PDF Version

November 17, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 44

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery Gabrielle MacDonald, her brother Nick,

mother Jackie and other members of their family and friends.

Statements by

Members

Today

for Members' statements we have the Member for the District of Exploits, the

Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Torngat

Mountains, the Member for Stephenville Port au Port, the Member for Placentia

West Bellevue and the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to commend the actions of emergency responders,

hospital personnel, firefighting departments, municipal public works crews, road

crews and various service organizations throughout the District of Exploits who

provided tireless support during and after the flood of Thanksgiving 2016.

This day

will long be remembered as the greatest rainfall in over 100 years in

Newfoundland, which put our infrastructure past the point of coping with the

extraordinary runoff.

I also

wish to commend officials within the municipal, provincial and federal

government. Each and every one made themselves available and approachable to the

concerned residents of many communities.

repairs were implemented in a prompt and efficient manner, washed-out roads and

impasses were back to normal in short order. Many other residential-, municipal-

and business-associated repairs will no doubt be going on for some time in the

future.

I ask

all Members to join me in honouring the efforts of all involved in handling this

very difficult situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me great pleasure to stand in this hon. House today to acknowledge a family who

has devoted 68 years to the business community of Southern Harbour.

Whether

it's in Labrador or anywhere in this great country, the Acreman's store is the

epitome of a successful small business. Gordon Acreman first established a

general store in Battle Harbour in 1948. In 1955, Gordon relocated with his

family to Mary's Harbour where he operated out of a small room in his home until

the following year when he built his new mercantile store, which is still

standing today.

Operating a business in coastal Labrador decades ago was not like it is today.

Freight came in on cargo ships and had to be off-loaded using motorboats and

wheelbarrows; a far cry from the transport trucks and forklifts of today.

In 1979,

Henry, Gordon's son, started working with his father. In 1984, he was joined by

his wife Joyce, and they continued the family venture until their retirement on

October 31, 2016.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Henry and Joyce Acreman on their

retirement, and we wish them good health and prosperity in the years ahead.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to offer congratulations to newly elected Natuashish Band

Council Chief John Nui. Chief Nui brings a lifetime of experience and a wealth

of knowledge to his new position. He's the kind of leader that will put the

needs of his community before his own and I look forward to working with him as

we advance the causes of our people.

I also

want to take a moment to offer congratulations to the other members of the newly

elected band council as well: Angela Pasteen, Nachelle Poker, Len Rich and

Matthias Rich. I know that they will do a great job in serving as band council

members under the leadership of Chief Nui.

I also

want to say a special thank you to the outgoing council and Chief Gregory Rich,

who has given the community of Natuashish positive leadership and dedicated

service.

As the

Member for Torngat Mountains, I recognize the need for good working relations

and I am looking forward to working with the band council.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in offering congratulations and support to the newly

elected Band Council of Natuashish and Chief John Nui.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to acknowledge 16-year-old Jessica Skinner from Kippens. On October 23,

the Grade 12 student of Stephenville High was crowned Miss Teen NL 2016.

Further, she was awarded the pageant's titles of Miss Teen Academic, and Miss

Teen Photogenic. Jessica was one of 11 contestants in the pageant, having been

chosen from over 100 applicants from across Newfoundland and Labrador.

addition to maintaining an honours average at Stephenville High, Jessica has

been highly active in both her school and her community. She's devoted time to

tutoring her peers, acting as a student mentor to younger students as well as

coaching young figure skaters in the CanSkate program for the past 10 years. She

has also volunteered with numerous community initiatives, including the annual

Cancer Relay for Life campaign.

A true

role model for her peers and young women all across the province, this

remarkable young woman is extremely humbled and honoured to receive the Miss

Teen NL award. Jessica intends on pursuing a science degree at Memorial

University upon graduation.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Jessica on her award, and in wishing

her all the best in her future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to once again celebrate the accomplishments of Marystown's own

figure skating champion, Kaetlyn Osmond.

Back on

the ice after a serious injury, Kaetlyn started the season off by winning the

Finlandia Trophy in early October by beating out a three-time world champion

from Japan for first place. Kaetlyn carried this momentum forward into the

recent Skate Canada International competition, held at the beginning of

November.

Her

strong performance at that competition was good enough to earn her a silver

medal. She's currently in China, preparing for the next event of the Grand Prix

season, the Cup of China.

Mr.

Speaker, Kaetlyn's determination and grit, along with her gracious personality

and generous spirit, truly showcase the very best characteristics we share as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Her hometown and her home province are united

in support for her as she continues as an exemplary ambassador for Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I ask

all Members of our House to join with me in congratulating Kaetlyn for her

recent victories and to wish her all the best in the coming competitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the Southwest Arm

Historical Society.

November 10, approximately 200 people attended the unveiling of 15 information

banners at Southwest Arm Academy commemorating the lives of 26 veterans who left

their small, rural communities to serve in various capacities with the Royal

Newfoundland Regiment during the First World War,

Historical Society members Lester Green, Peggy Hogan, Wanda Garrett, Elaine

Peddle and Andrew Peddle began their research more than a year ago.

In the

year of the Centennial of the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel, attendees including

dignitaries, legionnaires and family members learned about these soldiers and

how each contributed to the success of the Great War. Referencing the

information banners, the school's drama club students recanted the stories of

hardship, mental and physical illness, heartache, perseverance, courage and, for

some, death, thus, providing a lasting legacy of remembrance.

Mr.

Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the creative musical talent of

12-year-old Hayley Peddle, who wrote and performed the song, Sailed Many A Mile

in honour of this momentous occasion.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Southwest Arm Historical

Society and Ms. Peddle for contributing to this lasting legacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, to help develop a multi-year provincial roads plan, the provincial

government has invited the general public to identify sections of provincial

roads and bridges that should be considered for inclusion in the plan via an

online feedback form.

Those

who use the provincial road system have first-hand knowledge of road conditions.

It is important to me, as minister, and us as a government, to extract that

knowledge and use it to develop a sound, evidence-based multi-year roads plan.

Participants are asked to identify their region, route name and number and the

nearest municipality or landmark as well as the type of issue, such as

infrastructure deterioration, which affects their ability to use a road or a

bridge. These will be considered for final plan.

The

form, currently available, on the department's website, tw.gov.nl.ca, will be

available until November 21 and to date, we are encouraged by the level of

public participation with over 330 responses so far.

Developing a multi-year approach to road improvement provides clarity and

timelines on roadwork, allows government to use available resources more

efficiently and allows for earlier tenders so we can take full advantage of our

province's short construction season.

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.

I'd like

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I encourage all

residents to make submissions to the provincial roads plan; however, I'd like to

point out to the minister that the deadline to submit is this coming Monday. So

I'm glad to see that 333 people, according to the statement, have already

submitted because it don't give them much time, three days; but, in any event,

it is all good to get public input.

The

minister promised in the House last session that all of the roads in the

province were ranked there was a ranking for all our roads. When we inquired

about the list, we were only given the list of the ranking of the roads that

work was done with, not the full list that we asked for. I've asked for it on

numerous occasions, so have some of my colleagues in our own districts.

The

minister promised this list last year of all the rankings and I encourage him to

provide the list now that he promised last year, and even a new list, after the

submissions are registered.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I have to tell him,

I'm delighted to hear about this public consultation. We're on record for quite

a while now as calling for a multi-year road transportation plan.

Having

such a plan in place should lead to open and transparent process and, to this

end, I urge the minister to ensure that the plan becomes available to public

online and that people will be able to track government's adherence to an open

and transparent process, as I think they've done in Nova Scotia.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

recently had the opportunity to showcase our mineral exploration and mining

industry at Mineral Resources Review in St. John's, which is Eastern Canada's

largest industry conference and trade show, with approximately 700 delegates,

exhibitors and visitors.

Mining

is a major contributor to our economy with mineral shipments forecast to be $2.8

billion in 2017. More than 7,000 people are employed in the industry. There are

exciting things happening at, for example, Anaconda Mining, which was recently

recognized by Canadian Business as one of the fastest growing companies in

Canada; Rambler Metals and Mining; Tata Steel Minerals Canada; and the Iron Ore

Company of Canada, to name a few, of the exciting things happening in our

province. The underground mine expansion project at Voisey's Bay has started and

construction at the Vale nickel processing plant at Long Harbour will be

completed this year. The Canada Fluorspar has begun constructing the mine in St.

Lawrence and there are many advanced exploration projects for potential

investment for gold, base metals, rare earths and other commodities.

Our

government supports growth in the mineral industry through public geoscience,

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

prospector training and mentoring, and the mineral incentive program.

Additionally, we intend to provide broader sharing of core sample information

worldwide through digitalization and web access; and designate officials to help

early-stage proponents navigate through regulatory frameworks. These initiatives

are included in The Way Forward: A Vision

for Sustainability and Growth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would

like to thank all those involved in the Mineral Resources Review. We are working

together to attract investment and develop the economy of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and I want to

wish the Mineral Resources Review government is certainly well justified in

recognizing the important contribution the mining industry provides to our

province, the economic impact, be it through revenue to the province or

substantial employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

certainly can't be overstated.

During

our time in government, there was a keen focus on the mining and exploration

industry in this province. An important part of that focus was on building

relationships and partnering with key industry stakeholders, some of whom we

just mentioned.

addition, significant investments in the Research & Development Corporation

allowed innovative and new technologies to be adopted and fostered by industry,

benefiting current stakeholders just as importantly attracting future prospects.

