PDF Version

March

14, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 67

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

welcome to our public gallery today William Gin and Mary Gin, who are the

subject of a Member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, Mount

Pearl Southlands, Labrador West, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main

and Cape St. Francis.

The hon.

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week I had the opportunity to spend a very memorable and powerful International

Women's Day representing our province in Ottawa.

Newfoundland and Labrador's representative on the national steering committee

for Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, I attended the Daughters of the Vote

event, which saw 338 of Canada's brightest and best converge on our nation's

capital to take their seat in the House of Commons.

It was a

transformative and deeply moving event for everyone. We heard about the

individual journeys of young women from many backgrounds about the challenges

they faced and the obstacles they overcame. Everyone's stories were different

but the barriers they faced were similar. We also heard from many notable

parliamentarians including Kim Campbell, Canada's only female prime minister.

It bears

remembering that in many parts of the world, gender equality remains a distant

dream. Even here in our own nation, girls and young women face steep challenges

and predictable barriers, but change is possible and change is happening.

Through initiatives like Daughters of the Vote, we can encourage gender equality

and help our young women take the place they so richly deserve in the boardrooms

and legislatures across Canada and beyond.

Mr.

Speaker, a women's place is in this House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my

privilege to stand in this hon. House to offer congratulations to a group of

individuals who have made a significant contribution to sport in my community.

The Mount Pearl Sports Hall of Fame was founded in 1995 by the Mount Pearl Sport

Alliance and, since that time, has inducted 80 tremendous individuals.

Today, I

would like to acknowledge the achievements of two others. Ralph Chapman has been

inducted into the Athlete category for his tremendous accomplishments in the

sports of tennis and hockey, and Jennifer Folkes inducted into the Builder

category for her significant contribution to synchronized swimming in Mount

Pearl.

These

two individuals are a credit to their respective sports and to their community

as a whole. In addition to these two inductees, the 1976 Mount Pearl Dairy Queen

Junior Baseball Championship Team has been added to the Hall of Fame's Team

Honour Roll.

I would

also all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating all of these

amazing individuals on this significant accomplishment, and wish them all the

very best in their future sporting endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Celebrating as One is the theme of the first joint winter carnival in the

history of Wabush and Labrador City being held form the March 10 to 18 in

Labrador West.

During

the opening ceremonies on Friday evening, hometown hero, RCMP Corporal Curtis

Barrett was recognized for his heroic deeds on Parliament Hill on October 22,

2014. I had the honour of presenting Corporal Barrett with the province's Medal

of Bravery the highest honour that we bestow on individuals for such acts of

bravery. The Town of Labrador City presented him with the key to the town and

named a street in his honour.

Throughout the nine-day event and all the activities, special emphasis is being

placed on promoting and reducing the stigma around mental health. Special events

around this include Light the Night, a flash mob during the NHL alumni hockey

game and March 15, tomorrow, being designated to take a positive pause and

commit a random act of kindness.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating chairperson Evelyn Ryan and her

committee from both towns for initiating the joint winter carnival, jam-packed

full of events, and thanking Corporal Barrett for his service above and beyond

the call of duty.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

January 6, St. John's lost a woman remembered and loved by many for her pleasant

greetings at a popular Harvey Road restaurant.

Eng

Foung Gin was born in Canton, China in 1925 and moved to St. John's in 1955,

reuniting after nine years of separation with her husband Yen Hai Gin who had

come to this distant land to find work and a better home for his family. These

were, of course, the years of the infamous Chinese Head Tax in this province.

Mrs.

Gin, as she was known to all, was a dedicated, hard-working mother of six:

Bernice, William, Mary Ann, Mee Ling, David and James. She worked and built a

life in St. John's in the restaurant industry with her husband from 1955 until

they retired in 1988. The Gins bought 47 Harvey Road from my own parents who had

a restaurant there until 1952.

The Gins

represented the resilient spirit of a people who were treated most unfairly

because of the Head Tax. That didn't stop them from raising a family proud to be

Newfoundlanders, creating a vibrant business and becoming committed members of

the Gower Street United Church congregation.

I ask

all Members to join me in remembering Eng Foung Gin.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize a dedicated group of volunteers whose efforts have helped clean up and

beautify a piece of their community's heritage.

The

Marysvale-Georgetown Small Harbour Committee Inc. was created in April 2016 with

the objective of making the community harbour, otherwise known as the gut, into

an attractive place for residents and visitors, so they can visit the piece of

history that members of the town hold dear to them.

Online

auctions, karaoke fundraisers, craft fairs and Good Friday fish and brewis

dinners are just some of the ways the group is able to help raise funds for

their cause. In fall 2016, the group was awarded a Community Enhancement

Employment Project which enabled them to build a shed and install 70 feet of new

cribbing, making significant improvements to the harbour. Once the major work is

done, the group hopes to create a memorial garden which will sit wharf side for

all to see.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking the Marysvale-Georgestown

Small Harbour Committee and their members: Tom Moriarity, chair; Ernest Edwards

and Bern Bartlett, vice-chairs; Brenda Moriarity, secretary, and Mary Alice

Lush, treasurer, for their hard work and dedication in bettering their

community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize Paula Burke, the wonderful Therapeutic

Recreation Coordinator at North Pond Manor, a personal care facility in Torbay.

Paula

was the first recreational therapist in the private home sector. I am told she

basically created the job herself at the time by convincing the owners of the

home that the residents needed recreational activities. That was twenty years

ago.

Paula

goes above and beyond to ensure that the residents of North Pond Manor have the

best recreation program available. The games she uses are of her own design and

are suited to the residents of the Manor. Paula also organizes a variety of

outings and activities that bring great joy to the residents. One of the most

popular events is the Christmas party which welcomes over 300 family members,

friends, volunteers and staff. Paula also organized the first ever Torbay

Seniors Day last fall. She's also known to belt out a tune or two if called

upon.

Mr.

Speaker, Paula's enthusiasm and commitment to improving the lives of others is

unparalleled and benefits many people. I ask all Members to join with me in

saluting Paula Burke for a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout our province are beaming with pride

at Team Gushue's electrifying win at the 2017 Tim Hortons Brier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

The team, composed of lead

Geoff Walker, second Brett Gallant, third Mark Nichols and skip Brad Gushue,

rose to the top of a world-class field and captured the hearts of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It has

been said that Canada is the world's greatest curling nation, and now

Newfoundland and Labrador is home to the country's best men's team. The

intensity and emotion of Team Gushue's charge to winning the title of the 2017

Brier Champions highlights that Newfoundland and Labrador can compete on any

stage.

Team

Gushue will now proudly wear the maple leaf on their back at the World

Championships next month in Edmonton as Team Canada.

behalf of Members of this hon. House, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

I congratulate them on their tremendous success and offer my greatest

appreciation to all the organizers, volunteers and staff for their hard work and

dedication to the 2017 Brier.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for an advance copy of his statement today. We join with the Premier

and government, and all Members of the House, and all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, in congratulating Geoff, Brett, Mark and Brad, collectively known

as Team Gushue.

I had

the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, last week of attending a few of the draws at Mile One

and experiencing the excitement and the provincial pride that was occurring

there. I can tell you, it was absolutely electric, and for good reason, Mr.

Speaker.

Even

Sunday night, after many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians faced some of the

strongest winds and difficult weather we've experienced in some time, people

still gathered around their homes and their television sets in the province to

cheer on our hometown team and our home-province team.

So not

only did Team Gushue win the Brier, Mr. Speaker, but equally as important is

that they've won the hearts of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and also

the people of Canada. I've received messages from across the country.

Congratulations and thank you to Team Gushue, to all members, as well as all

those who played a

part in making what I think was probably one of the most

successful Briers in all time.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement. I, too, congratulate

Team Gushue for their win at the 2017 Tim Hortons Brier. I congratulate as well

the hundreds of people who worked so hard to make the Brier such a singular

success.

I thank

Team Gushue particularly for reminding all of us, especially young sports

people, of the value of team work. It was team work that made the event a

success. It was team work that put Team Gushue at the top. Congratulations to

them.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, last weekend we

experienced intense winds, the highest this province has had for decades with

peaks up to 180 kilometres per hour. The winds caused widespread power outages,

damaged property and wreaked havoc for many in their homes and on the roads.

primary concern to the Premier and to our government was ensuring all measures

were being taken for the safety of residents in the province. The Premier and I

were in very close contact with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland

Power throughout the weekend, while the Minister Responsible for Fire and

Emergency Services connected directly with mayors and town councillors from many

of the affected communities to discuss emergency services.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power worked collaboratively

and were quick to respond to the outages affecting the Avalon and Burin

Peninsulas which were mainly due to the loss of transmission lines due to the

winds. Utility crews braved treacherous elements and have worked around the

clock and I thank them, along with emergency responders, for their service.

I would

also like to thank communities and our emergency management partners for their

support of residents. The provincial government will continue to work closely

with the utilities and municipalities as they assess the damages and to offer

assistance where possible.

Mr.

Speaker, on Sunday I visited the warming station here in St. John's and heard

firsthand the stories of residents who were affected by the storm. At times like

this, the people of the province come together by helping neighbours, friends

and family, offering warm shelter and food and providing comfort.

Today,

reserves of power are quite good. Our system is stable due to the tremendous

work of the men and women of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland

Power. I encourage residents who may still be affected by a power outage to

check with the appropriate utility directly. Again, thank you to Newfoundland

Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for their extra efforts and hard work

this weekend.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

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

Official Opposition, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to the

hard-working professionals at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland

Power. I would especially like to recognize those crews who risked their safety

and who braved the wind and cold to repair damaged lines, poles and other

equipment.

