PDF Version

November 6, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 29

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I'm very pleased to introduce Ms. Rose Adams. Ms. Adams

was in Labrador last week sharing her message of overcoming an extremely

difficult childhood in foster care to become a very successful lawyer and

motivational speaker.

Sponsored by the Rotary Club and Terrington Cooperative, her message of dealing

with adversity provided inspiration for hundreds of students and community

leaders.

Welcome,

Ms. Adams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to recognize in

the gallery today Mayor John Spencer and councillor Jim Lane from the Town of

Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to welcome two

people who will be the subject of a Member's statement today, Mr. Bob Dawson,

who is the executive director of the Froude Avenue Community Centre, along with

Enid Pendergast who is a social worker.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to welcome

Carter Churchill, who is a deaf Grade 1 student, along with his parents Kimberly

and Todd Churchill, who are here today for the presentation of a petition.

A very

big welcome to you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Finally, as is tradition, I'd

also like to recognize in the public gallery a former member and minister, Ms.

Susan Sullivan, who represented the District of Grand Falls-Windsor – Buchans.

A very

big welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we begin with Members'

statements today, I understand the hon. the Premier has leave to give a

statement.

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to pay tribute to a real-life superhero, Miss Isla

Short.

Mr.

Speaker, Isla Short embodied the definition of inspiration and bravery. She was

diagnosed with stage 4 neuroblastoma in December 2015 when she was just 18

months old.

Isla

inspired those around her so much that a children's book was written in her

honour with a positive and uplifting message about how cheerfulness and love can

inspire all of us.

Mr.

Speaker, Isla's circle of love is so profound that her hometown of Deer Lake

changed its name to Islaview in her honour for a day.

Tragically, Mr. Speaker, the Town of Islaview lost its leader last week at only

3½ years of age; and her family, her friends and hometown are mourning a great

loss.

Isla's

light shone for only a short period of time, but it shone so bright that many of

us will continue to see it forever.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of this House to keep her parents, Michael and

Sarah Short, in their thoughts and their prayers. Isla will forever be known as

one of the bravest and the most fearless resident of the town that I call home,

Islaview.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

from the hon. Members for the Districts of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune,

Conception Bay South, Placentia West – Bellevue, St. John's Centre, Baie Verte –

Green Bay, Windsor Lake.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

to recognize the 102nd birthday of Laura Gale on July 12 this summer, a very

special lady who spent her life caring for others. Laura's longevity is due in

part to her warm-hearted nature and her strong work ethic.

Laura

has a fantastic memory and it's a real treat to share in her recollections of

growing up in Bay d'Espoir, including her experience when the 1929 tsunami

struck. With her gift for storytelling, one can visualize her fleeing for

safety, jumping fences along the way and meeting her mother's kettle coming out

through the door as she approached her home.

Laura

did the hardest kind of work during her service at the Stephenville military

base from 1942 until its closure in 1966, caring for local priests until she

retired at 65 and then her mother who lived to be 99. You were very lucky indeed

if you ever enjoyed some of her fancy cooking and renowned baked Alaskan pie.

Friends and family adore Laura for her wonderful humour and compassion – she

never complains and accepts life for what it is. She still loves to socialize

and play bingo.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in wishing Laura a very happy 102nd

birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on September 23, I had the pleasure of attending the Canada 150

Ceremonial Tree Planting Event held at Manuels River.

The

Manuels River Hibernia

Interpretation Centre was the only site in our province

chosen to take

part in this tree-planting initiative, sponsored by the

Canada's 150th anniversary of Confederation.

Trees

are a symbol of growth, strength, sustainability, hope and peace. Three

commemorative trees were planted, including: the Canadian red maple,

representing Canada; the white birch tree, representing First Nations; and the

Newfoundland pine, representing Newfoundland and Labrador. Approximately 600

various Canadian trees and 300 shrubs were also planted along the Manuels River

Trail through the Tree Canada program.

Mr.

Speaker, this was a great event and the environment was one of the major themes

at the heart of the celebrations for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. The

Canada 150 project, Tree to our Nature, will leave a lasting legacy for future

generations.

I would

like to acknowledge everyone for taking

part in this inspiring project.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West – Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, not once, not

twice, not three times – in fact, I've lost count – but, Mr. Speaker, she's done

it again!

At the

most recent Skate Canada International Competition – one of the prelude

competitions leading up to the Olympics in South Korea – Kaetlyn Osmond not only

outpaced the 12-women field competing for this coveted podium placing, she came

away with a gold medal win.

She

first won this same title in 2012, then at the age of 16, prior to her

devastating injury which most pundits said would derail her promising skating

career. “Not so,” she said, and true to the Marystown spirit bred in her, she

vowed to rise again. Mr. Speaker, she has time and time again.

Earlier

this year, I had the pleasure of welcoming Kaetlyn back to the province, along

with family and fans, and I can tell you unequivocally she is skilled and

talented, and she is a Newfoundlander and Labradorian first.

We are

proud of her accomplishments; we revere her humility and poise. But her greatest

gift is the example that she is, that no matter if you are from Medicine Hat,

Montreal or from Marystown, with the support of your family, of community and

belief in yourself, you can compete on the world stage.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in saying congratulations and good

luck as Kaetlyn heads towards the Olympics.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On June

26, a devastating fire destroyed eight homes in the Froude Avenue community,

severely damaging an additional 14 homes. It was a night of incredible loss.

Families with children, seniors, people with physical disabilities lost

everything they owned, escaping with simply the clothes on their backs. Family

pets, irreplaceable family heirlooms, photos were gone. Shock, fear and terror,

the whole community was grief stricken.

When I

arrived on the scene, police, firefighters and other first responders were

working hard to get the fire under control, ensuring the safety of the

community.

In the

midst of it all, making sure everyone was being taken care of, were Bob Dawson,

Enid Pendergast and Lyndsay Hynes, the amazing team of Froude Avenue Community

Centre. They worked all through the night coordinating efforts of the dedicated

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing workers, making sure everyone was accounted

for and housed for the night, that people had their necessary medications.

They

continued to help people deal with the grief, shock and so much more. The

community responded with generosity, and donations poured in. The compassion was

astounding.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking Bob, Enid and Lyndsay who championed the

recovery of their community. They are true heroes, Mr. Speaker. Bravo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte – Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Mr. Dennis Gill of Pilley's Island who was recently appointed

to serve his third term on the provincial advisory council for the inclusion of

persons with disabilities.

Mr. Gill

and his family have firsthand knowledge of persons living with challenges as

their son Daniel has severe intellectual and physical development delays, and he

has turned his understanding of these challenges into advocacy for families.

Mr. Gill

also serves as President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for

Community Living as well as a member of the Canadian Association. He was awarded

the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medal for his volunteer work with

associations that strive to better the lives of people with disabilities.

Mr. Gill

is a retired educator and is especially interested in providing inclusive

education for children with intellectual disabilities to ensure they are

included in regular classroom activities.

I would

like to invite all hon. Members to join me in showing our appreciation to an

outstanding Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Dennis Gill for his continued

compassion towards persons with disabilities.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Windsor Lake.

MS. C. BENNETT:

It is with pride, Mr. Speaker, that I rise today to recognize Verafin and the

amazing support they have shown Thrive's Blue Door Program this year.

Located

in my District of Windsor Lake, Verafin is a successful global company that

offers solutions to combat fraud and money laundering. Blue Door's programs are

designed to support children and young adults to exit exploitive situations,

including sex trafficking.

Two

events were hosted by VeraCares to help raise money to support the survivors in

the Blue Door Program.

The team

at Verafin organized a walk/run event which was held on Sunday, September 24.

Almost 200 Verafin employees, family members, runners, walkers and Thrive team

members participated in the event at Bowring Park. With the success of the

event, the wonderful team at Verafin plans to make the walk an annual one.

charity softball tournament was also organized with seven corporate teams,

including one from Verafin, joining together on September 29 to raise even more

money for Blue Door's work. Both these events raised over $20,000.

What an

amazingly powerful partnership between Verafin and Blue Door.

I am

honoured to recognize team Verafin for the tremendous work they have done to

give back to our community.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to

congratulate Joel Thomas Hynes on receiving the 2017 Governor General's Literary

We'll All Be Burnt in Our Beds Some Night .

In what some consider the most

prestigious literary prize in the country, Hynes' novel was one of 14 winners

chosen from a list of 70 finalists.

We'll All Be Burnt in Our Beds Some

Night , which is also longlisted for the 2017 Scotiabank Giller Prize, is

about one man's kicking-and-screaming attempt to recuperate from a life of petty

crime and shattered relationships. The award jury praised the story as “an act

of full-throttle imagination and narrative invention.”

Mr. Speaker, along with being an

acclaimed author, Joel Thomas Hynes is certainly making his mark in the

entertainment scene across this country. As an award-winning, multi-disciplinary

artist, he has worked in the Canadian film and television industry for more than

15 years as a writer, actor and director.

Currently, Hynes is starring as

lightweight boxer Tommy “Little Dog” Ross, who engages in a haphazard quest for

redemption in the CBC series called “Little Dog.” This dark comedy is set to be

released in 2018.

Mr.

