PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

April 15, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 6

The

House met at 1: 30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

I'd like

to welcome the Members back to this House of Assembly and, as you've all

noticed, we have some guests today I'd like to introduce.

First of

all in the Speaker's gallery, I'm very pleased to welcome David Diamond Terri

Jean Murray from Eastern Health, as well as members of the Burin Peninsula

Eastern Health team: Evelyn Tilley, Glenda Webber, Diane Dunphy, Mary Williams

Fewer and Heather Bungay. They are joining us this afternoon for a Member's

statement and I must say a very special welcome to you and all that you've been

doing.

Welcome

to this House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the public gallery today,

joining us from the Town of Stephenville, we have the Mayor, Mr. Tom Rose.

Welcome

to you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also joining us in the public

gallery, we have a student from Mount Pearl Senior High. He is job shadowing

today and his name is Matthew Biggin.

Welcome

to you, Matthew.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we'll hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Fortune Bay -

Cape La Hune, Stephenville - Port au Port, Terra Nova and Placentia West -

Bellevue.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Towns of Botwood,

Peterview and Northern Arm, as well as Central Health on the joint hosting on

April 11 of their annual Volunteer Appreciation Dinner, hosted this year at the

Salvation Army Citadel in Peterview.

Each

year sees the event hosted on a rotating basis by the three communities during

Volunteer Week to honour the many volunteers in the region and to announce each

town's Volunteer of the Year. The guest speaker for this year's event was Robert

Hannaford of Northern Arm who spoke to the value of volunteers, with the evening

coming to a close with Christine Luscombe of Botwood, Woody Hibbs of Peterview

and both Maxine Fisher and Sheala Hart of Northern Arm being named their

communities Volunteer of the Year.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in recognizing the sponsoring

towns, Central Health and our volunteer community on this unique partnership and

shining example of regional co-operation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it's an honour to stand today and pay tribute to a man that was the

embodiment of what it means to be from the South Coast. Calvin Sheppard – or

Calve as he was known – was hard-working, fun-loving and held in the highest

regard by all who knew him.

proudly married his life-long love, Margaret Yarn; they had two children, James

and Megan; and Calvin became the well-known owner of Yarn's Store Limited. I can

state personally that if you had the pleasure to spend time with Calve, he

immediately left a positive impression on you and you had yourself a true

friend. He had an infectious smile, a caring heart and treated all who knew him

with the utmost respect.

Mr.

Speaker, in the fall of 2017, many people were devastated to learn that Calve

had been diagnosed with brain cancer. He fought this disease courageously, but

on August 28, 2018 the stars on the South Coast shone dimmer when Calve passed

away at the age of only 59 years old.

I ask

all Members of this House to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Calvin Sheppard –

a man who was loved, admired and respected by many and whose memory will live on

for years and years to come.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sunday, March 24, the Bay St. George Sick Children's Foundation held its 24th

annual telethon at the College of the North Atlantic in Stephenville. Formed in

1995, their mandate is to lessen the financial burden on families with children

that need to travel outside the Bay St. George region for medical appointments.

Over the

past 12 years, the foundation has assisted hundreds of families, paying for over

800 trips, including 3,200-plus nights of accommodations, costing just over

$770,000.

This

year's telethon raised $52,303 over a nine-hour period, thanks to the generosity

from individuals and businesses throughout the Bay St. George region, as well as

those who made pledges from all across the country. I wish to say a sincere

thank you to the foundation's chair, Marsha McInnis, her amazing board of

directors, as well as the College of the North Atlantic, Eastlink and over 80

community volunteers who gave freely of their time to make this a success.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating the Bay St. George Sick Children's

Foundation on their successful telethon and applaud them for their ongoing

efforts for assisting families in need.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

venture to say that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian living in or outside

the province knows the ballad of “Saltwater Joys” or have sung to “The Pits” and

“Sarah, Sarah, won't you come out tonight.”

Formed

in Glovertown in 1985, Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers have entertained us

for more than 30 years. Throughout this time, band members' comedian Kevin

Blackmore, songwriter Wayne Chaulk and accordion player Ray Johnson have played

to sold-out audiences all across the country. Amongst their long list of

accomplishments, this gut-busting trio have produced 20 albums containing 85

original songs, been recognized as Music Entertainer of the Year and Artist of

the Year, received two ECMA nominations and been featured numerous times on CBC

and CTV.

Mr.

Speaker, on May 30, Kevin, Wayne and Ray will not be going up to the gravel pit;

they will be off to St. John's to receive honourary doctorate degrees from

Memorial University of Newfoundland in recognition of their tremendous

contributions to the social, cultural and artistic fabric of this province.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Kevin Blackmore, Dr. Wayne

Chaulk and Dr. Ray Johnson on this milestone achievement.

Bravo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize a group of health care professionals who are making a difference on

the Burin Peninsula.

Members well know, issues relating to mental health and addictions have been on

the rise across the province. Ensuring patients could access counselling

services were crucial, but three years ago the wait time on the Burin Peninsula

was eight months long, sitting at 180 people.

Talented

members of the Eastern Health staff based in Marystown combined their expertise,

compassion and desire to do good for those they serve and, along with

government's support, changed the model of delivery from an appointments-based

system to a walk-in service. This has cut the wait time to zero, eliminated the

no-show and cancellation rate for appointments and has overall provided patients

with timely access to the services they need.

This

approach, which was pioneered on the Burin Peninsula, is now in play in other

regions of the province such as Labrador City, St. Anthony and Harbour Grace.

The

Burin Peninsula Eastern Health team will be officially recognized for their

efforts at the National Health Leadership Conference this June in Toronto.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in saluting Members of

the Burin Peninsula Eastern Health team. Each of you are making a difference.

Thank you for your work and congratulations.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to provide an update on the K-to-six Mathematics

Bursary Program.

Last

year we announced $40,000 annually for the program to encourage university-level

teacher participation and enhanced learning in K-to-six mathematics content and

instructional practices.

I am

pleased to report that there has been a great interest throughout the province

from school administrators, classroom teachers and specialists looking to ensure

and enhance their knowledge and skills in mathematics.

The

department has also received positive feedback from teachers and specialists

that have taken advantage of the Bursary Program.

One

mathematics program specialist wrote to say, “I would strongly recommend the

Mathematics Bursary Program to a colleague, as it is a wonderful opportunity to

enhance your teaching and learning proficiency in the area of mathematics. After

completing my course, I definitely walked away with a broader, richer

understanding of how to best teach mathematics in a K-6 setting.”

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage more eligible teachers and administrators who work with K-6

students, including substitute teachers, to consider availing of the bursary.

Applications are being reviewed on a regular basis.

implementing these recommendations included in the Premier's Task Force on

Improving Educational Outcomes and the Education Action Plan, we are ensuring

that students receive a high quality education that prepares them to succeed in

whatever path they choose.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for advance copy of his statement. The importance of good

mathematics education is vital to Newfoundland and Labrador's future, as we know

that the jobs of tomorrow will likely require youth to have a solid footing in

this subject. For example, in fields of engineering and data science.

Therefore, ensuring that our teachers, specialists and administrators have a

good understanding of the best modern practices for mathematic education is

important if we are to achieve that goal. But more importantly, we must ensure

that the actual testing outcomes are seen to be improving. Newfoundland and

Labrador still performs well below the national average, according to the last

report of the Council of Ministers of Education. We must do all that we can to

improve this situation and strive for nothing less than excellence.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I was glad to see this

bursary as one means of enhancing teaching standards of practice for K-to-six

mathematics and I'm glad it's flourishing, but I also look forward to seeing the

other promises in the Education Action Plan for 2019 and 2020, such as a new

assessment framework, new teaching standards of practice and revised courses in

the faculty of education so our younger students can get the best math

foundation possible.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, more than

80 per cent of the wild fires that occur in Newfoundland and Labrador are

preventable. In 2018, 106 out of 132 fires were caused by human activity, and 12

of those fires occurred before the normal fire season had even started in early

April – a time when many people have the misconception that spring conditions

are always safe for burning.

Although less area was burned in 2018 – we've very happy

about that – the number of fire starts was up compared to 2017. Fast action by

our excellent fire suppression crews ensured protection of more forest land last

year, and reflects the ever-constant need for vigilance in forest fire

prevention. I'm also very pleased to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that we will

be hiring 10 student firefighters this summer, who will gain valuable experience

and bring their youthful energies to a demanding profession. This new initiative

will be a fantastic source of employment for students in our forestry technician

programs as well as the related fields of natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, while spring is traditionally the time of year

to get outside and clear up our properties after a long winter, I cannot

overemphasize the importance of exercising extreme caution when using fire

during spring cleanup activities near forested land. Grass burning is a

long-standing spring tradition in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the practice is

not always safe. And while dead vegetation in fields and other open areas may

appear wet in spring, it can ignite quickly under warm or windy conditions – and

this is the cause of most fires that occur early in the season.

The 2019 forest fire season will be in effect from May 1 to

September 30 on the Island portion of the province, and from May 15 to September

30 in Labrador. Under the Forestry Act ,

a permit to burn is required to burn brush on forested land or within 300 metres

of forest land during the

fire season, and failure to comply is an offence under this act.

Mr.

Speaker, I urge all residents, please, take every measure possible to not become

a forest fire statistic. Help protect our vital forest lands, as well as the

dedicated fire suppression crews that work tireless to fight fires when the call

comes in at great risk to themselves, by taking extra care to prevent forest

fires.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I thank the minister for the

advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, the statistics presented in this

statement are indeed very concerning. The fact that over 80 per cent of our

forest fires in our province are preventable and the fact that the number of

forest fire starts was higher in 2018 than 2017 should also give us pause for

thought.

