PDF Version

April 1, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 61

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Admit strangers, please.

Order,

please!

I would

like to welcome all the Members back for another week in the House of Assembly.

Unfortunately, I'd like to pass on some very sad news to my colleagues in this

room. You may have heard through the news that the Speaker of Nunavut, the hon.

Joe Enook, died Friday night, early Saturday morning, and for those of you

who've had the chance to work with him – I know I certainly have enjoyed that

opportunity. Many of my colleagues on the floor here have also, at various

parliamentary meetings. He recently participated with us in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay. I tell you, Nunavut has lost a great son, our province has lost a great

friend.

So, on

behalf of the Legislature, I do extend condolences to his family, his friends

and all the people of Nunavut, and, frankly, all those who've worked with him.

In the

Speaker's gallery today – and, I'm sorry, the hon. the Deputy Speaker and the

Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay will also be speaking about Mr. Enook in his

statement.

On a

happier occasion, I would like to recognize some great friends and some special

guests in the Speaker's gallery today. We have with us the World Special

Olympics Bronze Medallist, Mr. Peter Hynes of Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Joining Mr. Hynes are his

parents, Jayne and Rod Hynes, his aunt, Susan Murray. They are also joined by

the Executive Director of the Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador, Trish

Williams, and Program Director, Mike Daly.

Welcome

to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Topsail

- Paradise, Placentia West - Bellevue, Terra Nova, and Baie Verte - Green Bay.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Rodger Rowsell of Leading

Tickles.

In 2016,

recognized for 20 years of public safety with the Canadian Coast Guard Exemplary

Service Medal, sailing 10 years in dangerous waters. He will have 29 years of

service on July 4. A Canadian Ranger for five years, Rodger receives his 35 year

service pin on April 14 at the upcoming Firefighters Ball in Leading Tickles.

Service

aside, Rodger has been a performer, releasing three CDs, including:

It's a New Day ,

Captive to the Sea and Songs

of Inspiration and Christmas Joy featuring “Leading Tickles my heart can be

found.”

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in wishing safe anchorage for a

native son of Leading Tickles, the District of Exploits, and our province, with

a mannerism that makes one feel at ease in his company, as well as the offering

up of a helping hand whenever needed, our Rodger Rowsell.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, this year's

winter carnival, Snow and Ice in Paradise, was an opportunity for residents to

come out and celebrate the community with 10 fun filled days of winter events,

activities and entertainment.

From Feb

1 to 10, the Town of Paradise came together and celebrated the splendor of

winter which featured fun activities for adults and children alike. I, along

with my colleague from Conception Bay East - Bell Island, attended many of these

events. These successful events, such as family sliding day, retirement centre

visits, pre-teen dance, skating, Winterlude triathlon and more, would not be

possible without the numerous dedicated volunteers, corporate sponsors, the

councillors and staff who, through their tireless support, commitment and hard

work, made this winter festival a great success and a time of enjoyment

for

the community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I extend congratulations to all those who

contributed to the success of Snow and Ice in Paradise and I ask everyone to

join me in congratulating the Town of Paradise on another successful winter

carnival, adding to the quality of life in their community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR.

BROWNE:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a lifetime of work, skill and talent by a

hard-working woman of Swift Current, locally known as Betty the baker. Whether

it's one of the heaviest and fullest pies you will find, or a moist tray of

banana bread, or one of her signature loaves of bread, Betty Eddy has been

producing her work to customers at the Goobies Irving for 39 years.

She takes great pride in her work, and has a devoted

and loyal following. Everyone stops for a loaf of Goobies bread along their

travels, and Betty is far too modest to share this story herself. She has passed

on her talented kitchen skills to her daughters Leslie and Jacqueline, who

co-operate LJ's Pitstop, also known locally as the Swift Current chip truck. So

you can pick up Betty's bread in Goobies or get her daughters' chips along your

way down the Burin Peninsula highway. So come and visit.

Just this winter, Mr. Speaker, the owner of Irving shut

down the restaurant to hold a surprise birthday party, as Betty turned 80 years

of age. And she vows she will continue working this spring for another season.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. Members, as they return

to their districts after this week's sitting, to drop in to the Goobies Irving

and get a loaf by Betty the baker, your families will thank you when you get

home.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

MR.