Speaker, Joel Thomas Hynes is a shining example of the many talented artists we

have here in our province. Newfoundland and Labrador has a rich and unique

artistic community that works tirelessly to create, produce and showcase some of

the best work featured in this country and around the world.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Joel Thomas Hynes

on his Governor General's Literary Award, and his continued development into one

of the most distinctive and recognizable voices in Canada.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr.

Speaker, we, too, are pleased to congratulate Joel Thomas Hynes on receiving the

Governor General's Literacy Award. This is indeed a very prestigious award that

recognizes some of the best Canadian books there are to offer. I also

congratulate Mr. Hynes on having his book longlisted for this year's Giller

Prize, which also recognizes excellence in Canadian fiction.

Mr.

Speaker, what an honour for Mr. Hynes, for his family and for his friends and,

indeed, the entire province. Mr. Hynes originates from Calvert on the Southern

Shore and, again, is an indication of the great talent that we have on the

Southern Shore in terms of culture, theatre and talent of all those involved in

the theatre industry. He's certainly a very talented individual and I'm sure

that given his abilities across so many disciplines, there's much more to come

from Mr. Hynes.

I look

forward to and wish him success and join the minister in congratulating this

tremendous achievement by Mr. Hynes, and I'm sure there's more to come.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for the advance copy of his statement. How great to celebrate Joel

Thomas Hynes right away on Monday today. I had the privilege of working with

Joel on a writing and film project in Her Majesty's Penitentiary. It was amazing

to watch his passion and compassion and insight at work. It is those incredible

skills he brings to all his work.

Joel has

won the Governor General's Award, how perfect – how very, very perfect is that.

Bravo, Joel Thomas Hynes!

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I had the

opportunity last week to showcase our mineral exploration and mining industry at

Mineral Resources Review, which is Atlantic Canada's largest industry conference

and trade show, attracting over 700 delegates, exhibitors and visitors.

Mining

is a major contributor to our economy and this year's conference provided a

great opportunity to highlight the work we are doing to advance the province's

mineral exploration and mining industry, which currently employs 5,000 people

and is forecast to ship $3.7 billion in minerals this year.

Our

government supports growth in the mineral industry through public geoscience,

efficient and transparent regulation, the core-storage program, promotions,

prospector training and mentoring and the mineral incentive program.

We are

attracting exploration activities and generating new development. We are working

closely with the mining industry and with communities in which they operate to

increase investment and grow the economy.

And the

results are tangible – exciting things, for example, are happening at Canada

Fluorspar, which is well into the construction of their mine in St. Lawrence.

IOC just did their first blast on the Wabush 3 project, which is always exciting

in the mineral industry. And in Wabush, Tacora is completing a feasibility

study, representing another important milestone in the efforts to restart Wabush

Mines. In addition, there are many advanced exploration projects ready for

potential investment in gold, base metals, rare earth minerals and other

commodities.

I'd like

to thank all those involved in the Mineral Resources Review. By creating an

attractive environment for exploration, we are strengthening the industry and

growing private sector jobs and the economy throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, too,

commend all of those who took

part in the Mineral Resources Review last week and

the success we've seen in the province.

Over the

past number of years, there's been work and due diligence done as it pertains to

the provincial mining industry and the mining exploration industry in general in

Newfoundland and Labrador. This industry, as the minister has indicated, is

immensely valuable to the provincial economy and the industry is one of the

largest employers in our province.

While we

have hope and optimism for the provincial mining industry, future growth and

development in this sector can only be made possible when a government creates a

climate that consists of growing the economy and strategically encouraging

resource development, along with the environment, for investment.

There is

optimism for the provincial mining industry. I suggest and encourage government

to continue their efforts which result in growth and development and further

investment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I think it is good

that government is working with the mining industry attracting exploration and

generating new development, but government cannot forget the social

environmental consequences of mining.

Government must ensure that communities involved in mining developments be the

prime beneficiaries of these projects. Government must also ensure the

environment does not take a backseat to job creation. We still have too many

cleanup projects from irresponsible mining development in the past.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the economy is on everyone's mind, especially here in Newfoundland and

Labrador where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout our province fear for

what lays ahead.

The

Auditor General released a report just last month and he indicated that

government's expenses were reduced by $187 million, or 2.3 will be reduced over

the next six years; $187 million, Mr. Speaker, over six years.

I ask

the Minister of Finance, when will he roll out his expenditure reduction plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for his question. It is an important question because the fiscal

situation that the province is in is on the minds of everybody in Newfoundland

and Labrador. We are very concerned on this side. We've said we're taking a

balanced approach to how we deal with that fiscal situation.

The

Auditor General, when he released his report, had said we'd made great strides

in reducing the province's deficit. We're going to continue to do that. We're

going to continue to practice responsible, fiscal management and to return this

province to a sound, fiscal footing. Mr. Speaker, that's our aim, that's our

goal.

Our

mid-year update, I say to the Member opposite, will be coming – I promised it by

the middle of November, the middle of November is fast approaching and you'll

have it by then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

appreciate the information from the minister. All the way back to 2016-'17, the

government was talking about expenditure reductions. The Auditor General has

referred to this expenditure reduction and he said it was actually only $68

million.

Minister, can you confirm that was the right numbers, what the Auditor General

had referenced? Also, my question to you was: What is your plan, and will you

roll that out in your fall fiscal update? What is your plan for deficit

reduction?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know

the Member is excited to get our fall fiscal update. I say to him, he's going to

have to wait just a few more days because the middle of November is fast

approaching.

Mr.

Speaker, we have made great strides in reducing the province's fiscal deficit.

From the $2.7 billion that the Member opposite left this province – and I might

remind him, they projected $1.1 billion, Mr. Speaker. They continued to have the

people of the province believe that was the number. They went through the

campaign promising additional spending, promising schools. Leading people to

believe, Mr. Speaker, that the fiscal situation of the province wasn't as bad as

it was.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, we're being honest with the people of the province; we were from

the very beginning. That the fiscal situation of the province was very real, and

we've taken measures to address that fiscal situation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

We've gotten the deficit down

to $1 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, shame on us

for building schools for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, this government

has been in power now for two years. It is their mandate to manage the affairs

of the province. The Auditor General also indicated the government's fiscal plan

up to 2022-2023 is forecasting a reduced expenditure by just 2.3 per cent.

Minister, is that statement correct? Because if you're looking for a balanced

approach, you've certainly taxed people to no end but you've done nothing to

reduce expenditures, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite

ironic for a gentleman that left the province with a $2.7 billion deficit and

didn't tell anybody in the public and didn't tell the people in our party, that

the deficit, the fiscal crisis the province was facing, can stand there and say

we've put in measures that were difficult on people, as though it's a story of –

it's a tale of two stories, I say, Mr. Speaker.

They led

the people of the province, even throughout the general election of 2015, to

think that our fiscal situation was solid. Not shame on you for building

schools, shame on you for promising what you couldn't deliver because he knew,

or he ought to have known the fiscal situation the province was in and didn't

tell anybody. We were honest right from the start and told people the situation

the province was in.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Maybe

the minister was too distracted in 2015 to watch what was happening, because we

were the only party that campaigned on cost reduction and tax increases because

it had to be done for the province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

October 25, very recently, the minister himself stated that tax increases are

not the answer to the spending problem. Even though that's the only choice the

government has made in two years is to tax, tax and tax.

I ask

the minister: If you're looking for that balanced approach and you saying you're

going to find it, and you're so concerned about the future, why did you, your

government, introduce 300 new taxes and fees and burden Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, why

the difficult decisions were made in the 2016 budget that were made, because he

led the people of the province to believe the fiscal deficit was $1.1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, when this party took government we were borrowing on average $4.38

million a day to deal with the fiscal deficit that you wouldn't tell the people

the truth about.

Mr.

Speaker, the reality is that the bond-rating agencies and the lending agencies

had told this government to take very quick and very decisive action to correct

the fiscal crisis generated by that side of the House, and that's what we did.

The

reality, Mr. Speaker, is nobody wants those tax increases and as we can afford

to reduce those and eliminate them, we will.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister talks about rapid and quick action. Mr. Speaker, the only thing they've

done for two years is put taxes and fees on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

like has never been done before in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

They've taken no action to

adjust their expenditures, and that's the side of the balance sheet that the

minister is forgetting.

When

will you address those taxes and fees that you burdened on the people in

2016-2017? Those same taxes and fees that are driving people from our province

like we haven't seen in decades, that are burdening Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians like we haven't seen before – the same taxes and fees that has put

our economy into a spin that's shocked Newfoundland and Labrador's economy.

I ask

the minister: When are you going to do that? When are you going to lift that tax

burden?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to

borrow a line from An Officer and A

Gentleman : You can't handle the truth.

Mr.

Speaker, the reality here is we'd reduced the gas tax already. It's due for

another reduction December 1. We have legislation in place to eliminate the

levy. We've reduced the size of the core public service by over 600 positions.