As the

minister referenced in his statement regarding the grass-fire burning, I know in

my own particular neighbourhood it's not spring unless you can smell a grass

fire in the air. I remember on many occasions when the fire department would

have to show up and prevent tragedy from happening, but it can quickly manifest

into something very serious.

At this

time of year, people often take the opportunity to clean up around their

properties and it's certainly important to remind residents that brush and

forest fires can be very dangerous and destructive. I encourage all people from

across the province to take the necessary steps to prevent forest fires. This

includes the management of our forests. It's most important that we manage our

forests, harvest at the appropriate time, if not, Mother Nature will cause those

forest fires.

certainly wish residents, fire crews and certainly the new student firefighters

a very safe and fire-free summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the copy of his statement. Horrific wildfires are causing

unprecedented devastation to human life and property on many parts of the globe

– surely, the effect of climate change. In our own province, we see human

activity causing forest fires, which put the lives of fire suppression crews at

risk and destroy valuable forest assets.

As we

may be facing hotter, drier and longer summers, and I think we're sure that's

going to happen, I suggest to the minister, it may be time to consider a law

banning grass burning as a practice, not just a caution to be safe.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

recently as July 28, the Premier said his government's mission is to make sure

rates don't go much above 17 cents per kilowatt hour when Muskrat Falls is fully

online in 2021.

Can the

Premier explain why he has now adopted a target rate of 13.5 cents per kilowatt

hour –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

– which is not a Muskrat

mitigation rate but a subsidy to the shareholders of Newfoundland Light and

Power?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

any day that I get the opportunity to stand in this House and compare a very

credible Muskrat Falls rate mitigation to the CHEAP that we have out there, Mr.

Speaker, simply put, people in Newfoundland and Labrador can't afford your plan,

17 cents is too much for ratepayers or taxpayers to pay in this province. They

just simply can't afford that.

Mr.

Speaker, the unfortunate thing to do, or for me today, is standing here and

realizing that $500 million a year right now would go towards Muskrat Falls rate

mitigation that was never told to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador when

your party, the PC Party, sanctioned this in 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier

knows that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro filed 14.67 cents per kilowatt hour

with the PUB as the rate immediately prior to Muskrat Falls coming online.

Does the

Premier agree that his plan to subsidize electrical rates down to 13.5 cents is

a plan to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Please

proceed.

MR. CROSBIE:

– substitute Light and Power?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the 13.5 per cent base that we put in place today would be what we would see as

the normal progression of rates that would be based on the Public Utilities

Board, Mr. Speaker, just over 12 cents a kilowatt hour right now. Any increase

in electricity rates impacts people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It impacts how

competitive we are as a province.

I know

the Leader of the Opposition there, under the Crosbie plan, is trying to defend

17 cents, Mr. Speaker, but that is even higher then when they sanctioned the

project in the beginning. What we put in place today is a rate mitigation plan

that properly reflects where we believe this province will be in rates in 2021

when Muskrat Falls generation comes online.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier

knows full well because his government required the tabling of it that our plan

fixes rates at 14.67 cents per kilowatt hour.

The

biggest factor in the Premier's rate mitigation plan is $200 million from the

federal government which they have not actually agreed to pay.

How does

an honest government spend $200 million, which is part of a wish list?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, once again we

hear the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the PC Party, defending a 17-cent

rate mitigation plan; way too much for people in this province.

We know

that former PC governments had a problem with math. As a matter of fact, I can

remember when the former minister of Finance said that math was not his forte.

Well, neither is it the forte of the current Leader of the Opposition because he

double counted $150 million in his Crosbie plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Perhaps the Premier could explain that if the $200 million is not forthcoming

from the federal government, where's he going to get the $200 million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, over the last 3½

years we've had a lot of success working with our federal government, when you

look at nearly $80 billion worth of transactions. This is about financial

restructuring. This is not about the federal government coming with a cheque,

we've made that quite clear this morning.

The

Public Utilities Board, in their interim report on February 15, said the

greatest opportunity, the best potential, their greatest potential for rate

mitigation when it comes to restructuring the financial arrangements with the

federal government, they saw that as there, it was possible and it was our

greatest opportunity.

Prime

Minister Trudeau agreed to that, Minister Morneau and I had a meeting, we're

working together expeditiously to achieve rate mitigation, and our current

minister, Seamus O'Regan, who's in town today, attended the meeting.

We know

we can achieve this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Now we found something out.

Now we

know that the $200 million is money which is going to be extracted down the road

from our children and our children's children, typical of the leadership of this

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

What does the Premier have to say to ratepayers who have invested massively in

mini splits, and now find out that under his rate plan their investments were

unnecessary?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, for the life of

me, I've never heard anyone say you should waste electricity, except for the

current Leader of the Opposition, the PC Leader.

He is

now suggesting that people shouldn't make wise use of electricity. Why would

anyone who represents Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not want to make sure

that people use their electricity wisely? Those who have made those investments,

I would say thank you to them, because it now puts us in the position where we

can use surplus energy, we can sell surplus energy and we can attract industry

to our province.

Mr.

Speaker, what I will not do is listen to the Leader of the Opposition that he

says we're putting this out to future generations.

The

single biggest challenge that we face in this province today is the impact of

Muskrat Falls on every single generation out into the 2050s. Is he proud of that

legacy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

I ask

for co-operation.

Order,

please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, it will be a

relief to get on the campaign trail where I can get away from listening to

continued whining from the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Yesterday was the 75th

anniversary of Hydro-Québec, and as part of the celebrations, Hydro-Québec

promoted the development of Gull Island.

I ask

the Premier: Is Nalcor or any of his officials in discussions to develop Gull

Island?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker,

very pleased to rise in this House today and listen first and foremost to the

Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the PC Party, just like we've seen

previously leaders, defend the decision on Muskrat Falls.

Yes, I

am looking forward to getting on the campaign trail too. Mr. Speaker, it took an

inquiry get the truth out about the decisions that had made with the Muskrat

Falls.

Now,

when it comes to the question, Mr. Speaker, about Gull Island or any future

developments, we are not talking about those kinds of developments. What we're

talking about would be transportation and mining, but I can guarantee you this.

We will never expose ratepayers or taxpayers of this province to a Muskrat Falls

project, regardless of what happens in the future.

I am,

like every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian, looking forward to 2041 when

we get the Upper Churchill back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Somehow I think Gull Island

went missing in the answer. Let's try our luck on the next one.

Hydro-Québec says we don't have a choice but to develop Gull Island with them.

Does the

Premier agree?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, I don't agree, Mr.

Speaker. What I look at when I talk to my colleagues in the Atlantic Provinces,

we have about 1,700 megawatts of coal power that will need to be displaced in

2030. If the answer to that or part of the answer to that is future developments

in our province, why wouldn't any responsible Premier take a look at that?

You see,

co-operation and partnership is what this government is built on. Keep in mind,

Mr. Speaker, it was the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the PC Party,

just a few weeks ago said the best thing we'd be doing is fight against all the

people that he's now suggesting are part of a solution for our future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, Ray Kroc,

founder of McDonald's restaurants, said that he could create faster than his

competitors could copy. I congratulate the Premier for attempting to copy the PC

Party platform to repeal the insurance premium tax, but would ask him –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

– why he intends to only go

halfway.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I'm looking

forward to a box of Kleenex that could actually have the PC platform on it

because that's what you could put it on: a piece of tissue.

Mr.

Speaker, we listened to people of our province and I can guarantee you it didn't

take the Leader of the Opposition to actually convince me about insurance tax.

We put in place a plan in 2016 that when we were in the position to do it, Mr.

Speaker, we would relieve people of this province.

I didn't

like the decisions that we made in 2016, but I'll guarantee you I like the track

that we're on today, being in a position to give back to the people of our

province, because they've asked us – regardless of what a former injury lawyer

would have said, we're here on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we

will give relief when relief is available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I must question again how you can stand by and watch the Pharmacy

Board force pharmacy technicians in this province to travel to another province

to do their exam and, upon their exam completion, register in that province and

then apply to the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board for registration

here. How does this make any sense?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Pharmacy Board is responsible for regulating the profession of pharmacy in this

province. They have that autonomy under the act and we have no role as

politicians in interfering with professional standards. There was a seven-year

transition put in place and two years of bridging money provided by this

government to enable those technicians, who wish to, to avail of it.

At the

end of that, it was the decision of the Pharmacy Board that that program would

terminate. Those people who went through it and were successful, I congratulate

them. Those people who did not, we have worked with them as far as possible to

try and accommodate their needs, but at the end of the day the decision is that

of the Pharmacy Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But the

minister is responsible for the quality of health care here and that includes

every component here. So what he's saying is we'll take taxpayers' money, give

it to a technician to travel to another province to do an exam, register there,

then come back to this province and register with a board here that is qualified

to be able to do the registration here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It still

makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to people in the health profession and

it definitely makes no sense to those technicians.

Minister, you still have time to prevent the valuable health professionals from

being forced out of their positions. Will you work with Eastern Health to ensure

that the pharmacy assistants can work side by side with pharmacy technicians and

pharmacists in our health care system as other jurisdictions allow?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue of pharmacy technicians and their licensing lies very clearly with the

Pharmacy Board. Money was provided, courses were arranged and support was

provided to tune of in excess of $60,000 in the last year, Mr. Speaker.

At the

end of the day, it is about standards. Those standards are set by the Pharmacy

Board, not the Department of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

been three months since the minister announced that ophthalmologists could offer

cataract surgeries in their clinics; yet, to date, there have been no surgeries

performed in these clinics that would be covered under the announced program.

When can

we expect people to be able to get life-altering cataract surgery in these

clinics as was promised by your administration three months ago?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There is

a transition committee established under the arrangement that was put in place

by the Members opposite when they were in government to have surgeries and

procedures transition from the RHAs into private-based offices. Negotiations

with the NLMA are underway. We are now engaged in standard-setting activities to

make sure that the people who chose to go to a private clinic will do so with

protection around quality and standards.