Mr.

Speaker, there's also a long list of others that should be recognized for their

efforts this past weekend. This includes municipalities in our province who are

still doing repairs, the many community groups and non-profits who assisted with

the opening and staffing of warming centres, and members of our local police

force and emergency response personnel who helped to ensure safety on our

roadways and responded to calls as needed.

While

the winds have subsided, there are still people in the province who do not have

power restored. I encourage those individuals to contact the utility provider

and seek help in this matter.

One

final point, Mr. Speaker, although high winds were forecasted, government did

not issue any preventive warnings to residents. In situations where adverse

weather conditions are forecasted, Fire and Emergency Services generally issue

advisories in advance; however, this time it did not occur. Yet again,

government did not have a plan.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I welcome this

opportunity to thank the front-line workers who, at a moment's notice, went to

work in unbelievably harsh conditions and worked tirelessly to make sure we were

returned to warmth and safety as soon as possible, and they are still at it, Mr.

Speaker.

Some put

their lives at risk in doing so. I'm sure everyone joins me in thanking the

front-line people, the truck operators, the emergency responders and hundreds of

others for their dedication and fortitude.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in

this hon. House to acknowledge the successful opening night of

Come From Away at Broadway's Gerald

Schoenfeld Theatre in New York City.

Come From Away ,

written by the team of Irene Sankoff and David Hein and produced by Michael

Rubinoff, chronicles the days after almost 7,000 passengers arrived in Gander

and the surrounding region during one of the most horrific periods in recent

history.

Mr.

Speaker, Come From Away is about the

goodwill displayed by the people of our province following the awful events of

9/11 that had just unfolded. The show doesn't trivialize those events or neglect

them. Instead, its simple focus is to make theatre goers feel good about

themselves, and how we as a community, when tested, can rise above any

challenge.

This

stunning act of theatre showcases a portrayal of our heroic hospitality under

extraordinary circumstances, depicting the goodness in humanity and I'm proud to

say that the show features one of our own, Petrina Bromley, staring as Ms.

Bonnie Earle-Harris, manager of the SPCA shelter in Gander.

Mr.

Speaker, Come From Away

spotlights the compassion shown by our local residents, as well as the enduring

friendships that developed as a result. It proves that kindness, generosity,

understanding, inclusion and acceptance never go astray in any circumstance.

One theatre critic stated

Come From Away was such a comforting, uplifting piece of art that

'pushes so many emotional buttons that you wind up feeling like an accordion.'

I invite all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms.

Sankoff and Mr. Hein, along with the performers, producers and directors on a

successful opening night for Come From

Away.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his

statement. Today, I'll try not to push his buttons. We actually join the

minister and government in congratulating the writers, the cast and crew on a

very successful opening night on Broadway of

Come From Away .

I had a chance to see the show in Toronto last year. I know

some folks have seen the show when it made a brief stop in Gander. I encourage

anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador to try and get an opportunity to see this

show.

This story, while surprising and awe inspiring to so many

across our country and world, seems to not be so surprising to residents right

here in our own province. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are quite proud of

our welcoming and caring nature, and for good reason. It's so inspiring to see

such a wonderful story about the goodness of humanity, especially during a time

in this world when many question it.

Congratulations to all those involved, particularly the

caring and compassionate people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are so

wonderfully represented in this show.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister.

Come From Away , what a huge success on so many levels. We are so

proud of the people of Gander and surrounding area for their extraordinary

hospitality and compassion, so proud of our own Petrina Bromley and Romano Di

Nillo for their extraordinary talent. We are just so proud.

I had

the luck of seeing Come From Away in

Gander with the extraordinary people of that area, the real heroes, and what a

privilege. I encourage anyone who can to go away to see

Come From Away . See this incredible show that celebrates generosity,

courage, compassion and community.

Bravo,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we start Oral

Questions, I recognize in the gallery a former Member of the Legislature, Percy

Barrett.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I

ask the Premier: If he can explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

why his Liberal government accepted a $100 million Atlantic Fisheries Fund,

instead of fighting for the $400 million Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries

fund that Prime Minister Trudeau promised to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, like we said at the announcement, why are we settling for $280

million, as the Member opposite calls it a $400 million fund. Well, $120 million

of that was from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So what was

announced on Friday of last week was a $100 million fund. Added to that, Mr.

Speaker, we will be able to participate in some $30 million in the marketing

program.

Mr.

Speaker, it was $100 million, there is more to come. I'm sure Members opposite

want to make politics out of this; they want to play politics with it. They

didn't deliver a thing. They could not deliver a thing. Never did they show two

signatures on a paper with their federal colleagues. They were shut out of

Ottawa.

Friday, Ottawa came to Newfoundland and Labrador and delivered $100 million, Mr.

Speaker, and there's more to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

actually do have a signature on a paper. I have a signature from Justin Trudeau,

Member of Parliament, who made a commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador that he

would provide the fund. So we do have a signature on paper, Mr. Speaker.

So far

we've heard no details, we've heard no timelines, we've heard no plan we're

getting used to that with this government and we've heard lots of spin. The

Premier and federal Minister Foote have continued to say $100 million is more

than $400 million. And it's not more than $400 million, certainly what the Prime

Minister had committed to.

I'll ask

the Premier: Will you admit that your public relations spin is not adding up for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and can you try to explain to people how 100

is more than 400?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it

comes to political spin, well the Leader of the PC Party would know all about

that. This was a Member, Mr. Speaker, who only just a few short years ago, when

asked by the AG where the $5 billion infrastructure plan was and could nowhere

to be found.

So when

he talks about plans, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you he has a history of not

having a plan for anything. I can just remind the people, when he stood up in

front of Statoil at a convention and said it's coming in weeks. We have not seen

that happen either. It did not happen, Mr. Speaker.

We were

proud on Friday to stand and have federal colleagues present in the room, unlike

the party they had at The Rooms a few years ago, when the federal colleagues,

the group that they were supposed to be negotiating with were nowhere to be

found, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

becoming quite accustomed to hearing lectures about the previous administration

when they can't answer the question. That's what we hear every day in the House

here, Mr. Speaker.

On May

12, the Premier stated: We won't drop the minimum processing requirements if we

don't get a deal.

So I ask

the Premier: Why would you give away $300 million of a fund specific for the

Newfoundland and Labrador fishery in exchange for a $100 million cost-shared

Atlantic fund? It makes no sense, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

obviously, it doesn't make any sense to the Member opposite. Why should it? He

delivered a goose egg, Mr. Speaker. He delivered a goose egg to the fishery of

this province, Mr. Speaker. He went up and told his Prime Minister that he

couldn't trust him.

Well, I

can tell you that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Foote, on Friday of this

week, made a commitment to the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador $100

million, Mr. Speaker, was not the last that you're going to see from federal

investments in this province. It's not even the first that we've seen, Mr.

Speaker, and there are many more to come.

They've

already announced part of an announcement that was made in St. John's,

Newfoundland just a few short weeks ago, was the Oceans Protection Plan. Mr.

Speaker, that's $1.5 billion. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be positioned and participating in that

fund as well. We already have $100 million to start the investment in the

fishery now, Mr. Speaker, more than they've ever delivered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell you what's on the minds and concern of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

today is the Premier that we can't trust. That's the problem we have here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

In May, the Premier went on

to say: We're not prepared to just give up on MPRs on behalf of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. We're not prepared to be just giving up on MPRs. That's what

the Premier said.

I ask

the Premier: How did Newfoundland and Labrador fund turn into a shared Atlantic

Canada fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

always said, MPRs are phased out over three years. We intend to be compliant

with CETA, Mr. Speaker. I think everyone in this room agrees that CETA would be

good for Newfoundland and Labrador. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not giving up on

anything. There are no conditions put on where we were. We will be CETA

compliant.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a good working relationship with the federal government.

Friday's announcement of $100 million is not the end; there is more to come. We

had federal colleagues at that table, at that announcement, Mr. Speaker. Right

now, what we have opposite here is a Member that's trying to make this very

political about a deal that they could not deliver, Mr. Speaker.

I can

and Labradorians, as the Premier of this province, we will be delivering, Mr.

Speaker, for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. It wasn't the beginning

on Friday and it's certainly not the end.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

Newfoundland and Labrador gave away the long-standing tradition and policy of

minimum processing requirements. The other Atlantic Provinces have given up

nothing. They've been giving up nothing when it comes to the fishery. The

government across the aisle here gave away the minimum processing requirements

on this new deal.

I ask

the Premier: Why is Newfoundland and Labrador not being compensated as was

negotiated? Why is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

the Member opposite should know, it was his own words back a few years ago when

he said he could not find what the value of MPRs was. He could not even put a

value on the table of what they were worth to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, when I was Leader of the Opposition I asked many questions about how

you would evaluate minimum processing requirements. Mr. Speaker, he could not do

it.

Mr.

Speaker, what we have here today is a working relationship that has already

delivered $100 million. It is delivering more than that when you look at the

opening of search and rescue. The MRCC is something that we've been pushing for,

Mr. Speaker, and asking for. They could not deliver that. We have scientists in

Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of investments by the federal government.

There is more to come. Mr. Speaker, $100 million is not the end. There is more

to come for the fishery in our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

think what the Premier just said in answer to the question is there is no

compensation for MPRs. It's the biggest sellout in the history of the fishery,

what we saw on Friday, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

The biggest sellout by that

government over there.

