PDF Version

March 14, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 57

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

I'd like

to welcome all Members back to this House of Assembly.

We have

several guests here today, but, first of all, I'm going to put a little bias

into the introductions. I'd like to recognize my Deputy Speaker, the Member for

Baie Verte - Green Bay, he's just returned from being inducted into the Atlantic

Building Supply Dealers Association Hall of Fame.

It's a

great honour, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

And he tells me he flew on an

Embraer.

Additional folks that I'd like to welcome to our gallery today, there very many

guests. First of all, Michelle Baikie, who is joining us from the Board of

Regents at Memorial University. I'm not sure if I spot her just yet, but she's

here somewhere, I hope.

We also

have several students from Mount Pearl Senior High School. They are studying

social studies, ethics and philosophy, and they are accompanied by their

teachers, Shane Antle and Teri Murphy.

A great

welcome to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to welcome in

the public gallery and acknowledge Dr. Mari-Lynn Sinnott and Dr. Taryn Hearn of

Clinic 215 that serves the LGBTQ population, along with members of the trans

community and their allies.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We also have a number of

visitors in the gallery who are here for a reading of a Ministerial Statement

about National Social Work Month.

Please

welcome representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social

Workers: Lisa Crockwell, Annette Johns, Cheryl Mallard and President Henry

Kielley; as well as Sheri McConnell from the Memorial University School of

Social Work; Elizabeth Day, Clerk of the Executive Council, who began her career

with the provincial government as a social worker and social workers from the

Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development and the Department of

Health and Community Services.

A great

welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

And, finally, I would be

remiss if I didn't identify some former colleagues in my life as a minister, I'd

like to welcome all those representatives, owners and drivers associated with

our very important taxi industry.

A great

welcome to you in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I would now like to rule on a

point of privilege raised by MHA Joyce on the 4th of March, 2019.

The

circumstances surrounding the reports by the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards were serious and have occupied the attention and resources of this

Legislature for some time now. I am satisfied that the Member has raised this

point of privilege in accordance with the required process.

The

point of privilege is based on a recent news story and asserts that the story

contains new information that affects his privileges as a Member of this hon.

House. On that basis, he asks that The

Joyce Report of October 19, 2018 and

The Kirby Report of October 3, 2018, be referred back to this House of

Assembly so that the House of Assembly can discuss the manner in which the

Commissioner investigated and presented these reports. The Member is not asking

for a review on merits.

The

reports of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards were tabled in this House

and were the subject of intense debate and discussion. In addition, the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards briefed Members in camera and,

unprecedented in the last 50 years, appeared in person before the Committee of

the Whole House. His remarks were, in fact, limited to the process he used and

not the substance of the complaints. Members had numerous opportunities to

question the CLS on his work.

The CBC

news report from March 2, 2019 referred to by the Member states, and I quote:

“Sources within the House's Management Commission inform me Chaulk did tell some

MHAs that” – I guess I'm not permitted to use the Member's name, but it's the

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands – “was unable to be interviewed ….”

With the

exception of the Clerk of the House, Members of the Management Commission are

Members of this House of Assembly. Any questions they had about comments the

Commissioner may have made in the technical briefing could have easily been

raised when questioning the Commissioner or in debate on the reports. This

particular issue was, in fact, raised by the Member himself multiple times in

the questioning of the Commissioner and in debate. The Member for Humber - Bay

of Islands had many opportunities to be heard and to raise issues in this House,

and I would refer Members to Hansard ,

November 5, 2018, and the following day, November 6, 2018.

I have

examined the documents tabled by the Member and note that they provide

additional context in this matter. In a letter from the Member's solicitor to

the Commissioner on July 26, 2018, the following argument is presented on the

Member's behalf: We have discussed your request with our client, and the Member

believes that in our reply dated July 19, 2018, with attachments, he has

rebutted each of the factual allegations made by the complainant and has

demonstrated that the very serious allegations made against the Member,

including but not limited to political corruption, financial irregularities and

unethical behaviour, are unfounded and untrue.

The

letter is very clear. It goes on to say that the Member is willing to meet or to

provide a supplementary written response if the Commissioner deems that the

request was not already fully addressed. The letter further states: If, however,

as Commissioner for Legislative Standards, you feel that any aspect of the

request for opinion has not been fully addressed, or requires further

clarification or amplification, our client will agree to meet with the

investigator or to respond to written questions from the investigator within the

time frame indicated – end of quote.

August 1, 2018, there is then an exchange between the solicitor and the

Commissioner reiterating the above and discussing scheduling which concludes

with the Commissioner stating – in quotes: Sorry for the misunderstanding on my

part. I wasn't expecting you or your client – end of quote. This is then

acknowledged by the solicitor.

The

Member has provided no further correspondence after this exchange to indicate

that he sought an in-person meeting with the Commissioner or to submit

supplementary written information. Further, no correspondence has been tabled to

indicate that the Commissioner refused to meet with the Member or accept

additions to the Member's written submission.

When

moving this point of privilege, the Member also tabled correspondence which

occurred after the Commissioner's report had been tabled. In this, the

Commissioner responds to a query from the Member as follows –and I quote: With

respect to your second question on whether or not a respondent chooses to appear

in person, you were not required to appear, nor was it expected. The act

provides that you can make representations to the Commissioner in writing or in

person or by counsel or other representative. Your counsel provided a very

extensive submission – end of quote.

October 19, 2018, in preparation for the Member's consideration of the reports,

the Law Clerk sent a communication to all House Leaders and independent Members.

The memo outlined the process for dealing with the reports of the CLS and stated

as follows: A resolution is a motion like any other, and as such is amendable.

Amendments and sub-amendments may be moved. Unlike amendments to the Budget

motion, there is no limit on the number of amendments or sub-amendments which

may be moved, and they would be subject to the normal parliamentary rules for

amendments.

Two

amendments were moved to motions before the House in this case and the House

voted upon and passed both of them. No amendments were moved by either the MHA

for Humber - Bay of Islands or Mount Scio. Any Member concerned with the process

could have moved an amendment for consideration of the House at that time.

conclude, I do not consider the news report cited by the Member to contain any

more information than what was already before this House and its Members.

Further,

this House has received an extensive amount of information about this matter,

debated and decided upon it. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands accepted the

sanction imposed by this House in that he apologized and attended respectful

workplace training in accordance with its direction.

therefore, rule that there is no prima facie point of privilege to support

referring The

Joyce Report of October 19, 2018 and

The Kirby Report of

October 3, 2018 back to this House for further consideration.

This is

my final ruling on this matter.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, point of

clarification?

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm sorry you're not able –

you have a point of order?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

In your statement that you

just made that the Members of the Management Commission had an opportunity to

speak in the House, you just stated that during the debate they had an

opportunity. When I wrote you, you informed me, Mr. Speaker, that they couldn't

speak because it was confidential.

So, are

you saying now that the Members that were in the Management Commission, which

you just stated, had an opportunity to speak, can they speak openly now?

MR. SPEAKER:

Sir, I don't see this as a

point of order, per se.

As I

said, my ruling is final and –

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible.) I am asking for

clarification of what you just stated. You stated in the report that –

MR. SPEAKER:

Again, Sir, I say my ruling

is final.

MR. JOYCE:

I'm asking for clarification

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

You'll have to take it up

outside of these proceedings.

Thank

you.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

I would ask to hear from the following Members for Ferryland, Humber - Bay of

Islands, Bonavista and Mount Pearl - Southlands.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Joshua Power, who was chosen as a Youth Service Leader by 4-H

Canada.

Last

year, 4-H Canada launched Hands to Larger Service program which is funded

select and train Youth Service Leaders aged 18-25 to co-create the

community-focused service programs across Canada.

Last

year, Joshua participated and was paired with the Hanna District 4-H club in

Youngstown, Alberta, where they planned and completed a community park

beautification project. This year, he will be working with two clubs in Ontario,

the Wellington County 4-H in Guelph, and the Rocklyn 4-H club in Rocklyn.

Growing

up, he was a member of the I. Sullivan Memorial 4-H Club in Calvert for 15

years. He has represented the province at many national 4-H events. He was

provincial representative on the 4-H Youth Advisory Committee, and completed his

two-year term in February.

Joshua

exemplifies the well-rounded, innovative and leadership-driven young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we have in the province. I want to recognize

Joshua and so many other youth in our province who are making significant

contributions.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all my colleagues here in the House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating Joshua Power on his leadership and commitment to his community

involvement. We wish him well in all future endeavours.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

I rise today to recognize Mr.

Robert Barrett of Gillams who was recently named the new Illustrious Potentate

of the Mazol Shriners of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A native

of Bishop's Cove, Conception Bay, Robert has been a member of the Shriners'

organization for over 26 years. He joined the Masonic Order of Freemasons in

Halifax in 1985 as served as Master with the Mother Lodge of Duke of Kent #12.

He is a member of Lodge Corner Brook #11, and Milley

Chapter #2, Royal Arch

Masons. Robert is also a member of the Crossroads Preceptory #80 Knights Templar

where he served as eminent Knight.

This

summer, Robert will preside over events being held in Corner Brook as the Long

Range Shrine Club will host the Northeast Shrine Association, which includes

members from Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States.

As we

know, Shriners are committed to helping children with serious medical issues

such as orthopedic conditions, serious burns and spinal cord injuries. To quote

a recent statement Robert made in the media: “It's helping children that remains

the most important aspect of all they do.”

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join with me in congratulating Robert on his

appointment and wish him well over the coming months as he serves this wonderful

organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, it's a distinct

honour to stand here today and recognize Ross Abbott of Bonavista. Ross is no

stranger to the Bonavista region, being known for his countless hours of

volunteerism and community service.

