PDF Version

March 19, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 58

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

I'd like

to welcome all Members back to this House of Assembly. We have some special

guests that I'd also like to identify today. In the Speaker's gallery today, I

would like to welcome Dr. Noreen Golfman, Provost and Vice-President (Academic)

of Memorial University who will be the subject of a Member's statement this

afternoon.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the public gallery today,

I would like to welcome William Tetford, Winnie Walsh, Bonita Hussey and Raymond

Hussey from Spaniard's Bay. Mr. Tetford and Ms. Hussey will be the recognized in

a Member's statement today.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also in the public gallery, I

would like to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Andy Wells, former Chair of the

Public Utilities Board and also the former Mayor of the City of St. John's.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Placentia

West - Bellevue, Cape St. Francis, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and Harbour

Grace - Port de Grave.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate Mount Pearl's Frosty Festival – now in

its 37th year. This year the festival was held from February 6 to 17.

The

largest winter festival in Atlantic Canada doesn't just happen. It is the

constant dedication of the great network of more than 500 volunteers and

organizers that makes this event the highlight for the City of Mount Pearl every

year.

This

year we saw a wonderful 12 days of 80-plus events and all reports indicate that

this was the most successful and well-attended Frosty Festival to date. There

was something for everyone to enjoy. Thirty-seven years is truly remarkable and

the festival clearly shows the wonderful sense of community that exists in Mount

Pearl.

To the

sponsors, boards of directors, community groups, community partners, hundreds of

volunteers and all organizations and businesses who supported the event, I thank

you. I thank you all for what you've done over the past 12 months to make the 12

days of Frosty Festival 2019 such a success.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in thanking and congratulating the 37th Annual

Frosty Festival on its tremendous success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize a fierce advocate and fearless leader, a strong woman from the Town of

Terrenceville, Mrs. Rebecca Hickey.

Rebecca

has been a lifelong resident of Terrenceville. The pride she has in her hometown

speaks for itself. She's an advocate of good services and infrastructure, strong

health care and celebrating tourism in the region. She has served on the town

council for over 30 years, including many as mayor. She was re-elected to

council in 2017 municipal election and continues to serve her fellow residents.

In fact,

Mr. Speaker, today she is celebrating her 79th birthday and she's celebrating it

by being in St. John's, along with her colleagues in the town council, meeting

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to advocate for issues concerning their

town. That's her idea of a good birthday, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWNE:

Earlier today, I had the

opportunity to present Rebecca with her certificate of recognition and thanks

for her years of service to the people and to the Town of Terrenceville.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in showing our appreciation, and, of course, in

wishing councillor and former Mayor Rebecca Hickey a happy 79th birthday.

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 congratulate this year's Easter Seals Newfoundland

and Labrador Ambassador Cassandra McGrath. Cassandra is a 13-year-old girl from

Torbay and is a student at Holy Trinity High. Her energy and enthusiasm has come

from a result of programs at Easter Seals.

Cassandra wants to be an advocate and a role model for persons with disabilities

in this province, as well to increase support for the organization and to

encourage more persons with disabilities to become part of Easter Seals.

As a

member of this year's wheelchair basketball team, she was the glue of the team,

helping to keep everyone together and focused. Cassandra message is even though

you have a disability, you can still have fun and enjoy life.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in wishing Cassandra McGrath all the best as

this year's Easter Seals ambassador, and I am sure she will be a great

spokesperson for Easter Seals.

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 am

delighted to congratulate Dr. Noreen Golfman on being named Woman of the Year by

the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists for advancing

gender equality in the arts.

pioneer for women in the film industry, Noreen is the founding director of the

St. John's International Women's Film Festival. The festival is highly

successful, attracting women from all over the world to screen their films in

our province. The festival will celebrate its 30th year this October.

Noreen

also sits as the vice-chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development

Corporation and chair of the board of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Since 2011, she has co-chaired the board of directors of Business and the Arts

NL.

Noreen

provost and vice-president (academic) of Memorial University.

I ask

the hon. Members of this House to join with me in congratulating Dr. Noreen

Golfman on receiving ACTRA's Woman of the Year Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I

would like to recognize two outstanding citizens of Spaniard's Bay. William

Tetford enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces in 1960, serving with the United

Nations in Egypt and then in Germany

with NATO forces. Bill returned to Canada in

1971 when he was stationed in Gagetown, New Brunswick where he served at a

medical unit prior to being honourably discharged in 1973.

He has received numerous service awards such as the

Queens Jubilee medal, United Nations peacekeeping medal, NATO service medal,

Queen's commemorative of Canada and more. He is still an active, dedicated Royal

Canadian Legion member in Spaniard's Bay.

Bonita Hussey has become a local YouTube sensation

through her NL traditional cooking show: Bonita's Kitchen. It all started when

her son, who was living in another province, asked her to share a recipe with

him on YouTube for homemade bread. It turns out her son wasn't the only viewer

who took interest.

Then in 2014, Bonita and her husband, Raymond, retired

from their jobs and moved back to Newfoundland and Labrador from the Northwest

Territories. Ever since, they've been cooking up recipes, working on recipes,

videos and a cookbook to promote their YouTube channel.

I ask all hon. Members to certainly congratulate these

residents.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of attending the 63rd Session of the

UN Commission on the Status of Women as part of the Canadian delegation. I had

the opportunity to meet with government officials, community groups and those

with lived experiences from all over the world and to discuss key issues

affecting women and girls.

The Canadian delegation was led by the federal minister for Women and Gender

Equality, the hon. Maryam Monsef. Representatives from civil society and labour

unions from across the country were also in attendance, including leaders from

the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, events I attended covered a range of issues, including the role of

modern technologies in preventing sexual and gender-based violence, the

importance of access to public services in terms of violence prevention and

global commitments to advance women and girls.

I also met with my national colleagues to discuss how we can continue to work

together on initiatives of gender equality and violence prevention in this

country.

Mr. Speaker, this government continues to be committed to advancing the status

of women and girls in our province. These events and discussions from the UN

Commission on the Status of Women nurtured ideas and relationships for the

betterment of women and girls here in our province and around the world.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, I truly

believe that when a group of individuals come together, they can join forces to

enact great change. I'm optimistic that gatherings such as the 63rd Session of

the UN Commission on the Status of Women can help to advance solutions for women

and girls all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, our

attention is often given to what lies in the community surrounding us, but we

must not forget the women and girls all throughout the globe who are facing

challenges. The UN Commission is a unique group which allows the challenges and

solutions to be shared among those trying to make a difference.

I hope

that the minister and those attending from the province are able to bring key

information and best practices back to the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. It's great that the minister had a chance to attend the UN

meeting, but unless she is committed to real action for the women of

Newfoundland and Labrador it is a waste of taxpayers' money.

Women's

groups across the province have been pushing for pay equity, an increase in

minimum wage –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

– to $15 and funding for the

Norpen Aboriginal Women's Circle proposal for a women's centre in Port Saunders.

A key

issue in women fleeing violent situations is lifting women and children out of

poverty. That is committing to really advancing the status of women and girls in

this province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to recognize the opening of Beaver Brook Antimony Mine

in Central Newfoundland –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

– creating approximately 100

new jobs for the people of the province.

On March

8, I had the pleasure of joining the Premier, my colleagues, including the

Minister of Health and Community Services, and representatives of Beaver Brook

mine and China Minmetals Rare Earth Group for the official opening ceremony and

to celebrate this significant announcement for the people of the region and the

mining industry as a whole.

Mr.

Speaker, some 160,000 tons of antimony ore per year will be mined at full

production and processed into concentrate. The direct and indirect impacts of

Beaver Brook mine will felt throughout the area, demonstrating that by working

together, we are able to unlock our natural resource wealth and create new

opportunities for tradespeople, engineers and many other fields.

The

reopening of Beaver Brook mine is another example of how our plan ,

Mining the Future 2030 is working to grow Newfoundland and Labrador's mining

industry and, in the process, create jobs throughout the province in

collaboration with communities, Indigenous governments and the industry.

Mining

is a major contributor to our economy. In 2019, the mining sector is forecasted

to employ a total of 6,300 people – an 11 per cent increase from 2018. Also, the

gross value of mineral shipments in Newfoundland and Labrador is forecasted at

$4 billion for 2019, a 47 per cent increase since 2016.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, a world of

possibilities is at doorstep because our geology positions Newfoundland and

Labrador to be a global supplier of minerals. We are very pleased with China

Minmetals Rare Earth Group's continued interest in Central Newfoundland and we

hope for a long, safe and prosperous future for the company, its workers and its

communities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the copy of her statement. The reopening of Beaver Brook

Antimony Mine is great news for the mining community of this province. It's a

welcome addition to the Central Newfoundland economy. The approximately 100 new

jobs in the region are certainly significant. I congratulate officials with

Beaver Brook mine and China Minmetals Rare Earth Group on their reopening.