We have reduced the deficit from $2.7 billion down to less than $1 billion and

we will continue –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

all hon. Members, the temperature is getting up a little bit. Let's just keep it

down. I want to hear only from the identified MHA, please.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon.

the minister is, I don't think, good with finance and not good with movies. That

wasn't the movie he actually quoted. He quoted the wrong movie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So he needs to do some work

on movies, but I'd suggest he give up the movies and start working on the

finances of the province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, will the

minister acknowledge that the Auditor General's recent findings that to reach

the government's six-year target, taxes and fees in Newfoundland and Labrador

would have to increase on an average of 28 per cent from where it is today to

reach the target and revenue increases of $1.1 billion that they have identified

for 2022-2023?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the numbers that

the Auditor General used is no surprise to anybody. We've been very transparent

about the fiscal situation the province is in. We are facing challenging times,

Mr. Speaker, and we have challenging times ahead, but what I will say is that

we've been working very hard.

I have

indicated very clearly that we have no interest in digging any deeper into the

taxpayers' pockets in this province, but we do have to find savings. We have

been finding those savings, including a reduction from $2.7 billion in projected

deficit down to less than a billion dollars this year. We are finding those

savings. But I ask the Member opposite: Without digging any deeper into the

taxpayers' pockets, where do you want us to cut to find the savings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, it is their

fiscal plan; their names are on the door that is running government for the past

24 months. It is their obligation to tell the people of the province what

they're going to do. It is about them and their provincial plan.

Mr.

Speaker, $1.1 billion increase in revenues by 2022-2023. That is what the

Auditor General said; it's in his report. Now, can the minister tell us where is

that coming from, or is the Auditor General correct and those numbers are not

accurate? Simple question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As costs

increase in the province, which they do, the cost of operating your home, the

cost of operating buildings, the cost of building new buildings – as those

increase, obviously there is going to be costs.

Mr.

Speaker, we have taken a very responsible approach to reducing and maintaining

costs in this province. I ask the Member opposite again, because if we are going

to really deal with the fiscal situation of this province without digging any

deeper in the taxpayers' pockets, where does he believe that we should cut?

I put an

invitation out to the Leader of the Opposition, months ago, and to the

Opposition House Leader – months ago: My office door is open; if you have

answers, bring them to me. But I hope the answers are better than the fiscal

restraint that Muskrat Falls has put on the province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I will say to

the Minister of Finance of the decision they made on the middle school on the

Southern Shore, I asked him to meet with the parents of the Southern Shore and

meet with me on that, which is a financial mess, and he would not. So don't tell

me your door is open, Sir, when it is not open to the people of the Ferryland

district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

How dare you say that?

Mr.

Speaker, in 2016 the Liberals imposed more than 300 taxes and fee hikes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

First

and final warning, I only want to hear from the Member identified.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2016

the Liberals imposed more than 300 taxes and fee hikes. And almost all of the

300 remain in place today in 2017.

Has the

minister considered that the failed budget of 2016 and 2017 is a large part of

the reason that thousands of jobs are disappearing across our province and

people are leaving?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I

will provide the truth for the Member opposite. I am not the Minister of

Transportation and Works, nor am I the minister responsible for Education. I

don't make the decision on the decision on the building of schools, but to

answer the question that the Member put forward, Mr. Speaker, we are reducing

taxes. We've reduced the gas tax; we've eliminated the book tax. We are

continuing to focus on the levy which is legislated to be removed in 2019. We'll

continue on doing that.

I'll ask

the Member again, without those increases we would have faced a downgrade in our

borrowing ability. The lending agencies were threatening not to lend money. What

would you have done?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

What would you have done to

fix the fiscal crisis you left?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

minister just admitted he wouldn't meet with the parents group from the Southern

Shore concerning the middle school when they felt the financial investment

wasn't the right one. Apparently that's not his concern, that's with some other

minister, but I thought he was the Minister of Finance.

Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Natural Resources confirm the Auditor General's

finding that almost 27 per cent of the growth the province is forecasting in

2022-2023 is expected from oil while the remaining 73 per cent is expected to

come from other sources, including expected profits from Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, we know who

torpedoed the finances of this province and we also know what torpedoed the

finances of this project. It was Muskrat Falls.

Mr.

Speaker, to the question the minister opposite asked: Oil and gas development is

continuing in this province. I'm sure Members opposite are equally as determined

to ensure that our offshore oil and gas continues its development.

We have

good success in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. We're hoping for continued success in

the Flemish Pass, Mr. Speaker, as well as some of the new other basins. There

are over 20 basins and 350 leads and prospects – 350 leads and prospects – in

this province in the oil and gas industry.

It is

with great anticipation, Mr. Speaker, and hope that we will drive the 23 per

cent of growth in this province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister, based on her answer there: Why the contradiction of

Muskrat Falls?

The AG

has it in his report. Why did you include expected profit from Muskrat Falls in

your revenue forecasts for 2022-2023 while you criticized the project publicly?

The

Premier stated there's nowhere to sell the surplus power, yet for their fiscal

plan for 2022-2023, they're including the sale of excess energy to get them

through revenue generation over that six-year period.

You

can't have it both ways, which is it? Is the AG right or are you right?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I get

the opportunity to actually stand and address this question. The Member opposite

should know full well why the profits are at Muskrat Falls because they put in

legislation that will restrict people, ratepayers of this province to have any

option except pay the exorbitant costs they put in place. That is the only thing

that generates profits from Muskrat Falls, is legislation that says there's

almost a 9 per cent rate of return on whatever the cost is.

They

told people in this province it would not go up, that there would not be cost

overruns. They also made sure the people in this province would have to pay for

whatever the cost is. They are the ones that made those decisions and they

should be ashamed of them today. To suggest the Tory tax on electricity, it is

the largest tax in the history of this province and they are responsible for it

and they know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier should be ashamed that he can't give insight into what the

AG has said, whether he is correct or not. It's a very simple question. In their

fiscal plan for '22-'23, they're estimating a $1.1 billion revenue increase

based on a number of factors. One of those factors is Muskrat Falls and the sale

of excess energy.

So if

you don't support the project and there's nowhere to sell the energy, how are

you using it in saying that's going to be used to give you increased revenue for

'22-'23 in your six-year plan? How is it, Premier? Tell us.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

I'm curious, Mr. Speaker,

even just standing here and addressing this, because the very Member opposite,

when we were asking to have the sale of surplus power to go ahead to reduce

rates in our province, they refused to do that. They refused to do it.

wasn't until the election, with the former Minister of Natural Resources during

a debate with VOCM, made the announcement that they would accept the policy we

had put forward, Mr. Speaker. That was driven by those of us on this side so we

could help support ratepayers.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no question about it. They were just talking about a mid-year

update. Do you know one former premier who refused to put a mid-year update out?

Who was that former premier, Mr. Speaker? It was the Leader of the Opposition in

2015. He would not put out a mid-year update in 2015 for the first time in

history.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Why was there no dialogue between the communities of Bell Island

and Fogo – Change Islands when they made the devastating changes to the ferry

service last week?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member opposite for the opportunity to address this ongoing issue.

Mr.

Speaker, one thing we're not going to do as a government is accept

responsibility for the blunders of the previous administration; $100 million for

two ferries that have not been successful in this province.

Talk

about dialogue, on Thursday morning, Mr. Speaker, as we were getting ready to

make the unfortunate changes that we have to make because of their

mismanagement, I contacted the Member opposite and I explained the changes to

him. We talked about it, the fact that here's where we are.

I talked

to the Mayor of Bell Island on the weekend. I talked to the Mayor of Bell Island

again this morning. My staff worked all weekend, with a dialogue of how we can

make this work, and we've come to a solution, Mr. Speaker, that best respects

the people using the service and the taxpayers of the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Well, I have to correct the

minister there because he talks about a blunder. That's why there are 100 people

standing on the ramp of a ferry now, and that's not a blunder. They want to keep

a ferry that's reliable. That's why it's been effective for them.

I also

want to note to the minister, he seems to forget the email I sent him only

Friday giving him a number of suggestions, telling him that what was suggested

would not be acceptable and would not work for the people travelling to and from

Bell Island, and even for Fogo Island. The dialogue only happened after a

protest. So you had no open dialogue with the people of either one of these

communities.

Why

won't your government entertain other options to accommodate both of these

communities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the hon. Member opposite that the wharf they're stood on is the one you forgot

to build.

Mr.

Speaker, if you look at the solutions we put forward, the reality here is, what

we're suggesting is what can be in place as early as tomorrow is 18 trips. Today

we will have 16 trips starting at 5:25 a.m. We're offering 18 trips starting

tomorrow morning at 5 a.m.

The

options put forward also have to be considered for what it's going to cost us as

a province. We subsidize ferries in this province today to a tune of $72

million. The Bell Island run alone is subsidized by the taxpayers of this

province to the tune of $14 million a year, Mr. Speaker. The reality here is we

have a couple of options. One would cost the taxpayers of this province $56,000

and one $200,000.

Mr.

Speaker, we're going to use the $56,000 option because it's the most respect we

can pay to the taxpayers of the province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I take exception

to them making fun of the travelling people to and from Bell Island. We had

dialysis patients this morning, six of them could not get to their treatments

because the elevator is not working on the

Flanders and their idiotic policy – and I call it an idiotic policy –

refusing to let people who have a disability get on that ferry because the

elevator is not working.

The

second thing; eight patients have to come over for cancer treatments and not

being able to get there, and making this as a funny joke. This is not a funny

joke. The 300 workers who everyday come over, to provide services to people in

Newfoundland and Labrador, are not given that opportunity.