It is

safe to say that Ross is a fixture with Memorial United Church where he is the

organist, active participant in all activities, and puts together one of the

most impressive yard sales you'll ever see at Bailey's Cove church hall.

However,

since 2009, Ross has become equally known for his documentation of history in

Bonavista and surrounding communities, as well as the province. His historical

Facebook. This all started with one photo and, 10 years later, Ross has a

digital archive of over 49,000 photos spanning generations.

This

archive ranges from school pictures, boats, buildings, community events, Sea

Cadets, war veterans, postcards and many others. Families have given Ross their

photo albums and it's certainly interesting to see how people changed through

the years.

Please

join me in recognizing Ross's commitment to his community and preserving our

history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the accomplishments of

nine individuals who have given their time and talent to the sport of hockey in

the City of Mount Pearl.

Four of

these individuals, Harry Bartlett, Gerry Evans, Bonnie Evans and Mimmie Styles

have been inducted into the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Hall of Fame in the

category of Builder; three others, David Bailey, Terry Ryan Jr. and Roy Smith in

the Player category; as well as two others, Doug Brett and Randy White, in the

Officials category.

Hockey,

like many other sports, provides tremendous benefits to our youth, not only from

a health and wellness perspective, but also in providing life-long lessons such

as the value of hard work and commitment and in working as part of a team.

Through

the tireless efforts and unwavering commitment of these Hall of Fame inductees,

many young people in my community have benefited from both a physical and social

point of view and have gone on to be very healthy, well-rounded and productive

citizens.

I would

ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in commending these individuals

for their contribution to this great sport and in congratulating them on being

inducted into the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Hall of Fame.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, while the rising

cost of insurance premiums for the taxi industry has been a problem for a long

time, our government is the first administration to deal directly with the

matter by trying to find solutions.

In 2017,

our government initiated a review of the auto insurance system by the Public

Utilities Board, which placed a specific focus on the taxi industry, including a

closed-claims study specific to taxi operators.

The

findings of the PUB report demonstrate that the insurance pressures facing the

taxi industry have been ongoing for more than 20 years. Mr. Speaker, one such

pressure is reliance on Facility Association – an unincorporated non-profit

organization of all automobile insurers. The organization is an insurer of last

resort. However, Facility Association currently –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

– insures over 95 per cent of

the taxi industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

After

making no rate applications between 1993 and 2012, Facility Association has

filed for rate increases almost yearly since then. The total cumulative rate

increases over the period 2012 to 2018 is approximately 244 per cent.

Along

with the insurance review, we also met with representatives of the taxi industry

on a number of occasions and together implemented a number of measures to help

strengthen the industry.

Effective July 1, 2018, there were policy amendments focusing on skilled

drivers, experience in driving in provincial road conditions, driving history,

passenger safety and safer vehicles. A zero-tolerance policy for drugs or drugs

and alcohol when operating a taxi came into effect on December 18, 2018.

Budget 2018 , government approved a

one-third reduction in the tax on auto insurance over four years. This will

particularly benefit those paying the highest rates such as taxi operators.

Mr.

Speaker, our government remains committed to working with stakeholders in

bringing forward changes to legislation during this sitting of the House that

will benefit consumers of insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador, including taxi

operators.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for a copy of her statement.

It's

been six weeks since the minister received the PUB report on the Review of

Automobile Insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are glad the minister has

had an opportunity to review the report but when will we get the benefit of her

deliberations?

From the

minister's statement, one would think everything is good with taxi insurance. If

so, why are taxi operators here today?

The PUB

has said it is clear that the taxi industry is in crisis. The minister notes a

cumulative 244 per cent increase from 2012 but nothing else in the minister's

statement indicates whether she agrees with the PUB that there's a taxi industry

crisis.

The 15

per cent insurance tax is a burden this government imposed, taking one-third off

is not enough. The government should join the PC Opposition in committing to

remove the tax completely and immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I just

do remind all visitors, we are really happy to see you here, but you're not to

express any reaction to what's going on in the proceedings.

Thank

you very much.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advanced copy of her statement. As the PUB said in its

report, and which the minister didn't mention: Government and the taxi

operator's first steps to strengthen the taxi industry will lead to lower costs

in the long term, but it is unlikely that these actions will result in immediate

measurable reductions in the loss to taxi operators in the present.

The

measures the minister is talking about today reflect that prediction. Clearly,

much more is going to have to be done to support taxi operators.

I'm glad

to hear the minister say that government remains committed to working on this

problem, but are we going to see substantive and meaningful changes in

legislation which will really make a difference to the taxi operators?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I

rise to pay tribute to our province's 1,500 social workers during National

Social Work Month.

This

year, the Canadian Association of Social Workers have chosen the theme “Real

People. Real Impact.”

This

theme reminds us that social workers, who are dedicated to enhancing the health

and well-being of individuals, families and communities, are also our

neighbours, our friends and family members, and are committed to working with

people and communities to make the world a better place.

“Real

People. Real Impact.” also refers to the individuals that social workers

interact with on a daily basis, people who are diverse, complex and accomplished

through their lived experience. It helps us remember that they are more than

clients; they are valued members of our society.

Mr.

Speaker, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, social workers can be found in a

variety of settings, including hospitals, community centres, government

departments, universities and private practice. They work in a variety of

practice areas such as adult and youth corrections, child welfare, addictions

and mental health. Social workers may also be engaged in community development,

policy development, education and many other paths.

In my

own department, I have witnessed the commitment and dedication of social workers

on a daily basis, and I am so very grateful for, and appreciative of, the

valuable work that they do. I also extend my appreciation to the many community

partners who work alongside us in the field of social work, some of whom are

here with us today.

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage all social workers to participate in the many activities

taking place during Social Work Month, and I ask all hon. Members to join me in

recognizing our many social workers for their ongoing service in society.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister opposite for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, all

Members on this side of this House, of course, join the minister in celebrating

Social Work Month and their theme of “Real People. Real Impact.”

Mr.

Speaker, social workers touch virtually every facet of our lives from community

practice to clinical settings. These trained professionals deal with some of the

most complex individuals in our society on issues ranging from mental health and

addiction challenges to child protection and corrections.

Mr.

Speaker, as the minister noted, social workers are also our friends, neighbours

and members of our community. Collectively, they are working hard to make our

communities across the province a better place. However, Mr. Speaker, I also

note the challenges of social workers in having the necessary supports,

supervision and reasonable caseloads in going about their careers. Government

must continue to work collaboratively to address these concerns in our society

as our society becomes more complex and challenging.

Mr.

Speaker, I have worked with a number of social workers in the past and I want to

personally applaud the 1,500 social workers in our province during National

Social Work Month.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. Thank you to all the social workers around the province who work

for the people of our province, often under great pressure of huge caseloads and

limited resources, but with passion and compassion.

Social

workers not only work within existing systems but they are also champions of

challenging those systems to change and to adapt to the real life needs of our

people.

Thank

you to all the social workers who dare to resist, insist and persist for social

justice and equality for all people.

“Real

People. Real Impact.”

Bravo,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living, a

non-profit organization that works with and on behalf of individuals with an

intellectual disability and their families, is inviting nominations for the 2019

Inclusive Education Award.

Each

year, the award is presented to a K-12 school in Newfoundland and Labrador for

their outstanding efforts to develop and design their classrooms, their programs

and activities so that all students can participate in all aspects of school

life.

Mr.

Speaker, this government supports safe, caring and inclusive environments

enabling all students to reach their full potential. As part of our Education

Action Plan, the department is developing a new policy on responsive teaching

and learning for all students, based on the philosophy of inclusion and meeting

the needs of all students. We are working closely with teachers in Phase I

schools to gather their feedback to ensure the new policy will meet the needs of

students.

While

the implementation of inclusive educational practices has improved considerably,

it is important to continually strive to break down barriers and identify

opportunities to implement proven approaches to teaching and learning for all

students.

encourage students and teachers to celebrate inclusive education and apply for

the Inclusive Education Award. The deadline for submission is April 12.

Information about the award and the new guidelines are available on Newfoundland

and Labrador Association for Community Living website.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we, on this

side, are also pleased that the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for

Community Living is now welcoming nominations for the 2019 Inclusive Education

Award.

This

association promotes a vision of communities where everyone belongs, have a

rightful place and where families support a person's right to full citizenship

with society. The association's work on behalf of people with intellectual

disabilities and their families has been nothing short of outstanding.

I join

with the minister to encourage the public to nominate individuals in the

education community for such an important award with such a wonderful group.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy. I congratulate the Newfoundland and

Labrador Association for Community Living on their 63 years of advocacy for

equality and inclusion. I commend the applicants who will come forward for this

award, for their efforts to break down barriers in their schools.

I hope

government will share concretely their commitment to inclusive education by

providing the necessary resources to properly implement the new policy on

responsive teaching and learning.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Public

Utilities Board completed its review of auto insurance rates on January 29 after

six weeks of consideration.

Can the

minister provide an update on specific actions being considered?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes,

there's been quite a bit of work that's been going on within government since

the release of the report by the PUB. It's not lost on me or those people

watching today that the irony in all of this is the PUB does some great work.

But we also know that it was the former PC Party that actually kicked the PUB

out of some very thorough and important discussions just a few years ago prior

to the sanction of Muskrat Falls.

But, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say to the taxi industry, we want to work closely with them.

The minister has already made comment about some 244 per cent increase that is

driven primarily by third-party liabilities, and I look forward to the next

question from the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, we, in this province, have the highest auto insurance rates in

Atlantic Canada, we are told.

When

will the minister, or the Premier for that matter, inform the public about

potential future changes regarding auto insurance?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is

no question, and as I just mentioned as I was finishing up the last answers,

that since 2012 the taxi industry has seen some 244 per cent increase, and that

rate is unsustainable to the industry. It's been clearly outlined by meetings

that the minister has had.