Mr.

Speaker, mining development starts with geoscience and exploration. I'd like to

take a moment to encourage the minister to help keep this in mind as the

government makes decisions on the upcoming budget. I urge you to ensure that

geoscience and exploration programs are continued for the benefit of the

industry throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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. It's good to see this mine reopened and

good to see the creation of 100 new jobs with all the economic spin-off benefits

which will ensue for the region. Media reports the company who owns the mine is

concerned with hiring enough qualified labour to ensure they get up to full

production. I hope government programs will help with that.

There

also seem to be questions about the life of the mine. Conflicting media reports

project the lifespan to be 3½ or 15. I ask the minister: How long will it be?

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

The

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has stated the Department of Justice covered

the cost of legal fees he incurred while being investigated by the commissioner

for Members' interests for alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.

By what

authority would the Justice Department cover the legal fees of a Member?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As was

reported in the media last week, the legal fees coming through, I guess we'll

call the situation, did come to the Department of Justice and would have been

referred to an assistant deputy minister. After, I guess, a significant period

of time, a number of Members involved in this situation brought their legal fees

to the Management Commission who has voted to ensure that all Members are

compensated for legal fees incurred in this matter.

What I

can advise is that now that the procedure has been established, this bill that

would have been incurred by the legal counsel for the Member, it's going to be

sent to the Management Commission to be dealt with by Management Commission as

the other bills were.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the hon. minister for

that information.

I take

it then that the minister is confirming something that was said by the Speaker

publicly when he stated I can tell you the Management Commission has not

reimbursed him and that would be the only venue for him to seek and receive

revenue.

The

minister is confirming that, is he?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No,

there are situations where Members of this House have been dealt with. In fact,

former Premier Dunderdale was actually sued in civil court at one point and her

legal bills were dealt with by the department.

The fact

is that when this matter happened there was no process by which – again, the

Management Commission had not seen this. Now what we have is a situation – we're

coming out of this. There will be, from the Privileges and Elections Committee,

brought forward a procedure to handle situations like this in the future.

In the

meantime, since all this has happened, the Management Commission has covered the

legal fees for all Members involved in this process and that will soon be

looking at the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands legal bills as well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, the media is reporting that the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands

requested his legal fees be covered the day after he was removed from Cabinet

and the Liberal caucus.

Can the

minister state whether that is the case?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot

state for certain exactly what day this would have happened. The procedure is

there would have been a conversation, and the same as I would do in any case, I

immediately referred it to the assistant deputy minister for this matter. After

that, the matter went through that process. There would have been – looked at by

policy, was examined, a decision made. In fact, when the bill was paid, I wasn't

even aware that it had happened.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

There may be an issue with my

hearing, but I wonder if the minister can confirm what he just said.

Did he

state that the bill was paid?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my

understanding that the legal fees incurred by the Member have been paid. I

wouldn't even be able to tell you the date. The fact is that the department

often handles outside counsel when it comes to any number of legal matters,

whether it's departments, Members, you name it. It's anywhere in the range of $3

million to $7 million on an annual basis.

What I

can say is I'm not aware when these bills are paid. That's handled throughout

the department and under the auspices of the assistant deputy minister

responsible for that particular heading.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Can the minister state

whether the payment was carried out pursuant to a minute in council or an order

in council?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I

cannot confirm if it was either of those. Again, it was handled as for the

department. Once the request came in, all I did was simply refer it on. It's not

a decision that I make per se, usually we let public servants handle those types

of issues. The same as any minister that has been served with civil litigation

papers, it's handled by the civil staff.

What I

can say, and I guess the underlying or overlying message here is that at the end

of the day, the Management Commission has made a decision to ensure that legal

fees for all Members involved in this process, Members from both sides,

complainants and respondents, have been covered by the Management Commission

under this matter; and, at the end of the day, it all comes from the same pot of

money, which would be the Treasury.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I believe the

minister, as a Member of the Management Commission, will be able to acknowledge

that what the Management Commission decided was to pay the legal fees, within

reason, of those who submitted them. This particular Member did not do so.

Was an

invitation extended to the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, who is also a

minister at this time, to provide her legal bill to the Department of Justice?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

invitations were extended to anybody in this particular case. At that time in

the process, a conversation was had, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, the

minister at the time, passed this matter on to the department. It went through

that process.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Did the minister or his officials contact the Speaker or the Speaker's office or

others in the House of Assembly regarding the request prior to or subsequent to

the payment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

sure what the Member is going at here. No, I had no contact with the Speaker or

other Members of the House. This is a request that came into the department. It

was handled as per course.

The fact

is since that time – as the Member knows, the Leader of the Official Opposition

sits on the Management Commission. They have looked at the claims that have come

in and made a decision to pay the legal fees for each Member incurred. At this

time, now that a procedure has been established, I'm sure that the fee from the

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands will go to Management Commission, because at

the end of the day, this all comes from the same pot of money, which would be

the general Treasury.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Could the minister oblige us by explaining how it is that the procedure we were

all familiar with at the Management Commission for dealing with legal fees

submissions of Members was not followed in this particular case and he did not

inform the Management Commission thereof?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

sure if the Member opposite is trying to question whether I informed the

Management Commission or something. I'm not sure if he's trying to imply

something here, because if he is, he should be a little more clear with what he

is saying.

The fact

is a request came in to the department, it was handled. In fact, once I made the

initial request of information to the department I literally had no other

dealings with that matter at any point and did not know where that matter was

going. I sat on Management Commission and dealt with that process, and that's

basically what I can inform the House at this point.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, this province is

contemplating significant auto insurance changes and the Insurance Bureau of

Canada is now pursuing a marketing campaign to push for caps on minor injuries

as a way to moderate rates.

Is the

minister aware that the IBC acknowledges that its marketing campaign has been

using a comparison of rates between New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador

which is stale and needs updating?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm very

well aware of the media. My staff and myself have been very involved in this

file, and we've met with numerous groups and organizations. We are following the

media. We have a 166-page document from the PUB, which is a very comprehensive

document. There is significant information available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I fear that this

recent information about recent rate hikes in New Brunswick is not available

from the PUB report. They have an injury cap system similar to what the

insurance industry wants this government to impose on drivers here.

Is the

minister aware that between 2016 and now most insurance companies in New

Brunswick have raised rates or applied to raise rates very substantially?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm very

well aware of the information that is available to us, myself and my staff, and

we have a process to work through here.

The

Member opposite is very well aware of how legislation is brought into this House

of Assembly, and we will use all information that we can obtain and that's

available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I take it then that the

minister is aware of the CBC story posted on March 15 which cites the example of

New Brunswick's largest insurer which has raised prices by 23 per cent since

2016 and says it needs another 16 per cent increase.

Will the

minister undertake to the House she will fully inform herself of the situation

with respect to recent rate increases in New Brunswick?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we

will, I will and my staff will. And if the Member opposite happens to have any

information that he feels that I don't have or my staff don't have, I would

certainly welcome him to table it here in this House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week, media reported that a consulting firm headed up by the former deputy

minister of Natural Resources had been given a sole-source contract by Nalcor

valued at $336,000 a year.

I ask

the minister: Did Nalcor consult you on this so-called sole-source, specialized

service contract?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

speak to the company of Aberdeen International Associates. The former deputy

minister of Natural Resources is a globally recognized leader in oil and gas

development and had significant dealings with the re-establishment of the United

Kingdom, for example, in the oil and gas industry, and he worked very diligently

in the department to attract new investment, to bring projects under line, and

to move forward with Advance 2030 .

So, he

has a global reputation and is doing contract work for Nalcor oil and gas

company. Under contract, his firm, Aberdeen International Associates, is well

regarded and well known.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind all Members, please,

there's to be one conversation on the floor – the Members in the corner, thank

you, one conversation in Question Period, please.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why did

the minister support Nalcor hiring a consultant at $336,000 without a

competition to pursue the Advance 2030

strategy? Surely there is someone already within our oil and gas sector in this

province who has the experience to fill this position.

Why not

go and advertise the position?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say that the direction that we're taking with oil and gas is to really drive the

growth of the industry and we really want to make sure that Newfoundland and

Labrador maximizes its opportunity.

We have

said in Advance 2030 , for example, we

want to drive from 230,000 barrels a day to over 650,000 barrels a day. That's

significant growth that'll bring tremendous opportunities to the province in

terms of jobs and growth opportunities, as well as taxation and royalty

benefits.

So,

having that international expertise, that global awareness, is very, very

important. We compete around the world for the investments that are being made,

and we certainly will continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our

industry is global in nature and the people that work in there are global as

well, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So I ask

the minister specifically: What specialized services did this individual have

that disallowed you from going for a public competition for people here in

Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, the individual that the Member opposite is referring to is globally known.