HOLLOWAY:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Byron Collins who has been inducted into the

Atlantic Canada Marine Industries Hall of Fame.

Nearly 30 years ago, while operating out of a two-bay

garage in Eastport, Byron, along with his brother-in-law, started the Collins

Aluminum and Repairs limited. Quickly seeing the results from their strong work

ethic, as well as an emerging opportunity in producing seafood and aquaculture

processing equipment, the Collins' expanded their business and constructed a new

facility in nearby Glovertown.

Boatbuilding would be the focus for the business, and

the first Silver Dolphin aluminum pleasure boat was manufactured a year later in

1981. Despite the onset of the cod moratorium in the 1990s, Bryon's focus kept

constant. Through the establishment of Fab-Tech Industries, an expanded line of

marine boats provided greater market opportunities throughout the province and

internationally, producing 150 boats annually.

Byron is very proud of his family-run business and says

that the key to survival is diversity, perseverance and innovation.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating

Bryon Collins for his contributions to the marine industry and his induction

into the Atlantic Canada Marine Industries Hall of Fame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte - Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize and pay tribute to the hon. Joe Enook, Speaker of

the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, who passed away suddenly on Friday, March

29, 2019 while hospitalized in Ottawa.

Mr.

Enook was acclaimed as Speaker during the November 17, 2017 proceedings of the

Nunavut Leadership Forum. Speaker Joe was first elected to represent the

District of Tununiq in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in a by-election in

2011 and was re-elected in 2013 and 2017.

During

his tenure as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and as Speaker, he rarely

Inuktitut.

I, along

with my colleague from Torngat Mountains, shared a wonderful friendship with

Speaker Joe and I so enjoyed the wisdom that he shared with us. He spoke often

about his homeland and community of Pond Inlet, for which he was most proud.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, Joe travelled to Goose Bay, Labrador to join us at the

National Presiding Officers Conference held January 31 to February 2, 2019.

Our

thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Mary, his family, friends and the entire

community of Pond Inlet.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in sending sincere condolences to the Enook family.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, today I recognize an amazing athlete from our province who recently

competed with Team Canada at the World Summer Games in Abu Dhabi.

Peter

Hynes from Placentia proudly brought home a bronze medal in the mini javelin

event, and was one of 19 podium finishes for Canada at the Games. Peter also

competed in the 100-metre run event, where he finished fifth.

Peter

was the only Newfoundland and Labrador athlete to compete in the Games, and on

March 24, a celebration event was held in Placentia to welcome Peter home.

With

over 7,000 athletes from 170 countries competing at this multi-sport event, it

is a major achievement to represent your country, and it is an outstanding

accomplishment to come away with a medal.

Getting

to represent Canada on the world stage takes an incredible amount of

determination, skill and perseverance, and our government commends Peter for his

hard work.

I would

also like to extend a special thank you to all of the volunteers, coaches,

parents and family members, who, as a group, are an essential part of the

success of all Special Olympians in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As well,

thank you to Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador which continues to

provide opportunities for sport participation and competition in our province.

I invite

all Members of this House to please join me in congratulating Peter for his many

achievements and most importantly being an inspiration to all of us.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his remarks. We join with the minister in

congratulating Placentia's own Peter Hynes on his bronze medal performance at

the World Summer Games. Congratulations also to his coaches, family and

supporters for giving him all the encouragement he needed to reach the podium.

Thanks

to the great work of organizations like Special Olympics Newfoundland and

Labrador, athletes like Peter are able to get the training and support they need

to succeed.

We're

sure that at the next World Summer Games there won't be only one Newfoundland

and Labrador athlete doing us proud on the world stage as Peter has.

Congratulations, Peter.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister and bravo to Peter Hynes on his win at the Special Olympics World

Summer Games. With over 7,000 athletes from 170 countries, Peter won a medal.

How wonderful is that? What an achievement? We can all be proud of, and be proud

for Peter.

This was

also made possible by the incredible team of volunteers, coaches, parents and

family members of our Special Olympics. Bravo as well!

This

government has cut back significantly on funds for sports and it is time to step

it up again. We all benefit with a healthier and more inclusive society.