I ask

the minister one more time: Will you be engaged to come up with an immediate

solution that works for both of these communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, we've been

engaged all weekend. We've been engaged since we ran into the problems again

with the Veteran. This morning there

were some medical issues on the island and we do have an elevator issue on the

boat.

Mr.

Speaker, the reality is we have air service in place for people that need to get

to emergency medical transportation. Just 10 questions ago, we had the Leader of

the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader stood up talking about: What are

you going to cut? What are you going to cut? We haven't cut enough.

We've

proposed a solution to the residents of Bell Island that will give them 18 runs

tomorrow. When we looked at the issue we're facing here, the reason for two

vessels on the Bell Island run is the reality that if something happens, we need

the second vessel in Bell Island. Mr. Speaker, that's where we are today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

And I go back to my initial

question; you didn't have dialogue. What you offered is not workable to the

people of Bell Island.

They

came back with a solution that says you cannot get 400 people off Bell Island in

a timely fashion to get to work or get to their medical appointments in that

time frame using the Beaumont Hamel .

They gave you a simple solution: Go back to what we had prior to the

Legionnaire arriving. That would have

been conducive to everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Fogo would have been happy,

Change Islands would have been happy and so would have been the people of Bell

Island, but you denied that.

Why will

you not now entertain the solution that the ferry users committee have come up

with and the dialogue that they've had back and forth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

The hon.

Member opposite was an open-line show this morning and stated that there's a 30

per cent difference in the size of vehicle capacity from the

Flanders to the

Beaumont Hamel . I'd correct his math on that because, Mr. Speaker,

the Flanders handles 36 vehicles and

the Beaumont Hamel 33.

The

solution that we've offered to make up for that capacity, Mr. Speaker is a 5

a.m. run. This morning we started at 5:25. Under the two-vessel

schedule that we

have proposed, there would be a vessel starting tomorrow morning at 5 a.m. for a

total of 18 runs.

It's

reasonable. It's the most cost-effective method that we can get to where we need

to be. We realize the people of Bell Island need this service. We're committed

to giving them the service. That's why we've offered the two vessels, Mr.

Speaker. We will work with the people to make sure that we get the best service

possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The solution that was offered

would be no more costly to the department; the crews are already in play. It

would be conducive to the needs of the working public and the medical needs of

the people travelling, yet you would not even entertain the conversation. You

would not even give the courtesy to the communities involved to say: Why don't

you engage the citizens?

You're

an open and transparent government over there; I've been hearing that for the

last 24 months. Now, all of a sudden, you can't engage two communities to come

up with a solution – the people who use the services every day.

Again, I

ask: Will you engage the communities and come up with a solution that's

acceptable for them?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if

the Member opposite heard what I said earlier. I've spoken to the mayor on two

occasions since Thursday. I'm meeting with the mayor again later this afternoon.

We've been consulting as a department all weekend long.

The

Member opposite, who was a former minister of this very department, stands up

and asks questions. Mr. Speaker, he sat in the very chair I sit in. The

Beaumont Hamel is a swing vessel. So

what happens, when a swing vessel comes into operation, she takes the

schedule

of the vessel she's replacing. Those are contractual arrangements.

Mr.

Speaker, no wonder we're in the mess we're in when it comes to some of the

ferries around this province when the former minister didn't even understand the

system when he was there. It's astonishing that he stands up here today and

offers suggestions that he knows are not possible.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's the

same minister who didn't know where the Crown Lands department was going to move

to in Corner Brook and he's lecturing me about what goes on in the ferry

services. I've travelled that for years and was the minister responsible.

I ask

again: Are you going to entertain a possible solution that will be put forward

by the ferry users committee? You haven't had any dialogue with the people in

Fogo-Change Islands; I know that for a fact because I have had dialogue with

people there.

I know

you have a meeting coming up in the next hour or so. Are you going to entertain

a possible solution to address this issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, we're always open to entertaining solutions to issues, but the

reality is we have to also make sure that we're doing it in the best interest of

the taxpayers of this province.

Mr.

Speaker, we spent more money this year on ferries than we did on our roads

capital program. Mr. Speaker, that's the legacy of the previous administration.

They bought these two new ferries with one-year warranties – one-year

warranties. It's only because of the former minister of Transportation that we

managed to get a two-year warranty on the

Veteran but we still have a one-year warranty on the

Legionnaire because of

the deal they negotiated.

We are

looking at tariffs – do you know what they negotiated? They had tariffs. We had

to go to Ottawa and get the tariffs relieved, Mr. Speaker. So that's how good

they were with ferries.

Again, I

remind them they built a ferry and forget the wharf.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Section

17 . 1(4) of the Energy

Corporation Act states: Nalcor and all subsidiaries shall report to the

minister every six months on their procurement activities and shall include a

summary of contracts entered into and the identities of suppliers.

I ask

the Premier: Were these regular reports received? If so, was information on

embedded contractors provided?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Member opposite knows, the legislation was brought in by the former

administration and we are equally concerned on this side of the House, as people

are throughout the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the impacts

of this Muskrat Falls Project.

received regular and multiple reports to the Oversight Committee and to the

department on contracts, on what's happening with Muskrat Falls, what's

happening with Nalcor, as well as what's happening with the entire project.

Mr.

Speaker, if she has a specific question on a specific contract, I'd be happy to

provide it for her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I had a very

specific question: Was information on embedded contractors provided; were

identities of the suppliers included, as demanded by the legislation? Very clear

question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, the level of

detail that the Member opposite is asking on embedded contractors, as the Member

opposite knows and as everyone in this House knows, and perhaps everyone in the

province will know, in 2012 and 2013 when sanction occurred with Muskrat Falls

there was a decision taken by the former administration to do an integrated

project model and that integrated project model meant that Nalcor became the

lead on the project development with SNC-Lavalin, so they embedded the

SNC-Lavalin people. That occurred back in 2012-2013.

If the

question is do we have the individual names of the individuals on these embedded

contracts, I'm sure we would have them on a conglomerate list but not an

individual list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I will make it

very clear again: The legislation says that Nalcor and all subsidiaries will

report on their procurement activities and shall include a

summary of contracts

entered into and the identities of suppliers. An individual embedded contract is

a supplier of a service and should be identified.

Have

they demanded that identification and, if so, why is it not made public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The key

word there is a

summary. We do also have the identities of contracts that are

made to Nalcor and then onwards to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

But these contracts are held by Nalcor. They are negotiated by Nalcor. Some of

the other requirements under the act are that Nalcor does ensure the protection

of privacy of the contracts.

Mr.

Speaker, we do have the

summary. We have identified the contracts, as such. I

think what the Member is asking is do we have the individual names of the people

who are the embedded contractors. To that, I would refer to Nalcor who is the

project manager and the lead on this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, the legislation

makes it very clear that Nalcor is supposed to do what I've now quoted twice.

The legislation also makes it clear that the minister is supposed to table those

reports that would include all of this information.

Why

hasn't the minister tabled those reports?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

That's a very good question.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll take it under advisement and look at what more reports the Member

opposite is asking. We table a tremendous number of reports.

Mr.

Speaker, you can go on the website for Nalcor. You can go on the website for

Natural Resources. You can go on the website for the Oversite Committee. There

are literally dozens upon dozens upon dozens of reports. I will seek to ensure

the report she is requesting is on that.

I cannot

speak to it today, Mr. Speaker, but I am assured there are so many reports

available to the public, that those reports are made available.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for Oral Questions has

ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Vital

Statistics Act, 2009. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I give

notice of the following motion. The Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi to

move:

WHEREAS

the province's serious financial situation has caused government to predict a

decline in program expenses of 0.85 per cent or $376 million over the next five

years, which could result in tens of millions of dollars kept from health care

each year; and

WHEREAS

people are worried their health care system won't be there for them when they

need it; and

WHEREAS

this level of cost reduction should not proceed without a comprehensive health

sector review, and a plan that will avoid arbitrary, harmful cuts in services;

and

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has called for an independent,

expert review of the province's health care facilities and services based on

wide consultation in the health sector; and

WHEREAS

the NLMA says the review should be tasked with telling government how to

reconfigure the health care system to be smarter, less costly, high quality, and

focused on patient care and prevention; and

WHEREAS

the people of the province expect the House of Assembly to work together on this

issue;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that government undertake an independent, external

review of health care, to be conducted by an eminent expert recognized in the

field of health care delivery, with a goal of maintaining quality health care

into the future.

This is

seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.

Mr.

Speaker, this will be the private Member's motion we'll bring forward on

November 8.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm very

pleased to stand today and present the petition that has been provided me by

members of the deaf and hard of hearing community and by the Churchill family.