He has been a leader in the oil and gas industry for some 30 years. He's very

familiar with Newfoundland and Labrador's opportunity. Nalcor does budget its

own consultation. This is within that budget, its own consultation services. I

think it will be beneficial to the people of the province to have a global

industry leader to continue to advance the opportunities within the oil and gas

industry.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's my understanding the former deputy minister, as a consultant, will

be making more than the current vice-president responsible for the entire Oil

and Gas division.

I ask

the minister: How does she justify a consultant making more than the individual

responsible for the entire oil and gas portfolio?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I don't believe his

information is correct, Mr. Speaker, but I will say this, again, Nalcor budgets

for its own consulting services and this is within their consulting budget. They

make those decisions around the consultants they require and around the payment

that they are going to make.

I will

say this, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Newfoundland and Labrador deserves to grow

its oil and gas industry, to advance its opportunities to really drive both

royalties and equity and taxation benefits to the people of this province, as

well as to have a robust jobs that are well known in the industry. And we've

talked about that in Advance 2030 .

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the former deputy minister, our understanding, will work from Scotland

and will travel back and forth to Newfoundland to continue to serve on the oil

and gas council and continue to travel for the MOUs signed with Guyana and that

industry there.

I ask

the minister: What is the anticipated travel cost over and above the $336,000

salary?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my

understanding that this is a total contract. So whoever is employed within

Aberdeen International Associates will have to work within that total budget,

Mr. Speaker.

I will

say this, we did talk at length last week about the expanded role of the new oil

company, looking at growing the supply and service industry which will bring

increased opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador, and making sure that

we're really taking advantage of all the opportunities we have in our offshore

oil and gas sector.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the provincial Conflict of Interest Act states: A person who within the

previous year was a public office holder shall not enter into a contract to

receive benefit from an agency or the Crown with which he was employed within

the previous year.

The

former deputy minister has been given a conflict of interest waiver by Cabinet

through an OC.

I ask

the minister: Why did she feel it was necessary to ask her Cabinet colleagues to

waive the conflict of interest regulations, legislation and the rule in place

today.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Waivers

under the Conflict of Interest Act are not uncommon. They do occur. You have to

remember that this individual, through his company, Aberdeen International

Associates, will be working for a Crown corporation. That Crown corporation has

an expanded role, a role to help us continue to grow and develop our offshore

oil and gas industry.

Therefore, it made sense to waive that conflict of interest. It's not uncommon,

as I say, Mr. Speaker. It happens all the time. But, remember, it's with a Crown

corporation, so a lot of the work that he would have been known to have been

doing within the department is not in conflict with what he will be doing with

the Crown corporation.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

government committed to implementing a single entry Medical Transportation

Assistance Program and proudly reported in

The Way Forward document that it is completed. Yet, we are hearing many

stories of problems with the new program where people have missed or have had to

reschedule medical appointments, as well encountering various other delays.

I ask

the Premier: Is this the standard he expects in implementing

The Way Forward commitments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Medical

transportation is a significant issue in this province and we have amalgamated

to pre-existing programs. I will admit there were challenges, and I'm not here

to defend things that shouldn't be defended, but essentially we have rectified

those. We are now down to a 48-hour turnaround for all urgent requests for

transportation and two weeks for everything else. We have 750,000 claims for

travel each year, Mr. Speaker. We are making a difference and we'll get better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Way Forward

states that the changes to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program was to

improve the efficiency and timelines of services. Given what we have seen the

changes were hastily implemented, service delivery has not improved and, in

fact, has worsened.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: Isn't this another example of a failed forward by

this government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question and the strained alliteration.

From my

point of view, Mr. Speaker, we have come through a difficult transition. We have

a turnaround time of 48 hours for emergency requests for transportation, two

weeks for everything else. We have 300 calls a day; 750,000 visits a year. We

have enormous opportunities now to look at how to make this service a lot better

to meet the medical needs of people and be less like a bus service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the

minister admit that the new cataract surgery policy announced almost two months

ago was really just an election ploy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

The

changes we have made to the cataract surgery is an issue of access. We heard

very clearly from ophthalmologists, from people in various parts of the

province, that they wanted this. This now gives people the option to have the

surgery done in accredited, private offices, as well as an RHA facility if

that's the way they want to go.

We will

have the regulations changed. We are in active negotiations with the NLMA,

almost on a weekly basis around the fee structure. We will have this done and

done shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understanding is the policy can be implemented as soon as a billing fee code is

in place.

Why

doesn't the minister take immediate action to reduce red tape that is preventing

people from getting cataract surgery more quickly?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue is not one of red tape. It's about patient safety. It's about

accreditation. Those are not bureaucratic issues to be skipped or pushed aside.

We have

just renovated the Patient Safety Act

in this province and brought in a landmark piece of legislation. That is a key

piece of this. That will be done. The due diligence will be done. The fee code

issue is an ongoing matter of negotiation with the NLMA and we're working on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After

talking to a number of the cataract surgeons here, there's never been a patient

safety issue here. It's about moving it to the next level so that more expedient

approaches and access to cataract surgery can be offered.

Mr.

Speaker, the minister alleged publicly that there were potential criminal

activities related to physicians providing cataract surgery outside of a

hospital; yet, a recent Supreme Court ruling found that it was not illegal for

physicians, like Dr. Chris Jackman, to remove cataracts in private clinics.

Will the

minister do the right thing and publicly apologize to Dr. Chris Jackman?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Member opposite continues to mix up two entirely separate issues. The issue of

cataracts being performed outside of an RHA facility is one we are actively

working on and are making progress on and will have that done in short order.

The

other issue was an issue of public concern brought to my department about what

seemed to be charges that no one could explain around what was supposedly a

publicly insured service. They are two separate issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Supreme Court would differ with your opinion of the outcome.

Mr.

Speaker, last month the Supreme Court ruled that the Health Research Ethics

Board should render decisions on applications in 30 days, rather than the six

months to a year it takes. The minister previously refused to get involved in

this issue.

Will the

minister finally be proactive and take steps to improve these timelines?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Indeed,

I've met with both. One of the applicants for research there, Sequence Bio, as

well as the Health Research Ethics agency itself. There are amendments proposed

to the Health Research Ethics act; it is due for its five-year review.

We take

to heart the ruling from the court, and we have committed extra resources to the

HREA to improve their timelines. They now have a separate committee, for

example, to deal with genetic and genomic research. We'll continue to do that,

and bring those regulations and amendments to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I quote

the Supreme Court ruling: Fewer studies translates into fewer potential benefits

down the road for the citizens of the province. Valuable medical research in

this province either did not happen or moved to other provinces as a result.

I ask

the minister: What is he going to do to ensure that the people of the province

have access to life-saving medical research?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I could do little more than

repeat my previous answer; but, essentially, we have met with the HREA. We have

given them extra resources. They are working on streamlined processes. We are

meeting the Cancer Care Ontario deadlines now for clinical trials, and we are

working on the genetics and genomics piece, which was a piece of legislation

they brought in to safeguard the interests of the people of this province, and

I'm not going to let them go back on their word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

seen the impact that this has had on the industry and potential life-saving

research that could've been done here for the people.

I ask

the minister – he's committed to additional resources: Can he outline exactly

what resources he is allocating to the ethics board to improve the services here

and the timelines for ensuring that medical research is done on a timely

fashion?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'd like

to take a little bit of an issue with the

preamble there. There has been a

reduction in some areas of clinical research in this province, but what the

Member opposite fails to take account of is the fact that that has happened

across Canada. It has happened across the globe in certain areas, as the whole

pattern of clinical research has changed from previous, older styles, if you

like, to what's called real world investigations.

We have

committed, and we've brought in successfully with MUN and partnerships there,

significant sums of money to advance that. We are working with the HREA. We have

supplied them with extra staff and resources, and we are committed to bringing

amendments to the act before this House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Last

week we learned that in the event of a failure of the Labrador-Island

Transmission Link there is no agreement with Emera to supply the 300 megawatts

required to supply the Avalon Peninsula at peak winter demand. The minister is

quoted as saying there is an agreement with Emera for 100 megawatts, if they can

spare it.

I ask

the minister: Why doesn't Nalcor have a proper written contractual arrangement

with Emera for the supply of adequate back-up power in the event of a prolonged

outage of Muskrat Falls power?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Member opposite is referring to a 2011 report wherein Hydro at the time said

they would make an arrangement with Nova Scotia for 300 megawatts.

Mr.

Speaker, as the Member opposite knows, the Public Utilities Board is currently

reviewing a report by Hydro called the

Reliability and Resource Adequacy Study , that it will review the

requirements should anything happen. I can advise the Member opposite, on a

daily basis we do have an arrangement with Emera and Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker,

we are, on occasion, taking 50 to 100 megawatts, but we will abide by what the

Public Utilities Board says coming out of the Hydro study.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to

the minister, even if it's found out that Nalcor were to access this adequate

supply, does Hydro have the capacity to transmit Nova Scotia power to the Avalon

Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, this government

has a tremendous amount of respect for the Public Utilities Board and we

certainly look to the Public Utilities Board to review the reliability and

resource adequacy report that Hydro has submitted to them. We will rely on their

expertise, their knowledge, their competencies to advise as to what should be

done in the event – however unlikely that event might be – in the event that

there is an outage on the Labrador-Island Link.