We certainly acknowledge there are challenges that exist; however, the one thing

greater than any current challenges facing the industry are the vast future

opportunities that lie ahead.

Mr.

Speaker, we're pleased to hear of government's intention to build upon the

foundation laid by our government and continue to support and grow an important

industry.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. It is important that

government support the mining industry, an important industry in our province,

and I thank the minister for the update of what is going on.

She

noted she intends to provide wider core sample information and more help with

regulations, initiatives included in The

Way Forward . However, I would have liked to have heard the details and a

timetable for when exactly these initiatives will be put in place, not just

intentions.

I look

forward to that information in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have the pleasure of

some special guests in the gallery. Most Members of the House are aware of who

these individuals are. We had one guest prior, which we had a very special

occasion a constituent of the District of Ferryland who joined us just a few

months ago.

This

past summer 10-year-old Gabrielle McDonald saved the life of her 13-year-old

brother, Nick.

While in

Grand Falls-Windsor for a baseball tournament, Gabrielle's family made a visit

to Thunder Brook Falls swimming hole for an afternoon of summer enjoyment.

While

swimming, Nick was carried out by the strong current and was going underwater.

His mother, who could not swim, was screaming for someone to help. Gabrielle

swam to his rescue and had been pulled underwater several times while attempting

to settle her brother. She did not panic, she managed to reposition her brother,

get him on her back and swim to shore.

It was

not until they reached the safety of shore that she realized the magnitude of

what had just happened and became overwhelmed. Her mother was also crying

frantically as she had almost lost her son and daughter.

Nick was

a very lucky boy that day because his sister was so prepared and had remained

calm.

Gabrielle credits the fact that she enjoys swimming, had been taking swimming

lessons and had literally just completed a junior lifeguard camp.

All

Members of the House recognize Gabrielle's bravery. They've all provided their

signatures as a token of that representation. We also have a certificate to

recognize Gabrielle as an outstanding citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This

certificate is signed by the Speaker, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition

and the House Leader of the Third Party.

understand from Gabrielle's family that she's also going to be recognized by the

Canadian Red Cross and the City of St. John's.

On a

side note, after all of the excitement, Nick's baseball team won gold.

I invite

Gabrielle to join myself, the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the

House Leader of the Third Party as we present her with her certificate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

(Inaudible) we have the

Broadcast Centre, we're going to give a disc to Gabrielle of the presentation of

her certificate. So in a couple of moments I'll ask people to come forward but

we're going to try to keep the cameras clear for just a moment.

Gabrielle, I congratulate you. We're very honoured that you're able to join us

today in the House of Assembly.

PREMIER BALL:

Gabrielle, we're glad of what

you did (inaudible).

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible) strong and brave

(inaudible).

MR. P. DAVIS:

Congratulations (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

(Inaudible) and Mr. Davis.

This

flag is presented to Gabrielle by all Members of the House of Assembly.

invite family and others now to (inaudible). If we can get Gabrielle's mother

and her brother to come down for a photo and then we'll send you on your way.

Okay, if

I can get other members of the family to come in for a picture as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Now that

we've had the sugar, it's time for the spice.

Oral

Questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, here in the House of Assembly yesterday the Premier would not commit to

bring any agreement that may be reached with Quebec or Hydro-Qubec to the

people of this province. He would not commit to bring information to the

Legislature for debate and ratification before it becomes binding on the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask

the Premier: Will you make that commitment today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

had the spice, let's put some sugar on it I guess.

Mr.

Speaker, this question was asked several times yesterday and, really, what it

was about was discussions that were occurring or potentially occurring with

Quebec. There are no discussions, so there's really no need at this point to be

talking about what would actually come to this House because there's nothing to

discuss.

However,

Mr. Speaker, when you go back Hansard is a wonderful thing. The media does a

real good job in capturing events that have occurred. Back in 2015 the story

and the narrative that we heard in this House yesterday is quite different than

what we are hearing today.

As a

matter of fact, we just go back to the Canadian Energy Strategy which was put in

place in July of 2015. There was a considerable amount of work by a number of

different provinces. We had Manitoba who co-chaired that event; New Brunswick

who co-chaired that.

We had

the former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador who also co-chaired that. As a

matter of fact at that point they were extremely interested in putting in place

opportunities that we could actually advance energy opportunities within our

province and within the country.

Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me today the former premier is trying to distance himself

from those discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Former

Liberal Premier Grimes committed to a full debate and a free vote back in 2002

when Liberals back in those days were about to give away Gull Island, which

incidentally led to the resignation of Dean MacDonald as chair of Nalcor over

this very issue.

So I ask

the Premier: Will you make the same commitment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

guess I could go back and anchor back to why the former premier didn't have such

a suggestion with Muskrat Falls, as an example. It would be a more recent

example, I would suggest.

But, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's telling too what the former premier is actually saying

about what he's been listening to, or what he's heard in the Quebec media and in

stark contrast to what he's been saying back in 2015 to what he is saying now.

As a matter of fact in 2015, about the project that he just talked about, he

went on to say this former Premier Davis added: For Gull Island, we're happy

to sit down and talk about it. That was with Quebec, of course. That was in

August of 2015.

Now,

yesterday he was painting quite a different picture about Quebec, so maybe we

need some clarification. Before we make any decisions on how we would go forward

with this, exactly what has been on the table because none of that was in our

transition notes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier of the day is sitting opposite us; we're asking questions to the Premier

of the day. People are interested to know what this government and this Premier

is going to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yesterday, the Premier

contradicted statements made by the Quebec minister of Natural Resources that

discussions were ongoing at the highest level for several months, is what the

Quebec minister said.

So I ask

the Premier: Why would a Quebec minister why do you think at all make these

statements if they were untrue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Well

ironically again, we have the former premier who is trying to distance himself

from his own discussion. As a matter of fact, quite frankly, he left the

province to believe yesterday that this was really a meeting, one meeting that

occurred which abruptly ended when the Premier Couillard asked to remove the

court action.

Mr.

Speaker, we were led to believe that there was a meeting that occurred, a

discussion that occurred, which abruptly ended by the former premier saying that

he would not take those court challenges off.

We would

like to know, as part of the discussion, because history does teach us some

lessons and to put it in context, we don't know what discussions are already

on the table, Mr. Speaker. So maybe the former premier would like to reach out

and say why is it that in July you were saying that it ended abruptly, yet in

September he was saying that they were still ongoing talks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question

one, no answer; question two, no answer; question three, no answer. And each

time, pivot, pivot, pivot.

This is

supposed to be the open and transparent Premier. This is the man who campaigned

and campaigned and asked people to vote. He's going to be more open than ever

before and he won't answer a single question here in Question Period today, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's been three days since Quebec announced that they've been talking

with the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal administration.

I ask

the Premier: Have you advised the premier of Quebec that your views are very

different from that of the Quebec minister and that there have been no

discussions. Have you talked to the premier about that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

talking about openness and transparency is really what I was talking about,

about discussions that the former premier still not openly to put out there for

the people of our province.

Mr.

Speaker, I need not reach out to Premier Couillard, although we are scheduling a

meeting to discuss what's been out there in the media. All the former premier

had to do was pick up a copy of La Presse

yesterday when this is what's there, just since yesterday: After opening the

door to a renegotiation of a contract for supply of electricity at low cost at

Churchill Falls Generating Station, the Quebec government has now backtracked.

There

have been no ongoing discussions. As a matter of fact, they said they are open

to discussions, they're willing to discuss, but there are no ongoing

discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Premier, again no answer, so

I'll ask it again.

Question

number four: Why have you not talked to the premier? What has the premier of

Quebec said to you about this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

scheduling a telephone call with Premier Couillard. He's out of the country,

like I said yesterday in this meeting. We're scheduling that call.

As a

matter of fact, I would suggest that the former premier had many more chats

about Churchill Falls and developments of Churchill Falls than I have had. As I

said yesterday, the last telephone call that I would have had with Premier

Couillard was about letting him know that there would be a notice of appeal

where we would be appealing the court action.

So I

say, Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a different tone coming out of Quebec.

They are clearly saying that these are not issues that they are discussing right

now, but they are open.

Mr.

Speaker, as a Premier of this province, it is the responsible thing for me to

do. If there's an opportunity to put a good deal in place, put the right deal in

place, then my responsibility, on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, is to have a discussion to see what options are available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd

suggest to the Premier and to Members opposite, this is a very, very important

issue. This is Thursday, these comments were made and reported to be made on

Monday. I can't imagine where the premier of Quebec could be that he can't take

a call from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador from Monday to Thursday on

such an important issue.

Is the

premier of Quebec refusing to take your call, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, absolutely, he's not

refusing to take my call. There's no reason to do that, but right now, as I

said, the last time I spoke with him we were going to

schedule a call.

Mr.

Speaker, there is one thing about this; there are no discussions on the go.

We're not having any discussions.

The

urgency around what the former premier is saying, based on media reports coming

out of Quebec, we'll have the call when the time is right. Hopefully, that will

happen very soon. We're hoping for that. He's out of the country, as I said.

We're going to have our conversation to see where things are.