Minister

Foote said there is no $400 million fund. It's gone. Prime Minister Trudeau

committed to the fund when he was campaigning, and in a letter to me the Prime

Minister said that Newfoundland and Labrador, we earned it. That was his words.

So I ask

the Premier: Which is it? Did we earn it, or is it the fund never existed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

what I know, the fund didn't exist in their world; because it never, ever got

delivered to our province. So to answer your question, in your world the fund

didn't exist. No, because you didn't deliver a thing to the fishery of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

You generated more economic

value of running back and forth to Ottawa trying to collect money, trying to get

meetings that you couldn't get into.

What we

delivered on Friday was $100 million to the fishery that will immediately start

work in this province, Mr. Speaker, restoring the fishery.

Mr.

Speaker, what is shameful about this today, at such a critical time in our

history with the fishery in this province we're seeing shrimp, crab, waiting for

cod to come back, and this Member opposite has the gall to stand up in this

building today and complain about $100 million that is going to start work in

transitioning the fishery already, and there is more to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll do

my job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I'll do the job that I

was elected to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Minister Foote said that the

federal government is committed to the fish and seafood sector in our province.

Can the

Premier explain why the prime minister didn't honour his commitment to give us

the $400 million that he promised? It's a simple question, Premier: Why didn't

the prime minister live up to his commitment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, I'd like to remind the Member opposite that the fund that he

thought he had, that he never did get, was $280 million from the federal

government, not $400 million. So just like the previous Finance Minister who

used to sit right here, when he was premier of this province, math was not his

forte either, and math is certainly not his forte, I say, Mr. Speaker.

delivered to the fishery of this province. There is more to come. We heard the

words of Minister Foote, Mr. Speaker. She speaks on behalf of the prime minister

of Canada on Friday. There is more to come for the fishery in this province.

I can

tell you, the words that are coming from the industry leaders that were in that

room on Friday, they were pleased with it. Unfortunately, the Members opposite

are not pleased with it. It is political. It is clearly political today. They

could not deliver the fund, Mr. Speaker. They should be ashamed of themselves

for complaining what happened in this province on Friday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the Premier says the $400 million fund was cost shared. Well, the $100 million

is cost shared as well.

Premier,

how much of the $100 million will be paid for by the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

finally, a decent question. Mr. Speaker, right now there are no conditions on

this fund by the federal government. It's $100 million. Yes, the provincial

government will be participating, but so will the industry. The industry will be

participating too.

They're

looking for the opportunity to bring investments in the fishery in Newfoundland

and Labrador. Some of it could include the aquaculture industry as well. What

was delivered on Friday is very flexible, and we're going to consult with the

industry to see where the best benefit could be.

Mr.

Speaker, we are committed to the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, something

that this previous administration failed on they failed the fishery. We are

committed to rebuilding it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier says there are no conditions attached. He says he doesn't know what the

ratios are, so he doesn't know how much this is actually going to cost

Newfoundland and Labrador, what their contribution is going to be. Maybe it's

50-50, like they just announced they're doing with roads for small communities

in rural parts of the province.

They

don't know when the money is going to flow and they don't know how it's going to

be applied or what it's going to be used for. So, Premier, tell the people of

the province: What really was it you announced on Friday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One

hundred million dollars for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador much more

than that crowd ever delivered, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

One hundred million dollars,

that is what was delivered on Friday, Mr. Speaker. We're working with the

industry; we'll be consulting with them.

I can

assure you, there is a partnership with the federal government and the

provincial government and industry. Shamefully, they're the only group that

doesn't agree that Friday was a good announcement for the fishery in our

province.

They

couldn't deliver. We were there on Friday, delivering money to the fishery of

Newfoundland and Labrador. There is more to come. That's the good news, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

nothing other than a sellout to the federal government. That's all this was, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

No conditions, no ratios.

They won't know how the fund is going to be applied. We don't know how much

Newfoundland and Labrador has to put into it. We don't know when the money is

going to flow. We don't know who is going to hold the strings and decide where

the money goes.

How can

you assure us that Minister Foote and the federal government won't control how

this money is spent? How can you assure us the Premier who is not trusted by

the people of the province that this won't be decided by the industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had

members that were in the meeting, sat in the chair, made the announcement and

demonstrated their concern for the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minister Foote was there. There were other members there as well.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite, when you think about the years they had spent

trying to get away with LIFO or do away with LIFO in our province. The federal

government, just a few months ago, delivered on the commitment on behalf of the

fishing industry in this province. Friday, I can assure you, was not the first

announcement and it will not be the last announcement.

These

are terrible times for the fishery in our province. Members opposite had lots of

opportunity to help this industry. They failed to plan for the future, Mr.

Speaker. They made one investment for the people of this province; that's the

investment they guaranteed that they will double their electric rates in just

three years. That's the legacy of that government. They have to live with it.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were forced to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier won't even speak to the people who rely on the fishery in Newfoundland

and Labrador, the people who are concerned about this fund and the future of the

fishery.

Mr.

Speaker, this is so important that in Ottawa's news release, the Newfoundland

and Labrador $100 million doesn't even appear anywhere. It doesn't even appear

in Ottawa's news release. The number seems to have just come out of nowhere and,

as you've seen today, there's absolutely no detail from the government on how

it's going to be spent, what ratios they are, when the money is going to flow.

No details whatsoever from this Premier.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to ask the Premier once again: Why is it with no conditions,

no ratios, no knowledge, no conditions at all, you allowed the prime minister to

back away from the $400 million promise that he made to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians? How can we trust that we'll get anything from this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also

said on Friday that things like innovation, infrastructure, fisheries science,

safety for the industry; these are all areas that would see investment from this

$100 million.

I can

assure you, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you this that Prime Minister Trudeau has

not backed away from Newfoundland and Labrador. He is committed to working with

this province. For those that have followed the investments that have been made

by the federal government of this province, I think these are tangible

investments. It has been very obvious that he's invested in this province, and I

can assure you these investments will not stop.

This

previous administration left this province nearly on its knees left us nearly

on our knees as a result of their mismanagement over 12 years. Working with the

federal government, we will get it back on track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I was at

this so-called announcement also on Friday. There were no details, there was no

money, and the Liberal government gave up $300 million.

I ask

the minister: How could you settle for $100 million versus $400 million, with a

$300 million loss?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

happy to see the Member opposite in his role of critic and representing the

Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I will say, though, that in that room that day, he was

the only person the only person speaking out against the fund.

We had

the industry, FFAW and others. The producers were there. We had fish harvesters

there. They said that what they want to do is keep government's feet to the

fire. I would appreciate the fact that we keep government's feet to the fire. It

was a fire that they could not even get started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Let me tell the Premier that

the invitation went out about a news conference, and there was nothing mentioned

of CETA. You invited your own people to the meeting. I talked to fisherpeople

over this weekend and they're very concerned about it. I talked to harvesters

and I've talked to plant workers that's the people you should be

talking to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Again, I will ask the minister: How could settle for $100 million versus $400

million, with a $300 million loss?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it's obvious the Member opposite is doing a lot of

talking. What you saw on Friday was action. What you saw on Friday was action

$100 million delivered to the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. And the very

fish harvesters that the Member opposite was talking to, we're going to be

talking to them too. Because they have a big role to play on how this money gets

rolled out across our province, Mr. Speaker.

That is

what you really call partnerships. That is really what you'd call a commitment

to the fishery in this province, Mr. Speaker. We delivered. They can talk all

they want. We're delivering benefits to the fishery of this province, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Well, I'd ask the Premier to

go talk to the harvesters, go talk to the plant workers. We're a month away from

the crab fishery starting. We have harvesters out there that don't know what the

quotas are. They're not sure what's going to happen with their quotas. Plant

workers are not sure if there's going to be enough work. Those are the people we

should be talking to, and those are the people you should be talking to.

Again,

Minister, I'm going to ask you: Why did you settle for $100 million versus $400

million and give up $300 million to our fishery that is needed today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Member opposite talks about the news conference on Friday. Well, at least our

federal counterpart showed up for this news conference, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, as the Premier

has said, this is one element of our policy for fisheries as we go forward, $100

million.

Look

back over the past 15 months and what we've done as a government working with

our counterparts in Ottawa: 22 new fishery scientists at DFO; $18 million for a

new Coast Guard facility on the south side of the province; $8 million for

fishery science at Memorial University; addition of $1.5 billion in the oceans

protection plan that will be announced in next week's budget. And I can go on,

Mr. Speaker: a new Coast Guard station for Bay de Verde; a new Coast Guard

station for Twillingate; refurbishing the Coast Guard station in St. Anthony,

and some major Small Craft Harbours infrastructure.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious the

minister doesn't know what the fund was for. It's obvious he doesn't know what

this fund was for.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a time in our province where our whole industry is asking

questions. Minimum processing requirements were put in place to protect jobs, to

protect rural Newfoundland.

I ask

the minister, who represents a lot of those harvesters and plant workers:

Minister, how did you, with good conscience, give away these requirements and

get absolutely no compensation for them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. I do understand the fishery because there is a

lot of fishery in my district, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, as a government, we

will work with harvesters and processors on how this fund is going to be spent.

We will go out and seek their input.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite gets up and talks about the value of MPRs. Well, it

was his leader, the former premier, on December 9, 2014, said: We firmly

believe, Mr. Speaker, there will be no negative impact because of our CETA

agreement on MPRs. That was his own leader in December of 2014.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I'll remind the minister

again, that was with a $400 million agreement.