As the

people of the province know, this is coming on stream in 2020, Mr. Speaker, and

we're currently at present commissioning the Labrador-Island Link.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to

the minister, it's too bad they didn't show their respect for the PUB as soon as

they became government.

Mr.

Speaker, a failure of the LIL in the Long Range Mountains span could take weeks

to repair. Nalcor has said in that event local shedding, better known as rolling

blackouts, would be required. These blackouts would be devastating for the

people and the economy of the Avalon Peninsula.

I ask

the Premier: What plans has he in place to address this possible crisis?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take

exception to what the Member just said that we haven't, since the beginning of

our mandate here in government, really respected the Public Utilities Board. We

have throughout this entire process. I remind the people of the province, it is

this government that brought the Public Utilities Board back into Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

It was this government who

looked to the Public Utilities Board for their expertise, Mr. Speaker. As I've

advised the Member opposite, we are looking again to the Public Utilities Board

for their expertise. They are currently reviewing the

Reliability and Resource Adequacy Study

provided by Hydro. They are currently looking at that, and when they're finished

they will advise what needs to be done in the unlikelihood that something

untoward should happen.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Consumer Advocate has said unreliable Nova Scotia power in an emergency will

likely mean building new gas turbines at Holyrood to the tune of perhaps $500

million-plus fuel. He noted this flies in the face of the original reasoning for

building Muskrat Falls to replace Holyrood.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: Has she plans to buy these gas turbines and

install them at Holyrood? If not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, this government

has said repeatedly that we would never have built Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

And I can tell you the

Premier of this province worked very, very hard to ask the right questions in

this House of Assembly to determine why Muskrat Falls was being delivered at the

very beginning.

I'll

again repeat that the Public Utilities Board, with their expertise, with their

competence, is reviewing the Reliability

and Resource Adequacy Study . They will make the determination of if there

are any requirements coming out of that study, and we'll certainly be listening

to their opinion.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act , I am tabling

one order-in-council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the fiscal year

2019-2020.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

Pursuant

section 273(3) of the Elections Act,

1991 , I am tabling the Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on

Election Finances for January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice of

the following private Member's resolution:

BE IT

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

Labrador to release its electricity rate mitigation plan without delay.

That

will be seconded by the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

private Member's –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

private Member's resolution introduced by the Member for Windsor Lake will be

the resolution that we'll debate on Wednesday, Private Members' Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

two notices. The first, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Interpretation Act, Bill 59.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I give notice, seconded by the Minister of Natural

Resources, that the composition of the Resource Committee, the Government

Services Committee and the Social Services Committee will be as follows:

The

Government Services Committee will consist of the Members for the following

districts: The Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Conception Bay

South, the Member for Exploits, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for St.

George's - Humber, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port, and the Member for Terra Nova.

The

Resource Committee will consist of the Members for the following districts: The

Member for Exploits, the Member for Bonavista, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape

La Hune, the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for St. George's - Humber, the

Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, the Member for Terra Nova, and the

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

The

Social Services Committee will consist of Members of the following districts:

The Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the

Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Fogo Island - Cape

Freels, the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Member for St.

George's - Humber, the Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Stephenville

- Port an Port, and the Member for Windsor Lake.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those in favour of the

motion, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

I'd just

like to clarify for the House.

Would

you like to vote on this now or move it in debate later?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

This will require substantive

debate, so we'll discuss it tomorrow.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay.

MS. COADY:

Okay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly,

my back is feeling much better the way I'm jumping up and down here today.

During

Question Period, there was a question about travel, and I answered the question

but I don't think I got it completely correct. So I wanted to make sure I did

that.

Travel

on behalf of the client is reimbursed by the client, so I wanted to make sure I

made that clarification.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These

are the reasons for this petition:

The Bell

Island ferry service provides a vital transportation link and is only eight

minutes from port at any given time. Transport Canada regulations do not require

individuals to exit their vehicles during the commute and the provincial

government's current policy related to mandatory exiting of vehicles puts people

at a higher risk of injury than the possibility of having to evacuate the vessel

due to an emergency.

In May

2018, a risk assessment recommended that the Department of Transportation and

Works continue to require passengers to vacate these vehicles while travelling

on the Bell Island Ferry.

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

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

of Assembly to urge government to hold public consultations to discuss the

findings of the May 2018 risk assessment for the Bell Island ferry service with

the people of Bell Island.

Mr.

Speaker, we've had an opportunity over the last year and a half since this

policy has been implemented to see the increased risk that this has added to

those travelling, particularly those with medical issues and those who have

mobility issues. We wholeheartedly argue about the fact that the risk is much

higher for liability, the risk is much higher for injury than there would be of

any possibility of ever having to evacuate the vessel in a circumstance that

would dictate that you would have to get to the muster station and use the

lifeboats – keeping in mind, as we outlined here, we're eight minutes from any

given port.

In the

number of outlined evacuations, particularly in the situation we're dealing

with, 91 per cent of them are done either through the main deck, because they go

into either beach or into a wharf, or themselves have a different avenue from

being evacuated. We're not out to open seas. We're not on these processes.

I do

know the minister is very sympathetic, and I know the minister has wanted to

look at what needs to be done. Only a month ago we met with the minister with

two very competent individuals who put together a risk assessment review and

outlined some of the inadequacies in the risk assessment that was done to show

there's a higher risk of exiting your vehicle on a short run, particularly for

those who have medical issues and mobility issues.

We had

professionals, Dr. Will Lorimer and his wife, Carol Lorimer, who have a

background as consultants and who look at risk assessments and did a very

detailed assessment of what was done by the consultant company and outlined a

number of inadequacies and injustices that were done when they didn't address

the key issues. And we've already had a number of potential injuries. We've

already had people talking about legal action against it, but it's about quality

of life. It's about the risks that are being implemented here that doesn't take

into account a higher risk to the crew themselves, to government as a whole, and

to particularly those travelling.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll get to present this again, but we do ask the minister to seriously

take a look, talk to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, look at Dr.

Lorimer's report and look at how we come up with a solution that works for the

people of Bell Island, please.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. I do recognize the Lorimers who are here

today. We meet a while back to review this issue, but let me just put it in

context first. This was an independent risk assessment that was completed last

year on behalf of the department and there are a lot of things to consider here

when you think about the fact that the muster stations are on the upper deck of

the vessel and the vehicles are on a lower deck.

I do

sympathize with some of the stories that I've heard around this and I think

there is a conversation here yet to be had. We're still looking at it as a

department. I do recognize the Member opposite, I discuss this issue quite

regularly and it's one that I can assure him that, as a department, we're still

looking at.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

These

are the reasons for this petition: Newfoundland and Labrador is the only

province to still require an assessment and referral from the Centre for

Addiction and Mental Health's (CAMH) Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto; the wait

time for an assessment at CAMH is approximately two or more years; in recent

years, other provinces have improved their in-province assessment and referral

processes, in addition to increasing coverage and funding for gender-affirming

surgeries; without adequate MCP coverage, these surgeries can cost thousands of

dollars; the Department of Health and Community Services is already engaged in

investigating an in-province assessment and referral process; long wait times

for gender-affirmation surgeries often contribute to prolonged gender dysphoria

and worsened mental health; among transgender youth age 14 to 25 in Canada, 65.2

per cent considered suicide and 36.1 per cent made at least one suicide attempt

in the last year according to a 2014 Trans Youth Health Survey.

THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to: Develop an in-province assessment

process for gender-affirming surgeries that would eliminate the need for an

assessment by CAMH as the sole referral option; increase funding and coverage

for gender-affirming surgeries through MCP; expand the types of surgeries

covered to better reflect national standards.

Mr.

Speaker, these are some of the most disadvantaged, ignored, misunderstood people

in our province and they have been pushing and pushing for this with the

previous administration and now this administration. This Minister of Health has

been in his portfolio now for 3½ years and he has paid lip service to this.

believe he wants to do this but, Mr. Speaker, there's no reason on this earth

why this is taking so long. It involves people's lives. When we see how

important this assessment is – and again, we are the only province in the

country that is using CAMH as its sole assessor. It's costing the province more

money. It's costing our individual citizens more money and it is costing our

individual citizens increasing amounts of stress.