This

does require some clarity. It requires some clarity for me, as Premier of this

province, because there are no discussions happening right now. The last

telephone call I had with him was around the notice of appeal. The telephone

call prior to that was on the Agreement on Internal Trade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier

is saying is this is not important enough to get this clarified sooner rather

than later. That's what the Premier is saying, and he hasn't reached out.

So I'll

ask the Minister of Natural Resources, because we know it's difficult to get

answers from the Premier. I'll ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Has she

taken the time, on this very important issue, to reach out to her counterpart in

Quebec for clarification on his statements that talks have been underway for

several months?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take

exception to the fact that he's saying this is not an important issue. It is an

important issue. We want to explore the options.

Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you right now, the former premier made it quite clear

yesterday that he cut off discussions after three months. If you want to be open

and transparent, I say to former premier, why don't you let the province know,

once and for all, what it is you were discussing so that we will know what

context you already have this information out there. It went on for over three

months. We already know that. Why aren't you open and transparent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier wouldn't let the minister answer, so I'm going to ask her again: Have

you reached out to the Quebec minister on this matter, and what have you come to

understand from talking to the Quebec minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for the question. It's a very interesting topic and, of course, as the

Premier has already said, this is an important discussion for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I did

see my counterpart in Quebec in August. I have not spoken with him since.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

If I may; at the

federal/provincial/territorial meetings in Winnipeg.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So we have a very different

view point. We have a minister, not media, but a minister who has stated that

the discussions have been going on for several months, and the Premier or the

minister have not picked up the phone and contacted Quebec to find out why the

differences. When they stand in their place and say the discussions have not

been ongoing and they won't settle that problem here in the House or for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'll ask

the minister this: Minister, is it your belief that Quebec should first provide

redress on the Upper Churchill issue before sitting down on other matters? Do

you believe that, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

It's a

very interesting topic that the former minister, former premier is bringing up.

He continues to ask these questions over and over again. There are not ongoing

discussions. As the Premier has asked him, he's the one who's had multiple

discussions on this very issue.

As we've

indicated, as the Premier has indicated time and time again, there will be a

discussion between the premiers in the coming days, in the coming weeks to

discuss this most important issue. As we know, for the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, the concerns around the Upper Churchill have been paramount.

That's why we've gone back to court. That's why we continue to pursue the court

case with the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I apologize on trying to decipher if you do believe or don't believe.

So I'll

ask you again. Do you feel Quebec should first provide redress on the Upper

Churchill before sitting down with Quebec on other matters? I ask the Minister

of Natural Resources, do you believe that should happen?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

while the former premier is apologizing, maybe he needs to apologize to the

people of the province for keeping those discussions that he had back in 2015

secret, why he refused to put that out there.

Mr.

Speaker, right now there are no conditions. There's no reason to put conditions

on anything to this House today. There is no discussion to put conditions on.

When we get there, if we get there we don't even know if we can ever get there

we will have a conversation with Premier Couillard. We'll have that when the

schedules do meet up, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking forward to that conversation

because I agree, this situation needs some clarity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At least

I had the wherewithal to stand in my place and say, yes, the topic did come up

in discussions with the premier of Quebec, unlike the Premier of the day is

doing. He's trying to deny that those discussions are taking place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Minister, I'll try to make it

a little bit easier for you on this matter. For 40 years Quebec has blocked

Newfoundland and Labrador from unrestricted transmission of power.

Minister, I'll ask you: Are you willing to deal with the Upper Churchill issue

before entering negotiations with other matters with Quebec? Is it important to

you to have redress on the Upper Churchill issue before you go back and do more

deals with the same entity?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for his question. I find it disrespectful in some ways, the tone

he has taken with me. And I will say that in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, I

don't think it is appropriate.

I will

say that I think that we have demonstrated to the people of this province the

seriousness of with which we take the Upper Churchill issue. We have gone to the

Supreme Court of Canada on appeal on this very issue. We're spending the

people's money to pursue an avenue that we think should be right and just for

the people of this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I know we all know, the province knows that the hon. Member opposite

has had discussions on this issue and perhaps he could tell us what those were

about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand what's happening in the Supreme Court, and we fully support that.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout our entire province want redress and

want a wrong being corrected and a wrong being righted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

My question to the minister

was simple: Do you believe that should happen before you have negotiations on

other matters? That's not a disrespectful question; it's a very simple question.

Do you believe that should happen? And the minister hasn't answered it.

Well, I

ask the minister: Is government or Nalcor engaged in any discussions with

Hydro-Qubec on a possible partnership on Gull Island?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

No, Mr. Speaker. We have said

time and time and time again we are not in negotiations with Hydro-Qubec on

issues surrounding Muskrat Falls, Gull Island or the Upper Churchill.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Can you give us an

update on layoffs at Come by Chance Oil Refinery and tell us what involvement

you've had to date?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I thank the Member opposite

for the question. This is a very difficult situation for the employees, their

families, the surroundings communities. Layoffs are difficult on all of these

people. I have met with the union that is responsible for many of the workers

that may be laid off and I've had discussions and my office has had discussions

very recently with the company.

We are

quite concerned about layoffs, obviously, and will continue to monitor and

follow this. We are also very focused on ensuring the health and safety of

workers and ensuring that things are progressing properly at the North Atlantic

Refinery and will continue to do so.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, we're hearing as

well there are some issues in regard to health and safety going forward and some

concerns that are being presented by some of the workers.

I would

the minister: What talks are you engaged with in trying to deal with those

concerns expressed by some workers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

minister just said, it's a sad time for a lot of people out in that area. Our

government is working with all the workers and the unions involved. One of the

members of the union are coming in and meeting with Occupational Health and

Safety on some concerns.

I can

assure you of one thing as you know, these layoffs will not take place until

March. There's one thing we will not do, there's one thing that we will not

bend, is the health and safety of the workers at that plant. Our inspectors will

go out and inspect the sites. If there's any occupational health and safety

hazard at that site, it will be rectified. We will not put any worker at that

site in a compromising position because of health and safety because of layoffs.

We can assure you of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for his thorough answer; I appreciate it. Thank you very

much (inaudible) people of the province and certainly the workers at the

facility.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday during Question Period, the Premier stated that he discussed

the Agreement on Internal Trade with the premier of Quebec, but said there was

nothing to do with Upper Churchill contracts.

I wonder

if I could ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Do you stand by and understand

this statement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand the Premier was quite clear yesterday; there have been no discussions

with the premier of Quebec on the Upper Churchill contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, in a later

response the Premier contradicted his statement by stating that the Agreement on

Internal Trade was about the flow of electricity through Quebec.

I ask

the minister: Did the talks include the transfer of hydro power from Labrador to

Quebec related to the Upper Churchill and/or the Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'll take that question. I'm also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and

so was directly involved in the Agreement on Internal Trade that was discussed

in Whitehorse.

When the

discussion took place, there were a number of different things on the Agreement

on Internal Trade, which is really essentially free trade within Canada. In the

past what had happened, there were a number of different trade deals that were

in place that it was more restrictive to actually do trade amongst Canadian

provinces. So there was a requirement to actually update the Canadian Free Trade

Agreement.

One of

the components of the Free Trade Agreement is the free flow of electricity, and

the provinces that would mostly be impacted by that would be Quebec and

Newfoundland and Labrador. This has been a long, contentious issue. So there is

a process that has been established that will take from where we are today to

the finalization of the Agreement on Internal Trade that will participate and

allow free flow of electricity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for your answer, but what I was asking about, in regard to those

discussions on internal trade, were there discussions related to the transfer of

energy from Labrador to the Quebec related to any of the projects, Muskrat Falls

or Churchill Falls, at that time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we

have here is a free flow of electricity not connected or related to any

particular project or any particular development. It could be any source of

electricity as an example, Mr. Speaker.

So it is

not project related, not at all. This was essentially around opening barriers,

breaking down jurisdictions, allowing for the free flow of electricity.

This has

not even been finalized yet on the Agreement of Internal Trade. This is a

process that will take quite some time, I say, Mr. Speaker. We're hopeful that

we could get free flow of electricity. It's good for Canadian provinces. Mr.

Speaker, it would be good for Newfoundland and Labrador but, right now, it's not

related to any specific project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when the Minister of Natural Resources responded to my correspondence

from April 1, about three months ago, she provided some data on the domestic

rate forecast which was 21.4 cents.

I ask

the minister: How much of the revenue from surplus energy sales from Muskrat

Falls had been included in this rate calculation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for his question. There are no mitigation efforts in that

calculation. As it was clearly articulated in June of 2016, June of this year,

it was clearly stated that we would be looking at ways to mitigate those rates.

We are looking at ways to mitigate those rates. We have directed Nalcor to do a

thorough analysis on how we can lessen the impact to ratepayers in this province

of a project that is going to drive rates quite high, and we're quite concerned

about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the sanctioning

of Muskrat Falls built in an allowance to deal with the mitigation of rates and

this is one of them. The information that we received from

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The information we received

from Nalcor based on the updated assessments in June, just recently given to us,

indicates that in 2021 there will be about $150 million in revenue raised from

excess energy. That will proceed to 2040 to well over $3 billion.

I ask

asking the minister: Why would you come out and support 21.4 cents for

ratepayers and tell them they are going to pay it until 2021 when there's a

clear indication here of how you can adjust those rates? Why are you misleading

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I find the question quite

interesting. We have been open and transparent with the people of the province,

unlike the former administration, on the whole Muskrat Falls issue. We were

clear on what the cost of Muskrat Falls will do to drive up rates in this

province. That's what we were clear about.