And by

the way, Mr. Speaker, I understand the industry has got a request for a meeting

with me, certainly one I'd be more than willing to take as we can fit that into

the schedule. I think it's the appropriate thing to do –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

– to listen to the concerns

of the industry, just like we've been meeting with the legal industry – the

lawyers, and I'm sure the Member opposite would be very familiar how those

discussions would go.

We're

already meeting with the insurers, as well, to come to a solution. It's been

mentioned already, this is a 20-year problem that's been in the making. We want

to work with industry; we want to work with people in this province to find a

solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, of course it's not only taxi drivers and people in that industry

who are greatly vexed by the cost of insurance. It affects families with young

drivers, seniors and others.

Can the

Premier or the minister give some indication as to what the plan is to help

those citizens?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

think the Leader of the PC Party would know, going back to 2015, this province

faced some unprecedented challenges, and I think the Leader of the PC Party

knows why we faced those difficult challenges. We were facing a $2.7-billion

deficit. I am sure he knows the history of what we've had to deal with.

The

taxation on insurance right now is just over $60 million. If you want to remove

that tax, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the PC Party, where

would you replace that money? We are taking it back; we are doing it stable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

We are doing it in a

sustainable fashion. Because in the backdrop of all this, we've taken most of

the tax right now off gasoline that was there. We are trying to create a

foundation for this province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

I remind

all Members the Speaker is not in a good mood today, so I will not tolerate

heckling or interruptions.

Please

proceed.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

As the hon. Premier has

recognized the cost of insurance is a serious concern for taxi operators and

others, and he mentioned the figure, which was adverted to in the Ministerial

Statement, of a 244 per cent increase in recent years, we've been told by taxi

operators that it can cost up to $12,000 per year to insure.

What

measures are being considered by the minister or the Premier to address

specifically this problem?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But just

acknowledging the fact that when you look at the magnitude of the problem here,

you'd understand that the only solution that the Leader of the PC Party just

mentioned is only a small part of this. It's an important part of it, but some

of this is within the controls of government, Mr. Speaker. Some of it we have to

work with the industry to find solutions to all of this.

As I

said, this problem goes back to 20 years. I look forward to meeting with the

group, Mr. Speaker, because I'm sure that there will be some solutions that will

come with this.

But I

would say, and remind the Leader of the PC Party right now when he just stands

up there and says I'm going to reduce $60 million here, I'm going to take

another $150 million somewhere else, I'm going to balance the books of this

province – which is what he said, he would put a ceiling on debt, that he would

balance the books next year. Before you sit in your chair, Sir, I would say make

no promises (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Sorry,

your time has expired.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

I counsel a little patience

to the hon. the Premier. All will be revealed in good time.

Can the

Premier give the public some clarification as to, if not an exact time frame, an

approximate time frame, within which this whole complex of issues around the

cost of auto insurance will be addressed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

already laid out some of the plans about reducing the tax on insurance. Some of

that work has already been done. Of course, there will be a budget and lot of

those decisions feed into budget 2019, Mr. Speaker. I am guessing that if things

– Mr. Speaker, there are many things, no matter what we put, would be good and

good for the people in this province.

mentioned earlier about some of the most vulnerable that we have in our society.

We put $121 million to support low-income people and seniors in our province,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

The Opposition, Mr. Speaker,

did not vote for that. They actually voted against that, Mr. Speaker, so that

gives you an idea.

We are

in an election year, Mr. Speaker, I understand that and it's easy for the Leader

of the Opposition to stand there without any accountability and be

grandstanding.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

This is a little bit

technical so either the minister or the Premier, if he wants to come to the

plate on it.

The only

auto insurance coverage – 95 per cent anyway – available to taxi operators is

through Facility Association, which is referred to as the insurer of last

resort. Taxi operators are frustrated by lack of alternatives.

Can

either the minister or the Premier explain why operators are limited to being

insured through Facility?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'm sure the Leader of the PC Party will be very familiar with the insurance

system in Newfoundland and Labrador. He had mentioned already that the rates in

Newfoundland and Labrador will be the highest in Atlantic Canada, and these

statistics that he's mentioning here, Mr. Speaker, are well known to everyone

that's associated with this.

I think

the Leader of the PC Party is also aware of the role that Facility plays in

providing insurance within the system that we have within our province. That is

true for all those other provinces within Atlantic Canada as well.

What

we're seeing here is we saw insurance increase freezes going back into the '90s,

which led into and bleed into some of the problems that we're trying to deal

with here today.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the first government to look for a solution. We've got the PUB

involved, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to working with industry to work and

find a solution to stabilize and, hopefully, lower insurance rates in this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you to the Premier.

Taxi

operators are also upset with what they believe is a lack of recognition being

given to good driving records. The Consumer Advocate recently stated taxi

drivers whose records are without blemish are bearing a burden under the current

system.

What

will the minister or the Premier and his government do to correct this

perception of injustice?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

why it's important to look at the ideas and the solutions that will come from

the industry. I agree, that when you have a driver that works within the taxi

industry, that has a good driving record, they should not be bear the

consequence of those that are responsible for driving those claims up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I understand

that. That goes without saying. That is the reason why this government got the

PUB involved. This government is engaging with the industry, Mr. Speaker, and

it's the reason why I am more than willing to sit down with the industry to look

for the solutions.

there's anything that I have learned in the last 3½ years, if you want to make a

difference in this province, set it up for a good future, is work with

industries of all sorts within this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Hear, hear indeed on that

point, Mr. Speaker, about the injustice of not taking into account unblemished

records.

The PUB

suggested in its report that government may wish to immediately begin

consultations with stakeholders to identify solutions to the current crisis in

the taxi industry.

Is that

something the minister is considering or has already initiated?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, my officials in

my department have met with the insurance industry. We've met with the legal

industry. We've met with taxi operators. We've met with a number of interested

individuals in this piece of legislation.

The

Member opposite knows the procedure for bringing legislation into this House of

Assembly. He knows we are working on this legislation. He knows we are going to

bring it to Committee and he knows that I have committed publicly to bringing

this into the House of Assembly this sitting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The government's 15 per cent

tax on insurance premiums has worsened the situation.

Will the

minister join the Official Opposition and commit to completely removing the tax

on insurance, immediately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

love to eliminate the tax, Mr. Speaker. The reality is the Leader of the PC

Party has committed to reducing government spending by what government's

revenues are. By reducing the tax, it further reduces government's revenues to

almost $700 million. That's almost the entire budget of the Department of

Education, I say, Mr. Speaker.

What is

the Leader of the PC Party going to cut? How many people is he going to lay off

to fulfil that election promise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

government made the cost of driving more expensive with the introduction of the

4.42 cent per litre carbon tax on gasoline.

Will the

minister admit that this decision to swap this gas tax into a carbon tax was

about revenue generation and not about emission reduction?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

can say quite comfortably that if we had to go with the backstop that was going

to be imposed on us by the federal government, we would've paid a lot more than

we are paying today, I can guarantee you that.

The fact

that we've been able to negotiate, with your help as well, Mr. Speaker, a

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador carbon plan, we have saved this province and

the taxpayers of this province a considerable amount of money.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If they

would have gone with our approach, they'd be paying nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Consultations on climate

change action policy clearly showed that if a carbon tax was collected, people

wanted those carbon tax revenues to be used to reduce other taxes, or support

climate change initiatives, rather than for general revenues, is in the What We

Heard document. Yet, your government has decided to put the money in general

revenue anyway.

Can the

minister explain how putting carbon tax money in general revenue combats climate

change?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, he hasn't read our climate change plan. He has not read it because

what he's saying today, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely not true. The monies that

we're collecting through our carbon plan will be used to address the 33 actions

in our climate change plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That's

where the money is going, Mr. Speaker. We're committed to that and we're

committed to the environment.

Had we

gone – and I'll say it again – had we gone with the federal backstop program and

plan that was going to be imposed on us, we would be paying a lot more.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister maybe should consult with the Minister of Finance who stood in this

House and told us that revenue would be going in general revenue. Maybe he needs

to consult with his Minister of Finance because that's what we're being told.

Isn't

the carbon tax really just a tax grab, Minister, to increase general revenue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

I guess I should have

answered that question the last time because that's the exact answer I gave. Mr.

Speaker, he needs to read the climate change plan.

In the

climate change plan there are 33 actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The

money that's going to be accumulated through the carbon plan will be used to do

just that.

Yes, it

may go into general revenue, absolutely, but it has to go into the general

revenue. There's nowhere else for it to go. The fact that it's going into

general revenue, Mr. Speaker, doesn't mean –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LETTO:

– it's going to be used for

general purposes. It's going to be used –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LETTO:

– Mr. Speaker, to address the

33 actions in our climate change plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's

what it's going to be used for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

he answered the question. We all need to read up on stuff and I think the

minister really does need to crack down and start reading his briefing notes,

but we'll wait for that.

Mr.

Speaker, last week, to the surprise of many, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Environment announced more public consultation of banning single-use plastic

bags and said he leads by consultations and makes no apologies for it.

Did the

minister consult with his counterparts in other Atlantic provinces on what was

their input?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

guess the cheap shots are continuing again today. If you want to talk about

reading briefing notes, well maybe he should start reading the plan.

Mr.

Speaker, yes, I make no apologies, and I made them, no apologies for holding

consultations, none whatsoever. That's exactly what we were asked to do in

deciding whether to implement a ban on plastic bags or not. We're doing exactly

what was asked of us and I make no apologies for it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, last week, the minister also stated that Prince Edward Island had

brought in a ban and learned from their implementation that they did it too

quickly. The feedback they're getting is that they did not do enough

consultation. What the minister said has now been contradicted by the PEI

minister of Environment.

Minister, how do you explain this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Mr. Speaker, I have no

intentions of getting into an argument with the Environment minister in PEI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order.