The

curious thing is that this won't cost the province any money. As a matter of

fact, it will save them money. But this just keeps being left on the backburner

as if these people don't matter.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what it would take for the minister to do this. He says

it's imminent, but we've been talking for years. I've given him names of health

providers who could do this a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, surely heavens, the

minister can answer this plea.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

The background to the

petition reads as follows:

WHEREAS

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

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

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

experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;

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

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

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

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

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

every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, we're getting more and more petitions coming in every day because this

is a big issue on the whole West Coast. As I said before, and I'm sure all the

Members in the area are concerned, they want local people hired, local skilled

people to do a great job, to spend time home.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll give the government the opportunity because I have it from a good

source, a very good source – there's a couple of companies that are out right

now that I guess are going to be subletting and the steel that they are putting

out tenders on and bids on, the steel is for 2020, not 2019. I'll give the

minister the opportunity to stand up and say construction will start this fall

as committed for a number of years.

Again,

I'm just putting it out there because I was told by a very good source that the

quotes that they're getting right now for steel is for 2020, not 2019. Before I

make any further comments, I'll let someone on the government side to respond to

it because I don't want to go out and set off alarm bells and things like that.

So, I'm

putting it out there. The people that came to me are in the know, and the people

who are affected will be affected personally by this. They just want the

information and the exact timing, because there was a commitment that this would

be awarded this year and construction started in 2019. I'm assuming, by all

accounts, that the government will fulfill that commitment to start construction

this year. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be doing my duty as an MHA if I didn't put

that out there and let the government respond to it.

To all

the local workers, Mr. Speaker, I'm confident that the fiasco that happened with

the long-term care and the person who the government appointed to be their

spokesperson, who committed that they'll be hired was never hired, so it will

not happen to me again. This is why I'm going to bring this up on a regular

basis to ensure that the government is well aware that the local people need the

work here.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to present this petition on behalf of constituents in my area.

The

Witless Bay Line, Route 13, is a significant piece of transportation

infrastructure. It's a main highway and it plays a major role in the commercial

and residential growth to the region.

THEREFORE, we petition the hon. House of Assembly to upgrade and perform

immediate maintenance to this significant piece of infrastructure to ensure

safety of drivers and improve the flow of traffic to and from the Trans-Canada

Highway to Route 10 on the Southern Shore.

This is

a piece of infrastructure I've spoken on several times here in the House over

the past couple of years in regard to upgrading. Prior to 2015, there were two

sections of highway that were done. It was just under $2 million that was done,

one on the farther end close to the Trans-Canada Highway, and one on the other

side close to Route 10. We had expected over the four years since that there

would be certainly intermittent periods of upgrades which is required.

As I

said, there are a significant amount of people that use that, commercial use,

also those that travel back and forth for work in various industrial sites on

the other side – a significant piece of infrastructure.

I know

the minister – I made him aware of it actually a couple of years ago in regard

to some of the conditions. To my understanding, he did tell me he did review it,

went in, viewed it himself and saw some of the highway. At that time, they'd

indicated that they would take a look. To date, there's no upgrades being done.

Again, I got a lot of calls over the past week and 10 days in regard to large

potholes, large craters really, and dangerous certainly in the nighttime, people

spoiling tires, and certainly the safety of the overall public.

So, at

the very least, I call on the minister to get some immediate repairs done, to

get this into their so-called Roads Program. I've tried and tried again to find

out where this road is rated, because the way their Roads Program works if

you're not selected, the road is not rated.

So we

don't know this piece of infrastructure, 24-odd kilometres, which is a

significant link to the Southern Shore, where it's even rated and why it's not

had attention over the past four years. I certainly call on the minister to

address this, the immediate needs and look at, in this construction season,

doing something to enhance it and meeting the needs of the people in the region.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

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

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

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

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

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

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

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

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes a

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

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

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

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

proper hygiene care and all other related care. This law would include creation

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

as required to ensure the safety of patients.

Mr.

Speaker, I've presented this now numerous times. Originally, in the last sitting

of the House, myself and the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi met with

the group, Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights, who presented us with a

petition with 6,000 names and we divided them up in two bundles and we each

presented 3,000 each. This time around, we were sent more petitions and the

group has asked that as opposed to presenting them all together, we're getting

them in dribs and drabs and so on, and they want us to present them on a daily

basis.

So when

I stand here on a daily basis raising this issue, I'm doing so on behalf of

those people. It's not me standing up here raising it on a daily basis, it's

those people who have seniors in long-term care that have concerns about

staffing. Those are the people who want this raised on a daily basis.

So when

the minister stands up, which he may or may not do again today, and say that I

am doing a disservice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by raising

these important issues, it is not I that he is saying is doing the disservice,

it's the families of the people in long-term care who he feels is doing a

disservice by raising these important issues around staffing for their loved

ones.

We have

to remember, it could be my parents or yours. It could be our grandparents. It

could be one of us one of these days. It's important to ensure that there's

appropriate staffing in place in these facilities to make sure that people are

being fed, that people are being bathed properly, that they're not lying for

extended periods of time after soiling themselves and so on, and that there's

someone in place to make sure people with dementia, Alzheimer's disease are not

going to be harming themselves or somebody else.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Service Newfoundland, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 57, and I further move

that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 57, and that the

said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An

Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008,” carried. (Bill 57)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Registered Nurses Act, 2008. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time? Tomorrow?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, for leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, Bill 58,

and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act,

2012, Bill 58, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment to introduce a

bill, “An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012,” carried. (Bill

58)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Regional Service Boards Act, 2012. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move seconded

by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of Whole to consider Bill 51.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

consider Bill 51.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (P. Parsons):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.” (Bill 51)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Well, Madam Chair, I guess in

reflection of the last week's dialogue, I had an opportunity to ponder that over

the weekend, and the weather also afforded me the opportunity to clean up around

the yard. And by the time I had cleaned up, there was quite a pile of manure,

and that brought me back to the minister's statement.

So I'm

going to ask: Minister, did you consider the impact of this on corporate farm

structure?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

What your considerations?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

I think he seeks a more

fulsome answer than that, Madam Chair.

believe the question, there may be a lead-in or this could be a segue to a

larger event which may follow. So I will say that this amendment allows for good

corporate governance, good corporate management, as well as individual

management of farms, both whether it be sole partnerships or corporate

structures.

The

amendment in question that we're here in the Committee of the Whole to discuss

is to allow farmers, those who hold agricultural leases, Crown lands, to be able

to clear that land, clear trees in particular, forest resources from that land,

and to do so, if they so choose, without a required prerequisite requirement of

having a commercial forestry permit.

As we

know, Madam Chair, right now under the

Forestry Act those who would engage in a sale of timber resources in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would be required to hold a commercial

forestry permit. That is to ensure the good management, good practices and the

regulated practices of our forest industry. It allows for a trail of compliance

to be able to audit but, as well, to enforce those initiatives.

What we

have recognized, what we have found from the agricultural community of our

province is that there is another nuance, another circumstance which must be

addressed, which is there are farmers who gain control of farming property,

farming land, who need, of course, to be able to cultivate that land, would have

to be able to clear those trees. At this point in time, and prior to now, that

would require a commercial forestry permit whether or not a commercial sale of

those resources was being contemplated.

What

this amendment provides is for those farmers who would otherwise clear that

land, if they do not intend a commercial sale of those timber resources, they

can simply harvest those resources and use them on site, on property. Now, the

question might become: Is it necessary for them to still hold a commercial

forestry permit should they bring those resources off farm? The answer is, right

now, yes, because there would no compliance mechanism. Enforcement officials

would not be able to determine where that fibre had come from and whether or not

it was, basically, a step around, doing through the backdoor what you could not

do through the front door.

anticipate that we will bring in future regulations that require additional

thought processes we have established – by amending the statute, Madam Chair, we

creating and we're setting the table to be able to create the legal authorities

to amend regulations. That does require some additional thought, some additional

consultation with the industry itself, both with the agricultural industry and

the forestry industry because the objective here is not to recognize that the

table or the playing field is uneven and then to correct it by creating a

separate and different unevenness to a different sector.

accept and we agree that, after consultations with the industry, the

agricultural industry have said the table is uneven; we have to have a forestry

permit in order to be able to harvest fibre from our agricultural lands. This is

not in any way, shape or form intended to be for commercial sale, so we are

seeking an exemption, they said, from the act which we are now providing. But,

on the same end, if we were then to provide an exemption for farmers, for

agriculturalists, to be able to harvest trees from a significant portion of the

land but then to able to do so, without the requirements of a commercial

forestry permit and then use it for commercial sale, that would create an

unevenness in and of itself.

This

amendment is well balanced. It meets the objectives, which is to allow farmers

to be able to harvest wood and to dispose of that wood on their own properties

without the requirements of a commercial forestry permit.

Now,

should the property, should the wood itself be used for outside of the property,

should the corporate structure, should the corporate owner of the farm or the

sole proprietor of the farm wish to use the wood for a non-farm purpose that, of

course, would be conceivably viewed by the Canada Revenue Agency as a taxable

benefit.

The

company or the corporate entity providing a taxable benefit to the farmer,

should they use it, should the farm itself bequeath or gift property of the

farm, then to be used for a purpose outside of the farm, that may – I'm not a

taxation lawyer or an accountant, but it would seem to those who would be

engaged in that process to trigger some of the requirements or some of the

jurisprudence of creating a taxable benefit to the user.