Once

again, bravo Peter Hynes!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to highlight the MyGovNL pilot project for Motor Registration Division

that the Minister of Service NL and I launched last week in Gander. The pilot is

a key part of the Digital Way Forward, which is our five-year plan to better

deliver services online to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government, like all organizations, faces increased service delivery

expectations. Traditional methods of service delivery are becoming outdated, and

in some cases are unresponsive to the needs of consumers.

The

vision of the Digital Way Forward is to introduce a new approach to service

delivery: “One client. One GovNL. One relationship.” And that is what MyGovNL

does.

This

pilot project with the Motor Registration Division is the first publicly

available digital service under the Digital Way Forward five-year plan that was

announced in April of 2018. This particular enhancement allows residents to

manage their licence and vehicle renewals in one convenient online platform,

replacing several separate online functions. Those who participate will be able

to renew their licences and vehicles from the comfort of their own home.

Mr.

Speaker, better online platforms like this pilot project will improve the

overall experience that residents and businesses have when interacting with

government. Last week marked a significant step forward, with more services

expected to be delivered through this portal over the next four years.

At the

end of this five-year plan, the public will see government as one organization,

regardless of the individual or department with whom they interact.

The

Digital Way Forward Plan is another example of how our government is committed

to operating smarter and more efficiently for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for a copy of his statement. Government must always ensure we

are moving to make services and information more available and user-friendly to

residents. This is a good first step, but the administration's has had

three-plus-years to make tangible progress, and today we're just announcing a

pilot project.

Some

residents, we have heard, fear it will lead to further erosion of service

centres, that face-to-face interaction, in areas with little Internet coverage

and coupled with geographic isolation. This issue certainly needs to be attended

to and to receive consideration in any service delivery.

Progress

is indeed important, and we all recognize the value; however, government must

ensure, and make sure, that it benefits all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

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 advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to see the

release of the online digital platform for dealing with licence and vehicle

renewals. It's certainly going to be a convenience for those with access to

high-speed computers, and for those who, geographically, are not close to the

offices where one can go in personally, if, of course, they have access to

high-speed computers. I do remind the minister that there are many people who

cannot access online services.

I also

remind him that basic services must be provided to all the people of the

province, and regular counter service, or its equivalent, must be made available

to those who need to use it.

Thank

you very much.

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.

Can the

Premier guarantee to Members of the House of Assembly an opportunity to ask

questions about the heralded Atlantic Accord announcement, which is pending this

evening, and when will that be?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

You don't know, Mr. Speaker,

how glad that makes us on this side that we will at last be provided with full

and fair information about this heretofore secret negotiation.

Will the

Premier commit to making public all analysis leading up to this agreement

immediately after the announcement tonight?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, let me say this is the 70th anniversary of Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Indeed today, Mr. Speaker,

this is a good day for Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to send congratulations

and thank the great staff that we've had working from many departments over the

recent weeks in preparing for what we've reached today with the agreement, which

we will announce the details at 6 tonight.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the staff for the work that they've done. They put in

an awful lot of hours. They spent time away from their family and today is

indeed a good day for Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be sharing the details

at 6 tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We, on the Opposition side,

echo the Premier's sentiments and his gratitude for Confederation and for the

efforts of hard-working public servants. However, the question was: Will the

Premier commit to making the analysis behind this agreement public immediately

after the announcement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, it's our

intentions, of course, to release the details that we'll be signing, what the

agreement would be, on the agreement that we've reached.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at the Atlantic Accord, first of all, I want to say it

lays upon the foundation of the Accord that was put in place way back into the

'80s and the considerable amount of work that was done even leading into the

official signing in '85 and '86.

Previous

governments and administrations have done reviews and we've seen agreements and

new arrangements that were put in place. Mr. Speaker, today's announcement and

the great work that has been done. We'll be putting the details of that

announcement out there today, the agreement that we'll be signing with the

But I

also want to say this really builds on the successes that we've seen in many

other negotiations, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

– be it with labour, be it

with industry, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to building on the answers to

this question from the Leader of the Opposition with his next question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We have no quarrel with the

content of the hon. Premier's answer to my question, except for the fact that it

did not answer the question, which is: Will you be making the analysis behind

what money is owing to Newfoundland and Labrador public after the announcement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the work that

goes into a negotiation feeds into what happens at the negotiating table. There

has been a tremendous amount of work that the staff has been able to do. The

details of whatever we use to get to an agreement will be released tonight. We

will put in place an agreement, the details with the agreement that we will be

signing.