MR. LETTO:

They made their decisions to

bring in a plan without consultations, Mr. Speaker. And just to set the record

straight, when the bill was entered into the House, it came in with no

consultations and it ended up making amendments in third reading – amendments in

third reading.

Mr.

Speaker, when this bill comes to the House, when and if this bill comes to the

House, there'll be no need for amendments.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, PEI's minister of Environment is not only encouraging the minister of

our province to do the right thing, ban single-use plastic bags, municipalities

in Newfoundland and Labrador have been calling for the ban for years. The

Canadian Federation of Independent Business no longer oppose the ban.

So,

Minister, why the delay?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to

finish off on that last point, one thing that did happen in PEI was they had to

delay it six months because they didn't do the consultations, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

And it was because of

businesses that had no input. It was because of the fees that were being charged

to consumers to address the issue.

Mr.

Speaker, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, the municipalities of this

province have the authority today to implement a ban if they so wish.

We are

looking at implementing a province-wide ban, and we'll do just that, but we

won't do it without making sure that we have the input from all our citizens,

all our businesses, whether it's the CFIB or the Retail Council of Canada. We

will do it through consultations.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So what

exactly is the minister looking for in this new round of consultations? Is he

looking for a reason not to proceed with this ban? Is that the real reason we're

doing more consultations, Minister? Are you looking for some backstop for this

to say no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

This government has never

said no to a ban.

Mr.

Speaker, what we are talking about here is three weeks of consultations – three

weeks, Mr. Speaker. It's not three years, three months or decades; it's three

weeks. We've had considerable feedback on our survey. We've had over – I think

it's almost 1,800 responses through the survey right now. We are, as we go,

doing some work on those surveys.

The

feedback that's coming back to us will be quite valuable when we go to

implement, if and when we do, implement this ban and develop the legislation

that goes with it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Justice is reported as saying he doesn't care about staff concerns

if the Marine Atlantic offices move to Port aux Basques.

I ask

the Premier: Where would the provincial government prefer to see this office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very

happy to stand up and talk about Marine Atlantic. It's interesting because the

Member opposite actually put out a press release insulting every person in Port

aux Basques the other day, calling it a struggling community.

When I

did the interview, what I said is that the decision should be made by looking at

what is the best financial move to ensure that Marine Atlantic has the lowest

rates possible to ensure that people and goods are coming back and forth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister – he won't admit to, he insulted ever so many staff people who work at

Marine Atlantic. I won't go down that road but everyone knows what he said when

he was asked a question about those staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Proceed.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you.

The

heckling is allowed on one side, I guess, is it? Yeah.

Anyway,

Premier, has the provincial government discussed the location of the Marine

Atlantic office with the board chair?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you

know what? Any time I can stand in this House and talk about the value of Marine

Atlantic to the people of this province is a good day, and what I can say is

that most of the Members on this side – I look at the minister, I look at the

Premier – we have had conversations with our federal counterparts, with the

board of Marine Atlantic, with the staff of Marine Atlantic.

What I

would say is, it's interesting, at no point has any Member on the other side had

a meeting with Marine Atlantic any time in the last five years.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier,

are you aware of a consultant report commissioned by the Marine Atlantic board

examining a potential move of the headquarters? Have you seen the report and

what are the recommendations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understanding from being interviewed on this is that there is a report being

done to determine what's the best option for the headquarters. The goal is to

ensure that Marine Atlantic rates are reduced.

What I

find interesting is that the rates went up while Mr. Harper was the prime

minister, and the Leader of the PCs actually wanted to run for that party, so

let's talk about that irony.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

government needs to realize these rates have been on the increase for the last

three-plus years, since they've been in government, and they've said nothing –

zero.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Members over there made a

career on bashing Marine Atlantic and all of a sudden for the last 3½ years they

don't say anything. So, I'll leave –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah, who is that? Yeah,

that's right.

Most of

our food in the province arrives on tractor-trailer and it has been reported

that commercial rates for Marine Atlantic are going up. Compounding the problem

of getting fresh food to our province is the Liberal's carbon tax.

I ask

the minister: What is your government doing to prevent the cost of living to

increase even further?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

I'm happy to stand up and talk about Marine Atlantic because living in Port aux

Basques, one of the two hubs of Marine Atlantic in this province, I'm glad to

talk about it and realize its importance, but, again, it's interesting, the cost

recovery for Marine Atlantic is 65 per cent. It went up while they were in

government and didn't have any meetings with the feds. It went up while Mr.

Harper was the prime minister and there are people on that side that wanted to

be on his team.

So,

let's talk about that, and, again, I say to the Member opposite, perhaps what

you should do is actually meet with Marine Atlantic at some point –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order.

MR. A. PARSONS:

– because you've never done

so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Let's just turn the

temperature down just a few degrees here, please.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, today in

The Telegram there was a heart-wrenching story of a mother who's

desperately waiting for a NLHC transfer to a unit with one floor since last

year. As reported by The Telegram ,

this lady has a daughter with autism, developmental disabilities and this young

girl also experiences seizures, which makes climbing stairs in the current unit

dangerous.

Mr.

Speaker, is the minister aware of this case? If so, when did the minister become

aware?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development for a quick response, please.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member knows that I can't stand on the floor of this House and speak to an

individual circumstance. What I can tell this hon. House is we have a group over

in Housing that deals with some very difficult cases.

When

somebody comes and makes application to Housing or when they request a transfer,

there is a process, Mr. Speaker, in place. I'll even actually say this:

Sometimes a unit is offered to somebody and that may not be suitable and then it

has to start again.

During

the application process, Mr. Speaker, the individual applying gets to indicate

for an example. They get to check boxes and say whether their preference is to

live on the east end, the west end or central, and that gives the individuals

more options for units.

continue to work, Mr. Speaker, to place people (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Your

time has expired.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and

Labrador is the only province left in Canada making it mandatory for trans

people to have their assessments for gender-affirming surgery done at CAMH in

Toronto. Even Ontario does not require their trans people to go to CAMH for

assessment. There is no longer any medical reason for assessments to be done out

of province.

I ask

the Minister of Health and Community Services – he's been promising to make

changes for a while now. I ask him why is he dragging his feet on this.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

inherited some legislation which is really quite old in this regard. I have met

with advocates, some of whom are actually in the gallery today. I have also met

with Gemma Hickey and they were very supportive of our approach.

We are

crafting changes to the regulations to remove requirements for out-of-province

assessment. We are also changing our approach to insured services for what

surgery will be available in the province. It's a work in progress and I'm sorry

if the Member opposite feels we've not moved fast enough, but we are on the

right track, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, he's been

dealing with this for 3½ years and it's affecting people's lives.

Requiring our trans people to go to CAMH creates unnecessary wait times, extra

stress and extra cost to individuals and the province. Several health care

providers here are willing to do the assessments and are qualified as per

criteria of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which is

the world standard for this work. The minister has known this for years and

those advocates and those health care providers are asking for it.

I ask

the minister: Will he commit to making all necessary changes to the act so trans

people can have assessments done in-province before this House closes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to

support that move. That's been where we have been going. I would take some issue

with the timeline that the Member opposite references, but the facts of the case

are we have already opened up a wide arrange of transgender surgeries for those

people who are in need of it. The assessment process is the piece we are working

on and that, unfortunately, was enshrined in very outdated legislation which we

are in the process of changing.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the minister again to clarify his answer.

Is he

committing and promising to have that act changed before this House closes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm quite happy

to move as expeditiously as the speed of government will allow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Trans

people and their allies have been waiting for this for years and the minister

knows this. It's not a new issue.

Mr.

Speaker, the new Correctional Services Act

was passed in 2011 based on the 2008 Decades of Darkness report, but the previous government never

proclaimed it.

This

current government has already had 3½ years to enact it, but haven't also. Only

now we are hearing there will be amendments to that act.

I ask

the minister: Will the new Correctional

Services Act actually come into force this spring or will his government

continue their decade of foot-dragging?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand up and speak to this very important topic. The

Correctional Services Act was debated in this House in the

spring of 2011, before many of the Members in this House were actually even

here. But the fact is that the Opposition did not do any regulations for the

remaining four years after that. That piece of legislation had a five-year

statutory review.

When we took office beginning in 2016, we were reviewing

the legislation anyway. What we have done since that time with disciplinary

segregation, new policies, administrative segregation. Just today, dealing with

these issues, we launched a bail supervision program and a program for

electronic monitoring, something that was cut in 2013.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre for a quick question, please.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The act still remains unchanged and not enacted.

I ask the minister then: When will he be releasing a female

offender strategy that is called for with gender and trauma-informed

interventions, programs and services?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety for a quick response, please.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can say is that when it comes to inmates in this

province, male and female, we're taking every step we can to ensure that the

general way of thinking, when we talk about incarceration, when we talk about

punishment – we're moving away from that and we want to talk more about

rehabilitation. We want to talk about the fact that we have significant

pressures in the incarceration system, in the corrections system when we have

facilities that were built before Canada.

What we are doing is working with advocates, community

members and the staff to make sure that our places of incarceration is better

and we'll continue to do that work.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

time for Oral Questions is over.

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm standing on a point of order. I'm definitely not challenging your

ruling, but I'm going to ask for clarification because

statements were made in the

House and you have to rise.

The

statement you made in the House was that the Members of the Management

Commission could have spoken during the debate. That was the statement that you

made in the ruling. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read a letter that you wrote me

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm sorry Sir, but I don't

see this as a point of order. My ruling was very clear, very thorough. It's

available in Hansard . I can also have

it emailed to you to review. I would propose that would be a venue to deal with

it. I don't see further debate on the ruling.

MR. JOYCE:

It's not debate; it's

clarification. I am looking for clarification from you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Again, Sir, my ruling was

very thorough. I would ask you to take your chair.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

Can I just read what you

wrote me –?