That's

why, Madam Chair, it is so, so important to get this right. We've set the table

well. We're amending the statute itself to be able to allow for consequential

regulations to be put in place that could allow a disposal or a sharing of some

of the wood on a non-commercial basis, but right now the objective here is, that

which is for a commercial purpose, wood, fibre that is harvested for a

commercial purpose would be governed and regulated under commercial forestry

permits. Wood fibre which is not to be intended for a commercial purpose or have

no further commercial concerns related to taxation would be governed simply

under an amendment of the Forestry Act

which would allow the farmer to harvest the wood and then apply that to the use

and to the benefit of their farms.

Thank

you so, so, much, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Madam Chair, if the minister

could clarify a couple of statements he just made. Basically I understood, and I

stand to be corrected, that if the wood harvested on a particular Crown lease is

removed from that Crown lease, is that still exempt under this proposed

amendment, or is a permit required for the removal of that wood to another

property or public grounds?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

That's what would be a matter

of the regulations itself. We could foresee a transfer between an entity within

the farm itself, within the farm. If a farm has two pieces of land, I can

contemplate at this point in time that there would be an opportunity and flow

within the corporate entity itself to move from one area of the farm to a

separate piece of land, to transport it to a separate piece of farm. It would be

then, the key element to this, which we would be very sensitive to, is

enforceability.

Just as

farmers would not want to have a situation where others could be able to engage

in their line of business without the proper regulation and controls, foresters

would not want that as well. The objective here is not to even out a currently

uneven playing field by simply creating a further unevenness in another

direction.

So if it

were to be gifted to an outside party, for example, that would be a

contravention of the spirit and the intent of what is being done here today.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

In reference to your recent

comments about gifting, through the briefing – which I thank you for – your

department official was quite clear that gifting was not going to be permitted.

So could

you clarify if gifting is going to be a consideration? So, I, as a farmer, or a

farmer harvests the wood off their property, are they indeed allowed to give it

to a charity or a case of charity?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

No, the official was indeed

correct, Madam Chair, that gifting would be within – the current statutory

amendment, which is being contemplated by the House, would provide an

opportunity for the farmer or the corporate entity of the farm, or the sole

proprietor or partnership of the farm to be able to harvest the wood without

applying for and receiving a commercial forestry permit or commercial

authorization by the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources for the purposes

of using the wood on the farm itself or within the corporate structure within

the farm structure.

But

gifting is not – not – entitled under this particular act. By removing a

permanent structure – and this is the important point. You can provide wood. If

you're a commercial harvester or a domestic harvester, you apply for a permit

and you receive the permit. If you then subsequently gift the wood to someone

else, you provide a written authorization to the benefactor that this wood was

harvested under this commercial forestry permit.

So there

is a notion there – but under the commercial forestry permits itself, gifting is

restricted. So where there is an actual possibility of providing a paper trail,

a demonstration that there is a legal entitlement on a commercial forestry

permit, if you are to sell the wood then the purchaser of the wood must be able

to demonstrate that they have accessed to the wood legally and they're entitled

to do so, and such would be the case here.

So by

exempting the farmer from any sort of permitting, there is no record of any

requirement or any permit or any authorization to be able to gift the wood in

that particular case, there would no indication whether or not this wood would

be achieved –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. BYRNE:

I'm not sure, Madam Chair, if

you might want to break in here at any point in time so that we can hear each

other think.

With

that said, there would be no written authorization to audit or to be able to

ensure that enforcement officers can check as to whether or not this wood was

legally obtained. That would create a situation where, as you can foresee, Madam

Chair, that anyone at that point in time could say, when approached by a

conservation officer and asked under what authority do you hold or possess this

wood, they could simply say I got it from a farm and it was gifted, so therefore

there is nothing you can do to enforce whether or not this particular wood was

honourably obtained.

That's

one of the key differences here, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

In the case where the farmer

or the developer of the property, the agriculturalist, harvests the timber and

deems it suitable for sawlogs and wishes to use for construction on a farm, what

would be the minister and department's perspective as to how that wood would

leave the property, go to a commercial sawmill, be milled into usable lumber and

returned to the farm? Is there any consideration of that situation?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

That's an interesting

proposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We're

having trouble hearing the speakers.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of

the things that the farmer could do is they could apply themselves for roughly

$30, I think, is the current rate to be able to apply for sawmilling permit.

They could do that on site.

It's a

very good question. We're getting into the fine details of this as to exactly

what would be the capacity to be able to take it off site, bring it to a

commercial establishment and then modify, process the wood, and then revert it

to the farm for an on-site use.

I'll

endeavour to get back to the Member on that particular question.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I'm still a little bit

confused on the corporate farm structure. Could the minister address whether

corporate farm shareholders will be exempt under this legislation amendment?

Will they be allowed to cut wood for their own personal use?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

No, Madam Chair. The wood

would have to be used on the farm itself. I would remind the hon. Member that he

or she would then be subject to CRA reporting in taxation. If a farm were to

award wood to an individual equity holder, shareholder, of a corporate

structured farm then, of course, it would become a taxable benefit.

There

would be two issues there that the hon. Member would have to consider if you

were to be giving advice to other farmers. One is that the wood is subvent for

use on farm work. If you trace back to where the wood was sourced and

originated, and if it were to be transferred to the personal use of one of the

corporate shareholders, there'd be two considerations that would have to be

made: The wood itself would have left the property in violation of the

Forestry Act ; but, secondly, there

would be a taxable benefit that would accrue to the shareholder as a gift from

the farm for the personal benefit of the corporate holder.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

While I appreciate the

minister's understanding of federal regulations – as I understand he's had

several decades of listening in Ottawa – I really think that we need to clarify

that.

When you

go to a private ownership, a sole proprietorship, for example, is that the

holder of that lease? Are they allowed to use the material, the wood, the fibre

in their own personal woodstoves or for their own construction of their personal

residence?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Madam Chair, I think the

issue is well clarified. I think what the hon. Member is asking for is for a

change, for an amendment. Currently, if the wood is taken off property and used

for a support purpose other than for the benefit or for to be maintained on the

farm itself, it would be in contravention of the statute. There is not

regulatory capacity at this point in time to be able to accommodate that.

I have

told the hon. Member, as I've told the farming community generally, that

consistent with the consideration of that which is commercial must remain as a

commercial regulation; that which is non-commercial must be non-commercial. But

again, if that were to be the case, that the individual in question would

receive a taxable benefit, it would have to be reported to the Canada Revenue

Agency as included as a taxable benefit on their income tax form, which I'm sure

the hon. Member would be very attuned and quite anxious to ensure his own

compliance with that requirement.

But with

that said, Madam Chair, if again, given that there is a requirement to have an

element of traceability, to be able to ensure enforceability, we cannot even an

uneven playing field by just simply taking six inches off of one leg of the

table when we're trying to correct another leg which is short by four.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, so without fairly

considerable background regulations, this amendment really provides nothing more

than the opportunity for the farmer to use the harvested wood as fence posts or,

I guess, rudimentary construction.

There

are no regulations around, or a provision to bring it to a sawmill. The farmer

themselves cannot consume the wood for heating their own personal residence. The

developer of the property cannot also transfer from one Crown lease to another,

as there's no method to document where that wood came from.

Madam

Chair, there have been several court cases in recent years in which the

department has actually brought farmers, who were clearing land, to court, and

basically tried to punish them for what they were doing with the wood. These

court cases, fortunately, were unsuccessful.

I ask the minister – we need to clarify the details. I'll refer to the

old adage: The devil is in the details. We need the details to come quickly

after this amendment is put in place. Can he assure that will happen?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, Madam Chair, we will.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Seeing

no further speakers, shall clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME

HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR: All those

against?

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it

enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session

convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CHAIR:

An Act To Amend The Forestry

Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Deputy House Leader.

MS. COADY:

I move, Madam Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 51.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 51.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report Bill 51 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed her to report Bill 51 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received? Now?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

When shall the said bill be

read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, reported received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time,

presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, Order 2, third

reading of Bill 51.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Member for Labrador West, that Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act,

be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to speak to this, while it seems as if it's a very small change and a very small

amendment to the bill, we really need to look at the effectiveness of this.

Through my questioning in Committee, I see that there hasn't been a whole lot of

thought put into the background of how this is going to be administered, how

this is going to be applied and, again, I really question whether this is just

another tick box amendment to legislation.

Just

listening to the minister's comments on Thursday past, his concept of

agriculture is very politically theatrical and a little bit out of touch with

the reality of what's happening on farms. One of his comments was: I encourage

everybody to get out on farms. Well, do you know what? I think he should follow

his own advice, maybe spend a couple of days out there working in the farm and

he'll realize what it actually takes to clear a property and to take it from a

raw piece of land and turn it into something productive.