Minister, first there was the Atlantic Growth Strategy

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

then there was no Atlantic

Fisheries Fund. I remind the Members opposite, you were not elected to represent

Atlantic Canada but you're supposed to stand up for the people right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I ask the minister: Why did

you give away the $400 million Newfoundland and Labrador fishery fund and settle

for a share of the Atlantic Fisheries Fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, the Members

opposite continue to talk about the agreement they had. Well, Mr. Speaker, the

last time I seen an agreement it had two signatures. They didn't have an

agreement.

The

show up to an announce it? Just think about that one for a minute, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, what we're delivering is a $100 million fund to help our harvesters.

We're about to go into some really tough times in the fishery in this province.

Just this past year, under our Seafood Innovation and Transition Program, we set

aside $2 million. We managed, Mr. Speaker, to leverage that in almost $3.7

million for harvesters and processors in our province.

Mr.

Speaker, we're looking at innovation. This money has to go to innovation for our

harvesters. We need new hook and line systems. We need automatic jiggers. Mr.

Speaker, we need to invest in our harvesters and processors.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the

minister announced significant changes to the cost-share ratios under the

municipal infrastructure program for small towns, and small towns should be

concerned. As of April 1, roadwork requests for communities will be 50-50

cost-shared between the province and municipalities.

I ask

the minister: How can you expect small communities struggling with the 90-10

cost-share ratio be able to take advantage of this funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I

get to that answer, which I will very easily, I heard the Leader of the

Opposition talking about, how can you trust the Premier? I say that Premier

delivered on the acute care hospital and the hospital in Corner Brook and the

long-term care when that Leader of the Opposition had a seat sale of Air Canada

because he went out so many times to make the announcement that they didn't

deliver on. So don't you go talking about what this Premier did.

I say to

the Member opposite, is that what happened is there was federal funding and we

came through dealing with MNL who sat at the table with us, one mayor. Here's

what one mayor said today, Mr. Speaker. Here's what a mayor said today: Anybody

who's surprised at this announcement is not living in the real world; 90-10,

80-20 could not be maintained.

What we

did, we leveraged every bit of federal funding we could. We took the money any

money we saved, we put back in the fund.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, I was a former

mayor of a town and the 90-10 really helped the town that I was involved in, and

I'm sure it also benefits many towns in rural Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Minister, there were also

changes to the cost ratio to recreation facilities, fire halls and as of April

1, municipalities of all sizes will have to go 60-40 on a cost-share.

I ask

the minister again: Small communities who found it hard to contribute before,

where are you expecting them to find the money?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the

Premier's forum, when we were there, that's what we heard. We had to try to

encourage regionalization. If you had to attend the conference, I don't know if

you did, conference of MNL, that's the theme we heard from MNL.

Mr.

Speaker, I said earlier, and people heard Mayor Oldford yesterday at the press

conference saying we need to leverage every bit of federal money we can. The

money that we're saving from the cost-share ratio is going back into the fund.

I'll

tell you what we won't do. In 2014, there was $34.6 million left on the table

from the federal government that they wouldn't use, Mr. Speaker. We're

leveraging every cent we can from the federal government to help the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Water is our priority, which we were told by MNL and

at the Premier's forum.

Water,

waste water it's a priority for everybody to have safe drinking water, and

that's what we're going to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Many small communities across

the province have a declining tax base, aging demographic and the majority of

the residents are on fixed income.

Minister, there is only one taxpayer. Isn't it that these new funding formulas

downloaded on municipalities will already burden this tax on residents?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment for a quick response.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We hear

from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. We hear from the mayors all the

time. I even hear from you. Do you know what your priority is? And I give you

credit, you're pushing. You're doing well as an MHA. You're doing your job. Do

you know what it is? Water and waste water. That's what we made the majority

of funds last year were for water and waste water.

We have

to make priorities. We're hearing from the municipalities. We're hearing from

MNL who sat at the table and is pleased that water is a priority. We're pleased.

They're also pleased we're not leaving any federal funds on the table. We're

bringing it back to Newfoundland and Labrador; $209 million this year alone, Mr.

Speaker, is going to be spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

highly political announcement on Friday, the Premier and our representative in

the federal Cabinet defended the slashing of their commitment to a fisheries

fund arising from the CETA agreement by talking about federal spending on

unrelated matters like Coast Guard operations, and that was echoed a few minutes

ago by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

I ask

the Premier: Is he not aware that the federal Liberal election platform promised

improved funding for Coast Guard and search and rescue, in addition to promising

to honour the previous government's commitment for a $280 million fisheries fund

for this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes,

very much aware of that, Mr. Speaker guess what? They've also committed to it.

They've delivered it to the people of this province, and we're very proud that

they've delivered on that commitment.

appreciate the fact that the Member opposite is asking about the fisheries fund,

the $100 million dollars that will go into innovation, go into infrastructure,

will go into working with harvesters and processors.

We know

we are at a critical time with the fishery in our province right now. It's the

industry themselves that have been reaching out and asking for the provincial

government, along with its federal colleagues, to help support the transition

into a ground fishery.

Mr.

Speaker, the announcement on Friday goes a long ways in doing that. And I can

assure you, we are not finished yet.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point

out to the Premier I was talking about a fishery fund of $280 million, not $100

million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. MICHAEL:

Will the fund that he's

talking about, and was so quick to endorse on Friday, require any matching of

funds from the province and, if so, how much?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

province will be participating, as I just mentioned, after. But I do want to

acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, at least someone opposite is watching what happened.

The Member opposite got the 280 figure right. It was the other Members that were

talking about a $400 million fisheries fund that would have required $120

million of provincial funding. That was the ratio that they were talking about,

Mr. Speaker.

So the

$100 million that was announced on Friday got to be used. It is a very flexible

fund that can go into innovation, can go into infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. It

will depend on who the partners would be. In some cases, the processors, the

harvesters, are willing to make significant investments. We will use every

opportunity to leverage as much federal money as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind all hon. Members

that the only individual I wish to hear from is the individual identified to

have the floor.

The hon.

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Whether

it's the federal Liberals divide-and-conquer federalism on the health accord, or

slashing $180 million from their promised fisheries development fund, the

Premier is first in line to cheerlead for his federal cousins without any

details.

I ask

the Premier: When will he start going to bat for Newfoundland and Labrador in

Ottawa, instead of going to bat for Ottawa in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At least

right now, I will say, we're having good, meaningful, productive conversations

with Ottawa something that has not occurred in this province for quite some

time.

I would

suggest I've said it many, many times that Friday's announcement is not the

end, Mr. Speaker. This is not a slashing of funds. This is not the end to the

fund. This is not an end of federal investment in the fishery in Newfoundland

and Labrador. I can assure you that they will be there to help transition the

fishery from where it is today.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very critical time, as the minister has just mentioned, and

as the Member opposite has just mentioned. We will be there working with this

industry. We are very concerned about our communities, about the fishing

industry. We will be there to support them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Why did he announce a drastically reduced fisheries development

fund without providing the details? We don't want your promises; we want the

details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'm assuming by the question from the Member opposite is that she's suggesting

that we shouldn't be consulting with the industry. I'm assuming, based on that

question, she doesn't want us to talk to industry, Mr. Speaker.

We're

not going to work like that. We are going to consult with the industry. On

Friday, the industry leaders that were in that room, clearly that is something

they wanted to do. They wanted us to work with harvesters, work with processors,

work with plant workers, Mr. Speaker.

That's

what we are going to do. One hundred million is not even a starting point. We've

seen previous investments; $100 million is another step. There is more to come.

We are committed to the transition of this fishery into a successful ground

fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

I've

asked for the co-operation of Members before; I'm going to ask one final time.

If Members are not respecting the individual who's stood to speak, that

individual will not speak for the remainder of the day.

Before

we move with other items on the agenda, I welcome Mayor Wayne Power of Placentia

to our public gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

As well, we have Harold

Piercey, a former Member of this Legislature. Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains:

WHEREAS

Crown lands make up 89 per cent of the land mass of the province and this land

is a significant economic and social resource for Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS

government has recently announced increased access to Crown lands available for

agriculture production;

WHEREAS

the announcement to increase access to Crown land delivers on a commitment in

The Way Forward to increase food

self-sufficiency and supports government's goal to foster economic growth

throughout the province; and

WHEREAS

increasing access to Crown lands benefits residents, municipalities and

businesses throughout the province;

BE IT

RESOLVED that this hon. House recognizes the importance of increasing access to

Crown lands and increasing agricultural production and commends the provincial

government for doubling the amount of land available to farmers and agricultural

producers.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

private Member's resolution just moved by the Member for Labrador West shall be

the private Member's resolution to be debated this Wednesday, pursuant to

Standing Order 63(3).

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the recreational ground fishery is a part of our culture, history and heritage;

and

WHEREAS

the federal government is proposing a tag system for the recreational ground

fishery in 2017; and

WHEREAS

participants will have to purchase a licence and purchase tags in order to

participate in the recreational fishery;

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

of Assembly to urge government to urge the federal government not to implement a

cost or fees for those participating in the recreational food fishery in 2017.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the second time in this Assembly that I got up on this

particular petition. It's very important to me, and I know we have a lot of

really serious issues in our fishery today. It's a lack of response from the

minister and this government over across the way to do anything with our

fishery, but our recreational fishery is very important to everyone in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know

personally, myself, I get no better enjoyment than going out and jigging a

codfish. I get no better enjoyment than coming home in the yard and filleting a

few fish. I get no better enjoyment than giving somebody a feed a fish. That's

what we call it: a feed of fish.

It's a

great time in our province. It's an opportunity for us to really see who we are

as people. It's important that we be treated fairly. All I'm asking for

government is to I know the MP for Central Newfoundland, Mr. Simms, went to

some of the consultations that were on the go and he's going to urge the federal

minister not to go ahead with this tag system.

