxation. People feel that they may be able to afford

these things and it may not have any impact on them personally. It plays into

the psyche, and it does affect everyone. And people talk about it. The more

people talk about it, they feel that hesitation.

There

are fellows that say – and I'm sure not a Member in this House hasn't heard it

said – there are lots of money in Newfoundland; people are afraid to spend it. I

know I hear it a lot and I'm sure that most Members in this House hear people

say it. I truly believe that is probably a fact but that comes with the climate,

the black cloud as we've often said.

I do

speak about the 2016 budget a lot, and I'll continue to speak about it because

until you give a new budget that changes what 2016 budget did and is doing to

this province, we have no choice but to keep reminding the people of this

province what that budget has done. Because it's continuing to do it; we're into

our third year of that budget and we're still living with it. Until it changes,

Mr. Speaker, that's something that I'll continue to talk about.

Another

thing I'd like to bring up now, we talk a lot about the legalization of

marijuana. We've had PMRs on it. We've debated legislation here in the House.

We've had lots of questions in Question Period. My colleague, the leader of the

Opposition, has mentioned it numerous times. Regulations – you're bringing in

something because it was supposed to come in. First, it was we're doing it June;

we have to do it by July or whatever. Now it's being delayed because we're not

ready. We've asked those questions; government don't have the answers because I

don't think the federal government has the answers. Now they're planning on

bumping that date ahead again.

All the

while, in our last session, the fall session, right until the last day, our

leader was asking questions on cannabis. Where are we? Are we ready? Right until

Thursday, the House closed on Thursday, and then Friday morning there were no

answers; there was evasive – Friday morning, there was an announcement made

subsidizing or $40 million will be available for Canopy Growth, I guess, in

incentives and tax breaks and what have you. So it's no, you're not giving $40

million, but you're making is available to them, should they need it, to have an

available supply.

I'm not

sure if they're going to have that supply. First of all, we don't need it by

July, but since then there are other producers willing to come into our

province, not just Canopy. There may be numerous producers to meet the demand.

We don't know what the demand is. No one really knows exactly what the demand

is.

For a

person to go out and open up a store to sell cannabis, right now, from what we

hear, the amount of cannabis you'd have to sell to make any profit on it is

exorbitant; you'd never be able to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

But it comes back again: Why

the rush to judgment? Why rush this?

We asked

here in the House – it's not that we're opposed to it. Prime Minister Trudeau,

in my opinion, got a good portion towards his election victory on that

initiative alone. I hear a lot of people say that when he said he was legalizing

marijuana, it was a big issue and he got a lot of support nationally for that.

That's

reality. He's bringing that in, okay. Let us be ready. Make sure we're prepared.

Have proper consultations. It's no different than when I just said carbon

pricing, something else he's bringing in; but, as we know, that's hitting lots

of road blocks, as is legalization of marijuana.

Health

Canada apparently are only putting on so many variations of strength of this

marijuana. The black market, as we say, will be alive and well. I know you

police that with alcohol and tobacco and what have you, and there are other

illegal opioids or whatever on the streets. That market will always be there,

but I don't know, to me, it's a lot of confusion and every time we ask those

questions, there is no one on that side that can get up and give you a clear,

concise answer. It's not giving us, it's giving the people because when you ask

questions here, as we all know, it's not answering us – sure, you're answering

us but you're answering the people of the province.

What is

the plan? You have a $40 million tax incentive lined up there. When the minister

went on the airwaves after the announcement, he was asked, he said: Yeah, that

will be available to the local producers.

We don't

really know. Local producers don't know. We have local producers here that said

they don't want government – they won't deal with them. It's best to do it on

their own.

Now

they're going to feel like they're in direct competition with a company from

outside the province and you have locals here willing to do it. You got other

companies willing to go out on the West Coast in the smaller areas, in the rural

areas of the province to set up shop. Are they getting an incentive on that $40

million? Maybe. We don't know. The minister is after saying he would.