The petitions, Mr. Speaker, have been signed by thousands of people.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland

and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education

because of the lack of appropriate full-time resources; and

WHEREAS

from 1964 to 2010, deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a

full-time quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but deaf

and hard of hearing children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only

a fraction of a school day with a teacher qualified to instruct deaf and hard of

hearing children;

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

of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate complete and thorough

assessment of the supports in place for deaf and hard of hearing children by a

committee of at least two independent and recognized experts in the field of

deaf and hard of hearing education and to accept the recommendations of these

experts, and in the interim, take measures to honour the support commitments

made to all current and future students upon closure of the School for the Deaf

in 2010, to ensure that all deaf and hard of hearing children are provided with

access to a quality education equivalent to hearing classmates as well as access

to sign language.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we are learning that the children who are deaf and hard of hearing in

our schools right now, who are there as part of the inclusion program, are not

having their needs met. They need more instruction time with teachers trained to

teach the deaf. They need full-time student assistants trained to work with deaf

and hard of hearing students. They need more access to sign language, whether or

not they have cochlear implants. This is the internationally recognized language

of deaf people. They need more

interpretation in the classroom. They need what

was promised in 2010, and that is if they went into the regular school system

they would have all the services that they would have had in the School for the

Deaf; and Mr. Speaker, they are not getting those services.

The

resources in our schools are currently inadequate for deaf and hard of hearing

students. We have one child here in the Assembly today. There are over 300

children out there in the system and we are hearing from their parents, their

needs are not being met.

I look

forward to speaking to this further as time goes on.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, a point of

order.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave

of the House of Assembly, of my colleagues, to allow me to respond to this

petition.

MR. SPEAKER:

Does the hon. minister have

leave to respond to the petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Leave.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'd be happy to hear the

minister (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, you have leave.

Please

proceed.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree

with the Member, that it is troubling, the circumstances under which the former

School for the Deaf was closed by the previous administration with relatively

little consultation with the deaf and hard of hearing community. There is no

question about that.

There

are a variety of different services. I won't go through it because Members

should be aware. There are a variety of services that are provided in schools

for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. As we have said, since my

colleagues and I sat on the other side of the House of Assembly in Opposition,

we have said the inclusive education model that was imposed upon the education

system in this province has not been working as it was intended. It has been

ineffective, and that is why there is an entire

chapter in the Premier's Task

Force report addressing the issue of inclusive education and advocating for

significant overhaul of the special education services that are provided to

students in schools.

We have

been working since July on the recommendations to operationalize them to ensure

we make the necessary improvements to the system so that all children,

regardless of their particular circumstance, get the level of education, the

quality of services they are entitled to. That is what we are going to do in our

education action plan, which will be announced with the budget in the spring.

So we

are committed to fixing that model. We know there are shortcomings. We have said

that all along.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

there has been an identified lack of mental health services in the province's

K-12 school system; and

WHEREAS

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

WHEREAS

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

issues;

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

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

in our province's K-12 school system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've had an opportunity to speak to this in the past and it goes back

to a bigger issue that we have here. The issue is we need to be able to support

our students in every aspect of their education. As my colleague here had noted,

there are many gaps in the services that we need to provide, particularly in

special supportive services. This is another particular one.

It has

been identified by the All-Party Committee that if we do not address in the

early stages of mental health interventions and support services, particularly

in our school system, then it leads to more aggressive, more long-term impacts

and it has a detrimental effect on that individual being able to be productive

in society and being able to reach their full potential.

We've

talked about it. We've talked to school councillors and the psychologists. We've

talked to the administration about the supports that are needed around mental

health. There's a multitude of approaches that need to be done. One is about

education and the full-fledged education – we've started education with our

police forces, and rightfully so, so they can identify issues in young people or

any other citizen when there may be an altercation to realize there's a mental

health issue and there's a different way of approaching that than you would just

from a criminal point of view.

We've

also looked at it from a training point of view. Teachers, on a daily basis, try

to get better understanding of how to identify mental health issues within the

school system, how to address those, but there's a bigger picture here of also

co-operating with outside entities – those agencies and volunteer groups that

have a specialized talent to be able to address some of these particular issues

and work with them.

This is

a holistic approach here to identifying how we best not only resource, but deal

with the issues of mental health, particularly in the younger stages of a

person's development. We need to be able to be preventative. It's no good at the

end of the day being total intervention when we didn't do our preventative stuff

upfront.

We can

save millions of dollars but outside of the cost here, this is about quality of

life. It's about the quality for the families who deal with children who may

have some mental health issues. It has to do with our educators. It has to do

with the other students that are in that environment. It has to do with the

holistic approach here within those communities.

That's

why we need to look at the type of resources we do. We've called for it before;

we call for it again. We need a summit on inclusive education that includes

everything from mental health to people who need particular services, deaf or

hard-of hearing, every other child that needs services within our school system.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll get to speak to this again.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

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

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

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

inside the Eastern School District's 1.6-kilometre zone and, therefore, do not

quality for busing; and

WHEREAS

policy cannot override the safety of our children;

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

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

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

safety is a primary concern.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this issue is not a new issue. As we know, it's been talked about

probably on a regular basis through media outlets. A lot of my colleagues, and

I'm sure the Members across, have dealt with this in their individual districts.

It is a

big issue. It's one that causes a lot of stress to a lot of parents, the fact

that their children have to walk to school. I know the district will say it's

not a walk zone, but if you don't have any other means it is a walk zone.

Unfortunately, the default factor falls into a walk zone.

The

policy has been around for 40 or 50 years. Ironically, the current Minister of

Education, when he was on this side of the House, up until whatever happened in

November 30, 2015, he was the biggest champion against this policy. It's not

against this policy. December 1, all of a sudden, he supports this policy.

recent media outlets, he tells people that it's the board's policy. It's not

his, it's not the governments, it is the boards. But I'll remind him again, it

is the government policy. The board followed the Department of Education's

policies. This is directed by the provincial government to the board. They

follow the rules.

Playing

with words and playing with children's safety is something that I, as an MHA,

and a parent and a citizen of Conception Bay South – and I want to assure my

colleagues, I cannot look at any parent in the face straight and give him a

straight answer to tell them that it's fine for their children to walk 1.6

kilometres in four lanes of traffic, putting their children at risk. I cannot do

it, not only as an MHA, like I said, as a person, as a parent.

I think

it's high time for this provincial government to take a strong, serious look at

this 1.6-kilometre policy because everyone I've spoken to says it doesn't make

sense. I can't see, for the life of me – and the current Minister of Education,

it didn't make sense to him until November 30, 2015. Maybe he can come around

again and make sense to it in 2017.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

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

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

WHEREAS

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

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

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

and

WHEREAS

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

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

reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS

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

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

a tax to read the books of its own writers;

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

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

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I hear Members

opposite cackling and cackling and calling me honey. Gerry, honey, one of them

said, that tax is already gone.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That's disrespectful.

MS. ROGERS:

Somewhat disrespectful, but

let me continue on, Mr. Speaker,

I know

that the book tax will be changed come January 1. I know that, but I'm

deliberately continuing to present the petitions that have been signed by the

people of this province about how inappropriate the book tax has been.

This

government, although they may be changing the legislation, were the ones who

instituted it. They were the ones who removed the provincial rebate. They were

the ones who put those extra taxes on books that hurt independent book sellers,

publishers and students in this province. I know exactly what I'm doing, Mr.

Speaker, by standing up and speaking to this petition.

Not only

did this government do it, but the people of the province have pushed back and

it's the people of the province who have gotten this legislation changed. It's

the activism of the people of this province who persisted and persisted. We have

thousands of signatures by people from all over the province about what this

government has done by removing the rebate on the provincial tax on books.

The

people of the province are not to be fooled. They know this government did it

and that the reason the legislation is being changed is because of their

activism.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Bell Island ferry provides a vital transportation link; and

WHEREAS

the Bell Island ferry is only eight minutes from port at any given time; and

WHEREAS

government's recently implemented policy related to mandatory exiting of

vehicles will put people at a higher risk of injury than the possibility of

having to evacuate the vehicle due to an emergency; and

WHEREAS

Transport Canada regulations do not require individuals to exit their vehicles

during this commute;

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

of Assembly to urge government to conduct a full and thorough risk assessment to

clearly identify all risks and liabilities associated with such a policy

decision, after which public release any and all results and details of review.

And as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, it's very easy to flippantly say we're going to change the policy

to make it sound like getting out of your vehicle on a ferry is much safer when

you haven't analyzed. You're not out in the North Atlantic, 500 miles from port.

You're not in an enclosed vessel. You're not dealing with people who may have

oxygen tanks and an attendant with them and at a higher risk – the Medical

Association will tell you this, I've had discussions – repetition with a heavy

alignment puts people at a higher risk of that alignment being chronic.

I had to

ask them to explain that to me. They said if someone has a major heart

alignment, maybe getting up over the stairs once may not be that traumatic, but

if you're doing it two and three and four times a day, and two and three and

four times a week, that will have an impact on it.

People

who are going for dialysis, the impact that would have; people who've just came

from hours of chemotherapy having to do it; people who've been sedated in day

surgery now have to come back and are still in basically almost a sedated state

trying to get up and those things; people who have Parkinson's disease having to

walk the length of a ferry, then get in an elevator to go up and are still –

when you look at it – no closer to the muster station for evacuation.

Outside

of all that; that's why any policy we change anywhere in government that is

related to safety, where safety is our argument, you always do a risk

assessment. The risk assessment gives you an indication, are we increasing the

risk of injury or decreasing it by bringing in this policy? This wasn't done. It

was asked.

