PDF Version

June 25, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 9

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

Before

we begin routine proceedings today, I would like to observe an old parliamentary

tradition. I have the pleasant task of formally welcoming the Member who was

duly elected in the election of May 16, 2019. The Member is Mr. Jordan Brown,

representing the District of Labrador West.

I have

been advised by the Clerk of the House that the Member has taken the Oath of

Allegiance to the Crown as required the

Constitution Act, 1867 , and the Oath of Office as required by the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act

and has signed the Members' Roll.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour to present to you Mr. Jordan Brown, the Member for Labrador West who

claims the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER:

Let the Member take his seat.

Welcome.

Congratulations.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As one might expect, we do

have a few visitors today as well.

In the

Speaker's gallery today guests of the new MHA are LeeAnn Toomashie, Rosette

Brown, Coraline Brown, Ralph Brown, Sadie Brown – there's a theme running here –

Sam Button, Doris Brown, Melvin Goulding and Tony Brown.

Great

welcome to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I also see in the public

gallery today we have the Legal Aid team here for a Ministerial Statement.

Joining us are: the Provincial Director, Nick Summers, and his wife Ann Ryan;

the Chair of the Legal Aid NL Board of Commissioners and retired Judge, Timothy

Chalker, Q.C; Deputy Provincial Director (Legal), Lauren Chafe; Deputy

Provincial Director (Corporate), Harman Khurana; Administrative Coordinator,

Donna Brophy; and Executive Assistant, Darlah Durnford.

Welcome

to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members' statements

we'll hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Humber - Bay of

Islands, Bonavista, Mount Pearl North and Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fire

prevention is very important within the community. In 2007 the Bishop's Falls

Fire Department started a program for youth, which their goal was to teach the

youth fire prevention and safety at home and school and it also teaches them the

hazards that they may have to face in real life and team work.

The

Bishop's Falls Junior Firefighter program has seen 249 students to date. Some of

the topics they will cover in classroom and hands on are: introducing safety and

fire equipment; building search and victim removal; ice water and vehicle

rescue; and water supply/fire hose. At the end of the program, the youth get a

chance to put these skills to test with a smoke house scenario day.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating the youth

of Bishop's Falls Junior Firefighters for completing this year's program.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, in recognition

of National Indigenous Peoples Day, which was held on June 21, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize the Running Wolf Drumming Group from the Bay of

Islands.

This

group has been together for five years and, when asked, they always take the

opportunity to promote the culture, traditions and heritage of the Mi'kmaq

people. They also perform at fundraising events, opening ceremonies for

graduations, galas and conferences and other organizations, always opening with

an honour song for the event and a friendship song.

They

carry out interactive workshops and talks at schools with students taking

part

in creating cultural items such as mini drums, talking sticks and other

traditional items. They also hold monthly workshops at the long-term care

facility and bungalows in Corner Brook giving joy and companionship to the

residents, which is especially important to those who have no family able to

visit.

Members

of the group include Anne Marie O'Keefe, Laura White, Verna Simms, Dawn Samson,

Margie Wheeler and Ashley McCarthy.

I ask

all Members to join with me in thanking these ladies for their dedication and

commitment in promoting their culture in the community.

Thank

you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me great pleasure today to celebrate the two sea cadet corps within the District

of Bonavista: Lethbridge area corps, 310 RCSCC Clode Sound and the Trinity Bay

North corps, RCSCC Golden Hind.

I had

the privilege to attend their annual reviews recently where the cadets showcased

their skill sets and their precision. The cadet movement provides exciting

opportunities for the youth in the District of Bonavista, from team work,

discipline, skill building, character development, to a strong sense of

achievement and pride.

The two

annual reviews attended showcased all of the above in our district's youth. I

was most impressed in how eagerly they engaged in conversation as well, whether

discussing skills learned from summer camps attended, the intensity of playing

the glockenspiels or the masterful performance on the drums.

The

support and camaraderie extended to their neighbouring corps was clearly evident

as they attended each other's annual review.

As MHA

for the District of Bonavista, I extend my pride in these young cadets and also

extend gratitude and thanks to those leaders who volunteer their time to provide

a better future for our youth. I applaud their commitment.

I ask

the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to join me in issuing a big thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

remember and honour Bill Bradley who passed away recently on May 2l.

Mr.

Bradley began his career as a constable with the RNC and eventually made his

mark in the automotive industry. Along with his business partner, Mr. Bradley

started Toyota Plaza Limited which, during their ownership, grew to become the

largest import car dealership in Atlantic Canada.

I knew

Mr. Bradley through his love for horses. He was a fine horseman and a dedicated

husband, father and grandfather. Mr. Bradley's passion for horses led to forming

the Newfoundland Trail Riders Association. This group of horse lovers encouraged

travel on horseback and promoted the appreciation of outdoor life.

He was a

true cowboy and was not often seen without his cowboy boots and Stetson hat. A

sight rarely seen in this province, but he was a cowboy to the core.

Upon his

retirement from the car business, he was instrumental in re-establishing the RNC

Mounted Unit and donated two horses to the unit, Vince and Townshend.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members present to join me in honouring the life of Mr. Bill

Bradley and his outstanding contribution to the community and province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MR. LOVELESS:

Mr. Speaker, cancer affects

us all, and for some directly and others indirectly, but we all soldier on to

battle it and do the best we can.

This

past weekend, I attended the Walk of Hope cancer benefit event in Harbour Breton

and saw people from all around the Coast of Bays region and communities with

groups that certainly know how to fundraise. The efforts of many resulted in

over $74,000 raised to help individuals and families that continue to struggle

with this dreadful disease.

It was

noted at the even that there were 21 new cancer patients this year, but let's

hope that we can help to bring that number down to zero next year and all the

years ahead.

Three

words posted at the event: hope, faith and cure. Hopefully, someday, through the

efforts of groups that I witnessed in Harbour Breton, that we will find a cure.

Congrats

to all for a job well done.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the Environment.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to encourage emergency management partners and organizations to submit a

nomination for the Emergency Management Exemplary Service Awards. A prestigious

recognition for exceptional service and achievement, the awards are delivered

collaboratively by Public Safety Canada and provincial and territorial

governments. The nomination deadline, Mr. Speaker, has been extended to August

30, 2019.

Awards

are granted to groups or individuals in five categories, all intended to

recognize excellence in aspects of emergency management. These five categories

are: Resilient Communities; Search and Rescue Volunteers; Search and Rescue

Employees; Youth; and Outstanding Contribution to Emergency Management.

Nomination information is available from the main page of the Department of

Municipal Affairs and Environment website.

Mr.

Speaker, when emergencies happen, a collective effort is required to respond to

the needs of affected people. From first responders to municipal officials to

volunteers; they are all to be commended for the selfless acts that they do day

in and day out. Whether it is helping with search and rescue efforts, assisting

a family displaced by fire or volunteering in a community affected by a flood,

their efforts are invaluable and should be recognized.

encourage everyone to take a moment and nominate an individual or group that has

shown dedication and commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I am pleased to learn that

the nomination deadline has been extended for the Emergency Management Exemplary

Service Awards. I know that a lot of amazing work has been done, and continues

to be done, across the province to prevent and respond to emergencies and

disasters. I am certain that there are many individuals and organizations that

merit the praise and recognition that these awards highlight.

Mr.

Speaker, it is important to acknowledge those who work so hard to keep us safe,

and we encourage residents to nominate deserving individuals and organizations

for these awards.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWN:

I thank the minister for an

advance copy of her statement. I would like to thank the many volunteers and

staff involved in emergency management in our province. I, too, encourage people

to nominate other individuals or groups this year for Emergency Management

Exemplary Service Awards.

As a

former volunteer firefighter, I am deeply familiar with the vital role that

these individuals serve in emergency management. Their dedication to keeping our

communities safe is truly remarkable. I commend all of them and their work. I

also encourage others to consider joining a voluntary and local emergency team

if they are not already involved.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

stand today to recognize the hard work of our Legal Aid team and retiring

Provincial Director Nick Summers.

April, the Legal Aid Commission launched their new name, look and brand to

change people's perception of the team. They wanted to show people that they are

a team of highly educated, experienced and fully accredited lawyers, many with

years of experience. This initiative was led by Nick Summers.

Mr.

Speaker, Nick Summers has been with Legal Aid since 1990, starting in the

position of staff solicitor after spending time working in Ontario. Since that

time, he has also held the positions of St. John's area director, senior

solicitor with Family and Civil Law and deputy director of administration,

before taking on his current role as provincial director. On September 30, 2019,

Mr. Summers will be retiring and we are grateful for the work he has done for

the people of the province over the past 29 years.

Legal

Aid Newfoundland and Labrador has over 130 lawyers and staff operating at 17

locations. They offer services to eligible individuals in the areas of family,

criminal and some administrative law matters and aim to ensure all people,

regardless of means, capacity or social situation, have access to the knowledge

and services they require to protect their basic legal rights. The funding for

Legal Aid is provided by the federal and provincial governments as well as the

Law Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, as the new logo states, these are real lawyers, for real people and the

brand embodies the five main values: accountability, collaboration, compassion,

respect and openness.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank everyone at Legal Aid for all of their hard work and

their continued dedication, and I'd also like for all of us to wish Mr. Summers

all the best in his retirement.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The Official

Opposition joins with the minister and the government in conveying our best

wishes to Provincial Director Nick Summers on his retirement and commending him

on a stellar career of public service over the past three decades. Mr. Summers

has been instrumental in rebranding the Legal Aid Commission and raising its

profile as a centre of excellence in legal aid services.

congratulate the entire team of more than 130 lawyers and staff for the work

they do in 17 locations throughout the province. I had the privilege of serving

as a legal aid lawyer for 12 years and I found the work to be deeply rewarding

as well.

Legal

Aid is about giving people, with limited financial means, the same opportunity

that others have to access justice and retain lawyers who will protect their

fundamental legal rights. Our legal aid lawyers are highly trained, very

experienced and deeply committed to excellence in serving their clients.