MR. SPEAKER:

I would ask you to take your

chair, Sir.

Thank

you.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a

result of Question Period yesterday, I am tabling the Terms of Reference for the

Review of Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy that's being carried out by

Ms. Ann Marie Hann.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, in accordance

with the requirements of

section 10 of the Architects Act, I am pleased to table

the ninth annual report of the Architects Licensing Board of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

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

An Act To Amend The

Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, Bill 58.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I give

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

An Act To Amend The

Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 57.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province to still require an assessment

and referral from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, Gender

Identity Clinic in Toronto; the wait time for an assessment at CAMH is

approximately two or more years; in recent years, other provinces have improved

their in-province assessment and referral processes, in addition to increasing

coverage and funding for gender-affirming surgeries; without adequate MCP

coverage, these surgeries can cost thousands of dollars; the Department of

Health and Community Services is already engaged in investigating an in-province

assessment and referral process; long wait times for gender affirmation

surgeries often contribute to prolonged gender dysphoria and worsened mental

health; among transgendered youth aged 14 to 25 in Canada, 65.2 per cent

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

last year, according to a 2014 Trans Youth Health Survey.

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

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop an in-province assessment

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

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

gender-affirming surgeries through MCP; expand the types of surgeries covered to

better reflect national standards.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a new petition. This is a petition signed by people all over

the province.

Since

they did this petition, the wait times at CAMH have been reduced. That's because

nobody else is using CAMH across the country for an assessment.

Now, the

minister has told us that they're on it, but really it's taken so long. He's had

this portfolio now for 3½ years. The previous government, I wrote them letters

with names of professionals, of doctors who are able to and willing to do the

assessment process here in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Excuse me, Sir.

MS. ROGERS:

Nowhere else in Canada, even

Ontario is not required that CAMH be the place where assessments are done for

trans folks.

It's

time to stop this. The extra burden on the individuals that are concerned, the

extra cost; even though some of their transportation is covered, they're still

out of pocket a considerable amount of money, particularly when you don't have

money, even a few hundred dollars is next to impossible, and particularly if you

have to miss work. If you're in a low-paying job and you don't have holidays,

it's very difficult. It's extra cost to the province.

We have

the doctors, and the thing is, is that the advocates and the doctors concerned

have been asking for this. It's time, Mr. Speaker. It's beyond time.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Glad to

rise to elaborate on some of the issues that were raised by the petition and in

Question Period.

We have

inherited some antique legislation. We are working with clinicians who are

interested in providing those services for assessment, locally, and we have yet

to finalize a clinical protocol.

I would,

however, point out for everyone that we have already, through MCP, increased the

number of gender reassignment surgery types that are now available and broadened

that. Some of these patients have to go out of the province because the skills

do not exist and nor will ever exist in this province.

cover, under our universal program, for the same as we would for anybody else

with a surgical issue. For income support clients who are financially challenged

we will cover the entire cost, Mr. Speaker. They have to go to Montreal.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I present this following petition on behalf of the residents in my

district and, in particular, certain areas like the Foxtrap Access area.

Mr.

Speaker, Foxtrap Access Road in CBS is a vital link to the TCH and Peacekeepers

Way as well as being a heavily populated area. This road is in need of immediate

repairs; it needs asphalt resurfacing as well as shoulder repairs. This road is

listed for resurfacing for 2023 in the five-year roads program, but is not soon

enough and its needs immediate attention.

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

call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to provide immediate repairs to the Foxtrap Access Road.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a lot of those petitions. They're coming in daily, actually,

from the residents in that area. I was aware that the road needed upgrades but

it's increasingly getting worse pretty well every year, and this last while it's

really deteriorating. I acknowledge some repairs that has been done in recent

times, recent years, by the government and I appreciate that.

This

road is a vital link. CBS is the second largest municipality. Route 60 is the

fifth busiest road in the province. Peacekeepers is the second, so you can only

imagine the traffic volume. By traffic volume it means lots of potholes, lots of

complaints and, as the MHA and provincial representative, I get it and I

understand that's where the complaints fall, in my lap.

These

petitions are coming in, like I say, on a daily basis and I encourage people, if

you have concerns – they ask for petitions, here you go. I'll bring it to the

House of Assembly.

I've

spoken to the minister about this, but I have petitions to present and it's my

duty as an MHA to present them on behalf of the residents I represent, to bring

their concerns to the floor of the House, which is what I'm doing.

The road

is in dire need of repair. There are huge craters, I call them, they're not

potholes anymore; they're becoming craters. People are complaining and

rightfully so. It needs repairs. It's on for 2023, we'd like to see it done

sooner than that, just based on the sheer traffic volume, Mr. Speaker.

There

are two schools on that road as well. It's a busy, busy road and I appreciate if

the government could consider moving this ahead, where it's already on the list,

it's identified for repairs. We need it done sooner rather than later.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, our five-year roads plan has been

tremendously successful. In the last two years, Mr. Speaker, we've paved some

1,400 kilometres of roads in the province. This year again, we will invest over

$130 million into roads in our province.

This

government, our government has been able to work out a new arrangement with

Ottawa where they are now going to come in and contribute as well to northern

and rural roads, Mr. Speaker. And when I say northern and rural roads in

Newfoundland and Labrador, that means practically every single road in the

province except the Trans-Canada Highway.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we've been extremely successful with our roads plan. We get this from

the road builders and many other organizations with the success of our roads

plan.

In the

Member's district, we've put significant monies into Peacekeepers Way every

single year. Peacekeepers Way is the primary highway built in there, it's a new

highway, and we certainly make sure that every single year the necessary funds

are going into that.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, I'll respond with the rest of my answer at his next (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

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

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

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

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

received proper nutrition and/or have been left lying in their own waste for

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

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

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

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes

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

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

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

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

proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law will include the

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

intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.

Mr.

Speaker, I present this again today on behalf of the Advocates for Senior

Citizens' Rights. Most of the people on these petitions today are actually from

Lab City, Wabush and those areas.

This is

an issue which people have concerns about all throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. It's not about, I will say again, as I've said each time I've spoke to

this petition, this is not in any way inferring that the nurses and doctors and

staff at our health care facilities and our long-term care facilities are not

compassionate, are not doing their jobs, are not doing the best they can with

what they have. It is in no way inferring that nutritious food is not on the

menu and not being served and so on. It's not what they are suggesting.

The

concern that they have is are there enough staff working at all times to ensure

people in long-term care, particularly those on dementia and Alzheimer's wards,

ensuring that there are enough staff to take care of these people, to ensure

that they are changed regularly as required, to ensure not only that there are

nutritious meals provided, but that they're actually able to be fed because some

of these people are not capable of feeding themselves. If a family member walks

into the room at suppertime and dinner is still laid there, by the bedside and

the person is not capable of feeding themselves, and they weren't fed, that's a

big problem.

No one

is suggesting that's happening every day, by the way, or that it's always

happening but, apparently, it does happen. That is the concern. That's why they

want to ensure we always have appropriate staffing.

We hear

of situations in the health authorities where they talk about this not replacing

the first sick call. Is that happening in long-term care as well? If it is, it

shouldn't be. There should always be enough people to look after our seniors.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services for a response, please.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think,

whilst I understand the concerns that the Member opposite raises, the frequency

with which he has brought the same petition back and to would lead a casual

observer to believe that this is an endemic issue and that somehow patients are,

despite what he says, being neglected or malnourished or ill fed.

I think

I need to stand and correct that illusion, simply by getting up and repeating

the same thing every day if needed. Staffing levels in health, in long-term

care, are as good, if not better, than the national average in terms of nursing

care and those figures do not take into account recreational therapy,

occupational therapy and visitors.

There is

a diligent effort to make sure that people who cannot feed themselves are fed

warm, hot food at a time that works for everyone, Mr. Speaker. I think really

repetition like this is not serving anyone's interest.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Nice to speak in the House of

Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

To the

background this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS

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

be announced this spring for construction anticipated to begin in the fall and,

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

experienced local tradespeople and labourers in the area;

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

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

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

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

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

every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise again to stand in this House, and always looking forward to

speaking in this House, Mr. Speaker, about the people out in the Humber - Bay of

Islands, Corner Brook and I'm sure down the Northern Peninsula, Baie Verte, down

around Port au Port, Stephenville way, Mr. Speaker, a lot of these people will

be working here.

I know

the Member for Corner Brook is very much in agreement in trying to do what we

can to get local workers working. They are experienced workers. They're great

workers, Mr. Speaker, and when you bring in people from outside – and this is no

reflection on the workers from outside, but it's like I mentioned to a person

earlier, like up in Alberta. Sure a lot of Newfoundlanders live in Alberta, but

I'm sure there are a lot of local people that are looked after first, for the

cost of it. So this is nothing against other workers because a lot of

Newfoundlanders work in other areas.

There

are a lot of local tradespeople, lot of good labourers in the Humber - Bay of

Islands area who can do this job, who are willing to do the job.

I know

they're speaking to the union, and I say to the minister again, I know you're

being proactive in this matter and I'm offering my services again because I do

have a good rapport with a lot of the unions around, which I know you do too

minister, that you do as the Minister of Transportation and Works.

So I'm

looking forward to a positive outcome for this with the new hospital so that it

can be built locally with local workers and build the best hospital that we can.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. As the hon. Member identifies, we've been

working with the Newfoundland and Labrador construction industry association,

we've also been working with TradesNL. We've been working with TradesNL around

the concept of CBAs or Community Benefit Agreements, and this is something that

we're starting to see in other provinces as well. I think the Member sort of

outlined that when he talked about home first.

Mr.