What

regulations? We listed it off in our PMR, and it was a pretty lengthy list of

regulations. How do you deal with it? What about the roadside stops? Where is

the personal amounts? What can you have at home? The list goes on. I wish I

would have had it in front of me here to list off the stuff we listed in our

PMR. There are an awful lot of regulatory questions we had, and no answers

provided.

Now

we're into May. We're looking at, it was a July deadline. Now that's being

pushed ahead. Will it be pushed ahead further? Will it be like every other

thing, Mr. Speaker? What is the rush? Get it right, do it right. We hear it in

this House all the time, you rushed this, you rushed that. We're being very

open. We're not against it. Take your time and do it right.

What you

see happening is outside there is a level of uncomfortableness with the

legalization of marijuana anyway within certain sectors of our society. Why not

take your time and do it right? You'll be applauded if you do it right. My

belief in any of this stuff, you'll be applauded if you do it right. It's not an

emergency. Get it right, and get it right the first time.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm getting to my time, but I have a few other issues. I could go on

with my bullets. There is no problem to kill the time here to talk.

I want

to bring up an issue that I brought up last year, or probably whenever it was

brought in first, maybe 2016. The fixed link. Everyone: that sounds fine.

Nobody's opposed to having a fixed link connecting the Island to Labrador. I

don't think anyone here or anyone – they think that's great.

Right

now, we put it aside this morning, we got a study done. I've stood in this

house, I spoke to media on this issue. I said dust off your 2004 report, adjust

some numbers, you're pretty well getting the same thing. In essence, that's what

was done. Now it cost less than three-quarters of a million. I think it was

around $250,000. It's still the same process. The cars going back and forth –

which is what I criticized before. It's not a true highway. Fifteen years, well

at least a couple of billion dollars, at least. We're looking at that.

When

right now, Mr. Speaker, the roads in this province are not in that great a

shape. You have to drive to get there. You got to have a road to get up to where

they're going to have the fixed link, go up the Northern Peninsula. You got to

have something to drive on. Right now, why don't they take the $2 billion over

the next 15 years and invest in our highways and our roadways, the 10,000

kilometres of roads the province has. Why don't they do that? Then consider a

fixed link.

sounds great in theory. It's a nation builder. All that's fine. You have to do

the North Shore from Quebec down to –

MR. LETTO:

Blanc-Sablon.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. LETTO:

L'Anse au Clair is right next

to it.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much.

The

Member for Lab West corrected me on my – I had a brain freeze for a second, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

My point

is, before you go – it's like the cart before the horse, do it right. Pave the

roads. The roads right now, we're crying for roadwork. Everyone is crying –

everyone. The roads are in desperate shape. You bring up an issue on roads and

it lights up. Everyone has an issue with the roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

If you're going to do it, if

you're putting a fixed link there, it sounds fine and it's great politics in

that region but the reality is it doesn't make sense, not in this current

climate. It's not what's needed now with our roads. As I say, and everyone has

heard me in this House many, many, many times and you'll hear me again today,

our roads are in desperate need of repair.

saying that, I know the Minister of Transportation – I know this is an issue. We

tend to get along most times but we have our differences of opinion. I do not

feel – I'll say it again because I don't think you can say it enough. The

five-year Roads Plan is great in theory but it's all words. It's all words, Mr.

Speaker.

You're

putting a list out there, you're not inclusive. We've asked – and I'll ask again

and I'll ask again. I might ask again next week, Mr. Speaker, when we open

again. Give us the full list. Just let us know where we stand. Let us know where

we stand. I don't think that's unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. If I thought there was

a reason why he couldn't do that, I'd say fair game. I've never been explained.

I asked

the minister in Estimates. I looked across in Estimates, I said, can you tell us

where Route 60 lands? Can you tell me where Witless Bay Line is? They haven't

done the scoring on all roads, he said. The former minister, when he announced

the Roads Plan – and I'll always remember it. I have a lot of respect for him

too, but he stood up and he was really proud of how he was taking the politics

out of paving. This man was very excited about that. I think we all were. We

said that's grand, now we're all going to get a bit of pavement. Guess what, Mr.