It's

time for our minister to urge the federal government minister I know the

Premier talks to Minister Foote every Sunday night. I wonder if one of these

Sunday nights can he ask Minister Foote not to go ahead with this tag system

because it's unfair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We like to be

treated like the rest of Canada. This tag system is nowhere else in Canada.

Nowhere else do people have to pay to go out and catch a codfish.

So I ask

government to really get out there and talk to the people. This fishery is so

important to people. It shows who we are as a people. It's important that our

government help and make sure that this tag system doesn't come into play.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

government has removed the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books, which

will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and

WHEREAS

an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local

bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must

be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;

and

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada, and

the other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to

encourage reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS

the province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we

will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government

a tax to read the books of our own writers;

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

of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe that this petition so clearly articulates the contradictions

and the ridiculous situation that we're in with adding a provincial sales tax to

our books.

This

week, we will celebrate and hear the announcement of the winner of the Winterset

Award. There's Paul Rowe who has been nominated, Michael Crummey and Robert

Chafe three incredible authors from this province. So anybody here in our

province, in order to read the books of these three nominees for the Winterset

Award, we will have to pay more than anybody else in Canada to read books of our

own writers.

There's

something wrong with that. It's absolutely you may forgive me, Mr. Speaker;

it's idiotic. This is such a regressive sales tax. There's no good reason to do

it. There's every reason to rescind this and reverse this decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

This is about our writers;

it's about literacy in the province. What was government thinking? They could

not have been thinking clearly. Obviously, their vision is clouded. Obviously,

they don't have an understanding of the importance of literacy and literature in

our province.

Everywhere else in the country, it's so, but not here. How did that happen? Are

we that desperate, Mr. Speaker? Is this province that desperate to add a tax on

books, even to our own writers? Mr. Speaker, it's a mystery a mystery yet to

be written.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

It's hard to follow that, Mr.

Speaker, but I'm going to try.

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

Marine Atlantic ferry rates continue to rise, becoming increasingly more cost

prohibitive; and

WHEREAS

increased rates impact the cost of goods being shipped into our province, as

well as those products being exported out by local businesses; and

WHEREAS

tourism is negatively impacted by the ever-increasing, cost-prohibitive means of

ground transport into the Island portion of our province;

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

of Assembly to urge government to open a line of communication with the federal

government and begin to advocate on behalf of residents and businesses of the

province, not stopping until results are realized.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we've raised this issue before. We will continue to raise it. There is

at last one government minister, when he was in Opposition federally, used to

raise this issue a lot, but we don't hear so much from this government on this

issue.

We spent

some time in Question Period today talking about the cozy relationship between

our provincial and federal government and, unfortunately, it's only resulted in

a sellout so far. So today, we heard lots about the most recent sellout of our

fisheries fund. Well, here's another example of an issue where I fear that our

current government will sell out Newfoundland and Labrador once again.

We need

leadership. We need leadership by our provincial government and by our federal

government to ensure that our constitutional rights as people of Newfoundland

and Labrador are respected and honoured.

The

continued increases to Marine Atlantic rates, that's been an issue for quite

some time, but given the cozy relationship that now exists between the

provincial and federal government, you would hope that there would be some

action instead of just endless compromise and nobody standing up for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The last

time I presented a petition related to Marine Atlantic, I talked about the

impact on consumers that will take place on April 1. Another group that has

expressed concern about the Marine Atlantic rate increases is Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador. As of April 1, passenger and vehicle fares, as well

as drop trailer fees, will increase by another 2.6 percent.

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador has said that in an industry with small

businesses, any cost increases can be devastating. Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador acknowledges that there have been some service improvements over the

last number years; there's still a need for rate stabilization when it comes to

Marine Atlantic. Tourism and hospitality is a growth industry for our province,

so we need to do what we can to keep costs down.

Mr.

Speaker, I know my time is up; I will continue to raise this issue in the House

of Assembly, even if certain others won't.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know

it's unusual in that it doesn't fall within the Standing Orders, but I have seen

on occasion in this House, with unanimous consent of both sides, for a Member of

government to stand up and respond to a petition. I would ask for that

opportunity today, given that I would assume that the petition that was put

forward asks for government's thoughts on this. I'd love an opportunity to offer

them, with leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Does the

hon. Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER:

No leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Leave has been denied.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I guess they don't want to

hear our thoughts on it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

there have been an identified lack of mental health services in our provincial

K-12 school system; and

WHEREAS

the lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and

WHEREAS

left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious

issues;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to increase the mental health services and

programs in our province's K-12 school system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, nearly three years ago, we did something historic in this House of

Assembly. We set up an All-Party Committee on Mental Health. A very important

committee that was set up; took the politics out of addressing issues around

health, but particularly around mental health; travelled the province, had

stakeholders engaged; met with average citizens, met with educators, met with

health professionals; went through a whole dialogue on how we would approach

that. In their report, the emphasis that was put on it was around early

diagnosis, early intervention and identifying particularly needs that may be

identifiable at an early age around the issues around young people.

That was

so significant, and there were processes and discussions around the types of

programs that we could put in place. There was a discussion and a scan around

other jurisdictions about what programs and services would work. We've heard

from educators, we've heard from school counsellors, we've heard from

administration, we've heard from parent groups, we've heard from parents and

we've heard from students about the impacts that lack of programs and services,

lack of education around mental health is having on their ability to cope in the

school system.

We all

know there are additional stressors on everybody in society, but particularly

young people, and particularly young people when it relates to school. We've

started a great process of identifying how we deal with bullying. Well, bullying

has an impact on students in the school system from a mental health perspective.

There

are other signs within the school system that a teacher, a teacher's aide, an

educator, a parent, a coach would identify certain, particular things, but there

are areas of training that are necessary. There are extra resources that are

necessary. There are extra abilities to be able to free up staff time within a

school system.

There's

the actual physical resource that's needed, rooms where you can go in and have

proper dialogue in a comfortable, safe, engaging process. We don't have that

with overcrowded schools. We don't have that with lack of resources. We don't

have it when we are cutting resources. We don't have it when we have an

inclusive program but we don't have the resources to be able to make that

program work efficiently. We don't have the proper dialogue between the

education system and the department, with the health department about how we

look at programs that can be developed, or existing programs that could be

offered within the school system.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I've petitioned this to the House in the last number of weeks and I'll

continue to do that in the near future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned petitioners humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS

many feel their problems and concerns are not being addressed in an appropriate

and timely manner;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly call upon the House of

Assembly, urging government to use all-party town hall events as an avenue,

whereby people can express their concerns to all parties.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners ask to be heard.

Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand and present this petition in the

House. It is a major concern to the general public, to the people who put us in

this House, that all parties be involved in the discussions that go on with

regard to the issues that concern the people of this province. Not just here in

the Assembly, in legislation when we deal with bills, which is a pretty

structured kind of way of discussing the issues obviously, the people signing

this petition want a much freer airing of their concerns and an airing that is

heard equally by all parties in the House. Not just by the government, not just

by the Official Opposition, not just by any other party, not just by independent

people who are sitting in the House, but everybody who's elected needs to hear

the concerns of the people of the province.

I was

delighted, for example, when the Task Force on Educational Outcomes, which

wasn't a committee of the House but a committee that was appointed by the

government, that I felt very free to go to the task force without any strings

attached, without being told what the questions were that I had to respond to. I

could go and present to the task force freely, as could everybody else who was

there that night and at all the other consultations that the task force

conducted.

These

people on the task force know what real consultation is about. What the signers

of these petitions are saying is they want the issues that they have to present

to government to be presented to all parties, that we all hear their concerns,

that there are not these strings attached, that there not be a structure that

controls how they present their opinions. This is something that's being

observed by people not just those who got to sign the petition, but by people

at the university; for example, political scientists.

One

person who expresses an opinion quite strongly is Steve Tomblin, one of the

political scientists, professors at Memorial, who recently wrote that the

elimination of 287 managerial positions, the reasons for them the good and the

bad should have been communicated to the public. And these petitions are

asking for that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

I call from the Order Paper,

second reading of Bill 69,

An Act To Amend The Health Professions Act, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good

afternoon. I'm pleased to have a chance now in second reading stage of debate to

speak to Bill 69,

An Act to Amend the Health Professions Act. It's not a very

long bill. It's not a very complicated bill, and it's slated to come into force

on September 29 of this year.

I'll

quickly, as the minister's really already done, but because it's been a while

since we've debated this legislation, I'll present a little bit of an overview

of what's contained in the bill, and then I'll conclude my comments. I won't

speak for the full 59-and-half minutes I have left, I don't think. Unless I get

inspired, you never know. Stranger things have happened in this hon. House.

This is

a piece of legislation that I certainly support. The bill will amend the

Health Professions Act , which we have

had in place for some time in this province, to reduce the number of elected

and appointed members of the council; provide that the registrar can perform the

duties of the registration committee where those duties are assigned to the

registrar; provide that the council's by-laws can address the appointment of

replacement members to the council; provide that the quality assurance committee

can appoint health professionals who are registered or licensed under the laws

of another province or territory to be assessors; and change the composition of

complaints authorization committees due to the reduction in elected and

appointed members of the council.

that's effectively it. The primary amendments, the first relates to reducing the

number of members. There will be six persons who are not members of a college

that falls under this legislation, will be appointed by the minister. The second

amendment relates to assigning the duties of the college's registration

committee to the council's registrar, which makes reasonable sense. The third

amendment is to avoid instances whereby conflict of interest may arise or

there's a perceived bias. Then the quality assurance committee will be permitted

to go outside of the province to appoint an investigator.