This

will broaden access to cataract surgeries, but it has to be done right, and we

are getting it right, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Liberal levy has collected in total $160 million since it was announced. This is

almost half the spending announced last week by the Liberals.

I ask

the Premier: What is the estimated revenue for the 2019-2020 fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

Member knows, the levy is going to be gone this year. There was legislation put

in place to eliminate the levy, when the levy was put in place in the beginning.

wouldn't have needed the levy if we weren't left with a fiscal mess by the Party

opposite, but to get more direct and answer the question, Mr. Speaker, it's

approximately $60 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

minister pointed out, they're going to remove it at the end of this year, but

we're asking why can't the Liberal government immediately put money back into

people's pockets by eliminating it tomorrow?

I ask

the Premier: Will you ensure that there is no levy charged on the residents of

this province for the 2019-2020 fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to say that today the Premier made the announcement

that we were eliminating the tax on automobile insurance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, that's putting

money back in the pockets of the people of the province. But day after day,

after day after day Members opposite stand and ask us to spend more money in

Question Period, in petitions, and they ask us to eliminate taxes.

Mr.

Speaker, we've employed a balanced approach on this side. We've gotten the

province back on a sound fiscal footing. We are turning the corner, Mr. Speaker,

from the mess that was left by the previous administration and I can guarantee

you that as we can provide relief, we will provide relief. We did it again

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LESTER:

I guess it's just a

coincidence that possibly tomorrow there will be an election announcement.

The

economic growth strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador was given to the Liberal

government in February of this year. Today, on what could be the last week of

their mandate, they release it.

Why

didn't the Premier produce and follow a plan the very first day he came into

office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, what a joke –

what a joke. Receive a report today and tell everybody in the province exactly

how we're going to deal with the report today – what a joke.

Mr.

Speaker, we released the report today. We promised we'd release the report. We

did indicate that the report was to inform budget 2019 and we indicated that

we'd release the report, Mr. Speaker, shortly after the budget. I guess they're

going to complain that we actually did it before the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

The McKinsey report reads:

Unemployment rate is significantly higher than the national and only about half

of Newfoundland and Labrador's population of labour force age are employed.

How does

the Premier expect the people to re-elect them when he has failed to provide job

growth in the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Oh my God! Mr. Speaker, we've

had nine consecutive months of year-over-year job growth in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, their budget of

2015 projected what the employment would be in this province. We have surpassed

it. We surpassed what they projected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker,

Budget 2015 projected what capital investment would be in this

province. We have surpassed it. Budget

2015 projected what retail sales would be today. We have surpassed it, Mr.

Speaker. We have surpassed their projections of

Budget 2015 .

As I

said last week, it was fudge-it budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

While I'm not quite used to

such a theatrical performance by the minister, I find it insulting, as do the

families and friends of the over 20,000 people that have had to leave this

province to find work.

The

McKinsey report notes that for the province to meet its potential, government

action needs to accelerate timelines, incentivize exploration and drilling.

I ask

the Premier: How can you increase timelines if you do not stop the federal

delays?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and

the Minister of Natural Resources have gone and spoken to Senate, they've spoken

with the federal government.

We take

the role of government very seriously. We are doing what we can to reduce the

timelines. One of the recommendations in the report was to reduce the timelines,

another recommendation was to incentivize exploration in this province. That's

the reason. He wanted us to immediately tell people our response to the report.

Some departments are actually still working on some of the recommendations.

We made

an announcement in Holyrood a couple of days ago. We made an announcement about

MRO today. There will be several other announcements regarding McKinsey in the

budget tomorrow.

As we

indicated, it was to inform Budget 2019 and we will continue to work with that

and The Way Forward , to inform

The Way Forward and (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Interestingly enough, under

this administration, the $1 million McKinsey report recommends more money needs

to be spent on more reports.

thought in 2015 the people committed to paying Members opposite, Members of

government, to lead the province, not a $1-million report.

Can the

minister explain to taxpayers that this was a good value for taxpayers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the report is

suggesting that we can increase GDP somewhere between $5 billion and $12

billion, that we can add another 27,000 to 30,000 jobs in this province. If we

get just a fraction of that, the investment is well worth it.

The

announcement we made today regarding MRO has the ability to create hundreds of

high-paying jobs in a globally growing industry. If we can just do that one

announcement, that one project, it's worth the investment. It's talking about

several other sectors where we can improve and increase the number of jobs.

We are

determined to turn this province around. We're doing it. We're creating

employment. We've got a track record of doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

McKinsey highlighted top five

high-potential priority sectors. One of them was ocean technology, which we are

now playing second fiddle to Halifax. Two: offshore oil, which this government

has just sold out under the Atlantic Accord and now falling victim to C-69, and

the fisheries, which this government failed to get a federal fund to diversify.

Why have

you spend four years doing the exact opposite of what McKinsey says you should

have been doing to grow our economy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, another example

of why the Members opposite would be asleep at the wheel.

Mr.

Speaker, our Premier and our Minister of Natural Resources have gone to the

world, gone to the global oil industry, they've eliminated or reduced the risk

of doing exploration in this province by doing the geoscience and the seismic

work in this province. We've got almost 100 exploration wells registered with

this province today, Mr. Speaker. If just one in five or one in six of those

wells turns to a profitable project – the size of our oil industry right now is

just at the infancy.

We've

been doing the things we need to do to create jobs. We'll continue to doing

whatever we need to do to create jobs. We make no apology for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Just a little reminder to all

the Members, it is Oral Questions, I want to hear the questions and I want to

hear the answers. I will not tolerate interruptions.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

Thank

you.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, the Seniors'

Advocate, Dr. Suzanne Brake, was appointed on November 8, 2017.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under

the Seniors Advocate Act , Dr. Brake

was required to file an annual report to the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

This has not happened.

Mr.

Speaker, why is the minister allowing this important work to fall by the

wayside?

MR. SPEAKER:

This question is out of

order. It's a part of the Statutory Office world that's within the Speaker's

office. If you'd like to discuss, I'd invite the Member to come and see me.

Another

question please.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail -Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, the Seniors'

Advocate was established to provide a critical voice to systemic issues seniors

are facing and to make recommendations to government to improve senior services.

It's now been five months since the report should have been presented.

I ask

the minister: Will she explain why the voice of seniors has been silenced by

this government?

MR. SPEAKER:

I will tolerate the question.

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, while you have

already ruled that the question is out of order, I will take a minute to talk

about how pleased we are because that it in independent office –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. DEMPSTER:

– of the House, Mr. Speaker,

I will take a minute to say how pleased this government was to set up the Office

of the Seniors' Advocate, certainly not a luxury. As one of the most

rapidly-aging provinces in our country, we take the concerns of seniors very,

very serious. That's why we implemented a supplement; $122 million. We're

reaching out to 47,000 seniors in this province, and 155,000 low income, helping

them to meet their needs everyday. We'll continue to take care of the seniors in

this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

Order,

please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

While

government was elected almost four years ago, only today, on the eve of another

election, are they offering a hastily-concocted grab-bag of ideas on how to deal

with power rate mitigation.

I ask

the Premier: Knowing, as we all did, this was going to be a monumental problem,

why did he wait until the last minute to pretend he has a plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

when you compare it to the leader of the Third Party, their plan, they have no

rate mitigation plan, Mr. Speaker. They are suggesting that it's okay to subject

ratepayers and taxpayers to some twenty-two-point-odd cents per kilowatt hour.

That is not what we think is possible.

Mr.

Speaker, I made it quite clear on many, many occasions in the last few weeks

that before budget of this year we wanted to get out a rate mitigation plan. We

also want to deal with the looming increases in insurance in our province. We

will come through with a budget that reflects the priorities of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, I wish that those $500 million that we have to put toward rate

mitigation could go to other priority areas and programs from Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, but we've been dealt with this and we're fixing this mess up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

If the

Premier is going to refer to our programs or our thoughts, he better get his

facts straight.

One of

the largest claims in government's so-called rate mitigation plan is $200

million from the federal government.

I ask

the Premier: Will he please tell the people of the province exactly how he has

come up with the $200 million figure from the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, if

you look at the plan, it clearly outlines – it starts at some $725 million,

which is the first requirement in 2021.

Mr.

Speaker, some people ask questions, and I know they don't want to hear the good

answers, but what we've outlined is a very factual representation of where the

needs would be.

Mr.

Speaker, it brings rates back to 13.5 cents. We've been able to come up with

provincial resources of some $525 million, all clearly outlined. It leaves us

with $200 million.

The PUB

looked at some $80 billion worth of transactions that would occur over the life

of this project, the finances, and they all agreed that the best opportunity,

the greatest potential, lies within restructuring; that would include the

federal government, and the federal government agrees with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

are no details on how they've come up with $200 million as the figure. For the

past month, on the eve of on unnecessarily early provincial election call,

government has been flagrantly using its executive power to pile spending

announcements on the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

I ask the Premier: Does he

really think the electorate will not see through his attempts to buy their votes

with their own money?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, back in 2016 we

outlined a plan for the future of this province. It was about growth and

sustainability. It was The Way Forward .

Embedded in all of this is how we actually increase economic diversification,

how we give back when we're in the position to be able to do so. We were

determined to discipline to keep a financial track in place.

Over the

last 3½ years, I've listened to Members opposite ask for many, many different

things. We've had the financial discipline to make the decisions. Mr. Speaker,

today was an opportunity for us in this government to give back to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look

forward to the budget tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, with how we maintain our fiscal

track, yet give back to the priority areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look

forward to debating the NDP rate mitigation plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

This

morning's dog-and-pony show on rate mitigation lists no details on the numbers

government claims will be used –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

– to lower crippling Muskrat

Falls power rates.