When the

minister speaks of that we're only 10 per cent self-sufficient in food; that is

100 per cent of the food we eat. I would aspire that we will not see sufficient

climate change in our lifetimes to enable farmers of this province to grow

tropical fruit. So, when you look at increasing or doubling the production of

agricultural commodities currently produced in this province, you have to take

into consideration what effect that will have on the marketplace. To double

production of something such as carrots or cabbage or turnips, or whatever it

may be, even though we're still a long ways away from being self-sufficient,

even a temporary market flood of a certain product has big, big economic and

disastrous effect on existing farms.

So while

he may have taken my comments and concern over government's haphazard plan to –

well, plan to expand agriculture, it is not an anti-new-entrant sentiment.

children are new entrants. I really hope that the support system stands there

for them and others who would be so courageous to enter the agriculture industry

and respond to the need to increase our food supply. This is not something to be

politicized or put into a theatrical venue.

Farming

is very practical, food production is very essential and right now all our food

needs are being produced, are being supplied. Being supplied, albeit, by outside

province, but do you know what's going to happen when a local farmer here in

Newfoundland and Labrador starts producing that crop, starts producing that

product? That's going to put an increased pressure downward on the actual demand

for that product because those farmers elsewhere are still going to continue to

produce product. Albeit only temporary, it will create a glut of a certain

product and that will push the price down.

While

the minister continues to not be comprehensive of economics, that farming

actually has to be profitable in order to survey and thrive, and I understand

that because his experience outside the political theatre is very limited. To

the best of my knowledge, he has no experience of operating a farm or any type

of business, and I do not mean offence to that, but that is from the platform he

speaks about economics, economics of producing food. The economics of producing

food has to be there unless we're going to go back to some sort of collective

state farm in which the government pays for everything, which is not

sustainable.

Why is

it that these amendments are coming forward without the background put in place?

This pressure from the agriculture industry to make this amendment so farmers

are not persecuted in their development of agricultural land has been decade and

decade coming to the top and it was there the first day they took office. Now,

we are here in the weaning days of the administration and, yes, let's get that

in. Let's get that in, don't put a whole lot of thought into it but let's get it

in. We done it.

Well, do

you know what? That's a disservice to the agriculture industry. It's also a

disservice to the enforcement officers who are going to expect to digest and

interpret this vague amendment and apply it to farmers to the best of their

ability, and it's going to plug up our court system. It's going to end up in

more cases being thrown out of court. So, why is it that we have to go ahead

with this amendment without the details? The details should follow in behind

right away.

The

minister had the opportunity to stand up. Minister, how come you didn't stand up

and say that those details were on the way, that those details were being

considered? Why? Because there was no answer to that. It wasn't thought about.

Let's just make this fluffy little amendment, as I see most coming from his

department. The minister needs to look at who is actually going to clear the

land, who is going to put it in production, who is going to increase the food.

I can

quote him in Hansard as saying: Food

comes from – hold on one second. The minister, as per

Hansard , stated: People eat food but they do sometimes take farmers

and where the food comes from for granted. Now, that's one thing I do agree with

him on. But what I don't agree with is we're changing that. Why is it that we,

as a government, take credit for the hard work of the men and women of

Newfoundland and Labrador who put everything on the line everyday and work

themselves to the bone to increase our province's food security?

should be humbled by people's efforts, humbled by young people who decide to

leave, I guess, what is it you call, normal society, and jump into the field of

agriculture. That is something that we should champion, definitely not take

credit for.

Now, the

politicization of farmers and the success of the industry have no place within

this Chamber. We need to put things in place that are functional. We need to put

amendments in place within legislation that will allow farmers to harvest the

trees off the property and use the proceeds or resources from that property to

expand their agricultural operations.

Why is

it that we continue to not back up our plans with the finances? The minister

talked on Thursday of the increases in the academic field, the increases at

Grenfell, which are absolutely fantastic moves by the way, but do you know what

that's going to create? That's going to create increased competition for funds

that are destined for farmers.

We've

increased this whole level of academia, which is going to try to tap into

agricultural resources through the CAP program or the Provincial Agrifoods

Assistance Program – which, by the way, was decreased this past year in budget.

They're going to compete with farmers who should be using that money to expand

the agriculture industry and expand the sustainability of food in the province.

I'm not

saying that academia will not be able to assist in that. It's just going to be

increased competition. So while the minister stands up and says how great things

are going and how this is great that we're having an expanded industry, expanded

educational fields we need to put the dollars behind it.

If we're

looking at doubling the agricultural production in this province, if we're

looking at doubling the intellectual capacity, the education avenues available

for farmers or would-be farmers or people who would like to work and support the

industry, we're going to need, as administrators, as this government sits coming

into this coming budget – I ask them if they hope to double agriculture, why,

Minister, have you not committed to doubling the money available to farmers and

the industry.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Are there further Members who

wish to speak to the bill?

The hon.

the Member for St. George's - Humber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to take a few minutes to speak on this bill. I was interested in hearing

some of the things the Member opposite had to say and I disagree strongly with

some of the things he was saying, especially there at the end of his comments

about the funding for research into agriculture at academic institutions like

Grenfell campus is totally, I think, contrary to what is actually happening.

What is

happening is we have farmers partnering with researcher at Memorial University

to develop new crops and the way they can be grown in Newfoundland. I was at the

opening of the functional food lab at Grenfell Campus just a few months ago, and

I was amazed to see how they were working with farmers. There were several

farmers there in the room that they had been working with to develop the

marketing of their products, to look at the qualities of the products grown in

Newfoundland and how they can enter niche markets; for example, blueberries and

the quality and the taste and the way things look. Research and applying that

academic background to an agricultural industry, in partnership with farmers, is

an essential part of growing this industry and making things happen here in this

province.

So I

just wanted to make those comments on this piece of legislation. I would also

say that the Federation of Agriculture supports this, helped develop it. The

Forest Industry Association also supports it. So there was lots of consultation,

lots of talks with industry representatives when this was brought forward. It's

a very positive thing. It's a small change but many small changes make a big

impact. I think this is an important piece of legislation. It may not be earth

shattering, but it is certainly an important piece of legislation for farmers

clearing land, wanting to eliminate some of the red tape.

I would

encourage all Members to vote for this piece of legislation.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Are there further Members who

wish to speak to the bill in third reading, Bill 51?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Forestry Act. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and

its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Forestry Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Order 6, second reading of Bill 56.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move

second reading of Bill 56, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 56 entitled,

An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The

Government Of The Province And Others, be now read a second time.

Motion

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The

Government Of The Province And Others.” (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today

we're introducing the Public Service

Pensions Act, 2019 . In the last session, Mr. Speaker, we introduced the

Teachers' Pensions Act, 2018 , which

represented the final steps in pension reform for the Teachers' Pension Plan. At

that time, we said that we would be bringing forward similar legislation for the

Public Service Pension Plan in this session of the House, and that's exactly

what we're doing during this debate today.

In 2014

the previous administration, Mr. Speaker, working with the five largest unions,

reached an agreement on pension reform. It's not often you'll hear me in this

House give credit to the opposite side, but where credit is due I will give

credit. So they negotiated pension reform with the five largest public sector

unions and, since that time, shortly after that, governments changed and we've

been working with these unions to put in place a system of governance that would

sustain the public sector pension plan.

This

system will ensure that once members of the public service retire, they will

have access to an adequate pension fund. As part of the Joint Sponsorship

Agreement and Pension Plan Reform Agreement with NAPE, CUPE, IBEW, the

Registered Nurses' Union and Association of Allied Health Professionals, it was

agreed that the plan would move from being a statutory plan, which is governed

by legislation, to a non-statutory plan, which is governed by contract.

The new

act will only retain those items and terms required to provide for the

continuation of certain things set out in the Joint Sponsorship Agreement. So

we're adding in references to the Public Service Pension Plan Corporation, which

delivers plan administration services, the Public Service Pension Plan and the

Plan Fund, to recognize the continuation of these parts of the sponsorship

agreement.

The act

will also contain reference to government's obligations to the supplementary

account and to the pension plan, including our obligation to a promissory note

that will ensure that the plan is fully funded.

Mr.

Speaker, what will no longer be in the act will be provisions relating to

benefits and general plan administration. The provisions will now be captured in

the non-statutory plan.

The

pension sustainability is important for everyone in the province, Mr. Speaker.

The unfunded liability, at present stage with the public service pension, is

very large so the sustainability of the plan is important to everybody in the

province. It's important for plan members to ensure that they have a reasonable

retirement income. It's important to the provincial government as it gets

pension liability under control. It's important to taxpayers as it reduces the

financial impact by putting the plan on track to be fully funded within 30

years.

Mr.

Speaker, we've worked hard with the public sector unions to get to this stage

today. Over the past three years, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of work has been put

into ensuring that we protect the sustainability of these pensions, that we put

in place a plan to eliminate the liability. There's a plan that the plans will

be fully funded within 30 years, Mr. Speaker.