We have

also been clear in saying that we are going to try our very best and have

directed Nalcor to mitigate rates because of the Muskrat Falls situation that we

find ourselves in this province. We have clearly indicated that we would use the

sale of excess power to help reduce the rates, but we were clear in putting out

the information to the people of the province what Muskrat Falls will cost

ratepayers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader on a very quick question.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

The minister has indicated

that she does recognize that there's a means here to mitigate rates which was

built into the development. We had the information that was provided to us on

what those numbers will be and what the projected excess revenues will be.

simply, why aren't you doing that to bring down the 20.4 per cent rate? Are you

willing to do it and are you going to do it, a simple question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to answer this question because I was around at the time. We were the ones

in Opposition at the time that actually asked and made a commitment to put that

money any excess surplus money, that would go back to offset rates.

The

previous administration, what they did is said that prior governments or

governments that were in power at the time could make the decision for

themselves how to spend the excess money. That was part of the plan that the

minister is talking about. That was their decision.

wasn't until the former minister, Minister Dalley at the time, made long after

the sanctioning of the Muskrat Falls Project it was Minister Dalley who made

mention on a debate, because I was part of it, when he then said to the public

of Newfoundland and Labrador that his government would be willing to put

mitigation efforts in place that would mean the sale of surplus power, which we

do not really know how much that would be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

clear from the Premier's statements, both to the media and today in the House,

that the government is at least contemplating having meetings with Quebec over

Labrador hydro projects.

What I'm

asking the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is: What are the government's objectives in

taking

part in such discussions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the things that's with any objective, with any deal that it could potentially

mean I don't even know if we could actually ever get there, it's simply no

discussion right now. It seems to me the leader of the Third Party doesn't want

any discussions, doesn't want us to enter anything at all that could bring

economic benefit to the people of our province.

Our

objective is very clear here, it would be if there's an economic benefit to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we could use to support social programs,

support Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, either in health care, in education,

affordable housing, create jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I think

that's a good thing actually, Mr. Speaker.

So any

time we want to normalize relationships with Quebec or if it's with some other

provinces for partnerships in potential deals that benefit Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, we're willing to have that discussion but it has to be the right

deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Premier obviously is not willing to tell us what exactly he's going to be

looking for from Quebec. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier's mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources instructs her to

seek opportunities to develop the Gull Island hydro project, maybe that's an

objective.

I ask

the minister: Can she inform the House of any meetings she or her official have

had with the federal government, Quebec or other provinces concerning Gull

Island and the nature of those meetings?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank very much for the

questions.

While it

is in my mandate letter, and I would be happy to pursue the development of Gull

Island if the right conditions for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

exist, certainly not the same conditions that Muskrat Falls was developed, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

However, Mr. Speaker, there

have been no discussions with anyone, federal or provincial governments or any

individual, on the development of Gull Island since I've been minister.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I read

no provisos in her mandate letter.

Mr.

Speaker, I now ask the Premier: Is he aware of any discussions the federal

government is having with Quebec or Nova Scotia about hydroelectric projects in

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, I want to go back and anchor to the comment that whatever deal, if on any

particular if it's hydro, if it's mining or if it's infrastructure in any

capacity around education, the deals will always be structured on evidence based

with due diligence done, good analysis done, both financially and impacts on our

province. If there's a benefit for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at any deal,

with any province, we will do so based on the impact on Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and the impact must be a positive one. Let's be very clear.

Right

now, back to her question; there are no negotiations ongoing. I have not had any

discussions with Ottawa about developments of Gull Island.

Mr.

Speaker, let's be very clear, we will be speaking with Premier Couillard as soon

as he's in a position to be able to speak to us. I just don't want this to be a

two-or-three-minute call. We need to clarify what is actually going on and

what's the source of those comments in Quebec. They have significantly

backtracked this week already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, government's

Bill 43 to create safe access zones for abortion services is a good and bold

piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

But it does fall short of

providing equal protection for the entire team providing the service.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he reconsider and amend his bill to extend the

same extended protection to all service providers and not just doctors?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly very happy to stand here today and discuss Bill 43, which is one of

the most progressive pieces of legislation to be introduced into this House of

Assembly in some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

When we talk about access to

abortion services, providing safe space for women that want to access medical

services, I am certainly very proud to stand here and talk about this piece of

legislation which as I discussed earlier today, was first brought to our

attention in January and we've been working through since that time to make this

bill happen. We will have second reading here today.

This

bill is a balancing act between the right to protest, that Charter right, but

also a person's right to have safe access to get a medical service. It took a

significant amount of work. It took a lot of legal work to happen, and it was

also based on a bill from British Columbia.

Again,

we are very happy to debate that bill here in the House of Assembly and we look

forward to the Member's support of this bill as we debate it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, history has

shown that all service providers, doctors, nurses, counsellors and others have

been targets for harassment and intimidation in their work of providing abortion

services.

I ask

the minister: Why would he introduce legislation creating two categories of

protection for service providers when it's not necessary to do so?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

happy to stand here and discuss this very significant piece of legislation which

is, I note, based on a piece of legislation from British Columbia from the '90s.

We're the only two provinces to have this legislation that we are aware of.

It's a

very fine line when we are discussing Charter rights. The piece of legislation

from British Columbia was challenged but it was successfully defended, and that

who we've modelled our legislation on. I'm very happy to talk to that.

Again, I

would also look to

section 13 of that piece of legislation that says the

Lieutenant Governor in Council can enter regulations at any time to protect all

individuals for this. So as soon those come forward, we will be happy to discuss

them.

I have

to quote Ms. Lynn Moore today who was a driving force to this, when she talked

about how quick our government was to move to make this piece of legislation

happen.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting

Procurement By Public Bodies. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

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

Act To Amend The Independent Appointments Commission Act, Bill 45.

Mr.

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

An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 2.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I stand on a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, and it's appropriate to wait until Question Period is over.

During

Question Period, the Opposition House Leader in a question stated that the

Minister of Natural Resources was misleading the people. That's clearly

unparliamentary and I would ask for him to retract the comment and apologize.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I retract that comment, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

On notices of motion?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for

clarity, the Loan and Guarantee bill is actually Bill 41. I may have referenced

the wrong bill number when I stood up earlier.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

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 East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

government has once again cut the libraries budget, forcing the closure of 54

libraries; and

WHEREAS

libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with

little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and

computer access; and

WHEREAS

libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's

literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS

already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation

and cost of libraries;

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

of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a

long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, when the government made its ill-advised, short-sighted decision to

close 54 rural libraries in the province, it incredibly included every single

library situated in an island community, every single one. One such island

community is the historic community of Change Islands in Notre Dame Bay.

Not only

was the Change Islands Public Library slated for closure, Mr. Speaker, but there

was no public consultation held on the library, so any residents who wished to

attend a consultation had to travel by ferry and car to Twillingate to do so,

even for the consultation. What a statement of disrespect to the people who live

in island communities.

Not only

did government intend to close all the island libraries, they didn't hold a

single consultation to give people from those communities a meaningful chance to

participate in the review.

It was a

bad decision, poorly implemented, Mr. Speaker, and the minister couldn't even

get the review right. No wonder that people are up in arms. And people in Change

Islands were delighted to turn out to a meeting that was held by the leader of

my own party to give them a chance to speak their words, to tell us what their

concerns were.

The

petitions that I have here in my hands today include the people from Change

Islands who want you to know, they want the House of Assembly to know, that they

are really upset over what has happened and they want to have that library kept

on Change Islands.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

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

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there have been a number of buses removed from service over the past few weeks

for safety reasons, calling into question the current inspection and enforcement

protocols for school buses in the province; and

WHEREAS

there have been concerns raised by members of the busing industry regarding

government's tendering practices as it relates to the provision of school bus

services in the province; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents throughout our province who have raised both scheduling

policy, the courtesy-seating policy, new double bus run schedule, as well as

overcrowding on school buses;

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

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to strike an

all-party committee on school busing to consult with stakeholders and make

recommendations to government for the improvement to the school busing system in

our province.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm raising this again today because it is a very important issue. I do

want to acknowledge the Minister Responsible for Service NL; I did see in the

media I think it was yesterday or the day before that there are going to be some

measures taken to improve the inspection processes for school buses. I see that

as a very positive thing.

It will

be interesting to see what those changes will be. Hopefully, I'm assuming there

will have to be something to come before the House of Assembly. If we can do

something to improve inspections, as the minister is proposing, I'll certainly

be supporting that.

But

beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other issues as mentioned in the

petition around the 1.6-kilometre policy and the safety concerns that parents

have for their children, particularly young children that would have to be

walking to school now. This time of the year it would be in the dark,

potentially with snow covered roads and so on. A lot of areas don't have

sidewalks. Even areas that do have sidewalks, such as in my district, they're

not always cleared and certainly not right away; it could take a few days, a

couple days for sure, before a lot of these areas get cleared.