We in

the Official Opposition express our appreciation to each and every one of them.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to

Provincial Director Summers for a long and dedicated career, often working under

challenging circumstances to provide the legal services people need.

We know

the Legal Aid Newfoundland and Labrador team sees clients at their most

difficult times and we appreciate their professional, effective and caring work.

I would

also like to take this opportunity to commend those in the legal profession who

are participating in the Sexual Violence Legal Support Service, which is

providing free legal advice to victims; another service that's really a benefit

to the community.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the

Premier earlier this year about the opportunity to tax the export of power to

Quebec which arose in 2016, he seemed surprised.

Has the

government asked for and received a legal opinion about this opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of

the Opposition would be aware, the opportunity to actually tax Quebec has been

dealt with, and there have been a number of reviews that would've been done on

this very issue.

I think

it's fair to say, one of the things that we need to consider in terms of a

taxation exclusive to some other jurisdiction, it would also mean that taxation,

from what we've been told, would have to occur on the residents in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

So I'm

guessing what the Leader of the Opposition is saying right now is that he would

see that under the circumstance that he's talking about here, we would

potentially see extra taxes put on ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador and

really then be appealed by someone like Hydro-Québec. We've looked this, we've

dealt with it, and if indeed at some point this is something we need to pursue,

Mr. Speaker, these are all things that we want pursue to the benefit of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The scheme would, of

necessity, be complex. So I'm glad to see the Premier of the province taking an

interest.

In an

open letter to the Premier Sunday, former Premier Peckford pointed out that

provisions in the recently passed federal legislation blatantly violate the

Atlantic Accord principle of joint management. He said the government has an

obligation to oppose this violation by challenging the legislation in the

courts.

Will the

Premier consider a court challenge?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

So I am thinking what the

Leader of the Opposition is referring to would be, again, about Bill C-69. Once

again, this is something that the Minister of Natural Resources, our own Justice

Department and other people are taking a very keen interest in.

Mr.

Speaker, we will defend – as I said so many times, as I would expect every

single Member in this House of Assembly would, all 40 Members. We will defend

the joint management principle of the Atlantic Accord. We are now reviewing

clause by clause the impact of Bill C-69 and where this piece of legislation

would be as it affects the Atlantic Accord.

Mr.

Speaker, one thing for sure, I will guarantee you that we will protect the joint

management of the Atlantic Accord. Damage was done in 2012. I think the Leader

of the Opposition – I'm not saying this fondly, as you said last week. I am

disappointed that that happened in 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Former Premier Peckford also

said that if one concept, like joint management, can be blatantly violated than

the precedent is set that others like principle beneficiary can be violated,

too.

Is the

Premier concerned about the precedent?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Interesting enough, back in

2012, some of the people that we're referring to today and the Leader of the

Opposition were like crickets. When Stephen Harper was making this decision that

would have a profound impact on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nothing was

said; yet, in this House today we're hearing a lot about this.

Mr.

Speaker, we took exception to CEAA 2012. We took it at every single level –

every single level, Mr. Speaker. We made submissions to the senator. We actually

spoke to many Conservative senators just recently, as you would know.

Mr.

Speaker, we are not satisfied with where we are in this province today with the

outcome. We want to extract natural resources in an environmentally sustainable

fashion to the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I

say we will protect the principles of the Atlantic Accord.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

As the Premier well knows, I

was not in this House and in a position to oppose CEAA at any relevant time. As

well, he could have instituted legal proceedings to challenge that.

Last

week the Premier stated he would amend the Atlantic Accord, depending on

benefits.

What

kind of benefits would get his consent to amend the right of joint management in

the Atlantic Accord?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

interesting enough, that the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he needed

to be quiet in 2012 because he did not want to stand up for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Well, I

can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition had no issue in

seeking a nomination for Stephen Harper to run in the last election. That tells

me you had supported what the man had done.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, talking about where amendments would be made, I know Members of this

House of Assembly that have made – we have stood here and made amendments simply

because of things like worker safety, as an example. If there are areas now – as

things evolve over time around land tendering, if these can benefit Newfoundland

and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, we will make those amendments, but only when they

benefit this province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, this illustrates

why the House has passed a resolution to ask the Standing Orders Committee to

improve the operation of Question Period and the answers thereto.

The

Atlantic Accord agreements were entered between Canada and the province in 1985

and 2005. Last week our federal Cabinet representative told Noia that the

Atlantic Accord now contains an arbitration clause to resolve disputes over

joint management.

Mr.

Speaker, the 1985 and 2005 agreements do not contain an applicable arbitration

clause.

So my

question is whether there is a secret amendment to the Atlantic Accord?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, there are a

number of ways this can be dealt with, as we all know, and we're acutely aware

of the impact in 1985 and 2005 in the changes that we've seen in the Atlantic

Accord; however, I take exception to the

preamble when he said that Question

Period – why we need to change the Standing Orders.

I made

it quite clear when I answered the last question in where it would impact,

because the question was, what amendments we'd be willing to make with the

Atlantic Accord. I spoke of things like land tendering. I spoke of things like

worker safety. Are these issues that you would see not worthwhile in amending

the Atlantic Accord?

I would

say to the Leader of the Opposition, amendments were made coming after a very

long review by Judge Wells about the Atlantic Accord. They needed to occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

To the best of my

understanding, the Premier is pointing to a two-year period for discussions

contained in the Hibernia dividends agreement which provides for exactly those

things to be discussed.

question, the government has been lobbying Ottawa to have a majority of C-NLOPB

members on the Assessment Act review tribunal. As Brian Peckford points out, the

C-NLOPB is a federal-provincial body, not a provincial body.

How does

C-NLOPB representation on the review tribunal give the province a greater voice

and prevent the weakening of joint management?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we take

exception to having two of the five – minimum of five, there could actually be

more. But let's keep in mind: Where did that erosion begin?

Let's

not forget this, and I think this is important to remind all Members of the

House of Assembly, because people would be watching and they would think that

this is an erosion that's just happening with Bill C-69.

Mr.

Speaker, that was lost back in 2012. It was taken away by his friend, Stephen

Harper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The Premier asked federal

Finance Minister Morneau to help him find $200 million a year to mitigate

Muskrat rates by refinancing to load more debt on to future generations. This

$200 million a year is already baked into the Liberal rate plan.

What is

the status of the $200 million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

back in early spring of this year, in April for us, Mr. Speaker, there were two

plans that were put forward to the people of our province. There was one, and we

should be reluctant to name the plan, I think the Leader of the Opposition

referred to it, the PC plan was a CHEAP plan. That was the name that he used,

not me, I'm repeating his words, Mr. Speaker, and we put out our plan. In the

so-called CHEAP plan there was $150 million that was doubled counted, therefore,

left his plan extremely short of meeting the rates that the plan had set.

Ours did

include $200 million. It was the PUB recommendations that said that the greatest

potential to find the $200 million would be around restructure the finances,

with the federal government, and they have agreed to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, PSA testing is one of the best early screening tools for prostate

cancer. Yet, our office has received calls from patients who visited their

family doctor and were told they were no longer eligible for PSA blood tests.

Mr.

Speaker, can the minister clarify what new assessment rules are being used to

determine eligibility for this life-saving test?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

guidelines for screening testing are those that are based on national standards.

I am not aware that any of these have changed recently. I will look into the

Member opposite's question and report back to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, the survival

rate for prostate cancer is over 90 per cent if detected earlier. Specialists

recommend doing this yearly.

Why is

the minister not supporting the fact that we continue to do this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I don't

believe I actually said that. What I said was that I'm not aware of any changes

in the screening recommendations for prostate cancer. I will look into the

Member's questions and report back to this House.

What I

can report is that we lead the country in wait times for radiation for prostate

cancer treatment, a position we have held for the last four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We look

forward to hearing that this indeed is not the case and these tests have not

been cancelled.

Mr.

Speaker, there was gut-wrenching story in the media about Samantha Rideout who

lost her leg after it took Eastern Health two months to make a proper diagnosis.

This 30-year-old single mother of three children had her life forever changed.

Does the

minister feel Eastern Health did enough to help this woman?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Obviously, I can't comment on individual cases before the House. The issue

around Eastern Health and its protocols and policies is one they are

investigating.

What I

would point out to the Member opposite is that each of the health professionals

involved in this lady's care are subject to self-regulating professions, and if

there is an issue with the standard of care then there is an avenue, at no cost

to the individual, for them to appeal that directly to the physicians and nurses

regulating bodies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the

minister explain why Eastern Health took so long for her concerns to be taken

seriously and will he agree to meet with Ms. Rideout to listen to her concerns?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As I

say, I can't comment on the specifics of any particular case. Eastern Health are

doing their own review, I am told, under the provisions of our new legislation

around patient safety and quality assurance, and I will wait for that.

As I

say, if the individual concerned in her care has concerns about the standard of

that care then there are other avenues that she can pursue independent of

government and at no cost to herself. And I would encourage her to do so, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Budget 2019

included $22 million in contingency funding that can be used in any way he

wants. Will the Minister of Finance commit to reallocating money from this

contingency fund to provide coverage for insulin pumps for people of all ages?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue of insulin pump and funding, we have, in

Budget 2019 – currently under debate –

money allocated within Health to expand the program by removing the age cap.

That is already there, we're currently debating it and I look forward to that

debate going on later this afternoon. We're just waiting for the Opposition to

vote it through.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Finance commit to reallocating money from the

contingency fund to provide school busing for all children living within the

1.6-kilometre zone of their school?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

taken action to address the concerns and the current policy is comparable, if

not, in most cases, more favourable than other provinces. We are consistently

collaborating with the districts to address the concerns and to date, Mr.

Speaker, we've put an extra 649 courtesy stops that have been implemented within

the 1.6-busing policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in the last couple of days we had a serious washout on the

Trans-Labrador Highway and I want to give the Minister of Transportation and

Works an opportunity to update the House on the status of that washout and where

we're to today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, yes, early Monday morning we were

made aware of a washout. I believe it was around 3:30 a.m. that we were made

aware of the situation. TW crews were on site by 4:30 a.m. and equipment was

mobilized onsite by 9 a.m.