Mr.

Speaker, it's important that when you get into a negotiation, no different that

we would have seen within our labour groups, within our industry groups, with

our communities, we've seen it with other provinces – we've had a lot of

success. It is one of the reasons why I want to remind the people and the Leader

of the Opposition that we will be leading as a province. We will be leading this

country in economic activity, GDP, in Canada next year, Mr. Speaker.

This is

much different province, a much better province today in 2019 than it was in

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

These are admirable

sentiments but, Mr. Speaker, without the background materials and analysis,

scholars, economists, members of the public and, indeed, Members of this House

of Assembly whose constitutional responsibility it is to question the

government's actions will not be able –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

– to ask intelligent

questions about the outcome.

So, will

the Premier commit to releasing the analysis?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, today the people

of the province will see the great job that has been done and the agreement that

has been signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

That information will be made

public, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this

province is better off as a result of the efforts of this agreement than they

were of the agreement that was signed by the previous administration related to

the Muskrat Falls project.

So, I am

not going to take negotiation advice by a PC Leader of the Opposition or any

Member of the PC Party in this province, Mr. Speaker. I just will not do it. We

have a good agreement. This province is in better shape. We will put the details

of this agreement out there tonight at 6. I will assure you there are benefits

for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will put money in their pockets,

not take it out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, a well-known

president of the United States of America said, trust but verify.

How does

the Premier expect us to do the verification without the background

documentation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the agreement

will speak for itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Money will go into the

pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not take money out.

Mr.

Speaker, there is an inquiry that's going on in this province. You, the Leader

of the Opposition, has failed to stand up to the people of this province and

even apologize for the work that his party has done. I say to the Leader of the

Opposition will you please stand up, say that Muskrat Falls was a mistake,

apologize to the people of this province.

The

information that is coming out today, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the actions

and the decisions that you have made, I can assure you the details of this

agreement will support Newfoundland and Labrador just like the previous

negotiations that we have done with industry, we've done with communities and

we've done with our labour groups. We are supporting Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

By this time it's plain, Mr.

Speaker, that the answer of the hon. Premier is that we on this side should

trust him and don't bother with verification.

I have

another question on this series of negotiations. In the letter from the Premier

to the prime minister in February of last year, the Premier raised the issue of

equalization arrangements and, coincidentally, equalization is rolling over

today.

question for the Premier is: Has equalization arrangements been addressed in the

course of these talks and will we hear about this tonight?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, this is really

politics right now. The Leader of the Opposition is not interested in the future

of this province – not at all. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that

the equalization –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

– whether we like it or not,

is a federal program. The Leader of the Oppositions knows that quite well.

As a

matter of fact, it was the prime minister, I think, Stephen Harper who the

Leader of the Opposition wanted to run for, went begging to put his name on

Stephen Harper's ballot, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Leader of the Opposition

wanted to do who said that he would fix it, Mr. Speaker. He didn't deliver. As a

matter of fact, not only did he say no to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, he

said no to you as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion

of such an important announcement having to do with relations between the

federal government and this province, and the welfare and benefits of this

province, the Premier indulges himself in irrelevant answers. Let's try this

one.

The

letter that the Premier sent to the prime minister raised the question of

undeveloped petroleum discoveries and mentioned the lingering uncertainty around

the federal government's new environmental assessment process.

Within

the framework of this review, has this uncertainty been resolved?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, a

few weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources and I made a very public

announcement, and we spent time in Ottawa making a submission on Bill C-69.

I can

assure you that this government has spoken loud and clear about the position,

standing with industry in our province, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-69. As a matter

of fact, the submission is all publicly available. I certainly hope that the

Leader of the Opposition has read all of this. As a matter of fact, I think the

Senate Committee hearing will be in St. John's to look for people to present on

April 23.

I can

assure you, we will continue to support industry, the oil and gas industry, and

the mining industry, by the way. We talk a lot about the oil and gas industry,

but the mining industry is included in this as well, Mr. Speaker.