We've

worked very closely with the public sector unions in putting the plans in place

to ensure that we get the public service pensions back on track and reduce, and

eventually eliminate, the liability on the taxpayers of the province.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I will welcome debate and comments from all sides of the

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to rise to Bill 56,

An Act Respecting the Pension Plan for Employees of the

Government of the Province and Others.

As the

minister indicated this is, I guess, one of the final steps in regard to pension

reforms that were started a couple of years ago. In June of 2015, our

administration, then with Premier Marshall and the Finance minister at the time,

along with NAPE, CUPE and other unions, announced that an agreement had been

reached on pension reform that had to do with ensuring the continuity and the

viability of the pension plan due to the unfunded nature of it and how,

collectively, together, a new entity would be created. How that would be managed

by, not only the government of the day, but certainly the unions and where there

would be joint management to make sure the fund, over a period of time, I think

it was about 30 years, would be fully funded through joint partnership.

There

was a promissory note required to be given to the Public Service Pension Plan by

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and that was about $2.685 billion

and these, as I said, would be paid over that 30 years to ensure the stability

of the Public Service Pension Plan.

Also, at

that time, and different from in the past, it was just managed by the government

of the day or Finance and Treasury Board, would manage the investments and would

look at returns. In years of low returns, would have to determine how that

shortfall would be made up – most cases it wasn't – and look at periods of

higher return, how that would be reinvested and used to bring stability to the

pension plan.

At that

time, when this was done in June of 2015, it was announced, at that time, a

commitment to joint trusteeship for the pension plan and that would be joint

management on a go-forward basis. Government and the unions, at that time, would

have joint and equal representation on a new pension board, which the government

and unions would be equally responsible for, as I said, the liabilities and the

surplus which occurred in the plan in any given year.

There

was an overall management of that which included joint partnership which makes a

lot of sense. These are the stakeholders that are involved, input from both

sides and it would be managed collectively.

Legislative changes were made to the Public Service Pensions Act, which

implemented these changes and the legislation was amended to reflect other

changes agreed to by the government of the day and the unions in question. Those

were for things, changes in the legislation as pension contribution rates, what

they would be, benefits and other post-employment benefits as would be reflected

on a go-forward basis in regard to the pension plan.

At that

time in 2014, the principles of the pension reform were to deal with the

instability of the plan, to make sure over a period of time, collectively, it

could be resolved and the benefits that's accrued to individuals that work with

the public service would be available to them and they'd have the security that

it would be available to them. All those benefits would be available to them and

their family at the point of retirement.

The

principles of the reform, at that time, were: a sustainable defined benefit

pension plan, a reasonable retirement income for public services employees and a

reduced financial impact on the taxpayers by putting the plan on track to be

fully funded by 30 years.

There's

a significant amount of investment that had to be made. I talked about the fact

that it was a little over $2.5 billion, so to put that amount in at any

particular time is quite significant. The agreement by all parties is it would

be done over a 30-year period with the direction and with the result of bringing

stability to the plan. And having a clear plan in place, too, from the

bond-rating agencies and the financial institutions that look at the operations

of the province, knowing that there's a shortfall there – at that particular

time, and as of today – in regard to meeting the obligations of the pension fund

that gives confidence to financial institutions, to the bond-rating agencies

that there is a plan in place. I guess, more importantly, too, that the

stakeholders involved, the joint partnership to manage it, the liabilities and

the surpluses over that period of time would be dealt with collectively and

there's quantified, in terms of financial investment, what's required and

there's a path forward for that.

So, that

gives, not only stability to the fund, it gives stability to the financial

markets in looking at our financial planning in regard to this particular issue

of how we're doing and there's a significant plan in place to see us through the

challenge that exists.

In the

past there were similar bills that were put forward and they would have been

debated and passed in the House. We did one in the fall of 2018, but this bill

here is also a result of pension reform. As I said when I started, it's the

final step into bringing unions together and those funds that exist that they

are a responsibility of government, that implementing a Joint Sponsorship

Agreement which takes care of that.

The

Public Service Pension Plan is now administered by what's called Provident 10

It's a corporation that's jointly governed, as I mentioned, in terms of joint

partnership, joint management by the unions and the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The sponsorship agreement calls for the administrative provisions

of the plan to be moved out of the legislation and into the plan text. The plan

text is non-statutory pension plan, so it's moved out of the confines of the

legislation and into an entity that provides oversight with Provident 10 .

The

change to do that is in line with the joint nature of the pension reform. All of

those that were engaged in this, stakeholders and supporters, are involved in

the changes as we refer to is the plan text, but only the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador administers the legislation, thus it makes sense to

have the majority of the administrative provisions contained in the planned text

and not in the legislation, because that's where the joint management and

oversight comes into partnership to oversee the Joint Sponsorship Agreement.

Some

provisions, especially as it relates to legal issues, will continue to exist in

the legislation, as I referenced. These include the continuation of the fund,

the promissory note which is being invested, the supplementary account, commuted

value, locking in and other issues as well.

While

some of these will also be maintained and continued in the plan text, they're

also contained in the legislation. These are legal requirements and legal

ramifications in regard to the plan text – that's essentially a contract, and

these issues need to be recognized and established in the legislation and

maintained there.

The

officials, I certainly recognize them for the briefing they gave. They indicated

as well you cannot contract outside of the law, so keeping this legislation

provides certainty and as well enforceability in regard to those items that I

mentioned that are part and will stay in the legislation.

The bill

is intended to transition the Public Service Pension Plan from the statutory

plan to a non-statutory pension plan. The Joint Sponsorship Agreement requires

the plan to be exempt from the Pension Benefits Act, as it will no longer be a

regulated pension plan. The bill, as we have it here, Bill 56, will repeal the

current act and replace it with this bill.

As I

said, my understanding is this is the final step in implementing the Joint

Sponsorship Agreement, which our administration initiated in 2014 and we're

following through over the last number of years in regard to the various unions

to make sure we have a sustainable, clear and concise way forward to ensure the

stability of this fund for the security of families and those that are involved

in receiving benefits from this fund, that it's maintained and there's a clear

path forward in how this would be achieved. This bill today reflects that

process and brings to conclusion the overall process to get us to where we need

it to be.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'll finish my comments in second reading, but certainly look

for some discussion and some questions as we get to Committee.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy to speak to Bill 56, a bill that – as has been said by my colleague from

Ferryland – brings to an end a process that began probably going right back to

2014 with the Joint Sponsorship that he spoke about.

I'm not

going to go into all of the details. He did an excellent job in giving the whole

history of this. I thank the Minister of Finance for what he did as well. I

don't think I need to repeat everything that has been said, obviously we are

voting for this bill. I think we should be really proud of the fact that here in

this province we've taken this step with regard to the public service pensions

and, of course, the Teachers' Pensions Act as well.

I know

that some provinces have done similar things in the past; Ontario, for example,

has had separate bodies taking care of various pension plans like the secondary

school teachers pension fund, which is quite a well-known plan. I think we

should be proud of what we've done because we've given security to a plan that

was in bad shape, underfunded. Not because of the workers, mind you. The public

servants never shirked their responsibilities for their plan in the past, but

they had to bear for many years the worry and uncertainty of a plan that really

had been improperly managed by governments.

But this

is setting things straight. This is making sure that from here on in there is

security and there is stability. The one thing I would like to do – I know the

Member for Ferryland referred to their government. And I've done this; I did

this when we were approving the Teachers' Pension Plan. I want to mention Tom

Marshall by name; he was the premier at the time when his government started the

process in 2015. I think the workers of the province should be always be

grateful that Tom Marshall had vision and that he understood the need for a

defined benefit plan.

I will

always recognize him for that and certainly recognize him, too, for the way in

which he worked with the public service sector unions and with the teachers to

bring this into place. Now, with the Public Service Pensions Act finalized, we

have an end to the whole process. A process that brings stability, that makes

sure that there is reasonable retirement income for public service employees. I

think we have created a model here with the creation of Provident 10

that all the unions took

part in with government.

As I

said, I'm not going to take a long time because it's all been said, the details

of how we got to where we are. I'm very happy to support the bill. I'm glad to

see that finally now everything is in place for all of our workers.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take very long, just to say that obviously I support the bill. It was a

move that was made, as was referenced, by the former administration. I believe

Tom Marshall was the premier at the time, if I'm not mistaken, or at the very

least he was the Finance minister, and I think he might've been the interim

premier. He did negotiate an agreement on pension reform, so this is just really

bringing all groups in line with that.

It has

big implications but, I suppose, you could argue in one way it's kind of

housekeeping, but the implications certainly are large. Obviously, I think we

will all support it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to the bill?

If the

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will

close the debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Members opposite for contributing to the dialogue and debate on this

particular piece of legislation. I believe it's a good piece of legislation. A