Speaker? Nothing further from the truth.

We have

Members opposite getting up and saying my road wasn't on the list. No, my road

wasn't on the list. Do you know what they did? They went upstairs to the eighth

floor, which we all know out in the street, that's the Premier's office. Guess

what happened after they visited the eighth floor? It was on the list. It was

said in this House, check Hansard , it

was on the list.

Now, the

Minister of Transportation was a little bit uncomfortable with that and he

jumped up on a point of order to say that wasn't fact. That didn't happen.

Mr.

Speaker, Hansard doesn't lie. This is

what was said in this House. I'm only repeating what's documented in this House.

That is politics in paving.

The

former minister stood up after he told us about his five-year Roads Plan. He was

very proud of it, but guess what he did with the roads list for that year. He

sent it up to the eighth floor – again, that's where the Premier resides – for

approval. But, no, we're taking the politics out of paving. We're doing it based

on the scoring.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm only telling you what's been told by the Members opposite. I'm not

creating this. Hansard will tell you.

Go back and look at Hansard . I've seen

it. So I'm only repeating what's been said across the way.

I asked

simple questions: Where does my road fall on the list? Are you truly taking the

politics out of paving? They've answered it. Obviously, they're not. We asked

that.

I got up

today on a ministerial response, and every time I get an opportunity to stand on

the budget, every now and then on questions. When I run into the minister, when

we run into each other, I ask the question. I've sent emails. I've talked to his

officials.

believe if I could look, or any Member in this House could look and say that

road is getting paved next year or that road is getting paved in two years'

time. A bit of work needs to be done to maintain it now but that will be done in

two years or three years' time. That would alleviate a lot of people's concerns

and people would say: Okay, fair enough, at least it's getting done. We're

getting some temporary work done. We know there's an end in sight.

Right

now, everyone is left guessing. This government owes it to the people of the

province to come clean and tell them where their roads score.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I

see is opportunity here. Those are not my words. Those are the words of an

entrepreneur on the Great Northern Peninsula. Somebody who moved from Nova

Scotia to settle in a small community in Main Brook. He said: It's a blank slate

for the entrepreneurial-minded person right here in Newfoundland and Labrador

I took

some time to listen to the Member opposite from CBS and I have to say, it's

quite rich, some of his statements, and some of the things certainly didn't make

any sense whatsoever. On one hand he talked about how the housing market is

going, it's so robust to the point that the contactor is turning down work. Then

to point out now that they're still doing work but they can't pick and choose

any more. So the work was not getting done at those points.

MR. PETTEN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I'm getting to the point

because I listened very intently. I'm striking a bit around when I'm talking

about the economy and economic development here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You look at that we have a $77 million roads budget for Newfoundland and

Labrador. He's talking about spending $2 billion, basically, on roads. We do not

have the capacity to do that much roadwork, just like any contractor cannot

build all of those homes at this exponential rate.

You can

have all the money in the world, Mr. Speaker – Norway has $1.4 trillion in its

legacy fund. They had the foresight, when they had all the money, to actually

put some away for a rainy day: $1.4 trillion – not billion, trillion.

When the

former administration, when the Tories were in power they did not save any

money. They spent and spent and spent. They gave the gift to everybody: higher

electricity rates for Muskrat Falls. What I will say is that when you don't

understand the basics of economics, you lead everyone down a path where

everybody ends up paying more tax, and it's thanks to the Tories that the taxes

were increased.

Norway,

with all of that money in the bank, if you've ever been to Norway and you've

driven over their roads, they have bad roads too because you cannot spend all of

this money. Due to capacity issues, you could cause deflation in your economy.