We are

standing with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians against and what should be in

Bill C-69.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

This is all a matter of

public information and knowledge.

question was: Has the uncertainty been resolved in the context of these

negotiations we're going to hear about?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I know the

eagerness of the Leader of the Opposition. All I'm saying is at 6 o'clock

tonight the details will be made to the people that are waiting; these are

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I would

ask the Leader of the Opposition tonight, as we put money into the pockets of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, that they would celebrate this

like Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should tonight.

There

are many components of what will be released tonight at 6 o'clock. I can assure

you this province is a better place as a result of the efforts of this

government and the negotiations that we've been able to do, not just on the

Atlantic Accord, but with labour, with industry, attracting nearly $18 billion

of economic activity to this province, that is creating jobs. Eight consecutive

months, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the employment in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The

record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, we are turning this province around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Will the agreement confirm

the exclusive jurisdiction of C-NLOPB over environmental assessment on the

offshore?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what I will say

is that at 6 o'clock tonight we will be sharing the details with the people of

our province.

C-NLOPB

is an important regulator in our offshore resources, and tonight we will share

the details. I can tell you the province is indeed a better place. It is indeed

a better place tonight once the announcement has been made, and I look forward

to sharing the information, the details of what will come out of this successful

agreement that we have reached on the 70th day, a celebration of Confederation

with Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Question Period, Mr. Speaker,

began on a note of optimism, that questions would be answered for a change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

This determination has gone

steadily downhill.

The

federal government's Hibernia equity share may be one item which has been

considered in the course of these negotiations.

Will the

Premier disclose, should there be any deal on the transfer of that share, the

value of the equity share?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I

will be very pleased to share with the people of the province the details around

tonight's announcement, which will create a lot of benefits to the people of our

province.

The

people of our province will have even more reason to celebrate once we get

together and share the information that we've been able to put together as a

result of the work of the officials, the engagement that we've had with the

federal government. Quite a bit of work.

There

are not a lot of hours left between now and 6 o'clock, and I think it's very

fair to actually share the information – I know the Leader of the Opposition is

very eager, very eager, but I can assure you, he will probably be one person –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Is it okay now, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER:

You're out of time, Sir.

PREMIER BALL:

All right.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm constantly

amazed at how much time it takes to give a non-answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

I guess we won't hear about

the value of the Hibernia equity stake.

To be

principal beneficiary, and I'm glad the hon. Premier brought up this term,

benefits, we have to enjoy local benefits from work generated by our offshore.

Will the

Premier ensure that the new agreement recognizes the need for local employment

benefits and the local supply industry?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the things about having local benefits is having the environment for people to

invest within our province. I mentioned earlier, with

Advance 2030 we now, within the mining industry and the oil and gas

industry, have attracted some $18 billion of economic activity.

So, Mr.

Speaker, and for the first time since 1991, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition – I know he's not going to like this – but for the first time since

1991, Exxon will be doing an exploration well offshore Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

I know that's not good news

for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Just a few months ago we were

looking at not having an exploration program offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 2019, we will have a very aggressive offshore exploration program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Glad as we are to hear about

offshore exploration, we would be gladder to hear about attention being given to

the maximization of benefits in the supply chain and also some attention being

given to global supply agreements which have cut off and cut down local supply

business.

Can the

Premier comment on the attention he's given to this problem?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud

to stand and talk about the attention that this government has been giving to

the oil and gas industry, as well as the mining industry, the aquaculture

industry, the technology industry within our province. But he asked a question

about the oil and gas industry.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the things we've done with the work coming out of the

partnership that we've had with those industry leaders is set aside an oil and

gas company with a focus expanding the mandate. So what we are doing as a

government, just attracting that investment – as I've mentioned already, we are

creating the environment to work with those local industries, Mr. Speaker. That

is one of the reasons why we are having a very aggressive and robust exploration

drilling program off our shore.

Just

concluding – and I know we had the minister and some other Members of this

government in Bull Arm just this week to see Seadrill is getting the West

Aquarius ready to go back to work off Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, things are moving in this province as a result of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Despite the optimistic note

with which the Premier began Question Period, the Opposition finds that the

answers given are less than required for it to do its job of holding the

government to account.