So there

are a number of issues around busing, as I said. I will acknowledge the Minister

of Service NL is going to take some action on the inspections. That is a

positive step. I hope that the Minister of Education is also going to step up to

the plate and deal with some of the other issues around school busing.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

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

and

WHEREAS

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

fishery in 2017; and

WHEREAS

participants would have to purchase licences and purchase tags in order to

participate in the recreational fishery;

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

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

cost or fee for those participating in the recreational ground fishery in 2017.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, the recreational fishery, or some people call it the food fishery, is a

very important part of who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's very

important to people who enjoy I really do enjoy going out on the water and

catching a cod fish. I know you do also, Mr. Speaker. So does most

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

believe it's important that we take records. I'd love to see a logbook or some

kind of a record to take and show what fish is being caught because I think

that's what DFO are really looking for. That's what they're saying anyway.

They're looking to be able to keep record of how much fish is actually coming

out of the water.

But if

you look at the cod fishery itself, Mr. Speaker, the recreational fishery takes

around 1 per cent or a little bit less than 1 per cent. While 1 per cent is

important to be able to log how much fish is coming out of the water and

whatnot, it's a very, very small part of what DFO needs when they look at the

stock and everything else when it comes to the cod fishery.

I really

don't believe that we should be charging Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for

going on the water and catching cod fish. Maybe there's a way that we can ask

them to I know I'd be willing to do it. I went to a meeting at the Capital

Hotel where there were a lot of people involved in the recreational fishery.

They were all willing to say: Listen, I'll take a logbook and I'll register this

and I'll do that, but people do not want to have to pay.

Another

thing, too, Mr. Speaker, why is it that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the

ones that have to pay? Why are we paying for tags? Why are we paying a licence

when the rest of Atlantic Canada and other provinces in Canada can do it freely?

It just seems unfair to me.

If DFO

wants us to log and say, okay, listen, we'll try to register people that are out

on the water so we can have a great idea of how much fish is actually getting

caught, then I'm sure most people will want to make sure we are responsible in

the fishery. That's just part of who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It's our right. It's our heritage. It's our culture. It's who we are as a

people. We live on the water; we grew up on the water. That's just part of who

we are.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I believe it's very unfair to ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

pay for this tag system or licence.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

the education of children is one of the most important and vital investments

that can be made in the success of our children; and

WHEREAS

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be choosing educational

options that will provide all students of our province with a higher standard of

education and enhance the learning experience for all youth; and

WHEREAS

the government's decision to make cuts to teachers and to our educational system

will have a negative effect on the students;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reverse the decision effective immediately.

Mr.

Speaker, we've had this discussion from last fall when the budget came down and

there were dramatic cuts to our education systems. We saw the backlash from

every agency, every stakeholder, a multitude of thousands of parents, students

themselves, even people not connected with the educational system, but saw the

detrimental effect it would have with the cuts that were being made.

You see

the theme here, just in three of the five petitions that are being put forward

here. We're talking about major impacts that are happening here. Library cuts,

we've got issues around busing. We've got issues now around teacher allocations,

blended classrooms. We got issues around the lunch program and having

overcrowded processes there. We got issues around supervision, because it's an

added responsibility on students. There are more students in a confined area

with less ability to be able to be supervised in the proper manner.

Teachers

are doing a wonderful job to be able to make sure kids are active and are in a

safe environment. Administrators are doing a wonderful job to look at how they

encompass better transportation routes. Parents are trying to accommodate by

mending their schedules to be able to fit the needs of their students when it

comes to extracurricular activities and that, because we've made so many cuts to

the education system; all of these.

Mr.

Speaker, my fear is, and so are the key educators here and parents, in the next

number of years you're going to see a decline in the quality of education, and

not because we don't have the best educators out there, not because we don't

have the best support mechanisms when it comes to parent supports, after school

programs and that, but it's because we've cut in areas that are going to have a

detrimental effect to the education system.

When

we're putting blended classrooms together; when we're putting in extra

responsibilities in a classroom setting; when a teacher can only handle so many

students at a time; when they want to be able to emphasize particularly those

kids that may have some challenges around learning, they want to emphasize being

able to give them an even keel; when there are no opportunities for kids to be

active in a classroom setting; when there's not an ability for the volunteers to

be able to come in, in a proper setting because of the numbers to be able to

offer lunch programs and ensure all kids are healthy while they're in the school

system; when we have issues around kids having to get up in the dark and being

dark when they're getting home because their busing schedules have changed, or

their older siblings can't be there to ensure they get home safe and we have

these latchkey kids programs that are now more prevalent here in this province

than it would have normally ever been.

So we

have challenges around those types of things here and it's because we didn't

look at the long-term plan. If we're going to invest money, where do we invest

it to get the best return on our dollar? Everybody knows it's in education. When

you make education cuts and they're early in the education system, it has a

detrimental effect later in the system, and we're going to pay the price down

the road because we didn't do due diligence.

hindsight, people should look back at this and say we've had everybody tell us a

best approach to addressing our education challenges is ensure we invest in the

front end. We're not even saying put extra money there. Everybody is saying

let's work together. Let's find a way that we can better use the money we're

having. When you start cutting it then you're trying to find, which are the

priorities?

You

shouldn't be prioritizing things in the education system. Everything is

important. Everything is part of a continuum to ensure when you start off in

pre-kindergarten, when you go into the kindergarten system, when you go into the

all-day kindergarten system, which is a great program, and when you go into the

full classroom system you have to have all the services that are necessary.

Teachers need to have prep time. Teachers need to also have the support

mechanisms.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we'll have an opportunity over the next number of weeks to speak to

this again.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

call Order 2, third reading of Bill 39.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 39,

An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 39 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Ms. Murphy):

A bill,

An Act To Amend

The Judicature Act. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

leave, I would just like the opportunity to re-read for Hansard and for the

Clerks at the Table the notice of motion from earlier, if that's okay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Does the

hon. minister have leave to revert to notices of motion for a correction?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes, leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Leave has been granted.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you to the Members

opposite.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or

guaranteeing of certain loans made under the

Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 , Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, Order 3, third

reading of Bill 40.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The Works,

Services And Transportation Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 40 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You

didn't see me but I was standing. I understand if you didn't see me when I

stand.

I would

like to take the opportunity in third reading to speak to Bill 40. I did

indicate, when I stood and spoke to it in second reading, that as an MHA from

the heart of the City of St. John's it did not affect any of my constituents and

it doesn't. I mean there's nowhere around St. John's East Quidi Vidi that

either residences or businesses have access to a highway that this bill would

refer to.

But I

also did indicate that I understood it could be an issue for people in rural

Newfoundland. During the second reading and during Committee I did hear a lot of

very important points put forward by my colleagues in the Official Opposition

and I listened carefully to those.

Having

listened to them, I am in agreement with them that I do not see a rationale for

these fees being put in place. It's not like it was a fee that was already there

that was even increased, it was a brand new fee. As my colleague for Conception

Bay South, I think, pointed out quite strongly a couple of times we haven't

received any kind of rationale based in policy for this to happen. We have an

act that is giving the government, the minister, the opportunity to set fees.

Again, set fees with what criteria? What would be the priority, just set new

fees all over the place?

knowing that and again listening to my colleague for Ferryland, this is

something that could be a real hardship in development in rural Newfoundland.

When you talk about small businesses, for example, a $500 fee for a permit that

can be a heavy fee, but it's the whole principle of the fees being put forward

without any real analysis and not based on policy.

Having

listened to my colleagues representing rural areas of the province, I want to

say that I will not be supporting the bill.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to make a few comments. I thank the Member opposite for making a comment

or two with regard to fees. I can just assure the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that we probably would not be in a position to put fees in if we were

not in the fiscal situation we're in. We have to deal with a huge deficit.

As I

said before when I talked to the bill yesterday that it's not necessary for us

it's not something that we're trying as a revenue generator for us to make money

on. The hon. Member asked a question about what type of recovery because I made

a comment as well that the fees will not be a total recovery of costs.

We are

using our staff and our personnel to make sure these applications and all the

safety measures are there, the site lines are all in place, so it's time

consuming and we're taking them away from regular work that's costing us as a

province. As a result of that, these fees are being implemented to offset some

of those costs. The hon. Member asked the question and I said if I was wrong, I

would get back to him I quoted I think 80 per cent, but it's actually 85 per

cent recovery.

So I

didn't get back on that because I felt that within 5 per cent, we were okay. But

it's about an 85 per cent recovery on that. We're not out there to make money on

these permits; we're out there to do an offset on that. We have to make these

choices sometimes and we decided that we would put in a fee structure that

would, in some way, recover partial costs that we would have to spend to make

sure that all of the necessary measures are in place to make sure that we have

proper access to our highways.

So, Mr.

Speaker, that's the rationale. Nobody likes to have to just arbitrarily put fees

in. This is not the situation where we're arbitrarily putting fees in. As I said

before, it's a partial cost recovery and I think it's a fair amount and a fair

fee.

Mr.

Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to correct that.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hadn't

intended on speaking on this bill again, but given the fact that the leader of

the Third Party has spoken, I feel I have to because I suspect we may see a

division now on this vote. I don't know if we will or we won't, but we may. I'm

going to be continuing to support the government on this particular bill. Before

I stand and support it, if there's a division I, at least, want people to

understand why I'm supporting it.

listening to the minister, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we all know we're

in a tough financial situation. We have to find ways to be more efficient and we

have to find ways of recovering costs and so on. There are certain services that

we all avail of, things like health care and things like that which we all avail

of and there's no cost. Although I'm sure people in rural Newfoundland would say

there is a cost for travel and all that, but generally speaking, there's no

cost. We can send our kids to school. Generally speaking, there's no cost. There

are costs, obviously, for school clothes and different things and programs, but

they can go to school for free.