I ask

the Premier: How does he expect people to believe his so-called plan will work

with absolutely no detail on how government arrived at the numbers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things that we did when we looked at the impact of

Muskrat Falls was bring back the Public Utilities Board. It was appropriate that

we do that near the end, as the project would be getting completed because that

left little risk then for the price of the project to escalate.

Mr.

Speaker, we know this has an impact on electricity rates. We have put in place a

plan that clearly describes where the money comes from; it clearly describes and

is tied to some of the work that's been done by the PUB. We've had our

discussions with the federal government. They know that we can achieve rate

mitigation of $200 million, that Member opposite if referring to, by restricting

the financial resources or the financial structure of Muskrat Falls.

Mr.

Speaker, this is good news for ratepayers and taxpayers in this province. The

Member opposite can shake her head all she wants because they have no plan.

We've put our plan in place. Where is yours?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Time for

Oral Questions is over.

Thank

you.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports

by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

stand today to table the report of the Privileges and Election Committee on a

point of privilege against the Member for Terra Nova respecting the release of

reports of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. REID:

The Committee has studied the

matter and considered it carefully. In light of the lack of statutory

requirements and the lack of clarity and understanding around parliamentary

tradition, the Committee recommends to the House that there be no finding of

contempt in this matter.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

presenting reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that the House approve in general the budgetary policy of government.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. OSBORNE:

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give

notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of

supply to Her Majesty, Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, Sir.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice,

seconded by the hon. Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, that:

WHEREAS

the Leader of the Opposition has finally admitted that the problems we have

faced as a province over the last four years were inherited from the previous

administration; and

WHEREAS

the projected deficit for the year 2016-17 was projected to be $2.7 billion if

no action was taken, making it the largest deficit in the province's history;

and

WHEREAS

despite the fiscal situation we found ourselves in when forming office, we have

drastically reduced our provincial deficit; and

WHEREAS

government spending throughout the former PC administration increased by over 50

per cent, despite a decline in oil revenues; and

WHEREAS

our government has stabilized spending to a manageable level, reduced our

reliance on oil and diversified our economy;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the fiscal and economic

plan for the province as laid out in budget 2019.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

private Member's resolution just entered by the Member shall be pursuant to

63(3), the private Member's resolution to be debated this Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, Sir.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Member for St. George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly concur in the report of the Standing

Committee on Privileges and Elections on a point of privilege raised against the

Member for Terra Nova respecting the release of a report of the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to move the following resolution respecting the

appointment of a Citizens' Representative:

BE IT

RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS

section 3 of the

Citizens' Representative Act provides

that the Citizens' Representative is to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly;

NOW

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Bradley Moss be appointed as the Citizens'

Representative effective May 1, 2019.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, Sir.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry, I just want to clarify

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands has a petition?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, Sir.

Petitions, Sir, you may proceed.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you.

WHEREAS

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

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

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

experience local tradespeople and labourers in the area.

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

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

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

labourer, at no extra costs to the taxpayers, so that they can work in their own

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

every evening.

Mr.

Speaker, I present another petition here today, and there are people here from

Bay Roberts, CBS, Meadows, Gillams, Gallants and Irishtown-Summerside.

Mr.

Speaker, once again, I ask the government, they're making a lot of announcements

now, and lot of good announcements, why not make the announcement now with the

hospital that there'll be local people?

One of

the things that a lot of people have brought up to me, a lot of local

tradespeople, is there are a certain amount of people from outside Newfoundland

who are renting houses right in Curling and Corner Brook, and they drive by them

every day and they can't get work at the long-term care.

We see

government on numerous occasions that they can ensure that local people are

hired, so a four-year contract has to be given special consideration. I know the

minister is working with TradesNL on this, but what a great news announcement

for the Corner Brook, the Humber - Bay of Islands area, for the Baie Verte area,

the Port au Port area and down the Northern Peninsula also for all the

tradespeople that are well-qualified in the area to work for four years. What a

great announcement, saying that there will be local people hired.

Mr.

Speaker, I have to say, and I said it again before, last year, tradespeople were

willing to put up their own money so there'd be no extra cost to the taxpayers.

I don't know where that was ever done before, where a certain trades group would

put up money just to keep the local people home. They are well qualified. They

will do a great job. What a good news announcement.

I would

be at the announcement, I would make sure that I would applaud the announcement

to keep people home for four years, to build and construct the hospital,

well-trained, instead of having to drive by houses now where they know people

from Nova Scotia are renting for two, 2½ years to do the long-term care

facility, when there are qualified people in their town, they'd drive by those

houses every day.

I urge

the government to make sure the companies hire local. It would be a great news

announcement before the election. I encourage the minister to continue work with

TradesNL to ensure that's going to be done.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. As the hon. Member alluded to, we are working

with TradesNL, we're also working with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Construction Association. Just last year, actually, we worked with the

Construction Association to partner them and the proponents for the new acute

care hospital with businesses throughout the province.

We had

over 100 businesses, local businesses show up that day to actually have

conversations with the people who will actually be building this facility.

What

comes with Newfoundland and Labrador companies is Newfoundland and Labrador

workers, so we will continue to work with the Construction Association and

TradesNL to that end.

It just

gives me an opportunity, too, to talk about our infrastructure plan. Just this

past Friday, my colleagues from Gander and my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor

actually had the opportunity to announce the successful proponent for the two

new long-term care facilities in Central; a great achievement for the people of

Central Newfoundland and Labrador, and something that will bring local jobs and

work for local companies.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS

there needs to be sufficient resources to provide proper care for those who

cannot speak for themselves, instances within long-term care and other regional

health facilities have compromised the necessary care trained professionals need

and want to provide; and

WHEREAS

it is time our seniors and others in need are no longer ignored, but protected

and treated with dignity, compassion and respect, along with all human rights

and entitlements.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon

the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

provide the level of resources to ensure residents in long-term care and other

applicable regional health facilities housing persons with dementia, Alzheimer's

disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions receive appropriate safety,

protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and other required care on a

consistent basis.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands has brought similar petitions

forward addressing the care for our seniors in the homes. It is no way a

criticism at all of the competency and professionalism of our staffing, but

there are instances occurring, for whatever reason, where elders are left

unattended to care for themselves.

I call

upon and urge government to step forward and have a look at this. I'm hoping the

report from the Seniors' Advocate will highlight this as well. I'm hoping there

will be some guidelines that will help elevate this issue.

Thank

you so much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

These

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

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

Addictions and Mental Health, CAMH, Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto. The wait

time for an assessment at CAMH is approximately two or more years. In recent

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

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

surgeries. Without adequate MCP coverage these surgeries can cost thousands of

dollars.

The

Department of Health and Community Services is already engaged in investigating

an in province assessment and referral process. Long wait times for gender

affirmation surgeries often contribute to prolonged gender dysphoria and

worsened mental health. Among transgender youth age 14 to 25 in Canada, 65.2 per

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

covered to better reflect national standards.

Mr.

Speaker, this has been an ongoing issue for years now and the transgender

community and the health professionals that provide health services to the

transgender people of our province, their families, the families of the

transgender people who are waiting and waiting and waiting for assessments, who

have to go to CAMH in Toronto for a procedure, for an assessment that can be

done here by qualified, experienced health care professionals.

Mr.

Speaker, imagine if our people who needed gallbladder surgery were sent to

Toronto to have someone decide whether or not they need the gallbladder surgery,

when we have the appropriate professionals here. What a waste of taxpayers'

money. What additional stress to people who would need gallbladder surgery. This

is absolutely ridiculous.

There is

now no longer any reason to do this. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time now –

I've presented this petition umpteen million times. I'm sure people in the House

are saying there she goes again. Well, yes, there I go again, Mr. Speaker,

because this is so important.

I ask

the Minister of Health, once again: Will he stand up and respond to this? He has

the ability to do that. Why will he not speak to the people of the province, to

the transgender community of the province?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to stand and present this petition. The Bell Island ferry service

provides a vital transportation link and it's only eight minutes from port at

any given time, Transport Canada regulations do not require individuals to exit

their vehicles during this commute and the provincial government's current

policy related to mandatory exiting of vehicles puts people at a higher risk of

injury than the possibility of having to evacuate the vessel due to an

emergency. In May 2018, risk assessment recommended the Department of

Transportation and Works continue to require passengers to vacate this vessel

while travelling on the Bell Island ferry.

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

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

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

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

Well,

Mr. Speaker, I presented this a number of times and we've gotten to a very

vulnerable time in the impact that this is having. Only this past week, we had a

double amputee who was in such excruciating pain at the time, for eight minutes

to port at any given time, with his attendant in his car, refused to leave the

vehicle, to put on his prosthetics to try to get upstairs, to go across a deck,

to add extra hardship to him, to take away his quality, dignity. He refused to

go.

The

ferry was delayed for four hours, supported by the thousands of people who

travelled to and from that day. The department, after we had consultation, did

reach out and did send a senior executive member to go down and discuss it.

There were alternatives suggested about bringing an ambulance onboard with two

paramedics to put the patient in the ambulance, or the traveller – because

they're not even a patient; they're a traveller – to then sit in that same

ambulance on the deck, with two more people, to go across to then be dropped off

to put in their car, to get out and get in their car again to drive home.

Mr.

Speaker, while I commend the department for at least trying to think of

alternatives, there is an alternative, it's a simple one: Those who have serious

mobility or health issues be allowed to stay with an attendant on deck. It is

very simple for us to be able to determine the few that would need to avail of

this so we don't put them at a higher risk of injury and liability to the

department.