Would

the Premier commit now to tabling answers to all the questions I have asked,

tomorrow in this House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you

that I mentioned, I think, just on Friday of last week, that some time before

now and when the schools close that we will have an election – we will have an

election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

I will go in front of the

people of this province – and I'm guessing the Leader of the Opposition is

prepared to do the same thing – and we will put our platform, Mr. Speaker, up

against any platform that we've seen from the PC Party. It will be credible, Mr.

Speaker, and it will not be missing the boat on electricity rates by nearly

three or four cents a kilowatt, double counting $150 million on your electricity

rate mitigation.

Mr.

Speaker, I am more prepared, not only to answer the questions to the Leader of

the Opposition, but to people in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, today the carbon tax begins in provinces that stood up to Trudeau and

refused to impose his carbon tax plan. Here in this province, consumers have

been paying the carbon tax since January 1.

Can the

minister provide an update on how much has been collected from consumers in

carbon tax over the past three months?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They're

obviously not interested in answers.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't have those numbers at my fingertips right now, but I'll have it

for you by the end of the day.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are

interested in answers, but this government has a lot of trouble trying to answer

our questions. So I guess we'll wait.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

The minister promised he'll

get it for us; I guess we will wait.

The

carbon tax is set to increase from the current $20 a ton to $50 a ton by 2022.

Based on $20 a ton, consumers in this province are now paying an additional 4.42

cents per litre on gas and 5.37 cents per litre on diesel.

How much

more a litre will people be paying for your carbon tax next year, and how much

will they be paying in 2022?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the things we negotiated with the federal government, Mr. Speaker, on the

Made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan, was that we would not exceed Atlantic

parity.

Mr.

Speaker, the plan that we put in place for carbon pricing in this province –

we've heard from other provinces after we released the plan, wondering how we

got such a good deal. It was a plan that the opposite side had argued against.

It's a plan, Mr. Speaker, they said they'd fight the federal government on.

If we

had followed their advice, Mr. Speaker, we'd have the federal backstop today,

the same as the other provinces who have the federal backstop, and the people of

this province would be paying more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the minister, our plan is to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador who are already overtaxed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Carbon tax is being passed on

to everyone through the price of food and other goods.

Will the

minister admit that the carbon tax is a tax grab which is negatively impacting

the people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the

hon. Member, that if we were part of the federal backstop today, like they are

in four other provinces on April 1, 2019, we'd be paying a lot more than we are.

Because we negotiated a Made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan, that protects

the people of this province, that protects the industry in this province and

works for this province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

And I'm very proud of the

plan that we have negotiated.

As the

Minister of Finance has said, people are looking to us: how did we do it? Well,

you can tell that to the people in the provinces that are being hit today on

April 1, 2019 with the federal plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the minister, people are still paying, people are overtaxed and people are fed

up with this taxation. Any extra tax is too much. The minister doesn't get it.

This government doesn't get that, we do.

The

Liberal government has still been collecting carbon tax from the consumers in

this province for three months now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Can the minister tell us how

this has reduced emissions, and by what percentage?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

released a climate change plan that works for this province, that reduces

emissions and protects the environment and the people of this province, Mr.

Speaker.

Just

this year, the Premier, along with his federal counterparts, announced an $89

million low carbon economy fund, Mr. Speaker, of which the province is

responsible for $47 million. That's a program that will help the people of this

province, whether it's in climate change, whether it's in reducing carbon

emissions, whether it's in improving the houses in which they live in. But, Mr.

Speaker, the four cents that we charge on gasoline as part of our carbon plan

falls well short of the $47 million that we've invested in that program, which

is a good program for the province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we continue to receive calls from a family whose 10-year-old child has

been denied access to a life-saving insulin pump, pending the outcome of a

review. We have tried to get answers on behalf of this family but, to date,

nothing.

Minister, can you advise if there has been a change in policy for insulin pump

replacement and why this child is not getting access to this life-saving device?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

insulin pump program has not undergone any change recently. We have actually had

some very productive meetings with medical students and others to encourage us

to look in other directions as to how we can broaden the program, and certainly

we are looking at those quite seriously.

The

program, for anyone under the age of 25, is universal, and their access is

determined slowly but solely by clinical appropriateness and no other criteria

at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for that statement, but at the end of the day, it's a program that

we brought in as the former administration. It's a 10-year-old child who is

trying to get the pump replaced that they need for life-saving insulin. We're

baffled to understand why they're not getting the answers they need to have this

done.