Right

now, my latest update – and I shared with the four MHAs and the Member opposite

around 1 o'clock today, the latest information we have – crews are on site,

repairs have begun, we'll know again later this afternoon better on our time

frames, but there is a significant piece of work that's here that's going to

need to be done. By tomorrow morning, we will have helicopter service in place

and we made marine freight arrangements as well, Mr. Speaker, for the interim to

get us through the process of getting the road back to passable.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week officials of the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment testified

under oath at the Muskrat Falls inquiry that methylmercury mitigation work in

the form of capping had to start by the fall of 2018; however, on June 13 the

Minister of Natural Resources told the House that capping was still being

considered. So why didn't the minister tell the House that it was already too

late for capping?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

question, this is a health issue in how we manage health issues related to

methylmercury. I will tell the Member opposite this remains a priority for us.

Since the recommendations – four recommendations would have come in on April of

2018 – there's been quite a bit of work done in terms of gathering analysis and

monitoring in the reservoir and downstream in Lake Melville.

None of

the examples or none of the increases in methylmercury that would have been

anticipated and predicted back in 2018 actually happened within the system,

using the monitoring system that was approved by the IEAC. I will continue to

say to the Member opposite, we are looking at options that we can actually have

to mitigate methylmercury as early as this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

The Independent Expert

Advisory Committee report was released in April 2018. Will the minister confirm

that due to her government's inaction, it is now too late to perform any of the

methylmercury preventative work recommended by the Independent Expert Advisory

Committee?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

Member opposite, April 8 I sent a letter to all three Indigenous groups within

Labrador inviting them to a meeting. There was a bunch of scheduling problems

getting that meeting prior to the election. We did get a chance to meet on

October 9, so the implementation committee which was recommended by the original

Independent Expert Advisory Committee – this is where we're trying to get this

committee to come together. They all agreed that they would report back in one

week. So now I've only heard back from one so far.

I will

tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's our intention to work with those three Indigenous

groups to look for ways to mitigate methylmercury. Protecting health risks is

something that this was all about. The 1,300 samples that have been done,

however, in the reservoir, we're not seeing the spikes that were predicted with

methylmercury.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

The

Independent Expert Advisory Committee recommended an impact security fund be

established to guarantee access to local country food or alternatives.

How much

is in that fund?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

As I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, the implementation committee – which

is what we're trying to get in place right now. I've already met with the three

Indigenous leaders, and the minister responsible was there, as were others in

the room. It was a good meeting. The takeaway from that meeting is to come back

with representatives, members that they would put on this implementation

committee. That's the group that I'm referring to. They said we needed a week to

actually respond to the draft terms of reference that we supplied to them to

begin their work from.

haven't heard back from two, but, Mr. Speaker, we're looking forward to getting

this committee in place so we can start the implementation, based on the

evidence that we now have available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Once the methylmercury is

released into the water, we can't mitigate it. I want to point that out, and it

looks like inaction is going to actually result in that.

Mr.

Speaker, I will ask the minister if she will confirm to the House when the date

of impoundment of the reservoir is determined. The minister said that she would

inform the House when the date of the impoundment of the reservoir is

determined.

Has the

date of impoundment been determined yet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back to

the previous question, in terms of the amount. This is something we'd need to

work with the implementation committee that I just spoke about.

In terms

of methylmercury creation, Mr. Speaker, and the message that this may have been

too late. Well, that is not the case, because when you look at topsoil removal,

the expert advice that came from three of the four scientists said there was a

risk of removal – of soil removal and vegetation removal would actually

increase.

Mr.

Speaker, this is something that was brand new, new information that has come

forward based on the monitoring program in Lake Melville and the reservoir that

was completed over the summer of 2018, which was post the IEAC's recommendation.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair that we get the Indigenous groups together so all

this data that we now have available to us can be shared with the Indigenous

groups.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue. I'll get that one yet.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week, WorkplaceNL reported there were 36 work-related fatalities in the province

in 2018. This number is sad and alarming.

Minister: What action is the government taking to help prevent workplace injury

and illness?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for his question.

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, there was a report of a significant number of fatalities, but the

majority of them were occupational disease related. Occupational disease has a

10- to 40-year latency.

WorkplaceNL works alongside the employers and the workers. We do educational

campaigns. There's a significant amount of consultation completed.

Mr.

Speaker, we have employer reps in place. There is a significant amount of work

done with the employers to ensure their workplaces are safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

The majority of the

occupational disease-related facilities were due to exposure to harmful

substances.

Minister: What is the government doing to ensure that workers are no longer

exposed to harmful substances in the workplace?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, occupational

disease is one of the priorities of WorkplaceNL. We are focusing on occupational

disease. We have staff down at WorkplaceNL who do.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a significant amount of inspections done by occupational

health and safety, and directives are put forward with employers when there is

an issue.

Mr.

Speaker, we are working with WorkplaceNL and OHS to ensure that the workplaces

are safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Mr. Speaker, the Marystown Shipyard Family Alliance, which represents former

Marystown Shipyard workers, is requesting the establishment of an intake clinic

to collect their medical history of the workplace toxic exposures.

Will the

minister commit to setting up the intake clinic that the Family Alliance has

requested?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, the act, as it exists, allows for an occupational health and safety

committee. A medical committee, Mr. Speaker, not an intake committee. An intake

committee is where people come together and discuss their symptoms amongst

themselves.

actual fact, WorkplaceNL is willing to put three oncologists in place to meet

with individuals from the Marystown Shipyard Family Alliance. Right now,

mesothelioma and work-related asbestosis is covered by WorkplaceNL, but we are

willing to work with that committee. We have, in fact, corresponded with the

committee and haven't heard back from them whether or not they are going to

agree to do the committee with the three oncologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

The Marystown Shipyard Family Alliance represents the affected former Marystown

Shipyard workers and they want an intake clinic. Dr. Noah Kerin has done a lot

of work to date to this.

Can the

minister explain why government is refusing to address the ongoing shipyard

workers' health issues with the intake clinic they have requested?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, we are following the act and we are willing to put together a

committee that has three oncologists to work with the individuals. If there are

any news claims or any new evidence that the individuals would like to put

forward, we are open and willing to review each individual case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue for a quick question, please.

MR. DWYER:

A quick question is that Dr.

Noel Kerin has done a lot of work to date on this file.

I'm just

wondering if the minister is going to include Dr. Noel Kerin in the committee.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL for a quick response, please.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, WorkplaceNL is

aware of the work done by the doctor. The committee, as I stated before, will be

of three oncologists.

The

Marystown Family Alliance can be engaged in that conversation as we determine

what three oncologists will be on the committee, but, Mr. Speaker, that is what

the act covers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a

recent letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, international hydro expert

James Gordon withdrew his public endorsement of the safety of the North Spur dam

on learning Hatch did not review the work of SNC-Lavalin.

I ask

the minister: What does she have to say about Mr. Gordon's change of heart on

the North Spur?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

indicated to this House, there have been over 30 different studies on the North

Spur by leading experts, SNC-Lavalin, Hatch, as the Member opposite has

indicated. There have been stress and strain tests. I'll be tabling tomorrow the

response to the question that the Member opposite asked last week about the

reports and whether or not stress and strain tests have been done.

I can

advise the Member opposite to review those 30 different reports. Mr. Gordon has

his opinion. I can only assure the Member opposite that we have the 30 different

reports, including – for example, Hatch, most recently in 2017, also looked at

the dam safety program itself and made sure that that was up to par as well.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor's

hand-picked North Spur peer review panel did not consult the community or

experts concerned about SNC-Lavalin's methods and results. The panel also said

it did not perform any calculations of its own and explicitly disclaims any

liability for the work done in its report.

I ask

the minister: The Muskrat Falls inquiry is uncovering more and more examples of

Nalcor's rogue behaviour, interference and overreach. How can the minister

continue to trust Nalcor's claim that everything is fine with the North Spur?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

indeed an important question and I certainly don't want to minimize the

important work that has been done on the North Spur, and the work that will

continue to be done to ensure its safety.

We have

30 different reports from many different professional organizations such as

Hatch, such as SNC-Lavalin, among others, Mr. Speaker, on this very important

work.

Stability of the North Spur has been – the work has been undertaken and a review

of the Dam Safety Program, an audit of the Dam Safety Program has been reviewed

by Hatch, Mr. Speaker.

I can

assure the Member opposite we're taking this very seriously. If there's

something more that needs to be done, we'll certainly consider it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in Question Period last week the Minister of Natural Resources said she

would ask Nalcor if there have been any required stress and strain tests carried

out on the North Spur, and also if there are further things that need to be done

to ensure the safety of the dam.

I ask

the minister: How did her meetings go with Nalcor and what did she find out?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

have before me a list of work that has been done. There's been numerous

geotechnical tests that I did indicate to the House last week, over 30,

including stress and strain tests that were requested last week. I'd be happy to

table all those tests. I was planning to do so today but there's one more

late-breaking piece of information that is just coming to me.

There's

been a slope stability analysis. There's been a seismic site characterization; a

Reservoir Induced Seismicity study; a landslide wave-generation analysis;

Churchill River valley landslide work; progressive failure study; dynamic

analysis, which is earthquake triggering; hydrology 3D model. Mr. Speaker, I can

tell this House there have been lots of studies done. We'll be happy table them.

MR. SPEAKER:

Great.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, in defending the

stability of the North Spur, the minister constantly refers to Nalcor's

assurance that the dam meets Canadian safety standards, yet experts claim the

unique geology and conditions of the area require additional assessments using

more modern calculations.

I ask

the minister: Given this matter of safety, does the understanding of the

independent expert review of the stability of the dam of North Spur, is it

critical?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Congratulations on the first question in the House. It's wonderful to have you

sitting there and asking these important questions.

Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you that we take this very, very seriously. North Spur has

to undertake the Canadian dam safety regulations. As I just indicated, Mr.