We could

also really design a very quick evacuation plan that would ensure that they

would get to the muster station and to the lifeboats as quick as possible,

keeping in mind it's anywhere from 22 to 28 minutes to deploy the lifeboats in

the rare – never ever have happened in over 1.4 million trips that we would have

to evacuate. Keeping in mind the design of these ferries are done on such a

notice that if there was some kind of a catastrophe on board, 10 chances to one

you're going in the dock to evacuate through your ramp or you're going to beach

the boat to get out there.

We're

asking the minister – I know he's very sympathetic and we had a great

conversation. There is a solution here to ensure the half dozen or so people who

need to avail of staying in their vehicle with their attendants because of their

dignity and their health and the risk that we could find a solution there. I'm

asking the minister to work with me and the people of Bell Island and the people

of this province to find that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, just to the Member's point about

seriously. Our senior officials were on hand Friday afternoon to work with the

individual and his family. The circumstance is certainly something that we

understand.

The

reality is, Mr. Speaker, we want to work to find solutions to make it as most

comfortable as we can for people when they're taking these trips, no matter what

the distance. We actually have one ferry in the province that travels 500 metres

and, quite similar, passengers are required to exit their vehicles, no different

than any passenger travelling on an airline has to follow the policies of air

transportation, as you would find with Transport Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, we had an independent report. We had a report that actually refuted

some of that information. It's something that I look forward to working with the

hon. Member opposite to find a solution that works for everybody.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, all other

medicines except medically prescribed cannabis are tax exempt.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to remove the provincial portion of taxes for medical

cannabis users.

I've

presented this petition several times and the minister gave us his grace of

replying to it. I'm not sure whether it was in oversight or lack of knowledge of

the provincial sales tax act, or maybe it was caught up in the heat of the

moment and it was a little bit of a disingenuous comment. But the minister does

hold the authority to remove the provincial sales tax on medical cannabis. When

you look at it mathematically, basically, one month a year of a cost of

purchasing a prescription is dedicated just to tax.

So as

our society looks at better ways of treating diseases and medical conditions,

medical cannabis is emerging as a highlight and providing a lot of diverse

treatment options, and it's working really well. I personally do not use medical

nor recreational cannabis, but many of my friends and people I am familiar with

are in compromised medical situations, and versus opioids or anything, medical

cannabis is providing a real alternative.

Why is

that we are so wrapped up in revenue generation that we can't see that we are

doing this on the backs of people who are already financially compromised

through no fault of their own? I once again ask the minister to stand and

explain if what I have learned from the provincial sales tax act is true, that

he does indeed have the opportunity to make the sale of medical marijuana or

cannabis exempt from sales tax.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

First thing, Mr. Speaker,

from the Order Paper, I would move Motion 9, that pursuant to Standing Order

11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, April 15, 2019.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, I would call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 2.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 2,

An Act To Amend The

Correctional Services Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time, Bill 2.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Correctional Services Act. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

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

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Correctional Services Act,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.” (Bill

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, today, we are

introducing a bill that deals with a topic that has generated much debate in

Newfoundland and Labrador, namely auto insurance.

With

more than 376,000 vehicle renewals in 2018, we know it is a matter that affects

many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in all regions of our province from all

walks of life.

Currently, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest automobile rates in

Atlantic Canada. When we went door to door in 2015, the need for insurance

reform was a message we heard loud and clear. Residents told us that they wanted

change. They wanted us to find a way to help stabilize insurance rates and

provide the best product possible for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We also

know that consumers want choice. In both our government vision documents,

The Way Forward and my mandate letter,

direction was provided by our Premier to commence a review focused on

identifying opportunities to lower rates that benefit consumers and also help

bring stability to the automobile insurance industry.

August of 2017, we provided the terms of reference to the Board of Commissioners

of Public Utilities, the PUB, to conduct public consultations as well as two

independent closed-claim studies. One closed-claim study focused on rising

automobile insurance claims costs, the other focused specifically on claims

related to taxi operators.

Mr.

Speaker, we know the problems facing the taxi industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador have been ongoing for more than 20 years. Our administration is the

first which committed to addressing the issue.

The goal

of the PUB's review was to help inform government's decision-making as we try to

find solutions for consumers in our province, and we recognize that the taxi

industry is a large consumer group of insurance.

I want

to note, Mr. Speaker, that I will also be introducing Bill 6,

An Act to Amend

the Insurance Companies Act, which will also deal with remedies that will

positively impact the taxi industry.

Mr.

Speaker, the last review of auto insurance in the province was conducted between

2004 and 2005. The review resulted in a number of changes over a two-year period

including an implementation of a $2,500 deductible on pain and suffering

damages. The PUB's recent report on their review of the auto insurance industry

noted that even with the highest premiums being paid in this province compared

to the other Atlantic provinces, the total private passenger premiums paid by

consumers for the past number of years were not sufficient to cover industry

costs for this business. The estimated shortfall in 2017 was estimated to be 17

per cent or approximately $190 on average.

The

PUB's findings also pointed to pain and suffering damages as representing 64 per

cent of the total amounts paid by insurers for bodily injury claims in this

province. In addition, the amount of the average pain and suffering payments

increased by 85 per cent, while the number of bodily injured claimants receiving

pain and suffering awards increased to 99.4 per cent. These numbers highlight

the increased pressures on both consumers and industry, Mr. Speaker. It also

shows us that we didn't arrive at our current reality overnight, and we aren't

going to be able to solve high insurance rates overnight either. Instead, we

have developed a plan, each element of which will help address the priorities of

consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we

look at skyrocketing insurance rates, it is also important to have a discussion

around road safety and good driving habits. It is imperative that the driving

public in our province exercise care and control when they get behind the wheel.

Increased safety on our roadways contributes to lower accident rates. This, in

turn, has an impact on our automobile insurance rates. We need to truly

understand the link between the two, as we explore measures to help stabilize

rates in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over the

past several years, we have introduced a number of measures that are aimed at

improving road safety. We have strengthened impaired driving, distracted

driving, excessive speeding and street-racing provisions and included a new

provision for stunting in the Highway

Traffic Act . We enhanced move-over provisions, updated the act to reflect

the legalization of cannabis, introduced a one-metre rule, and we are currently

working with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators on a

national work plan for commercial motor vehicle safety.

We made

amendments to the Highway Traffic Act

which came into force in 2018, which placed the onus on the driver to prove the

vehicle they were driving was insured at the time the proof of request was made.

It's also placed onus on the person charged with an offence to prove there was

an insurance policy at the time of the offence. The fines for failure to produce

proof that a policy is in force were also increased from a range of $25 to $100

to a range of $100 to $175.

There

are a number of additional measures we will implement in our continued focus on

road safety and stabilizing insurance rates that do not require legislative

changes to the Automobile Insurance Act .

Rather, we can move forward and get the process started to bring them to

fruition.

Mr.

Speaker, we will adopt electronic proof of automobile insurance. This would be

an immediate indication to law enforcement that the vehicle is not insured. Nova

Scotia has already implemented this program and we are looking to align our use

of electronic proof of automobile insurance with that of Nova Scotia.

There is

existing authority under the Electronic

Commerce Act and the Superintendent of Insurance can allow electronic proof

of insurance through a bulletin.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement for ambulances, buses, school

buses, taxis and commercial motor vehicles to notify the registrar in writing of

a cancelation or expiration of an insurance policy. The regulations would be

amended to require insurance companies to extend this requirement to every

policy holder in Newfoundland and Labrador. This complements a change we

previously made at our Motor Registration Division whereby we eliminated

accepting an insurance declaration as proof of insurance at our counter

services. Anyone who transfers ownership or renews a vehicle registration at an

MRD office or government service centre must show their insurance card.

Mr.

Speaker, we have constantly heard the debate about the plate-to-owner model and

have received numerous inquires as to why our province has not adopted this

system. All other provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador and

New Brunswick, require the plates to be surrendered to the registrar or remain

with the original registrant upon the sale or transfer of ownership of a

vehicle.

Currently, our province's Motor Vehicle Registration system uses mainframe

technology. When it was established decades ago it was designed as a

plate-to-vehicle system, meaning the plate is assigned to the vehicle and the

vehicle is assigned to the owner. The implementation of a plate-to-owner program

may help reduce uninsured drivers on our roadways; however, we recognize that

there are still uninsured drivers in jurisdictions that currently have such a

registration model.

Government will implement a plate-to-owner system. My department will work with

the Office of the Chief Information Officer on a procurement process to bring

this to fruition.

Mr.

Speaker, time and time again, we are made aware of incidents whereby a driver is

pulled over with no licence or registration, no insurance and unpaid fines. The

act currently mandates that all insured drivers carry uninsured automobile

protection to cover them in the event they are hit by an uninsured motorist.

In this

province, benefits of up to $200,000 are available for any one accident.

Uninsured drivers impose costs which must be paid by those of us who are

insured. This results in higher insurance premiums. In its report, the PUB noted

that several US States have adopted the principal of no pay, no play, where

uninsured drivers are prohibited from receiving compensation of filing a lawsuit

for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering.

We have

amended the act to prohibit access to the uninsured automobile fund for losses

by uninsured motorists. This includes a 30-day grace period for individuals who,

either through error or some other unforeseen circumstances, may have

inadvertently had their policy cancelled and are working towards renewal.

It is

important to note, Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not impact passengers,

cyclists or pedestrians who may be injured in an automobile accident. Auto

insurance is mandatory and other drivers should not have to pay the cost for

someone who refuses the responsibility of maintaining an insurance policy.

Mr.

Speaker, on February 25 we released the

What We Heard document arising from Service NL's portion of the auto

insurance review that was outside the PUB's mandate. The document contained

feedback from the public on a number of topics to help improve road safety in

our province, including the use of traffic cameras.