Being a

little bit familiar with the Health

Professions Act and some of the challenges with the legislation as it

currently stands, as the professions involved have evolved, these amendments

will allow the health professions involved to, and for the council to function

more appropriately and in a more streamlined and, hopefully, a more effective

way.

In terms

of the council's composition; one member from each of the six college board of

directors elected from and by each college, and then there will be six members

appointed by the minister who are not members of a college. So there will be 12

in total.

Previously, it was the elected chairperson of each of the colleges, plus one

elected member from each of the colleges. Then the minister would appoint one

member per college who are not members of the colleges. So it was 18 in total,

which given the purpose and mandate of the council, that does feel rather large.

That means a higher number is required for quorum. There are just some practical

and administrative challenges with the current structure.

Duties,

as I said, will be assigned to the registrar as a result of these changes. The

college's registration committee will be able to do that. It's taking,

basically, responsibility from the individual colleges and placing it with the

council. It's already being done in most cases, and this is really about

bringing that into legislation. The council will be responsible for registration

and quality assurance and disciplinary actions as well.

In terms

of the changes to the quality assurance committee process that are outlined,

this will aid in circumstances whereby conflict of interest may arise or there's

a perceived bias. The committee will be permitted to go outside the province to

appoint an investigator. This probably won't be necessary very often. It's

anticipated this would only be done in rare circumstances, but this will allow

for that to happen when it is required.

The

other amendments are fairly straightforward as well. As a result of the changes

we've discussed, particularly related to the composition of the council, there

are some other changes that need to be made elsewhere in the legislation to

reflect those changes. So that's logical and makes sense.

There's

also a transitional clause to avoid any shock to the system, so to speak;

members will continue until the expiry of their terms. The transition will be a

gradual one. No term is greater than three years. I think the proclamation date,

as I mentioned, of September 29 of this year, gives the council the time it

needs to update its bylaws and to manage this transition and manage these

changes.

So these

changes were requested by the council in hopes of having a more efficient and

effective process. The changes sound small. They are relatively small, but

they're important for this organization. I understand that the council has been

consulted throughout the process. These have been in the works for some time and

the council is in agreement with the proposed amendments.

I'm

pleased to speak in support of Bill 69. The amendments make sense and it just

makes sense to get on with them.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always

add the beautiful and historic District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville. I'd

like to thank the Member for Mount Pearl North for standing up and, what I seem

to think is, supporting this bill, Bill 69.

I'm very

pleased to stand in this hon. House again; as I am each and every time I stand

and get the pleasure to stand. I'm going to speak on behalf of another

health-related bill here, similar to what we did last week, just cleaning up

some legislation that we need to make the health profession that much stronger.

So Bill 69,

An Act to Amend the Health Professions Act.

In his

opening comments for this bill, the Minister of Health and Community Services

spoke about the three substantial amendments to the

Health Professions Act . They are as follows: reduce the number of

elected and appointed members of the council; providing legislative authority to

the registrar to perform duties of the registration committee; and allowing the

quality assurance committee to appoint health professionals registered in

another province to act as assessors.

Some of

these have already been dealt with by the minister; I'm just going to go into a

little bit more detail. To give effect to these substantive amendments to the

Health Professions Act a number of

additional amendments were required as well: providing that the council's bylaws

may address the appointment of replacement members of the council; updating the

act's appeal provision to reflect the fact that the registrar may be making

certain decisions around registration; and changing the composition of the

complaints authorization committees to reflect the changes in the amount of

elected and appointed members to the council.

The

additional amendments will now allow the council's bylaws to include direction

relating to how replacement members will be appointed to this council. There

were no previous rules on how these members would be appointed. So subsection

8(6) of the Health Professions Act

allow replacement council members to be appointed in situations where an elected

member either resigns, dies or becomes incapable of performing his or her

duties.

This

subsection provides that an instance where an elected member resigns, dies or

becomes incapable of performing his or her duties, the remaining members of the

council shall appoint a member from the same profession to serve up until the

expiry of that particular term. This tends to make insurmountable sense in that

making sure that council maintains its composition, a strong composition and

representation from the different colleges and councils that it represents.

The

Health Professions Act does not

currently provide any direction on how this appointment can occur, so now we're

straightening up that absence or gap in the legislation. Bill 69 will provide

that council have the ability to address the process of appointing replacement

members within its own bylaws.

The

second additional amendment to update the

Health Professions Act is the appeal provisions to reflect the fact that if

the registration committee has assigned certain of its duties to the registrar,

a person could be appealing the decision of the registrar instead of the

decision of the registration committee. Currently, the act only makes reference

to an appeal of a decision to the registration committee. The registrar needs to

be added to this as well.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll take a second now to talk about the third amendment which relates

to the composition of the complaints authorization committee. I know this is

riveting for everyone in the House, but I just want to make sure we highlight it

very clearly.

The

health profession regulators have an important mandate to ensure that not only

competent health professionals practise in our province sorry, that make sure

only competent health professionals practise within our province. The way that

health professions regulations fulfill this mandate is through the disciplinary

process. Under the Health Professions Act

if an allegation of misconduct by one of its health professions regulated

under the act is received, then the council's registrar may attempt to resolve

this matter. However, if the matter is not satisfactorily resolved by the

registrar, the matter can be referred to the complaints authorization committee.

This

committee is an important component of the disciplinary process for

self-regulating professions. When an allegation has been submitted to the

complaints authorization committee, the committee may exercise a number of

powers. They can refer this matter back to the registrar for investigation or

alternate dispute resolution. They can conduct an investigation itself or by

appointing a person to conduct that set of investigation. They can conduct a

practice review of the respondent's practice. They could require the respondents

to appear before them. And they could refer the allegation to the quality

assurance committee.

If the

complaints authorization committee is of the opinion that there is reasonable

grounds to believe that the health professional has engaged in conduct deserving

of a sanction, the committee may do a number of things, such as counsel or

caution that professional, instruct the registrar to file a complaint against

that professional, and/or refer it to the disciplinary panel and they could

suspend or restrict the professional's registration I have to apologize in

advance for my throat; it's a direct reflection of Team Gushue and the Brier

win.

If the

matter gets referred to the disciplinary panel, a three-person adjudication

tribunal would be appointed from the disciplinary panel to hear the matter. An

adjudication tribunal hears evidence and submissions from the respective

parties. The tribunal makes a decision as to whether the conduct of the

profession in question is conduct deserving of a sanction. However, many matters

can be dealt with by the registrar or at the complaints authorization committee

level well before it gets to be escalated to the full hearing before the

adjudication tribunal. We're speaking about a very small number of incidents;

still, nonetheless, we have to make sure those are covered under this

legislation.

The

health professions council currently appoints at least three of its members to

be on the complaints authorization committee, including at least one public

representative. As the number of the council members will be decreasing over

time to the amendments contained in this bill, it will also be necessary to

change the required composition of the complaints authorization committee. This

bill will no longer limit the membership of the complaints authorization

committee to just council members.

You

recall, Mr. Speaker, that the council members will be members elected from each

of the college's board of directors. Instead, the health professionals from

those health professions designated in the

schedule of this act will be able to

be appointed to the committee. In practice, it is expected that the health

professions from the same college as the health professional named in a

disciplinary matter will be chosen to sit on that complaints authorization

committee.

However,

the revised provisions contained in this bill, Bill 69, provide that the council

will have the flexibility to appoint professionals from other colleges, which

may be appropriate in some instances, such as where the conflict of interest may

be or at least the reasonable apprehension of bias could exist. Expanding the

pool of potential members of the complaints authorization committee will be of

particular benefit to those professions with a small number of registrants.

It's

very important, if you only have a small pool of people to draw from for this

complaints authorization committee, if you don't have there could be some

conflict of interest there. So you want to make sure the conflict of interest is

gotten rid of or removed, by expanding that pool of people you can draw from.

Whether that be from other colleges, or probably from other people from other

provinces.

The

current requirement is at least one public representative to serve on this

complaints authorization committee, and that will not change. The public

representatives have an important role in governance of self-regulating

professions and bring a valuable, unique perspective to disciplinary matters.

Officials within the Department of Health and Community Services have worked

closely with the Council of Health Professionals and the council is very

supportive of these amendments.

Mr.

Speaker, the amendments contained in Bill 69 will assist the council in

fulfilling its mandate to protect the public by ensuring that competent health

professionals are providing quality health care for people in this province from

now and into the future.

Mr.

Speaker, it's or, Madam Speaker. Sorry, Madam Speaker. I didn't see the change

there, it was that quick. Like the hawk moving in there on that, for sure.

One of

the major pieces that I'd like to highlight again from this bill is the

reduction of the number of elected and appointed members to the council, which

is important; giving the legislative authority to the registrar to perform these

duties of the registration committee, and allowing the quality assurance

committee to appoint the health professionals registered in another province to

act as assessors.

That's

some of the key points we'd like to highlight in this bill. Because we're

changing some of those key requirements, we have to again make some amendments

to some subsequent areas in the act. So making sure we have the ability to

appoint new representatives to the council, or new members to the council is

very important, and there's nothing in the act currently that covers the

appointment of new members.

someone can't perform their duties, his or her duties, whether they are

incapable because of changes in their work life or die, God forbid, or just

can't fulfil those duties, it gives an opportunity in the bylaws in this act,

the change we're making here today, to allow them the ability to appoint someone

else to represent their profession on this council. I think that's an important

provision we have to look at.