Speaker, a dam safety audit was undertaken by Hatch to make sure the program

that's in place for the dam safety is as robust as it needs to be.

There

are 30 different tests and analyses. I just named some into the record, Mr.

Speaker. I'm happy to table those. If there is further work that is required to

be done, this government will certainly undertake that. We want to make sure,

obviously, that this is very well constructed, manufactured and able to stand up

to the most rigorous tests.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, who beat him to the gun.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish

to table the Private Training Corporation's 2018 annual performance report.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, in accordance

with the requirements of

section 5 of the

Transparency and Accountability Act , I am pleased to table the 2018-19

business plan for the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker,

section 28

of the Provincial Court Act requires

that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoint a tribunal every four years to

review and report on the salaries and benefits of Provincial Court judges and

present its recommendations and reasons to the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety.

tribunal consisting of Brad Wicks, Q.C., David Eaton, Q.C. and John Whelan were

appointed in June 2018 to make recommendations for a four-year period from April

1, 2017 to March 31, 2021. Public hearings were conducted by the Wicks tribunal

on January 31 and February 1, 2019. The tribunal report was presented to me on

June 6, 2019.

The

tribunal report made recommendations on salary, severance, long-term disability

benefits, interest and travel per diems for judges.

Section

28.2(2) of the act requires that the report must be tabled in the House within

15 days of the start of this session of the House. The act also directs that

within 30 days after the report is tabled a resolution must be submitted to the

House of Assembly to confirm, vary or reject the tribunal's recommendations.

I hereby

table this report in the House of Assembly.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

two notices here. The first one, I give notice and by leave move the following

motion that Mr. Jim Dinn replace Ms. Alison Coffin as a Member of the Public

Accounts Committee.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those in favour of that

motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Excellent.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution: A

resolution respecting the appointment of the members of the Independent

Appointments Commission.

WHEREAS

subsection 6(3) of the Independent

Appointments Commission Act provides that the Independent Appointments

Commission shall consist of a minimum of five and a maximum of seven members

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of

Assembly; and

WHEREAS

the following three members have submitted their resignation as Members of the

Independent Appointment Commission: Clyde K. Wells, Zita Cobb and Shannie Duff

NOW

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the following persons be appointed members of the

Independent Appointments Commission for a term of three years: Edward Roberts,

Q.C., Gerald Lloyd Anderson and Peggy Bartlett.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

to move the following private Member's resolution.

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador:

(1) to

admonish the House of Commons and Senate of Canada for passing Bill C-69 with

provisions that violate the principle of joint management contained in the 1985

Atlantic Accord and its implementation legislation;

(2) to

take all reasonable measures, including court challenges where necessary, to

safeguard against conflicting federal legislation, the hard-won joint management

rights that Newfoundland and Labrador secured under the 1985 Atlantic Accord and

its implementation legislation; and

(3) to

refuse to enact any provincial law that will erode those rights.

It's

seconded, or will be, by the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

accordance with Standing Order 63, the private Member's resolution read out by

my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, will be the private Member's

resolution that will be debated on Wednesday.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My hon.

for the Immigration Action Plan. He asked if there were requests for proposals.

I wanted to let him know that there was. It was released on January 26, 2018 and

closed on February 5, 2018 with six submissions received.

M5 was

the successful proponent and was awarded the contract on May 14, 2018 for

$300,000 to develop original content, implement the campaign and play social

October 29 to December 9 with a break there for Christmas and started again

February 4 to March 31.

I have

the documents here for tabling for the hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, the Adult Dental

Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug

Program under Access and 65Plus Plan were eliminated in

Budget 2016 .

Low-income families and low-income individuals, particularly seniors, are

struggling with the cost of living and struggling to meet some of their basic

needs. Dental care is one of them. Many seniors and 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, called on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover

seniors, low-income individuals and families to ensure better oral health,

quality of life and dignity.

Mr.

Speaker, it is a great disappointment to once again see that this is not a

consideration in this proposed budget. This is basic dignity; people's

confidence enabling them to better themselves in life.

Here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the highest rate of unemployment in our

history. We also have one of the highest vacancies in certain job profiles. Mr.

Speaker, that is because people who would be able to fill these jobs do not have

the confidence in themselves to get out and get off the social system and,

therefore, become more productive within society. This is just a basic need that

we are ignoring.

In this

current budget, there is no relief for people on low income, nor seniors. The

only relief we do see in the heavy tax burden that we must bear as a province is

within the tax on vehicle insurance. We need to remove these barriers from

people being able to get out and work, from people being able to enjoy just

basic life, being able to eat properly, which also, of course, goes on to

improving overall health of individuals.

This is

some of the basic needs that are continuing to be ignored and, therefore, I am

in full support of this petition. It's definitely time we put some dignity back

into our decisions.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS many students within our province depend on school busing for

transportation to and from school each day; and

WHEREAS there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province

who live inside the eastern school district's 1.6 kilometre zone, therefore do

not qualify for busing; and

WHEREAS policy cannot override the safety of our children;

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all

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

safety is a primary concern.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been brought forward on a number of occasions, and

here we are approaching the end of a school year. The kids will be getting out

and running around and we'll have to be wary of them on the streets, and our

teachers , who've done

great work, will be – be released I was going to say, but get out of school.

When we

talk about this, it's a good time to get talking about it because in no time

we'll be going back to school. We've heard from government about the courtesy

stops. The courtesy stops are only as good as the courtesy seats that are on the

bus. There could be a seat on the bus one day and not on the bus the next day.

There could be multiple kids from the same family, some get on the bus, some

cannot.

I think

from a safety perspective, and it was raised in Oral Questions today regarding

the contingency fund and utilizing some of that for the 1.6 kilometre busing, I

really think we need to look at this and we need to address, if not for anything

but the safety of our children.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

I'm

sorry, the hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for a

response, please.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

appreciate the concerns of my hon. colleague. We hear from parents all the time,

Mr. Speaker, with regard to issues around schools and the safety of busing

children. We have consistent dialogue with the district and we'll continue to

collaborate with them to address areas of concern.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I will go back and say that during the election there was a figure

that was posted with regard to the cost of busing these children that live

within the 1.6 to a tune of $3.5 million. I've asked for that figure to be

presented to our department so we can have a look. To date, Mr. Speaker, I

haven't received it.

The

other question, if I can ask it, would be, if we were going to continue to spend

money on education services is that a priority of your party?

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

timely to come up with this petition again after that response.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

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

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

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

within the eastern school district's 1.6 kilometre zone, therefore do not

qualify for busing; and

WHEREAS

policy cannot override the safety of our children.

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

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

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

safety is a primary concern.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

As we

know, this petition was just presented and the minister opposite provided

commentary. It's probably good to come back at this again to probably bring some

clarity to what the minister had said.

This has

been a priority. It was in the Blue Book, we've committed to the 1.6 busing

policy, Mr. Speaker. This is not new to us. This is not new to Members on this

side of the House. It's not new to me. It's not new to anyone in this

Legislature. We've been lobbying for this since 2015. There's nothing new about

what we're doing.

What it

is, is determination. This is determination. I believe if you're principled, you

stand on an issue and you stick with that issue, regardless of what faces you

along the way. If you stand on an issue, you can never go wrong by being

principled. I believe this is a very principled argument and makes a lot of

sense.

To say

that you're comparing on cross-jurisdictional scans, Mr. Speaker; respectfully,

why shouldn't we aspire to be the best? Why should we be second, third or fourth

best? Because others have worse, we're going to be okay with that. I don't agree

with that. I respectfully disagree totally with that.

The

cost; they keep putting it back to what we had estimated the cost to be. They

estimated $8.5 million. I've yet to see where those numbers came from. That was

a number that's been kicked around for years.

No one

actually will give this enough respect and consideration within the department

to give proper numbers. I've asked for those numbers. I spoke publicly. Why

don't the department come out and provide us with the numbers?

Two

years ago, I was at a protest and I said that. I'm here asking again. We're not

going away on this issue. We have lots of people who want it. This issue is

alive and well everywhere.

Government keeps coming back with those answers; we've been hearing it over and

over. We're not giving up. We're not going anywhere and the parents are not

going anywhere.

Those

parents of those children want answers. They want busing. They don't want their

children walking to schools in these unsafe road conditions, no shoulders. It's

fine now, you got a beautiful day out. I got roads up there; I've got that wide

a shoulder on a four-lane highway, so I'm expecting a six- or seven-year-old

child to walk those roads?

Some

parents cannot do it. Some parents are single parents, two small children, they

cannot physically do it. It's a stress on the family. I've said it many times

and I'll say it again, this issue, the policy is outdated. How any government,

respectfully, any Member opposite, can stand up and defend it, it defies all

logic in my mind.

We're

not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere on this issue. This issue will stay

alive and well for as long as I'm in this House of Assembly.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

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

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

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

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

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

extended periods of time.

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

staffing at those facilities.

therefore petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation, which includes the

mandatory re-establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents

in long-term care and all other applicable

regional health facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease

and other cognitive debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate

safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required

care. This law would include the creation of a specific job position in these

facilities for monitoring and intervention as required to ensure the safety of

all patients.

Mr.

Speaker, petitions today are from the Clarke's Head area, Gander, Victoria Cove,

Massey Drive, Labrador City and Wabush.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, as I've presented this now, I don't know how many times, numerous

times, and the concern is still there. What it comes down to is a concern for

the safety and the well-being of our seniors. Seniors who have dementia,

Alzheimer's disease and so on that are in long-term care, and, certainly, there

is anecdotal evidence from hundreds of family members that there are times when

their family members are not being taken care of properly. Not because the staff

are not professional and not because the staff don't want to do their job, but

there are times when they're simply working short staffed.

There

could be any number of issues around that. It could be the fact there are delays

in hiring people when they leave. It could be issues around not replacing people

when they're off on sick leave, when they're off on annual leave and so on,

issues around that.