When I

was minister they came in and wanted to implement the policy and I said not a

problem, do a full risk assessment. If the evidence proves it's safer for these

people, particularly those who have mobility issues and medical issues to get

out – in the rare case, the non-existent case, after a million trips we've never

evacuated the ferry – then I will go along and I will explain it to people and

say this is the risk. That hasn't been done. We've seen it already. We've seen

the impact.

I've let

the minister know. I've made it clear to him there are liable suits coming,

because I can guarantee you somebody will get injured because these vessels, for

that period of time, are not a safety risk for those people there. It is much

more of a safety risk having to get out and try to get somewhere else. In the

rare case that anything would happen, the time frame of 20 minutes to evacuate,

it's possible to get that person with supports that are already in place.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll get to speak to this again. It's another issue about how the ferry

service and the people there are not being serviced.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, for

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, Bill 19, 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 Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And

Administration Act, Bill 19, 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?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

Motion

carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act,” carried.

(Bill 19)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER:

The 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 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 5,

second reading of Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted

to stand in this hon. House today to talk to Bill 15,

An Act to Amend the

Securities Act.

The

Securities Act governs all those who

are involved in the securities market in our province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Bill 15,

An Act To

Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 15 entitled,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act.” (Bill 15)

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to

stand in this hon. House today to talk to Bill 15,

An Act to Amend the

Securities Act. The Securities Act

governs all those who are involved in the securities market in our province.

A security is an investment such as shares traded on the

stock exchange or investment products sold to our residents. For those wishing

to trade in securities, the act provides the rule to be registered in the

province, as well as the rules for raising capital.

Anyone who wants to trade in securities, provide advice or

manage portfolios or investments has to be licensed under the act. This act

includes investment advisors, stock brokers and mutual fund advisors. The act

also provides the authority to the

superintendent of securities in Services NL to licence and take action

against those who are in contravention of the act.

Mr.

Speaker, last November, our government released

The Way Forward roadmap for our

province. It includes a number of actions designed to achieve a more efficient

public sector, a stronger economic foundation, better services and better

outcomes to promote a healthy and prosperous province.

As part

of this vision, we have placed a great emphasis on enhancing consumer

protection. The Way Forward , along

with the mandate letter, specifically commits to implementing a series of new

consumer protection measures to protect consumers against fraud or bad business

practices.

The

amendment we are introducing to the

Securities Act is to ensure protection for consumers in our province against

securities fraud. The amendment will change the maximum period of imprisonment

from a term of not more than five years, to a term of not more than five years

less a day. The change is a correction from a previous amendment made in 2010.

At that time, amendments were meant to align penalties with other jurisdictions;

however, most other jurisdictions use the wording: Not more than five years less

a day.

Mr.

Speaker, cases under the Securities Act

are often complex. Charges under the

Securities Act are considered

summary offence charges, governed by the

Provincial

Offences Act .

Summary offence charges are not meant to reach the

level of trial by jury.

Under

the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms a person charged with an offence has the right to the benefit of

trial by jury where the maximum punishment of the offence is imprisonment for

five years or more or more severe punishment. These changes we are introducing

to the act are necessary because the discrepancy risks a potential challenge

under the Charter for any charges brought forward by the Financial Services

Regulation Division, unless a trial by jury is provided. It will help ensure

that when prosecutions are unsuccessful, they can't be overturned on a

constitutional challenge.

In the

recent case of R. v. Peers in Alberta, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that

legislation with penalties of five years less a day without a jury trial is

complaint with the Charter and is in keeping with the intent of avoiding jury

trials for complex security prosecutions. This change will bring Newfoundland

and Labrador in line with other jurisdictions across Canada, as originally

intended.

It is

important, Mr. Speaker, that we continuously review legislation to ensure it is

as effective as it can be for the residents of our province. In this case, it is

important that we strive to ensure the greatest consumer protection possible for

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up here today as we start off our new Assembly and the

introduction of legislation. I understand, with the few briefings that we've had

so far, there's going to be a fine lot of legislation and this is the start

today for us to get into what we usually do in the fall sittings is to speak to

the different legislation that's available and some changes that need to be

made.

Sometimes when you look at legislation, something happens in other parts of the

country or in other parts of the world or anything else that makes officials in

our departments to say, oh, we should have a look at what's happening in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

In this

case today, this Bill 15,

An Act to Amend the Securities Act, is exactly what

happened. Back in February of 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada was doing a

ruling with R. v. Peers. Under that ruling, our Department of Service NL had a

look and said what we are going to do, just look at this ruling and see what

effects it would have on Newfoundland and Labrador. While they looked at that

piece of legislation, they realized that there was a fault in our own

legislation. The fault being basically that less a day is important when it

comes to securities and trials with people with security fraud.

They

looked at this and said that because security frauds and security, when it goes

to court, are very complex, they're complex issues and sometimes it's important

that it's done through trial by judge only. I guess in some cases, and it's not

to degrade anybody that goes on a jury or anything like that, but sometimes you

really almost need the expertise to be able to understand the complexity of what

you're ruling on.

Under

the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, in order for it not to be considered a

jury trial then it has to say five years less a day. In our legislation that we

had, it didn't have that stated, and it was very important. It will tell you

what the good people in the public service are doing. This is very good that we

had officials over in the Department of Service NL to really go and have a look

at the legislation we have in place to make sure that down the road, something

didn't happen, that it could be a security fraud and a person could say five

years.

By just

saying the words “five years,” it could go to the Supreme Court of Canada and

that could have been thrown out of court because it didn't say – under five

years it doesn't have to have a jury trial. So that was the reason why we have

to put those words in to make sure that five years less a day, then this has to

be done by judge only.

That's

what we're changing here today, to make sure that we, along with – and the

minister also stated that most provinces in Canada already have this in their

legislation. We didn't, so it's important that we do put it in here today to

make sure that we follow the trial.

Again,

when you're talking securities and you're talking financial securities and it

could be some kind of fraud against – and it is a part of consumer protection

also. We want to make sure that the expertise is there in the room to be able to

give the people who are going to make the decision, whether it's a fraud or not,

that expertise. It's better that we have it that it's not a jury trial, that

it's done by the judge alone.

Basically, it's a change to the legislation. It's a change that puts us in line

with other jurisdictions right across Canada. It's important that we do have

people in our public service that really does pick up on this stuff and make

sure that we're doing things properly. We will be supporting this act.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to have the Member for Cape St. Francis supporting us on this initiative.

Hopefully all of his colleagues on the opposite side of the House will be as

well. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a big thank you for the opportunity to stand in

this hon. House to speak to Bill 15, the bill to amend the

Securities Act .

Consumer

protection is critically important in our society today. It seems that

everywhere you turn these days, especially on the Internet, there are new

investment opportunities that claim to be a sure thing. Of course, most of us

know that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is and we are

careful enough to avoid getting fooled.

Even

with legitimate investment opportunities, there are people who may try to take

advantage of trusting customers. That's why there is a need for our government

to provide oversight or need for a government to provide oversight and

regulation to those who sell securities in our province.

As the

minister so eloquently put in her statements before – I won't reiterate all

those but I'm going to continue on to highlight some of the things that we're

going to be making some slight changes here – the Financial Services Regulation

Division of Service NL does just that, Mr. Speaker. Individuals who provide

investment advice and sell securities like mutual funds, stocks and bonds are

required to be registered under the

Securities Act .

The

superintendent of securities is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council

to administer and enforce the act and its regulations. Staff in this division

also have investigative powers under the act and they are tasked with

identifying illegal activity or unprofessional conduct within the industry.

Mr.

Speaker, the investigators in this division do excellent work each and every day

to ensure those who trade in securities in our province do so within the bounds

of the law. When these investigators have reasonable grounds to suspect illegal

or unprofessional activity, charges can be laid and the subsequent penalties can

be severe.

written in the legislation today, those who contravene the

Securities Act can be subject to a fine of up to $5 million and up

to five years in prison; but if those penalties are to face a successful

challenge under the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms , the efforts of our security investigators will be

wasted. If such a challenge should occur, the efforts we have taken to protect

the consumer of our province from securities fraud will also be wasted.

Today,

we had the opportunity to correct an oversight of the past so that our customers

remain protected. I urge all of my colleagues in this hon. House to stand behind

our province and the consumers to support these amendments.

I will

highlight the main crux of the change is just simply a wording change. The bill

would amend the Securities Act to

correct the maximum period of imprisonment under subsections 122(1) and 122(4)

from the term of not more than five years to a term of not more than five years

less a day.

That's

the crux of the change and I'd like all my colleagues in this hon. House to

stand with us and support this housecleaning initiative to add some additional

clarity to the debate.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand today and support Bill 15,

An Act to Amend the Securities Act. As

we say in common parlance, it's a no-brainer that we do this. I think it's been

pointed out by the minister and by her colleague on the government side that the

bill is correcting an omission in the original bill. That always puts a little

red flag up for me when I hear that kind of thing.

We've

had a number of times here in this House where we've had a bill trying to

correct another bill. So I think it's a bit of a warning to us that we need to

always have adequate time to look at legislation that is coming to the floor.