Speaker, we've taken on a very aggressive infrastructure plan. You look at the

commitments that we've made: a new long-term care facility in Corner Brook, a

new acute-care facility in Corner Brook, new Central long-term care both in

Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor, and that's something that we will be announcing,

the successful proponent in the coming days. Also, the expansion of protective

care beds in Botwood at the Hugh Twomey centre as well. We've also made the

commitment to the new mental health facility right here in St. John's.

Our

commitment to infrastructure in this province has been steadfast and it will

remain steadfast, as will our commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador companies

and Newfoundland and Labrador workers.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, Sir. Thank you

very much.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

current 1.6-kilometre busing policy results in children walking to school in

areas where there are no sidewalks or traffic lights, and through areas without

crosswalks. This puts the safety of these children at risk.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety of all children by removing the

restrictive 1.6-kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a petition that I bring to the House of Assembly on a regular

basis. I recently spoke to some parents that had major concerns with their

children walking to school, and we discussed different options for them and I

explained, too, what the courtesy seating and courtesy busing is doing and

different stops and stuff like that. But in the schools where I am, particularly

in Torbay, is the major issue for me, where there are so many cars travelling

along Torbay Road, that there are no courtesy seats available because the buses

are full and the courtesy stops are not available.

I have

to say, I've spoken to the minister about this on several occasions and I've

sent him some correspondence with different parents with concerns of mine and

there's only one way to really fix this. We really have to have a look – I

understand that it's a job probably to do 1.6 eliminated altogether, but there

maybe something we can do where people are walking along the road where there

are no sidewalks.

Maybe we

can look at it to K to 6. Maybe we can look at different areas, but I think it's

time for us just to look at this policy, address the policy and look at the

concerns of the parents and grandparents and the school and everybody in the

area, because safety should be the ultimate concern of all people. Anytime we

put our children at risk going to school, that is a concern of everybody. It

should be the concern of everybody.

I just

ask the minister to consider this, and, actually, the parents I spoke to the

other day, they said: Kevin, this is a good time to get it on and talk to the

minister about it and keep it going because it's an election year. They feel

that that may be a result in changing some of the policies that government will

have on this.

This is

very important, I know, in a lot of districts, not only in my own. I ask

government to really reconsider the policy and do something about it.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 51.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much for allowing me to rise and initiate debate on Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The

Forestry Act, which will be seconded by the hon. Member for St. George's -

Humber.

This is

an amendment to a bill which really does demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that smart

change, however small, can produce big benefits. We are –

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 51 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.” (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please proceed, Sir.

MR. BYRNE:

I shall proceed then, Mr.

Speaker. I shall start over.

Mr.

Speaker, seconded by the Member for St. George's - Humber, this is

An Act To

Amend The Forestry Act, but we're here today to talk about agriculture, which

demonstrates the fact that it is very important that we understand our

industries, our key industry of agriculture and how it relates to all of other

land resource industries. How synergies can be made, co-operative arrangements

can be made, that understandings can be made by having our land resources

operating effectively, synergistically with each other, supporting each other,

because an amendment to the Forestry Act ,

Mr. Speaker, can indeed produce a big benefit to our farmers.

Now,

what this amendment is about is to amend the

Forestry Act to allow for the harvest

of forest resources of timber, of fibre from an agricultural area, from an

agricultural lease area, without the necessary, otherwise necessary, previously

necessary, commercial cutting permit.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I said earlier that smart change, however small, can indeed produce big

benefit. This is an example of that. Mr. Speaker, you might say, well, what

exactly is so onerous or so difficult or what is the nature of the regulation or

the requirement, the statutory requirement that those who cut timber should have

to have a commercial cutting permit to be able to do so?

Mr.

Speaker, it's about making sure that our forest industry is well regulated. That

those who are engaged in commercial activity in forests are properly regulated.

That it's controlled and produces the desired result which it is meant to

achieve, but we also recognize that, for the clearing of agricultural land,

there is a necessity often, most often, to be able to clear timber, clear trees

from that land and what was previously required was that a commercial cutting

permit would be required.

Well,

there are two options here now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this amendment once

passed is that should a farmer who is entitled or a holder of a agricultural

lease, should that farmer wish that they would not engage in a commercial sale

of the timber, that they can simply have the right, maintain the right, control

the right to be able to harvest that timber without getting a commercial

forestry permit.

Now,

it's important to note that should the farmer wish to sell that timber, they

will still be required to obtain a commercial forestry permit. Is it onerous, is

it difficult to obtain a commercial forestry permit? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.

In fact, a simple application. There is a prerequisite fee which is relatively

minimal or marginal in magnitude that would be required, but there would also

have to be, as a result, the necessary reporting, the necessary stumpage fees

paid and other elements.

There

would be red tape. What this measure does, Mr. Speaker, is it eliminates a

significant body of red tape for our farmers, for our agricultural producers, as

they develop, as they prepare their land base.

It's not

complicated, Mr. Speaker. I'm pretty confident that this amendment will be

passed by all Members of the House or voted on affirmatively by all Members of

the House. I anticipate there may be some questions. Most of the questions were

dealt with in our technical briefing that was made available to all parties.

There appeared to be consensus or strong agreement that this was a worthwhile

initiative. So, Mr. Speaker, while I can say further what elements of this

particular amendment will be, I think that it's self explanatory in its own

right.

The

objective here, Mr. Speaker, is not to resolve a red-tape issue by creating an

unfair or imbalanced playing field. The original reason why a commercial permit

was required of a farmer when they cleared the land was so that they were not in

a competitive advantage if they were to sell that timber, they would not be in a

competitive advantage over our forest producers, our forest industry.

So,

there was a necessity for a commercial forest permit because you would not want

them to be able to do, through special privilege, what our commercial foresters

could not do. In the same regard, we recognize that it was also imposing an

additional red tape, or a burden, for those that did not wish to sell. Even if

you did not wish to sell your timber you still had to have a commercial forestry

permit as required under the Forestry Act .

You'd also have to engage in all the necessary reporting.

So, what

this amendment is not – we've spoke a fair bit about what this amendment is –

what this amendment is not is a barrier from farmers from selling the wood that

they harvest off their land. If they wish, they can still sell by acquiring a

commercial forestry permit, the same as a commercial forester would. It creates

a balanced, level playing field.

That

which is commercial activity should be covered under commercial rules, that

which is not commercial activity should be governed under a different set of

rules. This creates the set of rules so that if the wood is not being sold, if

it's being used on the farm by the farmer, then there are no further

requirements.

If the

wood – and this has been raised in some of the technical outreach that we

conducted – the farmer wishes to transfer the wood off of the farm and gift it,

well, there is capacity in this particular amendment, the act does allow for

further consequential regulation to be made to allow that. We'll engage in a

discussion about that in due course.

This

act, the amendment to the statutory form of the rules, basically, provides for

an opportunity for the farmer to harvest the wood and use the wood on the

location of the farm for their own uses. It has been raised that maybe there

might be an instance where the farmer would like to gift the wood. We can

deal with that at a subsequent time. We have full capacity to be able to do

that. The objective here is to amend the statutory form of the control so that

we can deal with it at a subsequent time.

If the argument is: Well, why can't the farmer just simply

sell the wood? Well, then, of course, they're engaging in a commercial activity

outside of farming. They're engaged in commercial forestry activity, they can

sell the wood. They simply acquire a commercial forestry permit to be able to do

so.

So it's very straightforward, Mr. Speaker. This is a very

positive element, very positive initiative. We've consulted widely with this,

with the agriculture – this has been something that the agriculture sector has

been looking for, for a while. We've all heard of situations – not all that

often, it hasn't come up all that often, but it's come up enough that farmers

have said: Why is it that I cannot simply harvest the wood off the land that

I've been given title to? Why can't I harvest wood? Why do I have to pretend

that I'm a commercial operator and acquire a commercial permit?

This amends that particular situation to allow a level

playing field. If you're engaged in a commercial activity, it would be governed

under commercial rules. If you're not engaged in the commercial activity, it

would be governed under a different set of rules. Very simple, straightforward.

Our farm community really applauds this. It's a simple

change, straightforward change, small change, but can play a big, big positive

benefit. It speaks, Mr. Speaker, to what it is we're trying to accomplish

overall in growing our agricultural industry.

We need to do whatever we can, we only produce 10 per cent

of our food in this province – 10 per cent. Our supply managed system, through

supply management in dairy and eggs and chicken, produce not only what we eat,

but we export. Supply management has worked well for us because not only are we

in those three supply-managed commodities producing everything that we are consuming in this province, but we have

room for export in industrial milk, in industrial eggs and, occasionally, in

chicken as well.

So,

that's working well for us, but it's on the other sectors, on beef, on root

crops, on fruits and berries, on a number of different fronts, we do not produce

all that we consume. In fact, we only produce 10 per cent and that 10 per cent

is actually even factoring in the supply-management commodities.

So, we

have taken an ambitious objective, Mr. Speaker, to change that, to double our

production in a very, very short period of time. How are we doing that? Well, in

a number of ways because we are looking at agriculture with fresh eyes. We're

looking at agriculture with fresh eyes. We're seeing what the barriers to growth

are and we're correcting them.

One of

the things that we've identified is the land. Mr. Speaker, generally speaking,

largely speaking, almost exclusively speaking, land is key to farming. That's

why we identified 64,000 hectares of agriculture areas of interest. There are

two benefits to identifying 64,000 hectares of Newfoundland and Labrador soil,

of land, for development for agricultural purposes. One, for existing farmers

and for new farmers, there's a pre-identified agricultural ready allotment of

land that can be targeted for their developments.

There's

already been assessments done of this land so we know a good bit about it

already in terms of whether or not it's suitable for agriculture. So, that's

been identified. A lot of the regulatory hoops have already been cleared so that

the processing time for applications is much reduced, because we know this has

been pre-identified not to have a claim against it by a (inaudible) lot, by a

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper lot or some other title holder. So that's important.