During

the fall of 2018, the Department of Transportation and Works conducted a pilot

project to monitor the speed of vehicles travelling through highway construction

zones. The department engaged companies to utilize camera-equipped monitoring

technology at various construction sites along the Trans-Canada Highway. The

cameras were set up to detect vehicles that were speeding, recognize vehicle

licence plate numbers and record relevant information.

The

pilot results confirmed that speeding in construction zones is a considerable

issue in this province. With 20 to 55 per cent of all vehicles travelling at

least 10 kilometres an hour above the posted speed limits. We also know that

vehicles passing a school bus when its stop-arm and flashing lights are

activated is a prevalent problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. Traffic cameras

could provide a solution to this scenario as well, as they could capture video

evidence of those who choose to disregard the safety of school children and

inappropriately pass the bus.

Although

it is not part of the bill we are introducing today, our government will develop

amendments to the Highway Traffic Act

to allow for the use of cameras as another measure of curb dangerous driving

habits.

Mr.

Speaker, we also received feedback from the general public regarding highway

design and safety during our review. Last week in this hon. House, my colleague,

the Minister of Transportation and Works, stated that our government will add

centre-line rumble strips to the Veterans Memorial Highway this construction

season. This will make the first time in the province's history that rumble

strips will be added to the centre line of a highway to alert motorists who

inadvertently veer from their lane.

All of

these measures aimed at improving driving behaviours and making our roadways

safer must to be taken into consideration in any discussion around auto

insurance and our focus on creating conditions to bring stability to our

insurance rates. We will continue to work with safety advocates and law

enforcement officials to identify opportunities to improve the safety of the

motoring public in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd now like to highlight the other options we have brought forward in

this bill. I doubt any conversation about auto insurance doesn't begin with the

cap versus the no-cap question. We met with the insurance industry, the legal

community, the Consumer Advocate and the taxi industry on the findings of the

PUB's report. We reviewed all the findings of the report and listened to the

feedback from our stakeholders. Industry suggested to us that a cap was a

solution if our goal as a government is to stabilize prices and attract

competition for the benefit of consumers. The legal community suggested that the

introduction of a cap would place undue strain and shift costs to the province's

health care system.

During

the review, there was a great deal of discussion on the implications of such a

cap for claimants. In the PUB report, one claimant stated: I don't have a cane.

I don't have a walker. You don't see a cast. To look at me, you really wouldn't

say there's a whole lot wrong with me, but physically and psychologically I'm

broken – I'm just a broken shell of a person right now.

There

are a lot of strongly held opinions on a cap, including those from consumers who

are adamant that it is their right to retain the right to sue. Insurers, on the

other hand, also believe that a cap would be the best option to help stabilize

rates. When we met with stakeholders to discuss the findings of the report, we

could not find a common ground. At the end of the day, there was no consensus

among the public or the key stakeholders on this issue.

Mr.

Speaker, we are announcing today that we are doubling the deductible from $2,500

to $5,000, rather than placing a cap on minor injuries. This will be captured in

the regulations. It is our intention to closely monitor its effectiveness in

helping to stabilize rates.

Mr.

Speaker, we have also amended the act to implement direct compensation for

property damage. Under this coverage, an insured driver who is in a motor

vehicle accident is compensated by their own insurance company for damages to

the vehicle, regardless of who is at fault. This means that not-at-fault

claimants do not have to deal with the at-fault party's insurer to be reimbursed

for damages to their automobile.

The

at-fault driver would continue to be reimbursed for physical damage to their

vehicle under their collision coverage, provided this coverage was purchased.

This coverage does not remove the concept of fault from loss recovery, but

rather changes the source of the funds. It also does not change the claimant's

right to sue for other damages. In essence, it can lead to a faster and more

customer-friendly resolution of a claim.

Mr.

Speaker, diagnostic and treatment protocols adopted in our jurisdictions

typically address the most common injuries in automobile accidents such as

sprains, strains and whiplash-associated disorders. They also specify how many

chiropractic and physiotherapy visits maybe authorized based on the injury. The

goal of these protocols is to get an injured individual on the path to recovery

as soon as possible with timely and effective, evidence-based treatment specific

to their injury.

They

eliminate the wait time for approval from the insurer or referral from a doctor

in order to access treatment. It also means the individual does not have to pay

out of pocket, so there are no financial barriers to treatment. There is

consistency in treatment for the injuries based on scientific evidence and the

individual can choose their own treatment provider.

The

costs associated with treatment under the protocols will be covered by the

no-fault accident benefits coverage, and will become the primary payer over an

injured person's health benefits plan. This represents a significant change to

the current system, and it is important that claimants are adequately informed

of the new options with respect to making automobile insurance claims, as well

as seeking treatment for injuries. Amendments to the act would adopt the

protocols based on the processes implemented in Nova Scotia and Alberta.

Mr.

Speaker, the PUB report noted that several industry submissions proposed changes

to the existing tort procedural rules specific to motor vehicle collision claims

in Newfoundland and Labrador in order to streamline bodily injury claims

adjustment and settlement processes for accident victims that improve the

efficiency of litigation.

looked at Ontario's model whereby accident victims are required to apply for

accident benefits, where it is available, before pursuing litigation. They

require notice of the intent to commence an action within 120 days of a

collision, must undergo examinations by certain health providers at the

insurer's expense, if requested, and provide a statutory declaration describing

the circumstances of the collision and the nature of the claim being made.

Ontario's act also states that a person can commence an action without complying

with these requirements; however, the court will consider the non-compliance in

awarding costs. We have amended our legislation to implement changes to the

procedural process to align with those of Ontario. The act also clarifies that

damages are reduced by the amount of accident benefits in order to avoid double

counting.

Mr.

Speaker, telematics technology is capable of collecting information about where,

how and when a vehicle is driven. The information must be treated as personal

information, and any programs utilizing telematics data must be optional and

include consent from the policyholder. Telematics can provide significant

vehicle and driver information that can assist with claims handling providing

key accident details. Insurance companies can utilize telematics to monitor

driver behaviours.

Reports

providing information on sudden braking, acceleration, distance and time of day

driven can be used to more accurately price insurance policies, along with

providing feedback to drivers to encourage safer driving practices and deliver

financial incentive to safe drivers. As such, we are amending the regulations to

implement underwriting guidelines concerning the optional use of telematics with

further guidance to be provided in bulletins from the superintendent. My

department will work closely with the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner in drafting of these regulations.

Mr.

Speaker, as I stated earlier, Service NL conducted its own consultations on

automobile insurance on topics that were outside the mandate of the PUB. One of

those topics is the rate setting process itself. A total of 181 respondents took

part, 94 per cent of whom identified as consumers. The majority of feedback was

provided on the automobile insurance rate setting process, encouraging increased

competition in the marketplace and improving highway safety.

The PUB

had noted in its report that our province's automobile insurance market is

highly concentrated compared to other jurisdictions and particularly the other

Atlantic provinces. We have 98 per cent of the total premiums written by 15

insurers. When you consider common ownership, we have four insurer groups, which

write 85 per cent of the premiums.

The

report went on to say that, as a result, there is less competition and fewer

choices for consumers in this province, which increases the potential for

instability in the market. The Insurance Bureau of Canada proposed a flex rating

framework for the province which would permit insurers greater latitude in

setting the rates while also preserving regulatory authority. The requirements

for the PUB would allow more flexibility, while at the same time ensuring rates

are not excessive, inadequate or discriminatory.

The

process would be amended so that the PUB would consider the impacts the rates

may have on solvency of the applicant or whether they are excessive in relation

to the financial circumstances of the company. The process would also be amended

to place requirements on insurers to submit full filings for private passenger

vehicles every three years, as in Alberta. It will also provide a mechanism for

(inaudible) approval of rates where the average of proposed changes is less than

3 per cent annually, and no more than an accumulative increase of 6 per cent

over three years. This would also apply to commercial vehicle rates.

Additionally, the rates approval process would no longer be required for

fleet-rated risks, providing drivers a measure of control over their rates.

Taking

fleet rating outside the PUB process is a potential path for taxi companies out

of Facility Association. It would enable a fleet owner, such as a taxi company,

to negotiate its own rate with a willing insurer. They have the ability to make

their own case based on their safety record and measures they are taking to

reduce accidents. With this reduction in cost and increase in rating

flexibility, fleet rating could potentially lead to increased competition to the

benefit of policyholders. We are amending the act to implement these changes to

the PUB process, and this will also remove fleet rating from the prior approval

rate process.

There is

also a requirement for more information to be published by the PUB to be

consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions, be transparent and make

more information available for consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, another matter that has garnered attention during our review was the

use of winter tires. Quebec introduced mandatory winter tires, and reports

indicate that after the first two seasons, road accidents decreased by 5 per

cent. That's approximately 575 fewer people were injured annually in winter road

accidents and deaths and serious injuries due to winter driving accidents

decreased by 3 per cent.

A 2018

report from the Tire and Rubber Association of Canada found that winter tire

usage in the Atlantic provinces was, in fact, 94 per cent today. That is the

highest rate in the country, outside of Quebec. In Ontario, while winter tires

are not mandatory, there is a requirement for auto insurance to give discounts

to drivers with winter tires. The amount of the discount is not set out in law.

We did

not want to place additional financial burden on residents of our province by

mandating winter tires on vehicles in Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not want

to impose such a requirement on low income individuals or families, including

seniors, who may not use their vehicle during the winter months. Instead, we

opted to align our province with Ontario, and allow for an incentive for those

who choose to increase safety in winter by putting their winter tires on their

vehicles. We wanted to provide that choice to the consumers of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As I

said a few minutes ago, we already have a 94 per cent rate of winter tire usage,

but our goal, of course, is 100 per cent. It is our hope that the savings

realized through such an incentive would help increase their usage. More winter

tire usage should result in fewer accidents.

Mr.