Even when it's a piece of housekeeping legislation, the language is so

important. Just the omission of one word or one phrase can have a real impact,

as is the case with this bill, because the bill is adding the words, just three

little words: less a day; five years less a day. It may seem like a small

omission, but in actual fact it's a major omission because that difference of

less a day of five years means a difference in how a person who has been accused

under the Securities Act , how they're

going to tried. I think it's extremely important.

When you

get to sitting in front of a jury, it's a different reality than having a

judgement being made by a judge who has to sit and go through every word of what

has been presented in a trial and come up with a judgement. I'm not saying

juries don't think things through carefully, I'm sure they do, but it is a very

different dynamic. I think it's really important that something like this, as

somebody who has been charged under the

Securities Act, that something like this is so important. That having a

judge very closely and deliberately weigh every word that's been presented to

him or her, I think will make for a surer type of judgement. I'm sure that's the

reason for wanting to keep these offences under five years, so that it's not

just a jury decision. That it's a decision by a judge.

understand there was an Alberta court case R. v. Peers, which involved a person

asking for a jury trial when changed with securities fraud. He claimed he was

entitled to a trial by jury under the law. As the legislation stipulated, the

maximum jail term was five years less a day. The courts established he was not

entitled to a jury trial. That little thing of less than a day under five years

is extremely important.

I would

like to point out that when we are talking about securities fraud, we are

talking about theft basically. It is pretty serious when you are relating it to

securities, because it is money belonging to other people. It is theft, and we

certainly want to make sure that a person gets a fair hearing.

actually think that with this change we are ensuring that a person gets a real

fair hearing and a hearing that will be based on, as I said, some real in-depth

study by a judge.

having said that, I am happy to support this bill.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

only going to take a couple of moments. Obviously, I will be supporting this

bill. I am sure everybody in the House of Assembly will be supporting this.

Really, as it has been said, it was just an oversight in the previous

legislation of changing five years to five years less a day.

others have said, I don't want to be too repetitive. Obviously, what we have

here is it is felt that in this type of offence, which is really a white collar

crime we are talking about, it would be preferable that that type of case would

be overseen by a judge versus a judge and jury. If the legislation stays as is,

where it says five years, then there would be a requirement under the Charter to

have a case by judge and jury.

I think

what happened in the previous case, an individual wanted the judge and jury but

they only got the judge, and because they never had the opportunity for judge

and jury, it got thrown out. We want to avoid that here in this province.

Obviously, by making the offence, if found guilty, to be a sentence of five

years less a day, then we eliminate the requirement under the Charter for a

judge and jury trial and we can simply have a case that would be overseen by a

judge only.

That's

my understanding of this bill. It makes total sense. We're just cleaning up the

language. While it is housekeeping, there's no doubt the impact of it is huge.

We saw a case where somebody, I guess, in theory, was guilty of an offence and

it got thrown out. We want to avoid those things from happening. That's why

we're making this change, as subtle as it is. The impact, as I said, is great.

Obviously, that's why I, and I'm sure every Member in the House, will support

this bill.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and say a couple of words on Bill 15,

An Act

to Amend the Securities Act. As colleagues around the House have said about this

legislation, it's a small change but it's an important change I guess.

The R.

v. Peers case in Alberta, our change is a result of that but not as a result of

the case. It's more of a result of what the Supreme Court had found out during

their review of the legislation, of the five years less a day. Then, of course,

when our Service NL officials, upon reviewing that decision, realized our

legislation did need some adjusting, which is a good thing, but I guess there's

a lesson in this, too.

I heard

my colleague for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi mention about making mistakes in our

legislation. It's always good to have a second set of eyes. None of this stuff

is done intentionally, but things like this happen. It's always good to see

people – I guess I'll throw out a bouquet to the officials for being aware

enough to review these things, keeping on top of this stuff, because as little

as it may seem or as little a change that may be, it does have a big implication

on this legislation and much other legislation you'll see come and go in our

Parliaments across the country. It's good to see we're keeping on top of that

because one word, as we know, can have such a drastic difference on the outcome

of any case, of anyone's rights and freedoms.

commend Service NL officials for doing that. As my colleague from Cape St.

Francis stated, we will be supporting this legislation. I think it was just more

of a want to get up to pass along my commentary on the review of the department

officials and how important it is to look at all legislation, all cases across

the country, doing your cross-jurisdictional scans to make sure we are in

keeping with what's across our country and to make sure the trials are conducted

in a fair manner for all involved.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to be back here in the House of Assembly again today, back here debating

legislation. I had an opportunity to speak to the media this morning. When we

talk about the fact that sometimes there's a perception that when we're not in

the House of Assembly we may not be working, I said that's obviously not the

case; you can ask any Member that it certainly is busy year-round. That being

said, when the House is in session, it does bring a different sense of urgency.

There's certainly a lot of work.

This,

I've submitted, is the main reason that we are here. We are here; we have the

ability and the privilege of being able to debate legislation that governs the

people of the province. It's a responsibility that we all take quite seriously

and something that certainly I've learned through my career in this House to

take very seriously, but also enjoy.

I enjoy

the cut and thrust of debate. I also enjoy the opportunity to look at

legislation and figure out why you're making a change. Not just making a change

for the sake of making a change, but looking at it and then debating the

repercussions of that.

Now,

that being said, there are certain pieces of legislation that are more

substantive than others. This is one that I don't think I'll offend anybody by

saying this piece of legislation, this amendment to the

Securities Act , is not on the grand

scale of amendments that we've seen here in the House of Assembly.

That

being said, when you look at it, it's a very small in its actual size. We're

only changing one thing, but there are a couple of points that I felt were

important that I stand here today and have an opportunity to speak to this; one

specific to the bill and one just about the change that we're making here.

wasn't that long ago, it was only a few weeks ago, that we were here in this

House of Assembly debating legislation that had been drafted here in the House

or had been drafted here, been passed here and then was faced with a

constitutional challenge that was successful. It made various provisions of that

piece of legislation unconstitutional and invalid.

In that

particular case, we had a situation where we could not have a by-election

because the rules governing special ballots were found to be unconstitutional.

We needed to come back; we needed to change that provision so that we can ensure

a constitutional election. We all realize the importance of having legislation

that is constitutionally sound.

When you

look at the change that's being made here – and, again, Mr. Speaker, I can

remember one debate we were here for a day and night. We may have been a couple

of days just debating the difference in the words “may” versus “shall.” We could

go on for days about that difference, how it can apply and how important that

difference can be.

In this

case, we're dealing with a very, very small change when you think about it.

We're changing the term under subsection 122(1) and 122(4) from a term of not

more than five years to a term of not more than five years less a day.

I think

the minister has done a very good job of explaining the importance of that.

Personally, I think whenever you have provisions of any legislation that involve

imprisonment, when they involve the denial of a person's liberty, that is of the

utmost importance to absolutely everybody.

Now,

this is a situation where I do not think we have seen offences under this nature

that have been brought forward. I don't think we've actually seen charges, but

we would hate to see two things happen here. We would hate to see a case where a

charge was brought forward that was then thrown out because we have a

constitutionally non-compliant clause. We don't want to see that obviously.

The

second part, though, is you would hate to see somebody denied their Charter

right, the right to a trial by jury, by a jury of one's peers, because it's not

there reflected in the legislation.

We're

lucky here. In many cases, it depends. We have cases where we get the

opportunity to change our legislation. This is a normal thing that happens. We

have to come here, we have to modify and amend our legislation to deal with the

times. We're very lucky in this case where there is a decision from another

jurisdiction which we can see the benefit of and make the corresponding changes

to our legislation to ensure that we are in compliance.

In some

cases, like the case I just referenced, or the legislation regarding the

Elections Act , we weren't that lucky.

We had to have a court case here and we had to change our legislation in

response to a court case here, in response to a person who was found to have

their Charter rights denied, infringed upon, and there was found to be no

justification for that.

So,

again, I'm very happy to say that we are here today for what I think is a very

simple clause, but one that is very important. We have not seen a case of this

is an actual response to an actual situation that we've dealt with here in the

province; but, that being said, it's very important that we have this made in

case this is something that comes up.

Obviously, I'm supportive of the minister. I'm supportive of the change that we

want to make here. I'll be supporting this provision as we move forward. I could

go on all day about the Canadian Charter

of Rights and Freedoms but I'll leave that for other legislation.

One

thing I want to say, though, it's just an opportunity I took recently where you

deal with something like the Securities

Act and it's not a piece of legislation that's widely used by a large number

of people within this province. In fact, when I was practising back in my

pre-elected days, the Securities Act

was not something I dealt with. I had no experience with it and I couldn't tell

you whether the provisions were good, bad or indifferent. It's not something

that I practised or dealt with. I had no involvement with it whatsoever.

Recently, I had an opportunity – one of the things I get to do, as an elected

politician, as an legislator and as someone who's in charge of the Department of

Justice, I get to speak with people who do use this legislation on a daily

basis. This piece of legislation has been in place for some time. I think the

last change might have been in the last four or five years.

I had an

opportunity – I actually heard from a solicitor in this practice who said the

legislation, in some ways, they think, there could be modifications made that

would update it and make it better for those who are using it. So what I

suggested to that person, and what I suggested to the Law Society, I've

suggested to people out there, is if you have a suggestion for changes to

legislation, then I'm all ears; the minister is all ears. We are all willing to

hear that and to consider changes to legislation that will make it better

applicable to the people of the province, that will just make it better

legislation.