The

second, and this is very, very important to say and say out loud, by

pre-identifying 64,000 hectares of agriculture areas of interest, agriculture

land, we protect it for the future. Because, as we know, everywhere in North

America, just about every agricultural economy in the planet, there is a serious

and disturbing reduction in agricultural land. It's been used for other

purposes. It is being eroded.

We here

in Newfoundland and Labrador, being relatively green field in our agricultural

practices in our current context, we have an opportunity, and we saw this

opportunity that we can protect our agricultural areas of interest, our

agricultural land so that it is noted that when there are competing uses, we

noted that this can indeed be used for agricultural land, agricultural purposes.

Is it

always tied up? Is it exclusively for agricultural purposes? No, but we have

noted that when decisions have to be taken, choices have to be taken, this is

land which is very suitable for agriculture and it guides our decision-making

process.

Very,

very important, Mr. Speaker, to note the two benefits of our 64,000 identified

agricultural areas of interest. It's not only to supply farmers today, and

future farmers, but it's to protect our land base so that we understand where it

is, so that we can ensure that, unlike other areas of North America and the

Western Hemisphere, agricultural economies that have always depended on

agriculture, that that is not unduly eroded.

Now, in

St. John's, for example, since the 1970s, we've had the St. John's agriculture

development area. There have been tens of thousands – back from the '70s – of

acres of agricultural areas that have been zoned for agricultural purpose. This

came up just recently as a public discussion, a public policy issue of great

concern. There was a noted erosion of the St. John's agricultural areas from

that protection.

Back in

the 1970s, literally, just within months after having declared and zoned those

areas as agricultural areas, the Frank Moores administration and the Peckford

administration, in particular, delisted literally thousands and thousands and

thousands of those acres from control. In fact, the most recent example of the

St. John's area agricultural areas being delisted, or de-zoned was in 2013, Mr.

Speaker, when over 1,600 acres of former agricultural land was allowed to be

used for other developments.

So, I

can say, and say quite confidently, while we have an appeal process, if there's

a particular piece of land which is unsuitable within that designation,

unsuitable for agriculture, it can be appealed. We are not going back to 2013, I

can tell you that, Mr. Speaker. That would be a serious mistake.

We have

done other things, Mr. Speaker, in agriculture, including we have re-profiled

the former Wooddale forestry centre. It's still involved in forestry. It's still

key to our forestry sector. It still grows our seedlings for our forest sector

for silviculture for replanting, but we recognize that there's not only

infrastructure but skills there, a land base there that can be so appropriately

used for agricultural development and it has been re-profiled now as the

Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Development in Wooddale.

Really a great move, we're producing seedlings there, Mr.

Speaker, and we're making those seedlings available, those vegetable and other

crops, we're making those seedlings available to farmers. We're selling them at

cost but at much reduced cost then what they otherwise do and, as a net result,

farmers are increasing their balance, increasing their bank accounts by

significant amounts of money as a result and growing more food.

There are other initiatives that we've done. For the first

time ever, Mr. Speaker, since 1949, we're the only province, the only province

in Canada that did not have a post-secondary agriculture training program. Can

you believe that? In 2019, Newfoundland and Labrador, after over 65 years of

Confederation, we did not – we were the only province in Canada not to have a

post-secondary agricultural program.

Mr. Speaker, this government has changed that. Effective as

of September of 2019, that will be our first enrolments into the College of the

North Atlantic's forestry technology program at the Corner Brook campus. We will

also have outreach programs through the College of the North Atlantic in

continuing education for our farmers. That's really, really important and very

valuable.

Other things that we're doing in our farm industry, Mr.

Speaker – I believe that given the focus on the amendment today, I'll surrender

my time. I believe the Member for St. George's - Humber would like to have a few

words on this, he's worked hard on this initiative himself. I'm sure other

Members will want to speak up, but I'm very confident, Mr. Speaker, very, very

confident that there will be unanimous support for this amendment, as there is

unanimous support for growing our agriculture industry. The Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, this government, is really putting its shoulder into

it.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is a renaissance that's

happening. A renaissance in support for farms and for farming and for

recognizing that this is a key component of our economy. Food security is an

essential component of our well-being and

whereas farms and farming and, in

particular, farmers, really were not on the tip of the tongue of the people of

our province in a daily conversation, they are moving

with incredible support and

reaching out to our farms, our farm community and reaching out to our farmers to

say we recognize what you're doing is essential. Our very food safety, our food

security is dependent on you and we have trust in you.

That,

Mr. Speaker, echoes what people are saying about this government's farm growth

initiative, our Way Forward on

agriculture, people are saying for the first time in a very, very long time,

people are now supportive and openly saying farming is something that we need to

support as a province, and they're saying this government is standing up tall to

the challenge.

The

reality is, Mr. Speaker, in 1949, we had 3,400 farms, and we were nearly 100 per

cent food secure. We grew all of our own food. From the period between 2011 and

2015, we lost 20 per cent of our farms. In a period between 2011 and 2015, we

lost 20 per cent of our farms. From the period between Confederation of 1949 and

2015, we went from 3,400 farms to just over 500.

It's

incredible, Mr. Speaker. You can understand why we are only at 10 per cent food

self-sufficiency. You can understand why this government said we need to, at a

very minimum, double this. Now, doubling food production in a short period of

time may seem ambitious, and it is, because we're going to double it in a very

short period of time, but, Mr. Speaker, rest assured, through amendments like

this, small changes can lead to big dividends. We're leaving no stone unturned.

This will produce a positive result and I look forward to the positive, positive

words of Members of the Opposition as they rise to their feet and they say –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Absolutely. Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE:

– the Member is absolutely

right, we need to support our farmers and the truth is the evidence is in, they

weren't supported before. They are now.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 51, and I guess I'd just like to

speak to one little comment there when the minister had stood up and said that

farmers were never at the tip of people's tongues. Well, to the best of my

knowledge, they are three times a day.

AN HON. MEMBER:

At least.

MR. LESTER:

At least three times a day.

We, as

an Opposition and I guess through my involvement as a farmer and through

industry involvement, are pleased to see that this change did come about. We're

also pleased to see that the current administration has continued to push

forward the ground work of previous administrations in supporting the

agriculture industry and realizing how imperative it is to have more food

production.

Just

some facts that I must correct and, I guess, give some clarity to before I get

into talking about the impacts of this legislation. The minister talked of how

farms, numbers of farms have actually decreased since Confederation, but I would

like to speak to what has increased.

We are

now almost 200 per cent self-sufficient in our egg production in this province.

We actually produce all the fresh eggs we eat, plus we export a large amount of

eggs to further processing. We are now 100 per cent self-sufficient in fluid

milk. We also export a fair bit of what we call industrial milk for processing

outside the province. I look forward to support from this administration and

future administrations to establishing secondary processing of this industrial

milk for our own consumption and export.

When it

comes to chicken, we are actually at our maximum allowable quota because it's a

national system and a national quota, it accounts for about 65 plus or minus per

cent of the chicken we eat. So, unfortunately, unless there's a change in the

national quota system, we're at our limit of production of chicken as well.

There

are a lot of things that obviously have declined. The number of farms. The

number of farms, globally, has exponentially disappeared because of the economy

of scale, largely. I can remember as a child, I could look around my own

neighbourhood and there was probably 17 or 18 dairy farms, different farm

families all had a couple of dozen cows, up to 30 cows. Now, there are actually

more cows in my neighbourhood, but there are only three farms.

It's all

the economy of scale. Farms have to get bigger because, unfortunately, the

profit margin per unit has not grown as fast as the overhead costs that farmers

have had to bear.

I can't

remember which president it was, it might've been Eisenhower, but his theory was

if you can keep the price of food low, everything else will stay down low with

it, that would keep inflation down. That has not worked. The price of food is

still low. In North America, we pay the lowest percentage of our annual income

on food other than a Third World country. So that's something that we have to

look at, increasing the viability of farms.

Now,

we're going to speak to this legislative change. While it is very well intended,

I caution the department in its implementation. It's well intended but not a

whole lot of thought put into the background of what's going to happen, other

than it's not going to require farmers to get permits. When it comes to the

discretion of the forestry officers who will be enforcing this, even in the

briefing there was a bit of a miscommunication or a disagreement between the

representation of the department and the representation of the minister in which

it was kind of indicated that, well, the forestry officers might turn a blind

eye to when we come to gifting and helping people out.

I agree

with that, but what is the purpose of legislation? Legislation is designed so

that we all know where we stand when it comes to the rules, so that we don't end

up with nuisance court cases, that if I cut a load of wood and bring it to my

relative down the road who's unable to cut wood for themselves, that I'm going

to get charged with not having a permit.

I know

the minister has just said that can be put in after, right. So is that going to

be put in after somebody is charged and someone has to go to court and defend

themselves? Is that going to be put in after, when an embarrassed forestry

officer says, well, I shouldn't have wrote you that ticket, sorry, I'm taking it

back. We need to have the details secured as to what we can and cannot do on an

agricultural lease.

Another

thing that was kind of not really taken in consideration was, part of the

transition of farms and family farms is the incorporation of farms. I know in my

own particular instance and my families, extended families, all our farms are

now incorporated. So, in itself, the farm is an individual. Yes, we own shares

in that. So is that individual, the corporate body, allowed to give the same

rights as the corporate body, to the shareholders? Can I take wood from my farm,

or can other shareholders in my farm, take wood from that farm and bring it to

their personal residence, build their personal residence or burn it in their

stoves for heat?

Another

thing that was brought to my attention is, does this specifically apply to that

Crown lease? Obviously, Newfoundland can't be turned into one giant field.

Sometimes farmers have to drive hours from one field to the other. So, in

transport of that wood from one Crown lease to another or to the farm home base,

how are we going to enforce that that wood is actually from that Crown lease?