Everything can't be free. I think we have to face reality; everything can't be

free. So we have to find some areas we can go to make things more efficient, as

I said, and also to look at things that we're doing that there's a real cost to,

outside of some of these core things that we're doing, core programs and say

what things should we charge fees and so on for.

Again, I

totally understand where my colleague in the Official Opposition, the Member for

Ferryland, is coming from that if there are gaps in the current legislation,

they all should have been addressed perhaps at the same time that the fee part

was addressed. So I can understand where he would say, well, why didn't you deal

with the whole piece of legislation, fix all the issues there and then add the

fee, as opposed to just going after the fee? That can give the impression that

it's just a money grab.

But in

listening to what the minister is saying, at the end of the day if all we're

doing is we're recovering 85 per cent of the real cost associated to this and

I do believe the minister, that there would be a real cost. If someone is going

to issue a permit, then there has to be an application process, someone has to

process that, somebody has to sign off on it. There may have to be, I don't

know, an engineer or an inspector to travel to the site and size it up to make

sure where the entrance is going to be, that it's done properly and safely and

all those things. There's real cost to that. It's no different than a

municipality has to charge permit fees for things they do as well.

Now,

nobody wants to see any fees at all and nobody wants to see any taxation. We all

know that. I've been pretty clear in my view on some of the taxes in the last

budget and things I didn't support. We can agree to disagree on some of that.

Although some of it was necessary, no doubt. But when it comes to this

particular issue, I think if there are areas we have to go then this is one that

is reasonable.

someone is going to build a brand new home and they're going to spend $200,000

or $300,000 or $400,000 or whatever, a $50 fee to have the driveway is going to

be inconsequential in that scheme of things. If someone is going to put up a big

commercial establishment and a big parking lot and there's going to be one or

two entrances, $500 is not going to be a big deal, I don't believe, in that

case. Will there be exceptions to every rule? Sure there will. But from an

overall perspective, I think it only makes good common sense.

While I

totally understand, as I said, what the Member for Ferryland is saying and I

would have liked to have seen all of the issues in this particular piece of

legislation, if there are any loopholes and things that don't make sense, they

all should have been done at the one time. But I don't think we can say because

that wasn't done and we just ignore this particular issue and this particular

amendment. We can always make additional amendments at another time to update

the other parts of the legislation.

With

that in mind, I will support the motion.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, is

it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Carried.

The hon.

the Clerk.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Works, Services And Transportation Act. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Works, Services and Transportation Act,

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

40)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3, Bill

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

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall leave to introduce Bill 42

and that the said bill shall now be read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act No. 3, carried. (Bill 42)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill

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

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill

44 and that the said bill shall now be read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt to the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend

The Municipalities Act, 1999, carried. (Bill 44)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4,

second reading of Bill 43.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women, that Bill 43,

An Act To Create Safe Zones

Around Facilities And Homes Of Doctors And Service Providers Providing Or

Facilitating Abortion Services, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 43 be now read a second time.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Create Safe Zones Around Facilities And

Homes Of Doctors And Service Providers Providing Or Facilitating Abortion

Services. (Bill 43)

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

very proud to stand here today and speak to this significant piece of

legislation, which the

long title, as I just read, is

An Act to Create Safe

Zones Around Facilities and Homes of Doctors and Service Providers Providing or

Facilitating Abortion Services. The

short title will be the

Access to Abortion Services Act . And in many ways, in the media

since this topic has been made public in the last number of months has been

called the safe zones bill or a buffer zones bill.

I'm very

pleased to be able to stand here and introduce this piece of legislation which

will allow for the creation of safe access zones around facilities that provide

abortion services, as well as around the residences and offices of doctors and

other people who provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.

This

bill is designed to ensure that abortion services are provided in a secure,

respectful and private environment. Now, there's no doubt that, whether it be

this House, whether it be this province or whether it be this country, there are

deferring views when it comes to the topic of abortion. Certainly, it has been a

debate in this country for decades and it still gets discussed now. In fact, I

don't mind saying, since myself and the Minister of Finance had a press

conference on this bill about three hours ago, that I've already received some

hate mail from individuals who have chastised us on bringing in such a piece of

legislation.

The fact

is whether it's private or public, this debate still goes on. What we need to

recognize and what we need to realize is that this is a legal, medical service

and has been so since 1988 when the Criminal Code of Canada was altered by the

Supreme Court of Canada, basically, removing this as a criminal offence. That is

the law, Mr. Speaker. So as we move forward here, we talk about the fact that if

we have a legal service, we have to ensure that people who provide that service

and people who wish to avail of that service can do so in a safe manner.

I want

to, for this House, provide some background and some history on how I became

involved in this matter because it's not a topic that I had dealt with before in

terms of the safe access zones. It's not something that I have been aware of or

had to deal with.

It was

very shortly after our government came in I'd say it was less than a month

after I had been given the mandate of Minister of Justice by the Premier that

I was contacted by our Minister of Finance and our Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women and asked to sit down for a meeting with Ms. Lynn Moore, who's a

well-known lawyer in this city and a well-known advocate, and her client, Ms.

Rolanda Ryan, who is the owner and operator of Athena Health Centre or Athena

Health Services I might get that wrong. Obviously, I'm interested in sitting

down for any meeting where people want to sit down with us to discuss important

topics.

It was

during this meeting that I was first educated and made aware of the challenges

that people are facing and when I was presented with documentary evidence of the

challenges people go through. Now I've seen protests when it comes to this

topic. I've watched them happen. I've seen that; I've seen the media coverage,

but when you see the stress people are undergoing because in many cases the

right to protest may be interfering with a person's right to avail of a medical

service. When people's privacy is being invaded by the fact that they are being

recorded, they're being photographed, they're being talked to, they're being

dissuaded as they enter a health facility to avail of a legal medical service.

In many

cases, there are individual that use this centre going in for any number of

services that face this treatment. It's not just the individuals; it's also the

service providers, anybody going here. Ms. Ryan herself has faced this. She can

do a far better job than me of talking about the trying times and the abuse

she's taken as she's dealing with this, the fact that she's had personal

matters, as I alluded to earlier today, that she was trying to attend to and

getting protested.

I have

to state for the record, obviously, I understand the right to protest, the right

to free speech, the right to assembly. I get all that and I respect that as a

recognized Charter right. But no Charter rights in this country are absolute,

especially so when they infringe on a person's right to medical treatment. I

stand by that and I believe that. I understand the balance that you seek to

achieve.

That's

why this piece of legislation is not one this one took some time. We had that

first meeting in January. At that time, we said we would look into it and we

made a promise that we would make this happen. The Minister of Finance made that

promise, I made that promise. I said we would make this happen, but it would

take time because this is a piece of legislation that's obviously going to have

significant scrutiny. That's fine. Scrutiny of legislation, whether it's by

legislators or whether it's by citizens, whether it's by anybody, is essential.

So we

took our time. I want to thank at this time I had a gentleman with us today at

our press conference, Mr. Tucker, who's a solicitor within the Department of

Justice. He's a fine solicitor. He put a significant amount of work into this,

looking across the country, looking elsewhere. A jurisdictional scan on where

this legislation exists, where it doesn't, is there a challenge.

In fact,

Ms. Moore in our conversation pointed out right there, this has been in place in

British Columbia since 1996. Back then, imagine, you're the first jurisdiction

to introduce a piece of legislation. Whenever you're dealing with legislation

that may infringe on somebody's rights, you're likely going to face a challenge.

We've seen it recently over in Nova Scotia where there was a very significant

cyber-bullying bill that was brought in to deal with tragic cases of cyber

bullying in Nova Scotia, cases that we're all familiar with.

The

intentions were right, the movement was right, but at the end of the day when it

was challenged in court, the piece of legislation was struck down. It was struck

down because the balance was not met and the rights were found to have been

infringed and that piece of legislation has no use. So these are the things

we're cognizant of.

Now I

can't take credit for understanding the intricacies and the details. I'm blessed

to be a part of a department that has solicitors and staff, who this is their

life and they understand this. And I'm lucky to be able to talk to them and

discuss and in some cases, I feel bad for them trying to explain it to me.

But

they've taken a significant amount of time. We've looked and we've said let's

look at BC. The positive news about British Columbia was that piece of

legislation was challenged. It was challenged at the British Columbia Court of

Appeal and then the people that were challenging it, obviously the people that

were on the side of the right to protest we'll say, they tried to get leave to

the Supreme Court of Canada and that was struck down.

The law

is still in place because it said we must respect the right to protest and we

must respect the right to express our views, but it didn't infringe on that. So

that is the model that we look to.

Now,

this is not a piece of legislation that is in every other jurisdiction, I can

tell you that, Mr. Speaker; it's not there. So we looked to this and we spent a

significant amount of time looking at this and weighing it because in trying to

do something good, we want to ensure that we do it right. We didn't want a case

of a piece of legislation and again I don't want to presuppose how this piece

of legislation is going to work. I am assuming that I'm going to get support

from my colleagues to make this happen, to protect women in this province that

want to avail of this legal health service.

This is

not about saying that you have to agree with abortion or not agree. That's not

what we're talking about. What we are saying is that a women that chooses this

service has the right to do so with dignity and respect and free from

harassment. That's something that I'm hoping we can all agree on, Mr. Speaker.