Speaker, there are other legislative changes arising from our review of

automobile insurance that I will deal with in another bill, which I will also

introduce in this hon. House, particularly for consumers such as the taxi

industry. Our government has listened to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We know that paying the highest insurance rates in Atlantic Canada is

simply not acceptable. As I stated at the beginning of my comments today,

however, there is no single quick fix to help stabilize insurance rates in our

province. Rather, it requires a multi-pronged approach that, over time, will

help realize benefits for the consumer in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We feel

that we have struck an appropriate balance by providing solutions that not only

benefit consumers in our province but the insurance industry as well. The

majority of the amendments to the

Automobile Insurance Act we have introduced today will come into effect on

January 1, 2020. In terms of the diagnostic and treatment protocol changes, we

want to ensure adequate time for us to consult with health professionals and

also allow industry time to make their necessary changes to the processes, so a

date will in fact be determined.

The

provision which prohibits uninsured drivers from accessing the uninsured

automobile fund and receiving compensation for non-economic losses will come

into effect on August 1 of 2019. I want to reiterate once again that a problem

like this cannot be solved with one solitary solution and in one day, rather it

requires a suite of solutions together that will help us realize stability in

the area of auto insurance.

I want

to thank the PUB for their tremendous effort in conducting the review, as well

as providing us with a very comprehensive report that was instrumental in our

decision-making. I want to thank the insurance industry, the legal community,

the taxi operators, the Consumer Advocate, the road-crash victims, consumers and

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who contributed to the review process in

any way. It is only by working together that we can find solutions that benefit

us all.

I look

forward to debating these amendments with my hon. colleagues in the House today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Thank you.

recognize the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I understand I

would have up to an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR. CROSBIE:

Is it Mr. Chair or Mr.

Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Mr. Speaker.

MR. CROSBIE:

Okay, I'll keep my eye on the

clock, but I won't be going an hour, so everyone can relax. Although, there is

something to be said about all of this.

Mr.

Speaker, the situation in Canada, broadly speaking, is there's a spectrum

between no-fault and fault-based compensation for automobile injuries, both

property damage and personal injury, bodily injury. You have provinces like

Quebec, for example, in which you have what's called pure no-fault, and that

means that it's all done like workers' compensation. Nobody's interested in

who's at fault for the accident, you are compensated under a prescribed set of

regulations that prescribe injuries, prescribe compensation for certain

injuries, prescribe loss of income compensation and prescribe compensation for

expenses.

What

they don't prescribe and what they don't give you is compensation for what we

like to call pain and suffering damages – pain and suffering and loss of

amenities. So that's the pure form of no-fault and we can all think of it as

similar to a workers' compensation type of system. Totally administered and,

basically, legal counsel are not involved in the system, for the most part. It's

administered by regulation, administered by regulators.

actually are on the other end of the spectrum, along with British Columbia.

Although, I think some changes are happening in British Columbia this year. In

other words, we have a mixed system whereby most compensation is through the

tort system; it's through third-party claims and it's based on fault.

There is

a limited amount of compensation – and it's very limited – available through

accident benefits, which this bill says it seeks to define, and the accident

benefits are simply those benefits you're able to access under what's called

section B. There's

section B and

section C and

section A and all that. If you

look at the form that your insurer sends you when get auto insurance, you'll see

there are actually these little boxes on the form and there's a box called

section A, there's a box called

section B, a box called

section C and so on and

so forth.

section A is no-fault benefits and it's optional under our system. You don't

have to buy the no-fault benefits portion. However, it doesn't give you very

much coverage at all; $140 a week, that's way below poverty wage if you ever

happen to rely on it; $140 a week if you're unable to work and you have a wage

loss. The total amount that you can access for therapy, for example, for

physiotherapy, for acupuncture, for whatever is not covered by the MCP system,

or the hospital system, that's limited to $25,000. Now, that's okay for a number

of injuries, but it's certainly far from adequate for anything significant, and

there are lots of injuries like that that require ongoing therapy with a cost

that drastically exceeds $25,000. That's the total and that's the cap on the

compensation. It's an optional coverage.

submission is that it would have been an improvement – and remembering that this

coverage is very cheap, it would have been an improvement to our system of auto

insurance to make it mandatory because we're the only province in the country

where it's not mandatory, and to improve the level of benefits. That way there's

a safety net under people who get involved in an auto accident, who suffer a

personal injury, a bodily injury and may not be at fault, or may not have access

to fault-based benefits. That's an improvement we're passing up the opportunity

to make here.

Then, on

the tort side, this is where most of the measures, most of the interventions,

most of the inferences that this bill seeks to make, this is where they're

happening. And I can't think actually of a better way into that than to use, as

my text here, the Service NL, Justice and Public Safety, April 15, 2019 document

intended for public consumption about these changes, backgrounder included and

so forth, and it's entitled: Changes to Automobile Insurance Legislation Provide

Better Value for Consumers.

Better

value for consumers? Mr. Speaker, where is the better value for consumers? If we

look into the text of the document, there is no promise here that consumers will

get a product of equal value for less cost. That's nowhere in this document and

it's nowhere in any of the documentation or in the legislation.

Where

can it be said, where is the justification to be found to be able to say that

these changes provide better value for consumers? Where is this value?

Mr.

Speaker, if we look at the text here, it says: “The changes” – to automobile

insurance legislation – “are intended to help stabilize insurance rates while

enhancing consumer protection to benefit the people of the province.”

Well,

stabilize is a grand concept. In fact, it's a coinage of the auto insurance

industry. They love to conjure with the idea of stabilizing insurance rates. The

problem with stabilizing insurance rates is you'll never know if it happened.

Is that

a promise that rates will not go up next year or the year – no, it's not

anything like that. It's not a target that can be measured. That's the great

thing about talking about stabilizing, you're using a goal that no one can

measure, so you can make any claim you want to about it. You can claim to have

stabilized rates no matter if they go up 10 per cent next year or 5 per cent or

2 per cent or 20 per cent. You can always claim that you stabilized rates.

It goes

on to repeat again, “… while enhancing consumer protection to benefit the people

of the province.” Enhancing consumer protection. Let's see what they say are the

changes in here: “Some of the key changes to the legislation .…” I stop there

because that's the problem right away. It says: “Some of the key changes to the

legislation include an increase in the deductible from $2,500 to $5,000 for

bodily injury claims ....”

The

problem with that is that we're being told, and it's quite apparent, because

that is not addressed in the legislation itself, so this document here is wrong

about that. It's not in the legislation. No, it's going to be provided for in

regulations. So, it's not in the legislation, the increase in the deductible for

bodily injury claims.

I'm not

sure it says that here, but I'm assuming we are to expect a definition of minor

injury claims or some such concept like that. Again, that's being left to the

regulations.

Now, the

problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that there was a great deal of evidence heard

by the Public Utilities Board on minor injury claims or terminology to similar

effect and the testimony was that it is next to impossible to come up with a

serviceable medically sound definition of what a minor injury is in the context

of compensation for automobile-related injuries. It will be an unending source

of litigation.

Likewise, it's telling us, there will be “treatment protocols introduced for

common injuries as the primary payer ….” Let me see if that makes sense here.

“Some of the key changes to the legislation include an increase in the

deductible from $2,500 to $5,000 for bodily injury claims; introduction of

treatment protocols for common injuries as the primary payer ….” I think we've

got a bit of a mishmash there, but I'll just take: introduction of treatment

protocols for common injuries.

What on

earth are these treatment protocols and where are they going to come from?

Perhaps the minister will have an answer for us on that one later on when we get

to go into more detail, and she's nodding her head. I'm cheered to know that,

but, again, that's going to be done through regulations and we don't get to

debate that in here.

Then we

come to “no access to the Uninsured Automobile Fund for losses by uninsured

motorists ….” Now, we all deprecate, condemn the fact that there are people, and

sometimes people who are flagrantly in violation, with accumulations of fines in

the tens of thousands of dollars, driving out around on the highways, coming to

the attention of the police, getting involved in accidents even. They are

scofflaws and they are not paying for their insurance. They drive uninsured and

they do so quite deliberately, so nobody has sympathy for those people.

But some

of those people have dependants, some of those people have families, some of

those people have wives and this measure would disentitle those folks in the

case of injury, let's say in the case of a very severe injury, which disables

them from earning an income, or death, and causes them to leave behind a widow

and orphans. They're disentitled from making a claim, were it to be that the

injury is not their fault but somebody else's.

Mr.

Speaker, the problem with that is we have laws that provide for fines and

convictions and so forth. There are sanctions through the normal quasi-criminal

process and quasi-criminal law for providing sanctions for deterring people from

driving around with no insurance.

submission is that to deprive these individuals of any access to bodily injury

compensation is to not consider the merits and the equity of individual cases,

and may have devastating and far-reaching consequences to the persons who are

thereby deprived of their civil rights.

I look

forward to hearing the minister explain whether she got an opinion from the

Department of Justice on whether or not this is in compliance with the Charter

of Rights, because we have a section,

section 7 in the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , that gives people the right

to security of the person; life, liberty and security of the person.

Looking

at some of these nuts and bolts here – one other thing struck me. I listened to

the minister who kindly put forward the statistic, I believe, that 94 per cent

of drivers in this province use snow tires as things now stand; 94 per cent use

of snow tires.

So,

again, I looked at the document from Justice and Public Safety and it's telling

me: “Proposed amendments will also provide a mandated insurance discount for

winter tire usage ….” Okay, so that sounds like: I have winter tires, I'm going

to get a break on my premium. Well, if 94 per cent of the drivers out there are

already using winter tires, that's not going to be much of a break based on 6

per cent more.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member to direct his comments toward the Chair, please.

Thank

you.

MR. CROSBIE:

I'm sorry. I was just including the room.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. CROSBIE:

That's not going to be much of a break if another 6 per cent start using winter

tires.