You can

break it right down to its most basic: Does it make the legislation better? That

being said, you cannot change legislation just because it makes things easier;

you can't change it just for the sake of change. You don't realize until you get

in and look at the people behind the scenes that are doing this work, that are

doing the jurisdictional scans and analysis that are looking at this legislation

– and not just that. If you change this, for every action there's an equal

reaction. So in this case if you change something, well, what's going to happen?

Did you forecast? Did you have the ability to figure out what are the possible

repercussions and changes, positive and negative, that can come from that?

It's

quite clear in this case that if the change was not made, there would be a very

negative consequence. So what I've suggested to that solicitor, specifically as

it relates to the Securities Act , if

you have changes that you'd like to see brought to this act, I would invite you

to come and get in touch with the minister, get in touch with any of us. That's

our job; the doors are always open to hear that.

The

other thing I would say is, in many cases, people suggest a change and that's

all they do, they suggest a change but come at it with some – and I say this

specifically to the people I've dealt with. I've said, look, I'm always willing

to entertain you but you need to come prepared, to have that conversation, to be

able to explain to us why is it better, why does it need to be changed.

That's

why I like doing this work, that's why a lot of us like doing this work, because

we can figure out how to make things better for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

for something as important as the

Elections Act and as important as the

Securities Act. There are other pieces of legislation that are, dare I say,

less important but the fact is every single piece here is necessary. Every

single piece of legislation we have is necessary. It's just that some can be

updated and can be modified and we're always willing to listen.

So to

the solicitors out there – I doubt he's listening right now. I don't know if

this will quality as a billable hour or not, but what I would suggest is if you

want to see change, we're always willing to have that – especially when you deal

with lawyers in the community. In many cases, they are dealing first-hand – they

are frequent users of the House of Assembly webpage. When you go to the

section

that says Consolidation of Statutes, they're the ones using it; they're the ones

dealing with this legislation. So I would suggest to them, please come forward.

We would love to hear suggestions, and the doors are always open to have that.

On that

note, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is I congratulate the minister on making

this happen. The Minister of Service NL is going to be one of the busier

ministers this session of the House. There are a number of pieces of legislation

coming forward, so I look forward to supporting her in those debates.

Thank

you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of

Service NL speaks now she will close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, these changes

will bring Newfoundland and Labrador in line with other jurisdictions across

Canada, and that was the original intent.

I thank

my colleagues in this House for supporting this amendment, and I would also like

to thank the officials in the Department of Service NL.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 15 –

MS. ROGERS:

On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'd like

to rise on a point of order in

section 49. When I was presenting my petition and

then speaking to the petition on the book tax, the Member for Placentia West –

Bellevue called out to me: Gerry, honey.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that's very appropriate in this House. Considering how

difficult it is for women to get elected in this House, that kind of

disrespectful, sexist language is totally inappropriate in the people's House.

I would

like to call a point of order on that, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Member to

apologize to the House for that sexist comment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

stand I guess to respond to the point of order raised by the Member opposite.

What I would suggest is – again, it's not something I heard, but I would suggest

at this point that the House would take it under advisement and review the

recordings of this matter in order to make a proper determination as to whether

the statement was made and, if so, how it will be disposed of.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I echo

the desire from the Government House Leader that we check both

Hansard and the video, because there were people in this House other

than my colleague who heard what was said. Unfortunately, I was not in the House

at that moment because I'll tell if I were I would have been up pretty fast

calling a point of order. I do ask that both

Hansard and the video be checked to ascertain what was said.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

would reiterate that, yes, obviously the video,

Hansard or anything else should be checked to determine if such a

statement was made and then the Chair will have the opportunity to handle the

matter appropriately.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Chair will take it under advisement and report back to the House.

Is the

House ready for the question?

The

motion is that Bill 15 be now read a second 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.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Securities Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill

15)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

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.'

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Reid):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Securities Act.” (Bill 15)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Minister, I am just wondering if there are any cases in the courts right now

that could be affected by this ruling. I know right now it is going to be Royal

Assent as soon as it comes in through, but I was wondering if there are any

cases that could have an effect on this right now.

CHAIR:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

No, not that I am aware of.

CHAIR:

Any further speakers?

Shall

Clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Clause 1

is 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?

Clause

is carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The

Securities Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

carried without an amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Motion,

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

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Chair, I move that the

Committee rise and report Bill 15.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 15 carried.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

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 Deputy Chair

of Committees.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report the bill 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 him to report Bill 15 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

Now?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

When shall the said bill be

read a third time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the hon. Member for Labrador West, that Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The Prepaid

Funeral Services Act, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, be now read a second

time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act.”

(Bill 18)

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

introduce Bill 18,

An Act to Amend the Prepaid Funeral Services Act for the

second reading in this hon. House today. Prepaid funerals are an increasingly

common service in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many individuals choose to

pre-arrange their end-of-life plans after relieving the financial burden on

their family members.

As the

act currently exists, its administration and enforcement is a responsibility

held by me as the Minister of Service NL. In my department, however, the

administration and enforcement of other financial services such as insurance,

securities, real estate and mortgage brokers is carried out by the Financial

Services Regulation Division. If charges are laid in a particular case, I am not

made aware until after they have been laid.

It is

important that the regulation of any of our financial services, or any services

for that matter, be applied without any perception of influence at the

ministerial level. It is also important that those who fail to comply with the

law are held accountable for their actions. It will be more appropriate for the

duties associated with prepaid funerals to be carried out in a manner that is

more consistent with the regulation of the other financial services. In fact,

having all these financial services regulated by the Financial Services

Regulation Division of my department is consistent with most other jurisdictions

across Canada.

Amending

the act as recommended would transfer responsibility for the day-to-day

activities and administration decisions involving licensing, compliance and

enforcement matters from me as minister to a registrar and deputy registrar. As

minister, I will still retain the authority to appoint a board or a person to

administer the Consumer Protection Fund and still have the overall

responsibility for the act and its policy direction.

The

amendment will allow for the appointment of the director of Financial Services

Regulation as the registrar and the manager of Financial Analysis as the deputy

registrar. The responsibilities of the registrar and the deputy registrar will

be assigned by virtue of the positions they hold within Service NL. These

positions are staffed through the Public Service Commission process.

One of

the key advantages of this approach is that it will allow for more effective and

efficient administration of the act by streamlining the processes for issuing

and suspending licences. The act will also align Newfoundland and Labrador's

legislation with that of most other provinces.

As a

government, Mr. Speaker, we place a high priority on consumer protection. We

take this responsibility very seriously. Like many other pieces of legislation

brought forward by my department, these amendments focus on consumer protection

and are consistent with our Way Forward commitments, as well as my mandate

letter as Minister of Service NL. These amendments are a further testament to

our commitment to maintain consumer protection measures to protect consumers

against fraud or bad business practices.

Like

other financial services, prepaid funerals are subject to regulation in order to

protect consumers' financial investments, but preplanning a funeral is about so

much more than a financial transaction. It is about decisions surrounding one of

the most difficult periods of individuals, family and friends face in their

lifetime.

With

these amendments, the public can have confidence in the independent oversight of

prepaid funeral services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It gives

me great privilege to get up here again today and speak on another bill. I have

a funny feeling, Minister, that I may be a little busy with the role as critic

for your department because I'm sure there's going to be a lot of legislation

coming through.

saying that, the Department of Service NL – and for most of the people at home

listening to some of the debate, not really debate, the legislation that's

coming forward today I always say that the Department of Service NL has you from

the time you're born till the time you die, because there is so much involved in

that department.

There

are different things in the department that are very important to people, and

this important too. I know that there are a lot of people out in society today

that like to put all their orders, we'll say, in order for when they're passing.

Most people today look at prepaid funerals as a way to not leave burdens for

their loved ones and making sure that there is no burden. As you know, any time

a person passes away, there's usually a family member left behind to take care

of the affairs of that person.

When you

look at prepaid funerals, people in this province and all over Canada, I would

imagine, don't want to leave that burden to their loved ones, saying there's

enough on the go now; so prepaid funerals are very important to people in the

province, as are very important to their family members that this is done.

understand the legislation that's being brought here today. Like I said at the

start of it, the minister has a lot on her plate as the Minister of Service NL.

What we're doing here today, there are 23 different amendments that will be done

to the legislation. It's a huge piece of legislation but, in most places, it is

just replacing the word from “minister” to “registrar.”

Also, in

this piece of legislation – I listened to the minister speak – this is what's

done in other parts of Canada. It's done through a registrar. It's also

important to note that she mentioned it's not a new position; it's a person

that's already in the Department of Service NL. I believe it is the director of

Financial Services Regulation Division.

Not only

are they making that person be the registrar, there is also another position,

which I assume again is a position within the department – and the minister is

shaking her head and saying yes. It's also called the deputy registrar.

Just

reading the legislation, the deputy registrar is there just in case something

could happen to the registrar. He may be sick; maybe something that happens. So

it's a backup plan to have a person in place so that any issues that come with

prepaid funerals or whatever, that we have two people in place. So that's a good

move and it's good to do that.

The

legislation itself, the registrar will be taking the role of what the minister

is doing right now. Tha