So we

looked to BC and we saw that it was done there. We've looked it, we've examined

it and we've gone through this, and we feel that this is the right piece of

legislation to provide that protection.

Again, I

have some statistics here just so people and I talked about Ms. Ryan. We

talked about the challenges that people face when they try to avail of this

service. Ms. Moore took the time to allege that the people, it is one thing

deterrence can take many forms, but we have what you would call active

deterrence when we have pictures and videos of patients.

Every

month last year, 2015, there were protestors every single month. In 30 days,

the month of October, in 30 days of October 2015, there were 227 protestors.

That is a significant number. It doesn't matter what the protest is about. I

agree with the right to protest; that is a part of our democracy. I agree with

that. But when we have people that are going beyond that and infringing in

people's personal space and making them fear for their safety, videotaping them,

I can't agree, and that's why we feel that this legislation is necessary.

During

this process, again, since January, the staff in our department, as well as the

staff of the Women's Policy, we've reached out and talked to a number of groups.

We've talked to clinic owners. We've talked to solicitors, talked to health

authorities, talked to police. We've talked to the pro-life group. We've talked

to Women's Centres. We've talked to the Coordinating Committee Against Violence,

Provincial Advisory Council, the Association of Registered Nurses. We spoke with

the Medical Association. We reached out and spoke.

And

again, that's what we call consultation. We really do feel that we had

consultation. And many of those views obviously, when you look at some of the

groups that I just named, were contrary to what we're trying to do. But we have

to hear both sides; we have to hear both views when you're making legislation.

You can't just hear what you want to hear; you have to hear everything, which

will allow us to make the best piece of legislation one that will survive a

challenge and one that will protect individuals.

I note

this is about establishing zones around the providers, the clinics, we'll say,

homes and offices, going into the clinic or whether it's the actual service

provider. So we continued on, we did consultation. During this time there was a

court action that was brought, and it was brought to deal with this matter.

At the

end of the day, there was a matter in the Supreme Court. It wasn't resolved

judicially, we'll say. There was a settlement that was attained where there was

a buffer zone of sorts that was obtained through consultation between the two

groups the applicant and the respondent and a buffer zone was put in place

that has been respected.

One

would say: Why do you need this legislation if you have that? What I would say

is that we shouldn't be forcing people to go to court to establish this when we

can put in place legislation that will provide this to everybody and allows us a

mechanism to establish these zones if somebody were to request, as established

right there in the legislation. We have that mechanism. But going to court is a

costly matter. Going to court is a time-consuming matter. We shouldn't put that

on individuals that are trying to achieve this safety.

The

Criminal Code has provisions, but again, it can be very difficult to enforce

these when we're talking about harassment and intimidation; there's that fine

line.

Whereas this piece of legislation, which was pre-existing, which we know

has faced challenge, which we know that works, specifically sets out what can

and cannot be done. And we think that it will achieve the goals that we need and

allow for change. If we need to change, if we need to expand, we know that that

it's there.

We're

very lucky in this province that the majority of our protests have been peaceful

and they've been law-abiding but, in some cases, it's gone beyond that

unfortunately, and that's why we feel that we are here today. So again, I want

to go through some points for this piece of legislation. Every time I talk about

a piece of legislation I always refer to the size of it. In many ways it's not a

huge piece of legislation in the sense of its size. There are 13 sections to it,

but it certainly is huge in many other ways. It is significant.

This act

will allow for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by regulation, to create

zones of up to 50 metres around facilities that provide abortion services within

which certain activities will be prohibited. Facilities will include hospitals,

clinics or doctors' offices in which abortion services are provided.

And

abortion services are also a defined term in this act and it means lawful

medical services provided for the termination of pregnancy. It will also create

zones around the homes of doctors who provide these services. They will be 160

metres from the boundary of the doctor's residence and, again, the LGIC will

have the authority to decrease the size of a zone for a particular residence, if

need be, by regulation.

There

will be the authority to establish an access zone around the homes of a specific

service provider, a person other than a physician who provides or facilities the

provision of abortion services, or a class of service providers where a need

arises. For example, clinic owners can be given protection in this way, as well

as nurses and other staff who work at a clinic. That power is there and it has

to go through a simple regulation process.

I have

to refer to I never heard this but the comments were related back to me. I

have to thank Ms. Moore. She did an interview after this and she talked about

the fact of how quickly this piece of legislation, this concept, moved when you

think about the fact that it first came to our attention in January and we're

here in November with a piece of legislation on the floor of the House of

Assembly. Sometimes things can take a lot longer when it comes to government;

everybody knows that. But in this case I think we've moved very expeditiously

because we think it's that important, and that's why we're moving quickly.

Going

further here: a 10-metre zone will also be created around the office of every

doctor who provides abortion services and if they provide abortions at a

hospital or a particular facility, they may also have their own office from

which they practice; there could be a zone around that as well which can be

increased to a maximum of 20 metres.

When we

look at these zones, some might say it's an arbitrary number, but in looking at

the precedent that was set by British Columbia we know these have worked. This

was something that we've done in consultation as well.

Inside

these access zones, people will be prohibited from doing certain defined

activities. For example, interfering with, physically or otherwise, patients,

doctors or service providers; intimidating patients, doctors or service

providers; protesting, including handing out leaflets or picketing.

People

will be prohibited from recording patients, doctors or other service providers

who are in an access zone for the purpose of dissuading them using, providing or

facilitating abortion services; nor can they repeatedly email, call or otherwise

communicate with a person without their consent for the purpose of dissuading a

doctor or service provider from beginning or continuing to provide or facilitate

abortion services.

I say

this again, I have to be clear. We're not telling people they can't protest.

We're just putting in reasonable limitations which respect to health, safety and

dignity of those who wish to avail of a medical service. We're not stopping the

right to protest, but there is a reasonable limitation.

People

will be prohibited from approaching, following, besetting or directing

threatening conduct towards doctors or other service providers or their families

for the purpose of dissuading them from providing or facilitating abortion

services regardless of whether this occurs inside or outside the designated

access zone.

Now, the

right to express our thoughts and our opinions and beliefs, sometimes they're

unpopular. Sometimes they're contrary to what the mainstream says, but that is a

fundamental concept to a democracy I say, Mr. Speaker.

We have

a country where we value diversity. We value opinions. We value the difference

of opinions. As I've stated before, we have a Charter that guarantees freedom of

expression. As I've said before, any Charter right is subject to reasonable

limitations prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified.

Our

courts, over the past number of years, have determined that freedom of

expression does not include the right to a captive audience or to have your

message listened to. People must be able to avoid a protestor's message if they

choose. This legislation strikes the balance, we believe. We've put a

significant amount of time and effort into this and research and thought. We

think we've struck the appropriate balance.

This

does not replace Criminal Code provisions that exist for harassment. Those stay

in place. This is not about criminalizing antiabortion protest or dissent. It's

never meant to prevent legitimate protest. People continue to march. They can

protest at this Legislature as they did so today. They can continue to protest;

but, they cannot do certain things within these designated access zones. They

can continue to email us, as they've done in the past, they've done today and

they will continue to do so. That is their right.

We've

reached out to a number of individuals as we drafted this. We wanted a wide

swath of opinions on this. As I've said, we spoke to people from one end of the

spectrum to the other end. We spoke to a number of people.

Any

piece of legislation, especially one with regulation authority like this, we

continue to be open. We continue to listen and we will always continue to strive

to do what we think is right for this province. We're always open to listening

to new ideas and to change. We've done so and we'll continue to do so. As I've

said on a number of occasions, we have regulation authority right here.

I'm

getting ready to conclude, Mr. Speaker, but one of the things that have been

brought up is about the automatic zone around doctors. One of the reasons for

this and this was identified by British Columbia is that historically it has

been the most identifiable target. The goal here is to allow women to have safe

and unimpeded access to their health service. If the doctor chooses not to

provide this service because of intimation or concerns, the service cannot be

provided. Again, we've noted that others are involved in the process.

The

regulations are there. I say to anybody, you come to us, we've moved very

expeditiously on this and we'll continue to move expeditiously when it comes to

protecting the best interest of men and women in this province. I think what

we're doing today is what we think is a right step for women in this province

who wish to avail of a medical service and for those who are involved in that

service.

Mr.

Speaker, as I close my part of second reading here, I look forward to listening

to the commentary from my friends across the way, my colleagues. I look forward

to listening to my colleagues on this side of the House and I look forward to

supporting this piece of legislation which I think is one of the more

progressive that's been in this House of Assembly for some years.

I'm very

happy to be a part of it and I'm very happy to have been on a team to support

such important legislation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The Chair recognizes the

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to have the opportunity to get up and speak on this bill today. We generally

support this initiative.

This

bill kind of exposes it's a fact of life and we see it on a day-to-day basis

what's happening around some of these clinics. You're not reopening the debate

of this; it's a very hot topic issue. This is about providing people's rights,

as the minister just pointed out.

He did a

great job in letting the House know. That is exactly what it is; it's a person's

rights. It's their choice. It's a choice people make. In the scheme of things,

like he pointed out too, it's not about people's right to protest, but it's what

you protest is the question.