Obviously, some of the changes we're making in the first part of our bill,

changing the appeals provision to reflect the fact that the registrar may be the

person you're having the issue with, the decision the registrar made, it's very

important that that is a part of this bill as well, because previously you could

only make a complaint about the registration committee. The registrar is an

important piece of that, because they're making that decision. It's important

that's part of the amendment as well. The composition of the complaints

authorization committee, it'll have to reflect the reduction of the number of

elected and appointed members to this council. So that's an important piece that

we really need to highlight in this as well.

While

these proposed amendments are relatively minor in nature, as a couple of people

have already mentioned in this hon. House, they're going to make a great

improvement in the council's regulatory regime and give them the ability to make

those changes and make them a little bit more robust and make those actions a

little bit better for them.

So,

Madam Speaker, I have no problem supporting this bill, and I ask all of my

colleagues in this hon. House to stand with us and make these changes to make

the health system and the amendments to Bill 69 much stronger. I'll be

voting in favour of Bill 69.

Thank you very, very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER

(Dempster): The Speaker recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's East

Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I'm pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to Bill 69,

which is a bill to make amendments to the

Health Professions Act ,

an act that was created in 2010. I remember that act

when it came in because I did have some concerns at the time.

It's an umbrella act, and it's an umbrella act for a number

of professions that have small membership: the acupuncturist, audiologist,

speech language pathologist, dental hygienist, medical lab technologist, medical

radiation technologist, midwives and respiratory technologists. So they are very

important professions, extremely important to the health of this province but

they do have a smaller membership than a lot of the other professions such as

doctors, nurses, et cetera.

There was an agreement to put an umbrella act together that

all of these professions agreed with at the time. I had hope at the time, I

remember because midwives are included that we would have seen more action with

regard to midwives by the government of the day. That didn't happen. I point it

out now so that the government of this day may give more thought to the issue of

the need for midwives in this province. It's not enough to have regulations for

midwives unless we have midwives recognized as part of our health care system,

the full public health care system.

So I mention that in the light of speaking to this bill.

When this bill was put together when the act was put together council was set

up, a regulatory body that encompassed all of the professions that were covered

by the act. I'm glad that the government has noted that the

amendments that are being

made are because of a request from the council, and that's good. It shows the

kind of consultation that needs to go on when we're talking about legislation,

both creating legislation from scratch or amending current acts.

I'm not

going to go into all of the details with regard to the changes. The minister did

that when it was presented first on March 6, I think it was when the minister

made the opening presentation on the act and the two speakers of today have made

reference to the changes. One has to do with streamlining the council itself and

the others have to do with the registration committee and the complaints

committee, both of which are extremely important for the running of the council.

There's

one thing, though, that I'm just a little bit surprised about, that the council

would want this, and maybe the minister will speak to it not the first point.

The first point in clause 3,

section 12(3), adds a new subsection to the act. It

says to the list of registrar duties will be added: to perform registrar duties

as assigned by the registration committee. That's fine. The old subsection (

e) is now (f), stipulating that the registrar can perform other duties assigned by

the council.

course, that's a pretty common thing that you do a list of duties but then you

also tack on there might be something else that council at one time or another

might come up with and assign to a committee or some times to a staff person and

you make sure that proviso goes into the act.

But what

I'm questioning is that subsection (4) now says that the registration committee

may assign some or all of its duties to the registrar. I'm a little surprised by

that. I'm surprised the council would want it because it actually is allowing

duties of the committee of the council to be carried on by the registrar without

consulting the council. I would think that some of those duties, the committee

would want to maintain responsibility for. So I'd like a little input from the

minister on that point.

So, for

example, when it comes to recognizing who can be seen as a member of a

profession, this would assume if it's left totally in the hands of the registrar

if that particular thing was left totally in the hands of the registrar, that

the registrar would have to really be on top of all of the requirements for the

different professions in identifying or saying yes to somebody who is looking to

become a member under the act. It sounds a bit strange to me that that

particular responsibility could be totally given to the registrar without

consulting with the committee, which would have people on it representing the

various professions.

I would

think the professions would have wanted to keep control over that particular

piece. So I will be interested in hearing from the minister on that particular

point. Overall, we support the amendments, expect this one I have a query about,

but if it's what the council wants, then I'm obviously ready to support it.

Because, for the most part, I'm told that all the amendments, we have been told,

are council driven.

I'd like

to point out something again in the context of this discussion with regard to

the act. Sections 58(1) to (4) of the act discusses the circumstances under

which the minister would undertake a review in the public interest, including

such things as the performance of the council, but also the administration of

the act. So that's in the hands of the minister and that stays there.

I think

this act came into play in 2010; it is now 2017 that we'd like to see a

review done that would include input from the professions and from the public to

ensure the legislation is meeting the needs of the professions and acting in the

public interest.

Now, it

could be that the minister, in discussion with the professions, knows that

they're satisfied, but the act does call upon a review that would be held in the

public interest. So I think maybe the time has come for a review that would show

us how this act is working.

I've

already mentioned, for example, the midwives and the issue that I've raised that

we have regulations for midwives but the midwifery is not yet under the public

health care system, in the same way as other medical professions that do similar

work to midwives. I'd like to know where the midwives fit in this one. Is this

really meeting their needs?

that's one thing that I would like to put out here right now that I'm not happy

about, and I would like to see the minister looking at this seriously and

opening up the broader discussion around midwifery. Ontario has reviewed its

legislation, some 16 years ago. So their legislation was much older than ours,

and they recommended tightening up some procedures, but also better public

education. They found that the public was not aware of all the professions that

were governed by the legislation, or that a complaint could be made, or how to

go about it.

From

time to time, you hear about people who have been unhappy with an individual

maybe in one of these professions and really don't know that they have the right

to complain and that there is a complaint procedure. It's easier to be aware of

that when

an act particularly names the profession.

This act

doesn't name the profession; it just says

Health Professions Act . So maybe the public is not aware of all of the

professions that fit under this, and aren't aware and I'm sure they aren't

actually. I know that from some personal experiences, hearing people coming with

concerns that they aren't aware of the professions that are covered, and that

they do have the right under this act to make a complaint.

These

are some of the major points I'm concerned about, Madam Speaker, and I do look

forward to a continued discussion and to hear what the minister has to say about

the points I've raised.

Thank

you.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is

certainly a pleasure for me today to stand and speak in favour of Bill 69, and

I'll reference some of the explanatory notes attached to this particular bill.

The intent is to make changes to the

Health Professions Act , I guess to bring it more up to date, and certainly

handle some of the, I guess, somewhat challenges that would have been under the

original act and to bring it to a point where we can work within the parameters

now that this act will give us.

Some of

the references that we want to make there, Madam Speaker, are to reduce the

number of elected and appointed members of the council. We're also looking at:

provide that the registrar can perform the duties of the registration committee

where these duties are assigned to the registrar; provide that the council's

bylaws can address the appointment of replacement members to the council;

provide that the quality assurance committee can appoint health professionals

who are registered or licensed under the laws of another province or territory

to be assessors; and change the composition of the complaints authorization

committees due to the reduction in elected and appointed members of the council.

Again,

Madam Speaker, this particular bill is making significant improvements to the

original bill in order for the professions act to be complaint and give us some

flexibility with regard to what it used to be.

Madam

Speaker, I normally speak without notes, but I felt that in this particular area

today it would be prudent if I would use some references to make sure that I'm

complaint with what the act is saying and some of the questions that certainly

would come from this particular Health

Professions Act .

So what

I've done, Madam Speaker, is I've compiled almost like a question-and-answer

period so we can address some of the questions that may arise from these

particular amendments to this act and changes to the act and, hopefully, be able

to bring some sort of clarity to some of these questions with the answers.

Madam

Speaker, one of the questions that certainly would come forward that I have is a

question that says: Why are these amendments being made? Is there something

wrong with the legislation? Certainly, just a very simple question but I think

important. The answer to that particular question is: No. There's nothing wrong

with the Health Professions Act . These

amendments are being made at the request of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Council of Health Professionals, which is the regulatory body responsible for

the regulation of health professions, governed under the

Health Professions Act .

The

Department of Health and Community Services agrees that these amendments will

enable the council to better meet its mandate. The department is working closely

with regulatory bodies, such as the council, to bring forward amendments to

legislation as required from time to time.

The

second question, Madam Speaker, that I wanted to get some answers to. It was

another very simple question: Are we actually weakening the council's governance

by now having one college representative instead of two? The answer to that

question that came from Health and Community Services was: No. The amendments in

this bill that reduce the size of the council are being made at the request of

the council and it is administratively difficult to bring an ever-increasing

number of people together for a council meetings.

There

are currently 18 members on the council, and every time a new profession is

regulated under the act, three new members are added to the council. Sometimes

with those increasing numbers, Madam Speaker, it can become somewhat cumbersome,

and we can see the challenges that could create in trying to have meetings to do

the business of the association in such an expedited manner, and sometimes

that's a challenge with that.

The

amendments that we're making today, or will make in this act, will make it

easier for the council to hold meetings, while still ensuring the individual

colleges are well represented at the council table. Aside from council meetings,

Madam Speaker, there are other ways for people to get involved with council and

the college activities, and the health professionals can get involved with

committees of council and can bring questions and concerns to their college

representatives who can, in turn, bring the matter forward to council.

Madam

Speaker, another question I wanted explored is: Isn't reducing the number of

public representatives on council a bad thing? The answer, again, that came from

Health and Community Services says: If these amendments are made, there will

still be six public representatives on council, and this will be more than

sufficient to represent the public interest.