I know

in health care, I've heard in hospital settings and other health care

facilities, where, at one point at least, they had this policy of not replacing

the first sick call. That can't work. If that's the case in these facilities, I

don't know if it is or it isn't, but that type of situation cannot work for

vulnerable seniors in long-term care.

I ask

the government to make sure that we're taking care of our seniors.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

again with a petition on behalf of the people of Corner Brook, Western

Newfoundland and all parts of Newfoundland.

WHEREAS the successful proponents for the new hospital in Corner Brook are

scheduled to be announced this spring with construction anticipated to begin in

the fall, and as this is estimated to be a four-year construction period, and as

there are experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;

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

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

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

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

area, support the

local economy and be able to return home to their families every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, today and tomorrow might be the last chance that I have to present

petitions. The House may not be open again until November sometime, or October

November, and the contract may be awarded to the successful proponents and

construction may have started.

The

minister has already said he's going to work on trying to get up to 90 per cent.

I encourage that. I'm hoping there's work on the go now to deal with the

tradespeople in the province so that we can start working out any details if we

need to now and get them to work with the successful proponent when the

announcement is made.

When I

asked the Premier a question there two weeks ago today, actually, he mentioned

there was going to be an announcement in the next couple of weeks. Well, I look

forward to that. I just hope there won't be a protest again this year with a lot

of local tradespeople. Last year, a lot of iron workers were protesting because

they couldn't get any work on the site itself.

So I

urge the government today and tomorrow – it's going to be possibly my last

couple of days to present the petitions. I made the commitment during the

election – before, during and after – that I will bring this up every possible

opportunity that I can, which I'm doing again today.

I urge

the government, before they make their final decision, to ensure they put their

two cents' worth in, that they hire local people, Mr. Speaker, because this is a

great project. There are a lot of great qualified tradespeople and labourers in

the area that can do this work. It would be great for the local economy. It

would be great to have people home with their families and it would be great all

around that once the hospital is built, Mr. Speaker, that we all can say that

everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from this project.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I will

call from the Order Paper, Motion 4, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Looking

for a speaker.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

The

Minister of Finance refuses to tell the House how or where the Liberal

government will make $617 million in cuts that his own budget says are necessary

to meet the balanced budget target in 2022-23 and he refuses to table the

documents that set out this analysis.

The

Minister of Finance stonewalls while Newfoundland and Labrador is facing the

most difficult population, fiscal and economic challenges it has confronted

since joining Canadian Confederation in 1949. These challenges threaten the

future of the province and the present Liberal government is failing to

acknowledge them, let alone execute a plan to overcome them.

We know

the goal is to balance the budget by 2022-23, but where is the plan to reach the

goal? The minister says we have not turned the corner, but he can see the

corner. The minister needs to give the public the same eyeglasses he is using to

see the corner so we can check the prescription. The minister can stonewall

Question Period but he can't stonewall his eyeglass prescription.

Finance critic colleague, the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, has spoken

to the budget details. Other Members of the newly strengthened PC Party Official

Opposition caucus have spoken to aspects of the Liberal budget as it affects

those they were elected to represent. I will not repeat the criticisms already

made by my colleagues; rather, I will place the Liberal budget and its failings

in a broad context.

The

broad context points to the conclusion that Newfoundland and Labrador needs a

new deal with Canada to help us recover from our population, fiscal and economic

challenges, and become both fiscally sustainable as a province and a

contributing member of Confederation.

The

provincial Liberal government had an opportunity created by the 2005 Atlantic

Accord arrangement to negotiate this new deal for fairness within the fiscal

framework of Confederation and threw it away in exchange for a hocus-pocus

Hibernia dividend deal worth chicken feed. And to the shame of our provincial

Liberal government, it agreed in writing with the Trudeau Liberal government

that they have now completed the review of the 2005 arrangement on offshore

revenues.

The

opportunity created by the 2005 Atlantic Accord to review the fairness of our

fiscal treatment within Confederation and negotiate a better deal is closed and

cannot be reopened. This squandered opportunity cannot now be reopened without a

federal partner ready and willing to reopen it, and that partner, obviously,

will not be the federal Liberal government and its silent seven MPs.

In 1992,

the year of the cod moratorium, the population of this province was 2 per cent

of the national population. At 525,000 presently, it is 1.4 per cent. The

Canadian economy has grown 58 per cent since 2000, while the Newfoundland and

Labrador economy has grown by 32 per cent. We see the consequences of

depopulation, an aging demographic and relative economic decline most acutely in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

With

great challenge comes great opportunity for those with vision and resolve to

build a stronger Newfoundland and Labrador within a stronger Canada. The

recovery of Newfoundland and Labrador as a contributing component of Canada

requires a determined defence of the Atlantic Accord against what was Bill C-69,

now on the books of Canada as the Impact

Assessment Act .

This

federal legislation attacks the joint management principle established by the

1985 Atlantic Accord. Furthermore, while there is more yet to do, we have made a

significant contribution to greenhouse gas reduction through our massive

regional coal power, displacing investment in green hydro energy on the Lower

Churchill River. This gives us a moral authority to fight the Ball-Trudeau

carbon tax. This carbon tax does not take into account either the hardship on a

rural population which must use gasoline for extended travel, or the

contribution this province is making toward meeting our national climate change

goals based on international commitments.

Three

core issues underline the challenges for this province and require immediate

action: One, the massive and growing debt of the province, which is brought

about by lack of expenditure control, greatly aggravated by the huge over-budget

costs of the much-delayed Lower Churchill hydro project; two, the fiscal

unfairness arising from the federal government's failure to honour the 1985

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord and its stated objective that

Newfoundland and Labrador will be the principal beneficiary of our offshore

natural resources, now coupled with the unilateral federal legislative assault

on the 1985 Atlantic Accord principle of joint management; three, the

significant and continuing decline in our province's population since 1993,

combined with the older age profile of our existing population of 525,000

people.

The

Lower Churchill hydroelectric project's huge cost overruns and multi-year delay

are the greatest immediate threat to our financial and social stability. The

project has a current completion cost of $12.7 billion, which may yet rise. We

must take action to address this massive debt and to ensure that power rates are

affordable for the people and the businesses of our province.

While we

now have an interconnected electricity system from the Upper Churchill Falls to

the Island and onward to the mainland of Canada and North America, the

implications of cost overruns cannot be absorbed into the existing power rates

of the province's consumers in any normal, step-wise rate increase manner

without destroying the provincial economy and accelerating our depopulation.

That is why early this year the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador released

our plan, the Crosbie Hydro Energy Action Plan, to hold the impact of the Lower

Churchill Falls Project coming into service to a zero effect on rates.

Proof of

the viability of our rate mitigation plan is that the Liberal government adopted

substantially the same plan, but rate mitigation requires taking from sources of

funding that cannot be used for other needs and many other deserving needs

exist.

The

and development of the Lower Churchill generation plant and related transmission

systems in Labrador and across the Island. Without the $7.9 billion of federal

financing guarantees, extended by both the Harper and Trudeau governments, this

project likely would not have been constructed. These guarantees were stated to

be part of a national and regional clean energy and reduction of greenhouse

gases strategy and were justified as an economic benefit for all of Atlantic

Canada and as a step toward compliance with international greenhouse gas

obligations.

It was

envisioned decades ago that the Lower Churchill would be developed by a joint

federal-provincial corporation called the Lower Churchill Development

Corporation, with 51 per cent provincial and 49 per cent federal equity

participation. Legislation establishing such a corporation still exists.

Together

with our partner, the federal government, we must put in place a comprehensive

Lower Churchill Falls plan to protect the viability and sustainability of this

important national and regional hydroelectric project. This nation-building plan

requires the federal government to provide additional support to the Lower

Churchill Project to ensure power rates are affordable to consumers and to

reduce the enormous additional debt that will be imposed on Newfoundland and

Labrador residents.

The

Trudeau Liberal federal government shows no indication of being willing to give

this support, and the Liberal provincial government shows no indication of

understanding the need to advocate for this support. Putting extra debt onto the

shoulders of future generations by refinancing project debt to further backend

load the repayment of it, as the Premier has asked Trudeau's Finance Minister

Morneau to do, will add to our indebtedness and drive young people away.

This is

not the federal support we need. The federal support we need could take the form

of equity investment. The total debt of Newfoundland and Labrador is already

approaching $16 billion, the largest per capita debt of any Canadian province. A

significant increase in the Muskrat Falls partnership commitment from the

The

federal government and other Atlantic Canada provinces must also explore the

potential for maximizing the sale of clean, renewable Lower Churchill Falls

power and for contributing to an earlier phasing out of existing coal-generated

power plants in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick than currently expected.

Furthermore, increasing the utilization of the expanded and integrated

electricity transmission system from Labrador to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and

beyond would create opportunity for the generation of wind power throughout the

Atlantic region and the achievement of the national objective of reducing

greenhouse gases.

Federal

equity investment in Churchill River green energy is an excellent fit with the

goal of strategic interconnection of electricity grids to connect regions with

clean power proposed in A Real Plan to Protect Our Environment, the national

energy plan released by the Conservative Party of Canada last week.

affordable resolution to the Lower Churchill rate dilemma is in the national

interest. The province and the federal government are partners in this clean,

renewable hydro power project and must take responsibility for the financial

problems that now exists and each must participate and share in the solution.

Any

discussion of issues and opportunities on the Churchill River should not ignore

the fact that tax exemptions for the export of power from Upper Churchill

expired in 2016, and that this province has the opportunity to take advantage of

the expiry of these contractual exemptions.

Section

92(

a) was added to the Constitution Act

in 1982 when the federal government patriated the constitution. Sometimes called

the Resource Amendment, it empowers the legislature of a province to make laws

in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the

production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical

energy – end quote.

enormous opportunity has presented itself by which this province can gain

leverage over Quebec to work more co-operatively with us in the development of

Labrador hydro resources and their interconnection with the North American grid,

but this is also a signal opportunity by which we can achieve a fair and

equitable return to us as the owner of the Upper Churchill Falls resource as we

look forward to the expiry of the unfair and inequitable renewal contract in

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be alarmed that when earlier this year I

asked the Premier about the expiry of tax exemptions and the opportunity to tax

the export of power from the Upper Churchill to Quebec, he appeared not to know

what I was talking about.