I've

seen these protests. They are peaceful but they can be very intimidating, I

guess, to the people that have to walk through, based on a very personal

decision a deeply personal decision they're making to be faced with those

protesters who have their rights as well. They have a right to protest, but you

have to find a balance. I think that giving a safe buffer zone to those patients

is that balance. It will be debated for many years to come. It's one of those

issues. People will find ways whatever side of the argument they stand on.

We do,

or I do anyway, support the concept of having a buffer zone around any

hospitals, any health care providers and even their homes. That's a reality too,

I guess. You don't look at, sometimes, their personal residence. I do agree that

it's probably a progressive piece of legislation when you look at the

cross-jurisdictional scan. There's only BC with something similar. That's never

a bad thing, to be moving forward something like that.

Mr.

Speaker, there's one thing the minister and maybe, I don't know. I was

following through as best I could. When you look at protesters around the buffer

zone, it clearly states these protesters abortion services, providing abortion

services. What about other protesters? In today's world, you can find any

protester around any building, whether it be a clinic or hospital. A lot of this

stuff happens in hospitals as well. How do you differentiate? How do you

separate the two? There may be protesters I guess a protestor kind of seems an

aggressive word sometimes, but information lines are really truly what they are.

But there may be people there set up that support these people and doctors at

what they do. You've got your two different sides of that argument.

So how

do you separate the two? We're saying how are you going to go in and say okay,

well, your four I know that might seem trivial, but it jumped out at me. When

I was reading the bill I'm thinking, like and there are other protests; it's

not only your pro-life protestors. They could be protesting anything. It could

be something that's totally unrelated to that doctor, the clinic. It could be on

a totally unrelated issue.

you're creating a buffer zone, which again, we support, but how do you decide

who's allowed and who's not allowed in that buffer zone? Are we saying there are

no protestors, even if they are supporters of the pro-choice? I'm sure the

minister will provide some clarification when he gets up to speak on that issue

later.

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Education spoke the other day on anti-bullying in the

schools. I thought about this bill when I was reading it yesterday. That's what

this is, unfortunately. The reality is it's a form of bullying and it comes in

many forms. We talked about it in our schools; it's in your workplace. It's on

the streets. Again, it comes back to what the minister

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

I never said anything bad

that time, Mr. Speaker. I think it was a bit of clarification. It was

complementary, actually. I lost my train of thought with that comment.

As I was

I saying, Mr. Speaker, bullying, it happens all over. It just doesn't happen in

all those other places. Again, I guess the neat part of this legislation and one

that I think is progressive is you're dealing with an issue that a lot of people

have always been uncomfortable to go there and to deal with anything related to

it, but you're not dealing with the actual the issue that being protested.

You're dealing with the consequences of this. It's all legal in our country.

So I

applaud that. It is a progressive step. These people, sometimes you look at

doctors but I guess you look at those people who go in there and I can't say it

enough, I think all of us in this Chamber would know of certain people that have

probably had to for varying reasons. It is a deeply, deeply personal thing. It

is not a decision I'm sure that is taken easily for the majority. I think we owe

it to them and the public to give them somewhat of a safe buffer zone.

This

will be something, on a personal level, they'll deal with it for a long time and

that's the sad part of it. Those people have a right to have their voices heard

and there's other means that they can do that. They don't have to be in those

areas.

Once

again, I'm not going to talk much longer on this, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, we

are generally supportive of it, but I just wanted pass on my commentary but I

guess my biggest question is how you separate which protesters are going to be

in the buffer zone. It is fine to say if you're going to take the people that

protest abortion, they are not going to be allowed to be there to intimidate the

doctors and patients but there are other protesters of all different forms, as I

said, information lines.

Under

our Charter of Rights, they have a right to voice their concerns too. So how are

you going to separate the two? I hope the minister can clarify that in later

stages and any other questions that may come up along the way I'll probably ask

him at that time too.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

certainly a pleasure for me to stand in the House today to participate in a

debate. It is one of the true privileges that we have as Members of this House

to be able to participate in debates that are relevant and important. I thank

the good people of the District of Windsor Lake for providing me the opportunity

to stand here today, particularly to speak to Bill 43,

An Act to Create Safe

Access Zones around Facilities and Homes of Doctors and Service Providers

Providing or Facilitating Abortion Services.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to speak to this bill. I was also pleased to join my

colleague the Minister of Justice and Public Safety this morning at a news

conference to announce that this legislation was going forward in the House of

Assembly this session.

Mr.

Speaker, this is about safety of women. This legislation will allow for the

creation of safe access zones around facilities that provide abortion services.

It will also allow for the safe access around the residencies and offices of

doctors and other people who provide or facilitate the provision of abortion

services.

Earlier

in the debate, the Member for Conception Bay South very eloquently was speaking

about the variety of reasons that individuals may choose to participate in

public acts of protest or information lines or other things like that. What I'd

like to do is also highlight that it is irrelevant, quite frankly, what the

purpose of an individual's protest means is. What is relevant is that women who

have a legal right in our country to be able to access a legal medical service

have the ability to be able to get that service in a safe way. Certainly, this

bill goes a long way in providing legislation and laws that will enable that to

happen.

Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned this morning, last fall I had the opportunity to speak

with Ms. Lynn Moore who was the lawyer representing Rolanda Ryan, the owner of

the Athena Health Centre. During that discussion, it was relayed to me examples

of intimidation that women are facing when they come to clinics across Canada

and throughout the US to avail of what are legal medical services.

They

requested my support to advocate for legislation to ban protests within a

certain radius of the clinic. Having researched the information that they

provided me, I indicated to both individuals that I was supportive and would

work on advocating in this House and within government to put forward a bill

that would provide the opportunity for women to have safe access to clinics that

provide this service.

After

our party formed government, I immediately reached out to the Minister of

Justice. I have to say the Minister of Justice was very eager to meet, as he

always is, with individuals and stakeholders who want to provide feedback. He

provided the opportunity to have that meeting, and then certainly understood the

importance of why this piece of legislation would be something that we should

consider.

The

Minister of Justice took the leadership in his department to consult and I think

he's done a very good job today of detailing the amount of consultations he's

had, and his department officials have had, in preparing the legislation today.

As many Members of this hon. House will recall, this past June there was an

agreement with pro-life activists to ban protests within a 40-metre radius of

the Athena Health Centre.

At the

time, advocates indicated they were still pushing for the legislation, as the

legislation would hold more weight than an injunction. While there currently is

a 40-metre buffer zone established by the Supreme Court Trial Division for the

Athena Health Centre, this proposed legislation will allow for the creation of

safe access zones, as referred to as buffer zones, around other facilities if

the need arises.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no doubt there are differing views on the subject of abortion

in our province and certainly across the country. However, it is important to

remember that abortion is a legal medical service in our province and access to

medical services is a fundamental to our health care system. Abortion services

must be available to women in an atmosphere of dignity and respect, and this

legislation is very important to women.

As the

Minister Responsible for the Women's Policy Office and the Status of Women in

Newfoundland and Labrador, I'm very pleased to support a woman's safe right, a

right to safe access to any service that she chooses. A woman should not be

subject to intimidation or invasion of privacy based on a personal choice she is

making. This is about safety, and I support any action that ensures a woman

feels safe and secure in accessing any service, as I said earlier, that she

feels is right for her.

addition, doctors and other service providers who provide these services have to

be able to do it in a safe and respectful environment without threats,

intimidation, and/or harassment.

Mr.

Speaker, we have seen examples in our province, certainly a very peaceful

protest of individuals who have a very well-known right to be able to express

their opinion. Certainly, this is not about influencing or preventing

individuals from sharing what their opinions are and supporting what their

beliefs are in the way that they feel they need to.

Mr.

Speaker, as I've said, the demonstrations that have occurred in our province for

the most part have been peaceful and respectful but, unfortunately, there are

cases where emotions can be high, where situations get out of hand, and at no

point, in any way, should a woman who's made a very difficult choice for a very

large variety of personal circumstances be felt to feel unsafe when she avails

of a medical service that she has a legal right to choose and a legal service

that is offered. This legislation, as I said, is not about preventing peaceful

protest. It is a proactive approach which allows for the creation of safe access

zones in any facilities that provide abortion services if the need arises.

Input on

the proposed bill, as was mentioned earlier, was sought from various groups and

individuals, including the Provincial Advisory Council and the Status of Women,

the province's women's centres and Pro-Life NL. The intent is to ensure a

balance between the rights of individuals to secure respectful and private

access to legal health services with the rights of others to protest or express

dissent.

Mr.

Speaker, the proposed legislation is modelled on the

Access to Abortion Services Act in British Columbia which has been

established since the mid '90s. From listening to my colleague, the Minister of

Justice, share with this House, my understanding is even that legislation has

gone through challenges in the court in British Columbia and this particular

legislation has proven the test of a court challenge and has proven to be

legislation that will be upheld in Canada's courts related to making sure that

women have safe access to these legal services.

The

legislation from British Columbia provided a useful guide for our province, as

has been discussed already this afternoon, as we determined various aspects of

the legislation such as proposed distances for safe access zones, potential

locations and ensuring the appropriate balance between the right to protest and

the right to access health services.

As has

been described here today, the legislation proposes a safe access zone of up to

a maximum of 50 metres around health care facilities. It also proposes a

160-metre safe access zone around a doctor's residence, and 10 metres around a

doctor's office.

addition, inside and outside a safe access zone, a person is prohibited from

repeatedly approaching, accompanying or following a pe