While

the number of public representatives varies across the health professions within

the province, many of the other professions' regulatory bodies only have two

representatives. Even as the number of health professions regulated under this

act increases over time, the ratio of public representation would still be

strong and appropriate.

I think,

Madam Speaker, that was an important question to ask, because I think it's

important for us to realize and to know that if we have representatives on this

council, that this council gives us true representative across the sectors that

we have. So it was important for us if we're looking at health professionals

under the different sectors, that the ability to have that represented would be

very, very important.

I guess

another question is: Why are we talking about bringing in health professionals

from other provinces to act as assessors? Are there not enough people in

Newfoundland and Labrador that can do this job? Very good question; I got a very

good answer.

It is

not expected that it would be necessary in most instances to bring in a health

professional licensed in another province to act as an assessor. It will helpful

at times when a health profession has a small number of members and there could

be a conflict of interest or bias issues within the small membership.

So I

think, Madam Speaker, for me, the answer to that question was very important

because again we always like to think that we have enough expertise within the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that would be able to give us those

opinions and give us that advice. For me, it was certainly a bit of an

eye-opener in that yeah, I didn't think about that. There are some professions

that have a limited number of resources and by giving us the ability to look at

opportunities outside the province when, in fact, there could be a conflict of

interest, that would certainly take care of that within the act.

Another

question I had, Madam Speaker, is: Would it cost a lot of money to bring in

assessors from other jurisdictions? Always a question, a concern. It is not

expected that it will be necessary to bring in assessors from other

jurisdictions very often. I guess that was just a supplementary question to my

previous question when I wanted to find out if, in fact, it was necessary to

bring assessors in from other provinces. That's always a concern when we look at

cost factor and I've been assured that that certainly will not be the case.

Probably when we look at assessors coming from other provinces, it would be

under extenuating circumstances and there would be a smaller pool of resources

they could have.

I've

also been told, Madam Speaker, that any cost of bringing in assessors from away

would be funded through the council from fees that are collected from its

members. So that's not, in essence, a direct cost to the government but more, in

fact, it would be a cost to the council. They incur revenues through fees that

they collect from their members. So that would make it a lot easier for us to be

able to bring in assessors from other provinces, if that is necessary.

Madam

Speaker, I know that my time is just about gone; I do have another about 10

questions that I asked Health and Community Services that obviously I'm not

going to get time at this time, that I asked and got answers for. So I will

allow

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. HAWKINS:

Do I get leave?

I will

pass it over to my hon. Members if they have any statements to make and certain

Members on this side, but if I do get an opportunity to speak again I do have a

number of questions that I asked and do have the answers that I can put out

there.

I asked

the questions and I got the answers, so I wanted to put them on the floor so

everybody will have the answers to the questions that I had concerns about. I

really wanted to make that

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

I thought it was a prudent thing to do, Madam Speaker.

Thank

you for the opportunity. It's always a pleasure.

MADAM SPEAKER:

I remind the hon. Member his

time for speaking has expired.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to stand here in the House and speak to Bill 69. I'm only going to be a

couple of moments.

I have

to admit, I haven't done the same degree of due diligence that the Minister of

Transportation and Works has done. I have to say, I'm pretty impressed. I've

never seen a minister come to the House and have a whole list of questions and

answers and all that kind of stuff. I tell you, I'm impressed. I got to say, I'm

impressed. Now there are some people who wouldn't believe it, but I believe he

went through all that exercise himself.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

It's awesome, and I'm sure

they're not trying to stall time because of the lack of legislation, my

colleague says. I'm sure that wouldn't be the case. I'm sure that it was just a

case of due diligence.

Anyway,

I'm going to make this very short so we can move on to some other legislation.

All I want to say, Madam Speaker, is that I support Bill 69. Obviously, it's An

Act to Amend the Health Professions Act. We know the importance of our health

practitioners and so on, and we need to have legislation in place to ensure

they're operating properly; they're following all the standards, operating

ethically and systems in place to ensure that. If there are any issues around

that, to have mechanisms to report things and have things looked into, appealed

and so on.

This has

obviously been done in consultation with the stakeholders, which is a good

thing. They've asked for these changes and we're bringing forth the changes that

they have asked for; therefore, based on everything I have heard, I have no

problem with it and I will be supporting the legislation.

Thank

you.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for St. George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's

great to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 69, amendments to the

Health Professions Act . Some people

maybe have described this piece of legislation as housekeeping legislation and

that, to a degree, may be true, but it's not in a way to diminish the importance

of the piece of legislation.

We all

know what happens if you don't keep your house clean, tidy and up to date. What

happens, it becomes problematic. So this piece of legislation really looks at

the growing health care professional field in this province and it looks at the

way these bodies regulate themselves, Madam Speaker.

It used

to be, years ago some of us are old enough to remember when anyone could put

out a shingle and claim to be a certain profession. There was no regulation of

what qualifications were required and what they had to do. It's a very dangerous

situation for patients and people who availed of these services. So it's very

problematic to have a situation like that without regulation, without government

standard, without these bodies governing themselves, Madam Speaker.

The

Health Professions Act regulates

several health professionals under an umbrella model. There are several health

care professions that come under this piece of legislation. Each of these

professions plays an important role in providing high-quality health care in

this province.

Just to

give you a list of some of the people we're dealing with, and others have given

us as well, but just in case someone is just joining us: the acupuncturists, the

audiologists, the dental hygienists, medical laboratory technologists,

respiratory technologists and speech-language pathologists. These are some of

the professions that are governed by this piece of legislation, and really they

govern themselves in many ways.

Each

profession has their own college, their own group of people who regulate, who

can register with this profession, what's required for them to renew their

registration and other requirements specific to each of the professions. Each of

these groups have their own group that help regulate themselves, but they all

come under the Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals is

the overall regulatory body under this act.

Each

profession has its own college that is responsible for providing professional

expertise and guidance to the umbrella council in terms of the standards of

practice, the scope of practice, the conduct and ethics, and the continuing

education required for each of these professionals, Madam Speaker. It requires a

certain standard of practice, each body determines that.

The

scope of practice; that would be something where you have several professions

governed under these regulations. If you did not have this type of regulation

you might have some overlap between certain professions, but this piece of

legislation provides for the scope of practice of each of these health care

professionals. So it's important in that way as well, Madam Speaker.

The

health care council currently regulates approximately 1,100 health professionals

in practice, and has been in place since 2011. I think the initial legislation

might have been passed in 2010, but not enacted until 2011, I believe. So these

1,100 professionals, a significant size group in our community, made up of 33

acupuncturists, 37 audiologists, 224 dental hygienists, 515 medical laboratory

technologists, 148 respiratory therapists, and 140 speech-language pathologists.

A number of these professions make up that that are governed by this

legislation today.

The

amendment addresses changes requested by the council. These aren't changes that

were brought forward by people in the Department of Health or other departments,

or were brought forward by members of the public. These are changes that are

being requested by the council themselves. The changes that are being made here

is reducing the number of elected and appointed members of the council; the

second kind of changes are providing legislative authority for the registration

of people from entering the profession, and also the third is allowing the use

of assessors from provinces and territories for the purposes of quality

assurance.

I think

some of these changes, the number of elected and appointed members of the

council as this council regulates more and more professions, as the other

professions want to join this council and want to be governed by this piece of

legislation, the requirements of having a certain number of people from each

group on the council would make the council itself a little cumbersome, a little

difficult to operate and be functional. This piece of legislation changes that,

it gives more flexibility. It's a very practical thing. It allows the council to

operate in a more effective and efficient manner. So that's a very important

change there.

allows for the use of assessors from other provinces and territories. I read out

the numbers of professionals in each of these professions, and you can see that

some of them are quite small, like 33 acupuncturists, 37 audiologists. We've got

small numbers of people, so sometimes it's fitting that we have people from

outside come in and to do assessments in terms of the professionalization and

make recommendations in relation to the practices in certain fields.

So I

think that's an important and very fitting amendment to the current legislation.

Changes are needed to make the operation and coordination of these groups more

manageable and it will allow for the addition of new professions to the council

in the future.

These

health professionals provide important services to the people of this province.

I want to thank them all for the services they provide and the way they have

responsibly managed their own affairs in this province, and the way they have

made recommendations to government in terms of future regulations of their

professions.

It's a

very positive piece of legislation. Some might say housekeeping, but as I said

at the beginning, housekeeping can be important. Housekeeping is important, and

it's important to make these kinds of changes in this legislation so we can

continue to have good regulation of these important professions in our province.

I want

to congratulate the minister, and the parliamentary assistant to the minister,

for bringing forward this piece of legislation which seems to have support on

all sides of the House, Madam Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

It's

great to hear from some of my colleagues this afternoon. I'm just going to lend

my voice to the debate for just a few moments and try and, I guess, put a bit of

it in context. I know a lot has been said from the hon. Member for Gander, the

Minister of Health and Community Services certainly spoke quit eloquently to

this when we began debate. As the Member opposite noted just a few weeks ago,

and some others across the way have spoken to the bill as well, and of course a

few on our side.

What

we're talking about,

An Act to Amend the Health Professions Act. We're not

amending everything in the Health

Professions Act ; we're actually just speaking specifically to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals, which is the

regulatory body for a number of designated professions.

The

Member for St. George's Humber spoke to some of those professions and had

listed them out: acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists, respiratory

therapists, speech-language pathologists, just to name a few, and certainly

acknowledged, and as I will, the great work that these folks do.

This

council represents just these few different professions. I guess the reality is

they approached us as government and said we'd like to see some changes with

respect to the act that will help us and give us the greater ability to govern.

They were looking