Our

provincial Liberal government has been missing in action on yet another issue

critical to our prosperity and sustainability, namely the issue of a fair and

equitable return to us as owner of the Upper Churchill hydro resource. The

expiry of Quebec's tax exemption gives us critical leverage to achieve this fair

and equitable return.

Fiscal

unfairness is intimately related to depopulation. Depopulation affects every

aspect of our social, fiscal and economic well being. Most people think of

federal transfers in terms of the equalization program, which is intended to

provide reasonably comparable access to reasonably comparable levels of public

services across Canada.

There

are two other transfer programs: the Social Transfer and the Health Transfer.

The Health Transfer is even larger than equalization, because federal Health and

Social Transfer programs are now based on an equal per capita cash basis, the

annual financial loss from our decrease in population is in the order of $80

million. This financial loss of $80 million, annually, does not include the

impact on federal equalization payments caused by the failure to honour the

principle beneficiary obligation enshrined in the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

The 1985

Atlantic Accord was entered into between the PC administrations of Brian

Mulroney and Brian Peckford, and my father, John Crosbie, was one of the

signatories. The 2005 Atlantic Accord fiscal arrangement was negotiated by PC

Premier Danny Williams. A renewal of the 2005 fiscal arrangement was intended to

be negotiated by the federal and provincial governments, as agreed by the

parties, and we in the PC Official Opposition charged the provincial Liberals

with squandering a critical right granted by the 2005 Atlantic Accord to review

the unfairness of our treatment within the fiscal framework of Confederation and

negotiate a new deal with Canada, which protects and enforces the Atlantic

Accord and our sustainability, prosperity and future ability to contribute to

Confederation.

The

Premier wrote to the prime minister on February 13, 2018 and invoked rights of

review, which were established by the 2005 Atlantic Accord agreement negotiated

by PC Premier Williams. The 2005 agreement was a sequel to the 1985 Atlantic

Accord between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. The 2005 agreement dealt

with the treatment of petroleum resources under equalization and it resulted in

a contribution of at least $2 billion toward the province's debt.

The

parties agreed that no later than March 31, 2019, they would commence to review

the arrangement and a list of issues critical to the fiscal position of

Newfoundland and Labrador within Confederation was spelled out for review. The

letter the Premier sent to Prime Minister Trudeau mirrored the list of critical

issues set out in the 2005 Atlantic Accord agreement.

The

issues, which the letter the Premier sent to Prime Minister Trudeau quoted word

for word from the 2005 Atlantic Accord arrangement.

This is

from the Premier's letter: “

a) the

extent to which the Atlantic

Accord objectives have been achieved, including the key objectives of the

Atlantic Accord that Newfoundland and Labrador be the principal beneficiary of

its offshore;

b) whether Newfoundland and Labrador has realized lasting fiscal

and economic gains from its offshore petroleum resources revenues;

c) the

Equalization arrangements then in effect;

d) the fiscal disparities that then

exist between Newfoundland and Labrador and other provinces;

e) Newfoundland and

Labrador's undeveloped offshore petroleum discoveries.”

To our

lasting shame, the provincial Liberal government, led by this Premier, went to

Ottawa to review whether we have realized lasting fiscal and economic gains, as

principal beneficiary of our offshore resources in the context of equalization

and fiscal disparity with other provinces, and came back with no resolution of

these issues whatsoever. Shame I say.

As a

distraction to hide their failure, the Trudeau/O'Regan Liberals and their

provincial enablers launched a massive propaganda campaign to brand a convoluted

Hibernia dividend's agreement as an Atlantic Accord deal. The formal name of the

agreement, dated April 1, 2019, says it all: Hibernia Dividend Backed Annuity

Agreement.

This is not

the name of an Atlantic Accord agreement. This Premier's complete failure to

negotiate the promise of the Atlantic Accord required the provincial and federal

Liberals to institute a loud propaganda branding exercise aimed at districting

the public from what was an obvious failure of leadership of epic scope.

Trudeau's

provincial Liberal enablers did not negotiate a renewed Atlantic Accord deal

as intended by the

2005 Atlantic Accord arrangement. True to the no fight in Dwight brand, they

completely capitulated and surrendered a hard won opportunity to address the

recovery of this province from our population, fiscal and economic challenges

through a new fiscal deal within Confederation.

So,

obviously, is the phony Liberal Atlantic Accord deal not a fulfilment of the

principle beneficiary promise of the Atlantic Accord that this Premier and

Trudeau's messenger, O'Regan, are currently doubling down on their propaganda

campaign to distract attention from the Trudeau government legislative attack on

the Atlantic Accord principle of joint management of the offshore.

A video

from Trudeau's messenger, Minister O'Regan, was played at the Noia conference

last week. The audience of oil industry executives greeted the message with

stunned silence.

In a

letter to The

Telegram Saturday, former PC Premier Brian Peckford gave the

audience a voice calling the O'Regan comments insulting and “hogwash.” He

denounced, “The bloody nerve of this excuse for a federal minister to so insult

the competent people of Noia and the overall resource sector.”

Among

the many astonishing and insulting statements by Minister O'Regan is the

following: And while I know that C-69 does not undermine the principle of joint

management, it is good to know that if a dispute were ever to arise – and I

think the Premier made this clear during his speech a couple of days ago – the

Atlantic Accord now contains an arbitration clause to resolve it. Let me be

clear, if a provincial government ever endangered the prosperity and

sustainability of our offshore industry, you'd better believe that we need to be

prepared to use it.

Why this

excuse for a federal minister thinks a provincial government would ever endanger

the prosperity and sustainability of our offshore industry was not explained.

Trudeau's messenger, Minister O'Regan, stated that the Atlantic Accord now

contains an arbitration clause to resolve disputes over joint management,

suggesting that this is a recent amendment.

The only

major new document publicly released and signed by the federal and provincial

governments this year that contains an arbitration clause is the Hibernia

Dividend Backed Annuity Agreement. This agreement contains a typical commercial

arbitration clause that provides for resolution of disputes arising out of the

interpretation of the agreement in which it is contained.

The

agreement in which it is contained is an agreement about Hibernia dividends and

not an agreement about the Atlantic Accord. Unless there is a secret amendment

of the Atlantic Accord, the astonishing statements of both this Premier and

O'Regan are plainly incorrect. There is no such arbitration clause. The talk of

an arbitration clause is merely more propaganda to fool the public and extend

the charade that the Hibernia dividend agreement has something to do with the

Atlantic Accord.

There is

a benefit to this province in this convoluted scheme to receive Hibernia

dividends spread over a 38-year period, but compared to the adjustment of our

fiscal position within Confederation that this Premier should have come home

with, it is indeed the chicken feed and slight of hand it was labelled by former

Premier Peckford.

The Telegram

carried a story on April 26 in which they interviewed an Alberta expert about

equalization and the Atlantic Accord. The expert effectively told

The Telegram that if this Premier had

been astute enough to obtain Trudeau's agreement to exclude offshore resource

revenues and recalculate equalization based on non-resource revenues, then this

province would be receiving about $316 million in 2019 alone. This would be the

added revenue to our Treasury – in his view – of applying an offset in

accordance with the precedent established by PC Premier Williams in the 2005

Atlantic Accord arrangement.

We, in

the PC Party Official Opposition, say the annual loss of funding to the province

caused by failure to honour the principle beneficiary obligation is even

greater. This is desperately needed funding that the provincial Liberal

government left unrecovered when they announced their chicken feed Hibernia

dividend deal, instead of negotiating an offset of offshore resource revenues

against the equalization formula in accordance with the precedent established by

PC Premier Williams in the 2005 Atlantic Accord fiscal arrangement.

Newfoundland and Labrador requires a federal-provincial recovery plan that

recognizes that this province cannot survive within Confederation if we continue

to lose population and are unable to provide the basic services that all other

Canadians receive. These basic services are guaranteed by

section 36 of the 1982

Constitution. Equal opportunity, economic development, essential public services

of reasonable quality, and sufficient revenue to provide reasonably comparable

levels of services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation are all enshrined

as constitutional rights by

section 36.

The

threat to Newfoundland and Labrador's future, posed by profound depopulation,

should be of concern to every Canadian. We need a joint federal-provincial

recovery plan to address our profound loss of population and the threat it

represents to the very survival of Newfoundland and Labrador as a province in

Canada. This recovery plan will be part of a nation-building commitment by

Ottawa to the rehabilitation of the Atlantic region as a vibrant and

contributing region of Canada.

Policies

to encourage population growth should include: focusing on attracting more

immigrants; establishing a graduate retention program; creating economic and

social conditions to increase our birth rate; removing financial barriers to

people who have or want to have children; and a community action plan to promote

diversity, focusing on immigrant retention with targeted, specific regional

immigration strategies.

We can

yet address our population, debt and fiscal unfairness challenges through

massive, committed government action. However, massive, committed government

action will require champions both at home and elsewhere in the country,

champions who can only be created by honest leadership, practising accurate

thinking about the depth and scope of our problems, and leadership which shows

the courage and confidence to advocate for solutions.

The

fisheries resources Newfoundland and Labrador brought into Confederation were

once the envy of the world. Under the management of Ottawa, those resources fed

the world at the expense of Newfoundland and Labrador, as nations overfished the

stocks with reckless disregard and impunity. Recovery of these stocks is

essential to our sustainable future. The federal government must fulfill its

obligation to manage the stocks based on science, ensuring proper assessments

are done regularly of all stocks and predators such as seals.

The

federal government should look to the Atlantic Accord to define a model for

joint management by Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador over the fish stocks

our people and economy rely on. Those resources must never again be traded away

or taken away to serve other purposes. We must be a partner in their

development, just as we are a partner in the development of our offshore oil and

gas resources.