It has an impact on jobs.

understand the importance of providing predictability, consistency and doing

multi-year planning. This is the first time that there was ever a five-year Road

Plan, a five-year infrastructure plan. It leads to more competition; it leads to

more predictability. You can hire your workers; you can get things done quickly.

There's $620 million for investment in infrastructure, which is part of a $2.5

billion five-year infrastructure plan that's going to create 5,300 jobs in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

Member can get up, from CBS, and speak time and time again about the politics in

paving, but I've been sitting in this House for almost seven years and I can

tell you how political that side has been when it comes to paving. Because my

residents, the constituents that I represent, with 650 kilometres of road

network of this 10,000, if I were to look at the amount of roadwork that they

had done during my term in office representing as an MHA, they've done next to

nothing in that area – absolutely next to nothing.

Just

prior to elections they would launch a tender and they would say they were going

to do work, the work would never get done but just ploys. Lots of that happened;

whereas, we are doing early tendering. It makes sense, it's predictable, there's

a consistency and it's having the greatest impact on people so that you can grow

your economy.

The

Member opposite said – and he's the critic for the Environment. He was talking

about reading the reports on climate change, which is one of the biggest

challenges facing the global economy, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, not

just Canada –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

– it requires a solution. He

was reading the report and he was saying –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind all Members I will

not tolerate interruptions. We have a little over an hour to go and I ask

everyone to respect the person identified.

Thank

you very much.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Environment critic had talked about how this is a dry issue. This is very, very

dry. When you're talking about something as important of how you deal with

climate challenge, how you look at finding a solution that fits Newfoundland and

Labrador, that has a balance for business, that looks at the economic

development and looks at mitigating factors, they approved a project called the

Muskrat Falls Project that was supposed to be $5 billion. It's now over $12

billion and will lead to the doubling of electricity rates.

We've

had to take significant action to mitigate rates, to find ways to reduce costs.

They like to forget about that. They like to think that they never sanctioned

Muskrat Falls. Time and time again, I've given a speech about the PC math

because the numbers just don't add up when they do the numbers. They're always

so much more than what they are. They like to spend, spend, spend.

I'm

striking some chords over there, Mr. Speaker, and I understand why. They have

their track record, we have our track record and I'm much prouder of our track

record than their track record, I can tell you that.

Now, I

had the opportunity to speak to 400-plus grade nine students about technology in

Newfoundland and Labrador and all of the opportunities that it brings. That's

really exciting to look at the bright minds, our leaders of today, as the new

Lieutenant-Governor talked about, Judy Foote, about how important it is to be

engaging youth and that they step up and that they lead.

Last

week, I had the ability to announce funding in a company called Empowered Homes.

Their Mysa system allows for thermostats and allows for the programming so that

you can have an app on your phone. While we're sitting here in the House of

Assembly, we could monitor the temperatures in our own homes, or we could

preprogram. This can save up to 20 per cent of your energy costs. This can be a

big business, and they're only doing 5 per cent of their business in

Newfoundland and Labrador. They're doing 50/50 in terms of Canada and the United

States. There are a lot of great companies and the entrepreneurial climate is

very strong.

If you

talk about Bonavista and the Bonavista Peninsula, the Member for Bonavista got

up before me and he touted all the good things that were going on, that his

Chamber of Commerce is very entrepreneurial, that they're creating start-up

space. When I went to Bonavista in early 2016, I think the Chamber had just

under 80 members and now they have over 130 members. There are like 60

businesses that have started up over the last three years. It's significant what

is going on in small business, the climate, tourism.

These

are the types of things that are happening that are building a stronger economy.

It's not just for small business and the tourism, as the Member for Bonavista

talked about, it's everything. It's a whole mix of dealing with forestry,

dealing with manufacturing and dealing with farming.

I'm very

proud of my district, as all Members would be of their district that they

represent and the people they represent. We all work very hard here in this

House of Assembly to advance the economy and the social well-being of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and build a stronger tomorrow. That's why we're all

here.

When we

look at investment