Another

problem here, and I'm looking at clause 3, it says: The act is amended by adding

immediately after

section 25 the following:

“25.1(1)

Where a person intends to commence an action for loss or damage from bodily

injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an

automobile, the person shall (

a) serve written notice of the intention to

commence an action on the insured within 120 days after the accident ….”

Well,

the first question might be: Why? Why would there be such an obligation? Who's

been complaining about the need to get notice? What is the evil that is sought

to be cured by this? Why the requirement to serve notice of an intention to

commence an action on the insured within 120 days of the accident?

Although

I question the wisdom of such a provision; furthermore, there is a problem

because the legislation as proposed does not say: What is the consequence of not

giving such notice. Is it intended that if the notice is not given that the

person who has been involved in the accident and is claiming loss or damage from

bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation

of a automobile, is it the case that the intention is that they shall not be

permitted to make a claim for bodily injury or death if they don't give the

notice?

Well,

maybe, but it doesn't say so. It doesn't say that's the consequence. So, I'm

predicting now that this is going to give rise to all manner of litigation;

litigation to find out what the heck did the Legislature mean when it put those

words in there.

If we go

further down 25.1, this would be introduced into the legislation, 25.1(2) it

says: “Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person referred to in subsection (1)” –

that's a person who is in an accident and has to give the notice – “may apply to

the Supreme Court for an extension of the notice period ….” – may apply to the

Supreme Court for an extension of the notice period.

The

problem with it, though, Mr. Speaker, is it doesn't tell you on what grounds the

court would grant an extension. There's no rationale there in the first place

for why notice would need to be given and, therefore, throwing it into the lap

of the court to decide whether or not a person should get an extension without

explaining why the notice requirement is there in the first place is going to

leave the court at a loose end when it tries to figure out why and when and

under what circumstances it should grant an extension. As a matter of fact, it's

not even clear why there should be an extension given that's no consequence to

not giving the notice.

I think

we've got a knot here that really needs to be untied and the legislation needs

clarification. It needs clarification in respect to: What is the intention of

the

section when it says you've got to give notice? Is it that you can't take an

action unless you give the notice? On what grounds would the court grant an

extension of this? Why are we imposing all this bureaucracy on people anyway?

There

are other redundancies in this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Section 4 of the bill,

which would add 26.6 into the legislation by way of amendment. It's talking

about: “In an action for loss or damage from bodily injury or death arising

directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, the damages

to which a plaintiff is entitled shall be reduced by the accident benefit

payments (

a) received y the plaintiff; and (

b) to which the plaintiff remains

entitled.”

Well,

possibly what that's trying to say is you need to claim against your accident

benefits first, and if you do, that you can't get doubly compensated from the

tort based or

section (

a) benefits or tort based damages. Well, that's all very

nice except that this is already the case and that

section is completely

unnecessary. It's already the case.

I'm now

looking at what will be

section 34.1, which has to do with diagnostic and

treatment protocols. It's talking about a person being able to “elect to be

diagnosed and treated in accordance with the diagnostic and treatment protocols

prescribed in the regulations.”

It's not

clear what all the consequences are of making one election versus another

election. Maybe we'll learn that from the regulations but it's hard to say what

that is from this.

Again, I

remarked on that a bit earlier: Where do they come from, on whose authority?

What consensus amongst practitioners and treaters lies behind them? What is

intended to be achieved by having these diagnostic and treatment protocols

prescribed in the regulations?

Now,

there's a curious provision (4), I'm looking at page 12 of the bill, it would

amend subsection 60(1) of the act. There are a bunch of things that would be

involved in an amendment: case management process – that's nice; examinations

and so forth. Then there's one, “(f.6) prescribing rules for determining the

degree of fault in various situations for loss or damage arising directly or

indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile” – rules for determining

the degree of fault.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the advantage of having practiced in this area for a number of

decades and I'm not aware that there's any problem that the courts have been

having, or for that matter, lawyers who do this kind of work, or adjusters who

do this kind of work, figuring out the determination of the degree of fault.

All of

this has been well-reasoned, well-embedded, well-discussed. There's plenty of

precedent out there that already at common law prescribes the “rules for

determining the degree of fault in various situations for loss or damage arising

directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile.”

What

we're going to accomplish by having that put into a regulation is, as far as I'm

concerned, only an opportunity for getting it wrong. It's not going to improve

on the present situation.

I've

just picked out a few things there. In some, we're not seeing that these

proposed changes to the automobile insurance legislation provide, as the

backgrounder or in handout claim, better value for consumers. We're not seeing

where the better value for consumers is. What we're seeing is a load of

bureaucratic regulations and impediments layered on top of what's already a

fairly complicated situation, namely personal injury in the auto accident

context, which is, if anything, going to cause extra expense.

It is a

shotgun approach to give the impression of action and activity, and addressing a

general perception in the public that insurance cost too much. It's an effort to

give the impression to the public that something is being done about it without

actually doing anything except making it more complicated.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand here today on behalf of people of the beautiful and scenic

District of Lewisporte - Twillingate and speak to Bill 3,

An Act to Amend the

Automobile Insurance Act. As the department responsible for consumer protection,

Service NL takes its roll very seriously.

Mr.

Speaker, when our government developed The

Way Forward , a plan for sustainability and growth in our province, we made

better services and increased consumer protection a core element to this plan. A

promise to review automobile insurance rates in our province was made, and today

I am very proud to be part of the debate on solutions aimed at bringing

sustainability to these rates.

We said

from day one that our focus was on consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our

goal has been to help modernize the system so the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador will see more benefits and better values. The goal of the PUB review of

automobile insurance was to help inform our government's decision making in an

effort to stabilize insurance rates and provide the best product possible.

Since

the report was released in late January, government has met with representatives

from the insurance industry, the legal community, Consumer Advocate, the taxi

industry and Facility Association to review the findings. We all recognized from

the start that we needed to work together if we are to find the proper balance.

As the

Minister of Service NL stated, the high cost of automobile insurance did not

rise in a short period of time. Rather, the rates escalated over time as a

result of numerous pressures that were affecting both consumers and the

industry. There is also a collective recognition that solutions came in many

forms.

While we

have introduced a number of legislative changes to address the high rates, there

are a number of other measures we are also implementing that do not require

amendments to this act. There is also a recognition that measures we have

already implemented in terms of road safety through numerous amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act will also go a

long way in helping us improve overall driver behaviours.

One area

in particular I will focus on is that of uninsured drivers, and our minister

alluded to this earlier. Every time an individual in our province gets behind

the wheel of a vehicle, they are making a decision to abide by the rules of the

road. When someone knowingly chooses to operate a vehicle that does not carry

insurance, they also knowingly place an unnecessary risk on the other vehicle

operators or pedestrians that they may encounter.

As the

Minister of Service NL stated earlier, we have all heard of stories of

individuals who have been pulled over with no licence, no registration or

insurance, and have numerous unpaid fines. It is reported that the PUB noted

that over a five-year period ending in 2016, there were 788 claims in the

province with over $26 million in damages paid in which a driver was reported as

either uninsured or unidentified. This means that all of us who carry insurance

in Newfoundland and Labrador are shouldering this burden on the system. The

report from Oliver Wyman Limited, a consulting actuary for the PUB, stated in

its findings that the average uninsured automobile claims is the highest in all

of the Atlantic region.

Currently, automobile policies include coverage up to $200,000 when involved in

an accident with an uninsured driver. Additionally, each Atlantic province has

an uninsured automobile fund to indemnify for claims by persons such as

pedestrians or cyclists who do not have any coverage and suffer injury or damage

by an uninsured vehicle. While it is important that this coverage exists for

those, through no fault of their own, are impacted by an uninsured driver, the

high cost of providing coverage remains. Those of us who do the right thing and

ensure our vehicles are insured, must pay the costs of those who choose to

disregard this law. As such, changes to the act will prohibit access to the

uninsured automobile fund and an uninsured motorist for losses for uninsured

motorists.

Mr.

Speaker, we have made amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act , which came into force in 2018, which placed the onus on

the driver to prove the vehicle they were driving was insured at the time of the

accident. It also placed the onus on a person charged with an offence to prove

there was an insurance policy at the time of the offence. The fines for failure

to produce proof that a policy is in force were also increased from a range of

$25 to $100, to a range now of $100 to $175.

Mr.

Speaker, with the legislation we have introduced today, our government is

zeroing in on this important matter that is affecting insurance rates for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is also important to note that these

changes apply to individuals who unknowingly get behind the wheel of an

uninsured vehicle. Some of us may find ourselves in a situation whereby we may

have to drive a friend's or neighbour's car for a variety of reasons. The onus

is on us to ensure the vehicle is appropriately insured, or confirm we are

covered by our own insurance policy when operating another person's vehicle.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of other measures we are introducing today that will

also help us address the issue of uninsured. The adoption of a plate to owner

system, electronic proof of automobile insurance and notification of insurance

policy cancellation by insurers will help our efforts to get uninsured drivers

off our roadways.

Recently, in the Speech from the Throne, our government also addressed the issue

of unpaid fines. Mr. Speaker, outstanding fines owed to the province result in

driver licence suspensions which in turn creates a barrier for vulnerable

populations trying to gain meaningful employment. Our government committed to

exploring the creation of a fines option pilot program which would enable those

in marginalized groups with outstanding fines to settle the debt by performing

community service work. This would provide social benefits to the community and

to its participants.

Mr.

Speaker, uninsured drivers is just one of a number of perennial issues affecting

insurance rates which we have addressed in Bill 3. All of the measures we have

addressed today were developed with several main themes in mind, namely consumer

protection, consumer choice, and stability for the insurance industry.

Mr.

Speaker, I will be supporting Bill 3 and ask all my colleagues to do the same.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I recognize the hon. Member

for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

hono