Newfoundland and Labrador needs a formal role at the decision-making table for

our fishery resources. The federal government should commit to joint regulatory

management of the fishery, similar to the joint management of offshore petroleum

resources performed by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum

Board, along with dramatically improved fishery science and modernization of

current management practices.

Joint

management of our fishery would ensure that we have a voice at the table and

that abuses of ministerial discretion, such as those which led to clam scam, the

Arctic surf clam quota debacle, are not repeated. In addition, a commitment from

the federal government to reverse the decision to reduce the Arctic surf clam

allocation for our province would show understanding of the economic importance

of the fishery to the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, while

recognizing and making amends for a grievance against the Trudeau Liberals

validated by the federal ethics commissioner.

I will

summarize the action called for by these budget remarks. The federal government

must make a commitment to redress the relative decline of the Atlantic region

and the absolute decline of Newfoundland and Labrador within Confederation.

Sadly, the track record and attitude of the Trudeau federal Liberal government

shows that this government and its silenced seven federal Liberal MPs will not

be our partners in this nation-building, joint-recovery challenge.

The

commitments required of the federal government are: one, a commitment to provide

additional support to the Lower Churchill Falls Project to assist us to ensure

consumers have affordable power rates and to reduce the enormous debt burden

this project will impose on the province already deeply in debt. A significant

investment in the Churchill Falls Development Corporation is one path by which

the federal government could assist in this nation-building project. Two: A

commitment to reopen the review of our fiscal arrangements within Confederation,

promised by the 2005 Atlantic Accord, which this Liberal government squandered

and signed away by their Hibernia dividend agreement.

federal commitment is required to implement the promise of the Atlantic Accord

that Newfoundland and Labrador will be principal beneficiary of its offshore

resources as if they were on land. This means renegotiating the value of the

gain to this province of applying the 2005 Atlantic Accord offset precedent

which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year to this province. These

desperately needed dollars were left unrecovered this year by this Liberal

government's capitulation to the Trudeau Liberals, and their abandonment of the

right contained in the 2005 Atlantic Accord arrangement to review and negotiate

the issue of fiscal unfairness.

Three: A

commitment to joint, regulatory management of the fishery, similar to the joint

management of offshore petroleum resources performed by the Canada-Newfoundland

and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, together with a commitment to

dramatically improve fisheries science and the modernization of current

management practices.

Four: A

commitment to respect the Atlantic Accord obligation of joint management by

repealing the Assessment Act of Canada as it applies to our offshore. Respect

for the Atlantic Accord principle of joint management also entails recognizing

the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board as sole regulator

of our offshore petroleum resources.

I opened

these budget remarks by saying that this province is facing the most difficult

population, fiscal and economic challenges it has faced since Confederation. In

the face of these challenges, the author of the budget, the provincial Liberal

Minister of Finance, tells us that his back-to-balance plan requires a reduction

in expenditures of $617 million, but refuses to explain how this is to be

achieved. The bond rating agencies are taking note.

This

provincial Liberal government has failed to put its own fiscal house in order

and has failed to fight for us in Ottawa. These are failures which are abject

and of historic proportion. This minority government lacks the guts, grit and

determination to master its own budgeting, or to defend our Atlantic Accord

joint management right to create jobs and prosperity, or fight for fiscal

fairness through the principle beneficiary obligation.

God

guard Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

some remarks that I would like to talk about. Well, I think it's a great budget

for Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition has taken

some exception to what this budget looks like.

There

are a couple of things, and I just caught about four or five minutes of his

speech there, but it seems to me there was a big focus on the provincial-federal

relationship, Mr. Speaker. So I want to talk a little bit about the federal

relationship that we've seen.

Mr.

Speaker, like any family, you don't always get along and sometimes – I know with

my own family, we would sit down. There were certain things we could find

agreement on when we sat down, when we took the opportunity to sit down at some

Sunday afternoon dinner or if it was a Saturday night, or whenever it was we'd

gather our family together, and we did this quite often. Often, I know with my

own father and with my own brothers, we would have some very heated discussions

from time to time on various issues that impact people within our own family.

So, Mr.

Speaker, what I'm saying is we don't necessarily always agree, and I think that

is very fair. What we do is look for the areas that we can find agreement; yet,

we will still have to, sometimes, agree to disagree.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, when I look back over the last three years – and I didn't come out

today to really talk about a federal relationship, provincial relationship, but

based on the comments I've just heard, I think we need to do that. Because when

we look at the last 3½ years in Newfoundland and Labrador – and I think every

person that I've met when we go around this province, they clearly tell us that

it's been pretty good in terms of getting things from Ottawa to come to

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll give you an example. I can give you many examples, and I do have

some time so I think I will just do a bit of this. Going back to the Core

Science building, the previous provincial administration talked about and made a

commitment to put nearly $100 million – $125 million of money towards a Core

Science building. So, Mr. Speaker, after the election in 2015, we worked with

the federal government and nearly $100 million came from the federal government

to replace the commitment that we had made.

The

Leader of the Opposition was using examples of saying no fight in Dwight. I

think that was the words he was using or something like this. Mr. Speaker, I

will tell you, when it comes to actually working with people you don't always

necessarily have to bark, because getting results is really what matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, that is one

example. I can go on and on and on about the infrastructure improvements we've

seen within our province, and they've been tremendous. Many of this has been

done with joint shared arrangements with the federal government.

As an

example, in 2014 – the Leader of the Opposition just talked about misses of this

government. Well, Mr. Speaker, missed opportunities – in 2014, when his friend,

Stephen Harper, was the Prime Minister of Canada at the time, no one from the

caucus that he now leads even bothered to actually participate.

Mr.

Speaker, I think the Leader of Opposition would know that equalization – now,

he's not going to tell all the facts about what equalization is and how it's

defined. He's going to simply think that you can go up and take that money.

Well,

the fact is, I don't like the current equalization formula either. I just don't

like it, but it's a federal program, I say to the Leader of the Opposition and

those in this room. We will do whatever we can to change it but, at the end of

the day, the federal government make the decision on equalization, whether we

like it or not. I don't like it. I've made that quite clear, that I don't like

the rules around equalization.

As a

matter of fact, it was Stephen Harper who said they were going to change it. And

guess what? He reneged on that gift to Newfoundland and Labrador as well, I say,

Mr. Speaker.

I will

also say I was disappointed with the current federal Liberals, in this case, and

I don't mind saying this, that they didn't change it either. That didn't happen.

So to simply think that one Premier of this province can go up and tell Ottawa

to change the equalization formula, the Leader of the Opposition and everyone in

this building who sit in those seats should know that it's not a decision that

is made at the provincial level.

There is

nearly $18 billion that is distributed across this country to provinces. I will

guarantee you that Newfoundland and Labrador, when you look at the concept of a

have province, we do not meet the definition of a have province as is in the

equalization formula, Mr. Speaker. I don't like it either, but I don't determine

those rules. The Leader of the Opposition knows that because he's had people

close to his own family that actually would have been participating in those

same discussions.

Mr.

Speaker, that's the equalization formula we talked about, but I talked about the

Core Science building. I talked about infrastructure. I talked about the road

network that has been developed, the water and sewer programs that we see in our

province today. The Labour Market Development program that's been developed,

some $949 million that comes to this province. The largest in the history of

this province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to share the story of how some of this actually unfolded. This was about

discussions that we, at premier's meetings – and I had to work fairly closely

with other premiers across this country to make sure that if you look at those

numbers today, we get the Labour Market Development Agreement in a

disproportionate amount to what other provinces would. But the Leader of the

Opposition is not going to tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that, because

that is good news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

It's enabling us to take

single moms, even some single dads, and get them retrained so they can get back

into the workforce, Mr. Speaker. That's how that money is being used. It's being

used to support women getting the skills they need to get in the workforce.

That is

not good news from the Leader of the Opposition. So I wouldn't expect him to be

talking about this here today but, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things

we've been able to do over the last 3½ years working not only with the federal

government but also working with other provinces to get their support for what

we need in this province as well, and we've been successful in doing that.

Mr.

Speaker, I also want to say that when people look at me and they talk to me

about where we've been in the last 3½ years and the things and the agreements

that we've been able to put in place, just recently the new housing agreement

that we put in place which was important for us as well. It will actually help

with a lot of the housing problems that we had and challenges that we have to

deal with in this province. That was signed on April 16 of this year. Mr.

Speaker, these are the things that just don't fall in your lap and these are

areas that we've been able to work with our federal government.

So, as I

said when I started my comments today, Mr. Speaker, none of these situations are

perfect but I'm not going to stand here today and say that we have not been able

to bring benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador over the last 3½ years, because I

will tell you, everyone in this province knows that if there was a time of

darkness for Newfoundland and Labrador where we couldn't even get the phones

answered in Ottawa, it was during the previous federal Conservative

administration and right here with the PC administration that we had in our

province. Mr. Speaker, you couldn't get the phone answered up there, let alone

try and get a meeting at the political level. That's the reality. I was

disappointed with that as well.

Why

would I want to see people in Newfoundland and Labrador being shut out from

meetings in Ottawa? They just did not occur, and it was very difficult and lots

of lost opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador. So that is why, Mr.

Speaker, there was no question that we needed to actually make the relationship

and improve on that relationship. I will say, Mr. Speaker, not perfect, because

everyone in this room would know that we've taken exception to Bill C-69.

For

those that are listening and we talk a lot about Bill C-69, this is really about

how you develop natural resources. A lot of the conversation around offshore oil

and gas, but, Mr. Speaker, it's about the mining industry as well. We know that

if you live in this province the best opportunity you have is around our natural

resources. Many people would have heard me say many, many times that as a

province we have more natural resources available to us. These are assets that

we have available to us that will create employment for Newfoundland and

Labrador. We have more than a lot of countries, Mr. Speaker, and that we can be

proud of, but we cannot allow for overregulation to actually prevent that

resource from being developed to our benefit. We will always do so making sure

that the environment is protected. It was never about one or the other. It was

about how you extracted the natural resources to the benefit of our province and

while protecting our environment.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to get back for a few minutes to

Budget 2019 , and there are a lot of real good things in

Budget 2019 , that's the reason why

we're having this discussion today. Before I go into that, I do want to talk a

little bit about the Atlantic Accord and the recent discussions that we've had

and negotiations and the value that it did bring to our province.