How are we going to do that? Is that going to be more work for forestry officers

or are they going to be given a carte blanche to transport?

Another

thing that is a little bit of a concern is from the forestry side. I'm going to

look at a piece of land, and as a farmer I look at it as, okay, well, I can't

wait to get these trees out of here, get the overburden off, get the ground

tilled, the rocks removed and get plants in the ground. But if I owned a private

sawmill, if I was in the forestry industry, and I looked across the way and saw

a farmer with a couple of hundred acres of prime saw logs and saw him going in

with his D12 with a 25- or 40-foot blade and pushing all those saw logs up into

a pile to be shredded or to be burned or turned into firewood, I'd be kind of

disappointed.

I really

think that there may actually be a space where, or some sort of lateral

discretion when it comes to the department and the minister, that we don't see

good saw logs, which are high value, turned into mulch or turned into wood

pellets or turned into firewood. We have to look at this, what implications it's

going to have on all industries, not only just agriculture, but also the

forestry industry.

It has

been a contentious issue since time immemorial, well, since Confederation, for

sure, the fight over forestry land and agriculture land because the reality is a

land that grows good trees is probably going to grow good crops too. We want to

see and a continued co-operation between both forestry and agriculture. As the

minister has indicated, the synergies and the partnerships that can be forged,

yes, they're beneficial, but often very difficult to attain without clear cut

rules.

We need

to elaborate on this as to how this can best benefit, not only the forestry and

agriculture industries, but also the economy of our province, because we're

talking Crown leases. A Crown lease is not a grant. Most of us are very familiar

with, oh, I have that deed in my hand, this is my land; I can do whatever I want

with it. But as a Crown lease it still technically remains property of the

Crown, property of the people of this province.

Why that

is, is because, as the minister has referred, in through St. John's and other

areas we've seen valuable agricultural land taken out of agricultural production

and used for other purposes.

Whereas, now with the Crown leasing process, it's

specifically outlined that process and the issuance of that lease, that this

land has been given to you by the Crown for the purpose of agricultural

production. If you are to transfer it, to sell it, to use it for another use, it

will have to primarily go back to the Crown for the Crown's consent.

Another

thing that has also occurred within the Crown lease, and I'm also pleased and I

think this came from the previous administration, people can't use a Crown land

lease as a get-rich scheme. You can't go into an area and mark off 100 acres and

say, yeah, I'm going to be a farmer and not do anything with it, and 10 years

down the road you can't say, okay, I'm going to take this agriculture lease and

I'm going to put strips of cabins around that pond and sell those building lots

for an increased amount.

The

lease structure and fees are very, very minimal, and so they should be because,

obviously, if the cost of farming goes up, well the cost of food has to go up

too. So there's really no opportunity there to turn this into a revenue

generation in the form of lease payments, it's more of an administrative service

purpose.

We want

to make sure that our Crown land and our agricultural soiled resources are

developed and this is one step towards doing that.

We hear

about the 64,000 acres that has been mentioned time and time again, almost to

the point of duress. Those 64,000 acres have always existed in this province.

It's taken decades of soil surveys, aerial photos and satellite projections to

identify this. This land just didn't come about in the past four years, let me

assure you that.

This is

land that has always been there, always capable of producing food. What the

challenge has been is farmers, as good hearted and benevolent as they are, they

can't do things for free. They have to feed their families. They have to put

clothes on their families. They also have to afford themselves some sort of

reasonable lifestyle.

So, the

reason that those 64,000 acres haven't already been put into production is

largely economics. It is not the fact that they just showed up. It's because

farming in Newfoundland and Labrador has been very challenging. We're always

under pressure from imports coming into the province and when you look at the

only three, basically, industries that have risen to their potential are ones

being under the control of supply management, that being dairy, chicken and

eggs. What that means for those who are not familiar with it, supply management

was designed to, number one, keep a stable supply – pardon the pun – of those

commodities in the Canadian food system, but also designed so that farmers were

protected from the market ups and downs, and that they could get a reasonable

return for their investment, a reasonable return for their efforts. Those items,

being chicken, eggs and milk, the farmer knows what they're going to get for

that.

Now,

we've seen as of recent due to, I guess, the (inaudible) amongst the federal

department, the federal government, a 3 per cent intrusion of American products

into our dairy system. Now, people say, 3 per cent, that's not a whole lot. But

when you look at average farming profit margin is maybe 4.5 to 5 per cent, we're

cutting those farmers down pretty lean, and it's not going to take much of a

natural disaster or a commodity price increase: corn, wheat, which is all driven

by supply and demand, and, of course, unfortunately, our supplies of corn and

wheat and commodities are now also a stock market game. The speculation of these

futures on these products is actually driving up the cost of food to every North

American.

So, the

64,000 acres, I would love to say in my lifetime I'm going to see farms on all

of it, but I know that's not going to happen. Even as of today, there's very

limited amount of that 64,000 acres that has been transitioned into agricultural

property.

One of

the challenges farmers are facing, yes, they're responding to the demand to

increase production, to make our province more sustainable, to make our province

more efficient when it comes to producing food, but the biggest challenge of

that is, it hasn't been complemented with increased government funding. The

funding that's available to us today, as farmers – and I keep speaking from my

own perspective as a farmer – but the funding that's available to us today is

similar to that of previous decades. We had Growing Forward. We had the APF

agreement. Each one, basically, offers a similar amount based on our province's

population.

Now, in

our province – I'll commend the former administration, the current

administration, but largely industry groups such as the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Agriculture, the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the Horticulture Council, the egg farmers, the chicken producers, the

fur breeders – who else am I missing – the sheep producers, beef producers and

the beekeepers, all of them contribute to lobbying federal and provincial

governments to attaint the level of funding that we have. Food is not, I guess,

an element to be politicized because without it we're all in big trouble. We

need to concentrate on the virtue of increasing our food production in this

province. We need to concentrate on making our farmers sustainable and

profitable and efficient.

This

little change in legislation is another step in the right direction. I have

cleared property in the past, albeit it has been in a different form of land

tenure, but I can remember my grandfather telling me that when most of the land

in through the Goulds and Kilbride area was cleared, the farmers used to cut the

wood, of course by bucksaw or axe, they would load it aboard a long cart pulled

by horses and they'd bring it down to the rail siding. It would be put aboard

trains and shipped to the nearest pulp and paper mill.

When you

look around our woods and think of the forest industry we have today, it's a job

to believe that we here on the Avalon contributed to the pulp and paper industry

by shipping wood cleared from farm land, but to that point, that was a major

part of the clearing of land was the sale of that wood. The farmers were able to

sell that wood and compensate for the clearing that would be incurred.

That's

kind of a bit of concern and maybe down the road we could look at more of an

exemption for the clearing of farm land because, as I said, this is a Crown

lease. This is public resource, a public asset. It's kind of – I want to say

unfair but I guess that wouldn't be the appropriate word, but it's definitely an

additional challenge for farmers to clear land and not be able to attain 100 per

cent of the value of their work by removing those trees.

Right

now, the current state of subsidization for clearing farm land is based on, I

guess, submitted receipts, but largely the maximum value that a farmer can

obtain for clearing a piece of land is $3,000 an acre, and that's through either

the Provincial Agrifoods Assistance Program or the federal-provincial

partnership.

Now,

that's fine if it's an ideal piece of land, but I have yet to see a piece of

land on the Avalon Peninsula, in particular, that can be cleared and put into

production for $3,000. I've cleared land myself, and speaking with my other

family members, my uncles and other producers in the industry, they're

proponents of a case-by-case level of subsidization because there is land in

this province that can be cleared and put in production for about $1,200 an

acre. Here on the Avalon and other areas throughout the province, there's good

soil there but whether it be drainage, be it excessive overburden, or trees, or

rocks, sometimes those clearings per acre can quickly ramp up to $5,000, $6,000

and even $7,000 an acre.

people say why don't you just move to another area where there's more, I guess,

better quality land, easier to clear? Well, of that 64,000 acres, that could be

right in the middle of God knows, anywhere, no roads, no access and the cost of

travelling from one point in your farm to another, that's another issue.

Right

now, provincially, we have a bylaw where – I don't know if there'd be a bylaw –

there are laws and legislations saying that on the designated highways you are

not allowed to travel below a certain speed limit. I guess many of us have been

stuck behind a tractor, myself included, and the fastest tractor I've personally

ever driven has been 62 kilometres an hour.

remember my grandfather, he used to say every now and then, he said I'm going to

go make myself popular. What he would do is get in the tractor and drive up and

down the road and he would become quite popular. He used to say he used to get

the one-finger salute many times.

that's a challenge why farmers have to clear the land close to their home bases.

A piece of land right next door to your home base or your farmyard, that's a lot

more efficient over the course of a lifetime because when farmers look at

clearing a piece of land they don't only just look at their occupation of this

land, they look at future generations.

My kids

are the seventh generation of farmers in our family. To the best of my

knowledge, our family is one of the longest running farms. We're almost into

double century occupation as a farmer.

Back to

speak to the purpose of this, the industry has asked for it, farmers have asked

for it. It's definitely essential to going forward to reduce the amount of red

tape and burden. I look forward to asking questions in Committee, but I would

like to commend the government for bringing this forward at the request of

industry and the individual farmer.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Thank you.

Further

speakers?

The hon.

the Member for St. George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

great to have an opportunity to talk about this bill, Bill 51,

An Act to Amend

the Forestry Act, but it's really an opportunity to talk about forestry and

agriculture together and how they interrelate.

The

purpose is to exempt holders of agricultural Crown land from commercial cutting

permits to clear land where timber is not for sale or for barter. So it relates

to Crown land – this is people who have Crown land leased and are clearing it to

do farming. If someone has a farm now, if they own the farm clear and outright,

this doesn't apply to them