Mr.

Speaker, $2.5 billion of guaranteed income. This is guaranteed money. We know

that in 2005, when the $2 billion came in, that had to go toward debt. The

condition was put on by the federal government. The Leader of the Opposition, I

didn't hear him say that, but that is what happened. If you look at what

happened subsequent to those investments, there are a lot of people that have

followed this and said that, today, there is really literally no value in what

happened because that all got lost in certain markets. We all know what was

happening in the world in that time frame.

Now,

people have talked about how this got booked for Newfoundland and Labrador, and

people will say that was a fake way, that these guys cooked the books, but, Mr.

Speaker, it wasn't like that. The Leader of the Opposition, he knows this as

well, it's just a little bit of politics that gets played from time to time.

The

rules around the accounting principles as applies to government is very

different than those that would apply to business. Coming from my previous life,

Mr. Speaker, that would not have been booked in the business world like it's

booked in the world of public accounting. It is very different.

didn't say go and do this. We knew that in order to obey the rules of public

accounting, this is what needed to be done and that is what was done. That

immediately brought benefits to our net debt situation.

To give

you an example, Mr. Speaker, there was a chart in some of the presentations

around our budget this year. If you go back to 2015-2016 timeline, our net debt

to GDP was 58 per cent, and that was very tough because when you talk about

bond-rating agencies, these are the things that they look for.

I will

say this, as a result of the Atlantic Accord, the recent changes that have been

made and the discussions that we've been able to do, this brought us down to

just less than the 40 per cent range, Mr. Speaker. From the goal from 2015-16,

at nearly 58 per cent, down to less than 40, Mr. Speaker, that's a remarkable

achievement to be able to do in such a short timeline. That is another example

of why the Atlantic Accord was of particular value to us.

Now,

interesting enough, the Leader of the Opposition, many times here made comments

about the Atlantic Accord. As a matter of fact, when it was signed, it seemed to

be, or said to be, some fake Accord. Yet, Mr. Speaker, not unusual what

happened, if you look at the so-called Blue Book that was released during the

election just a few weeks ago, I will tell you what, if that was a fake Accord,

I can tell you what, they didn't mind spending the money because they actually

said in their Blue Book that this would come from the money from the Atlantic

Accord. Mr. Speaker, I noticed that.

On one

hand, how can you say, publicly, that this is a fake Accord? This Accord doesn't

exist. That's not real money. That's kind of counterfeit money. That money is

not going to come and, yet, you go out in your own plan, your own plan for the

future of this province, and you spent it. Now, not only did you spend it once

but you spent it twice, Mr. Speaker.

We all

know that kind of financial discipline is not something that we can – and I can

point to many examples over the last number of years. When I sat in Opposition,

Mr. Speaker, I used to speak out about this a lot because the Atlantic Accord,

that money, is a guaranteed revenue stream for us right now.

Decisions have been made and people often want to talk about the net debt, the

financial situation of our province, but, Mr. Speaker, I want to share a little

story. We all know this province, we all love this province and I think every

single Member that sits in those chairs, we do so to bring benefits to the

constituents that elect us. That's what we're here for and we take great pride

in that.

Mr.

Speaker, in 1949, we all know that was a significant piece of the history of our

province. We came into Confederation by choice. Newfoundland, at the time,

decided to enter in Confederation. I think if I was alive at the time, and I

know talking to people that were around, including people like my father, they

were very proud to become part of Canada, Mr. Speaker, to build the province.

When you

look at hospitals, when you look at schools, when you look at all the

infrastructure since 1949 that's been built in this province, it's no different

if you were building a business or if you're building a community, you establish

debt. You have to go out and have to borrow things, and you, basically, measure

that against your assets.

Mr.

Speaker, in this case, since 1949 to where we are today in 2019, this province

has accumulated some $13.8 billion in net debt; $13.8 billion in net debt.

That's a big number, but I tell that story to talk about all the remarkable

things that we've been able to build in this province, to say this.

The

Muskrat Falls project is nearly 30 per cent of that $13.8 billion. This was a

decision that had no public debate. The Leader of the Opposition and others want

to talk about referendums and special debates, all those sorts of things never

occurred. We're finding out through the Commission of Inquiry right now, there

are a lot of things that were not considered.

So, when

people in Opposition, I know they have a job to do, and I know it's not always

easy to check the politics at the door when you get in this room, but I will

tell you, I'm concerned about Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm not going to just

sit here and allow others to sit in this room and think the decisions that we've

had to make since 2015 has led us to where we are today, when one project that

people in this province had very little say into, major marketing campaigns to

go out and to support a decision at $6.2 billion that is now at $12.7 billion,

is 30 per cent of the net debt of this province.

Do you

know why that's important, Mr. Speaker? If you look at those budget documents

today, go look at it closely. We have people in these seats today, you've been

going through Estimates, and you've been asking line by line by line about

Transportation and where is government spending money or why are you spending

money here and there?

Everyone

in these chairs today, ask yourself where nearly $1.3 billion is going. It's

there in those documents. During the considerable debate that we've had on this

budget, and we've spent a lot of time, did you ask yourself where that money is

going? Did you ask yourself what the second largest line item is in this budget,

next to health care? More than Education, more than Transportation and Works,

debt servicing; nearly $1.3 billion. Think about that.

That

didn't happen as a result of decisions by this government, I would tell you, Mr.

Speaker. Yet, if you listen to people, you would think that, yeah, that fellow,

Dwight Ball, he's responsible for everything, go smack the mouth off him. He's

responsible for all the bad things that have happened to this province since

Well,

that is not the case because I sit here, I will tell you, with passion and I

genuinely want to make a difference for the lives of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

I'll put some clarification

around this. For all those people now that want to shift the blame of the

Muskrat Falls decision over to me, I'm not going to take it because we sat and

had the longest filibuster in the history of this province on two pieces of

legislation, go read it, it's there, Bill 60 and Bill 61.

They

were the two bills. We ran a filibuster some 86 hours I think the time frame

was, when we couldn't get Members in government of the day to even stand in

their seats. They sat down and just listened to us because we had to get up

every 15 minutes and ask questions. They wouldn't have a special debate on the

largest impact of the net debt in this province. It couldn't occur. They would

not allow it to occur in this House of Assembly. They shut it down. That's what

was really happening, Mr. Speaker.

Now, you

wonder and you ask why I raise the issue of $1.3 billion, a year in debt

servicing. That is exactly what I'm talking about; $3.9 billion gone into that

project. It would have been around 23 cents in electricity rates.

I ask

Members opposite who are listening to this, when that decision was made to

sanction that project in 2012, did anyone ever think that 23 cents that people

in this province – you've been at the doors. You've talked to seniors. You've

talked to community groups. You've talked to business leaders. Let's be honest

with ourselves, did you meet one person that said 23 cents was affordable?

you're willing to stand up on a point of order and I'll sit down, if anyone in

this House today met one single person during the recent election who said 23

cents was something that they would accept. Stand up on a point of order; you

can do it right now. I didn't think so, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't expecting a big

crowd to jump to their feet on that question because we all know that seniors

can't afford it. We all know that families can't afford it. We all know that it

would make businesses uncompetitive.

Mr.

Speaker, that wasn't a decision that was made by this Liberal government. That

was a decision that was made without a special debate right here in this House

of Assembly, and I can tell you I was sitting right where the Leader of the

Opposition is sitting now for those 86 hours, through the night, asking

questions about that.

People

even said to me at the time: Oh, that guy thinks the sky is falling. That won't

happen. But where are we today? We're left to deal with it; some $725 million a

year in the gap that it is going to take to get rates down to 13½ cents. That is

the reality of the issues and the magnitude of the issues that we are dealing

with today, Mr. Speaker. These are real numbers. That is why we deal with issues

around $1.3 billion a year in debt servicing. That is money that can be used for

the very things that Members in the Opposition are asking for.

That is

money that could be used to support insulin pumps. It's money that could be used

for things like busing services. It's money that could be used to support our

arts community. It's money that could be used for all the things –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Child care.

PREMIER BALL:

It could be used for child

care; that's right. It could be used to actually add even more teaching

resources to our education system. It's money that can be used to fix some of

those potholes that we're all just sick and tired of driving over, Mr. Speaker.

Am I

right in saying that? Wouldn't that money be better spent going to fix our road

network, going to improve our health care sector, going to improve our education

sector as opposed to paying the financial institutions? Back during the Muskrat

Falls debate, it used to go like this: This is the lowest-cost option. Everyone

remember that? There was public campaigns around that too I believe.

Mr.

Speaker, this is where we were. They said we got to build the Muskrat Falls

Project because we got to keep the money out of those oil companies so that

money stays here. Well, that's a good concept; I agree with that. Let's build a

piece of infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador and then the money won't be

used to buy oil to fire up Holyrood. That was kind of the basis of the argument.

That made sense, except the cost got to the point where it got out of control

and it meant rates would have to be 23 cents.

Wouldn't

the same argument be made if you said I would rather have a new clinic, I would

rather have insulin pumps for everyone as opposed to giving the money to those

banks, to those financial institutions to support debt servicing? Isn't that the

same argument? We want the money to be spent wisely to benefit Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians but, as a result of the increasing prices, cost of Muskrat

Falls, we're now seeing more money going toward debt servicing; therefore, it

makes it more difficult to get some of the services that we all want.

Do you

really think that I'm standing here today and do not want to see people that

could have insulin pumps get insulin pumps? I sat over there as the Health

critic at the time back in 2007 when I had lots of questions, when there was no

insulin pumps in this province. I can remember asking question after question:

Why is it that we can't have insulin pump coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador?

That was

my background. I think people would know me, that I came from that background as

a health care professional. These are the types of questions because I want

better lives for people who are dealing with Type