Mr.

Speaker, our party just recently announced that it would remove the age cap that

currently prevents people with type 1 diabetes from having their insulin pumps

covered be Medicare when they turn 25.

Will the

Liberal government commit to the same program?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As I

say, we've been in discussions recently with a variety of folk, but some time

late last year we started to realize that the insulin pump program was in need

of redrafting. We have done that from both a clinical and an administrative

point of view, and we have a working group looking at options about eligibility

criteria of which age is one – watch this space.

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.

Recently, Equinor's head of international projects told a Norwegian oil

conference his company is cool on the Bay du Nord project, noting concerns about

cost, the relatively small proven reservoir and the challenges of working in a

hostile environment 500 kilometres from shore. He notes Equinor is far from

sanctioning the project.

I ask

the Premier: What happens to his new, stand-alone oil and gas company if Bay du

Nord is not sanctioned?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much for the

question.

I can

tell you that we meet regularly with Equinor. We work closely with them to help

them move towards advancing the Bay du Nord project. Like any business, they're

looking to improve their cost structure and making sure that it's as

economically viable as possible, but we are inching toward sanction, Mr.

Speaker.

As we

continue to approach that milestone, I'll continue to update the House as to how

things are improving, but I do know that things are progressing. I will be

having further discussions with Equinor as we move forward, Mr. Speaker.

So just

for clarity, there's been no change in the project. We have not been advised of

any change in the project.

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.

Inching

along for 500 kilometres, that takes a heck of a long time, Mr. Speaker, I would

say.

I'm

asking the minister: Do not the comments of Equinor's head of international

projects cause her any concern whatsoever? He made these comments publicly.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

aware of the comments made publicly. I'm sure that if there was a concern that

we should be more aware of, the project team would have advised us. It is still

on track. Mr. Speaker, there's been no change and no communication of change to

the sanctioning proposal.

This is

a smaller project in deeper water so, of course, they're going to want to make

sure it is done as economically as possible. We've always said that, but I'll

advise this House again that I have not been made aware of any change. It is

progressing.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Government is creating the new oil and gas company just by shuffling money

around, without any proof that the new corporation is needed, and now we don't

have proof there's going to be income for the new corporation.

It looks

like government is just playing a game of smoke and mirrors. So I ask the

Premier: Isn't the creation of a not-so-new energy company just another feeble

attempt on the part of this government to make it look like they're doing

something that makes a difference to our economy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I can say, Mr. Speaker, that

there has been a tremendous amount of work in our economy. I can say, in the

Department of Natural Resources alone, we have signed up $18 billion – $18

billion – in the last couple of years alone in economic activity. How is that

not progressing in this province?

We're

creating jobs, we're creating opportunity, it's circulating throughout the

economy, Mr. Speaker, and this is just one department. Fisheries and Land

Resources is another department that's doing an awful lot of work in aquaculture

and agriculture. I can look to TCII and talk about what's happening in

technology, Mr. Speaker.

This

government has made incredible improvements to our economic opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Let's

try another question here. In two days of questioning the Minister of Natural

Resources, she refused to answer our questions on Nalcor's ability to supply

reliable power to the Avalon Peninsula in the wake of a failure of the

Labrador-Island link.

I ask

the minister: Yes or no – after spending $14 billion on Muskrat Falls, will the

province face extended rolling blackouts in the event of a break in the

Labrador-Island link?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I have not

refused to answer this question. I have been very consistent in my answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

The Member opposite may not

like my answer, in that Public Utilities Board who we brought back into this

project, the Public Utilities Board is reviewing the reliability of the report

and they will make a determination if more work needs to be done.

I can

say this, the standards and designs of the Labrador-Island link was done back in

2011, 2012, pre-sanction, Mr. Speaker. All that work was done then. The design

phase of that was done at that point in time. And that was under a different

government. Now we're looking at how do we ensure that the Public Utilities

Board uses their expertise to ensure that we have reliable power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

Thank

you.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act , I am tabling one order-in-council relating to a funding

pre-commitment for the fiscal years 2019-20 through to 2022-23.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

tabling the reports for 2017-18 annual report from Memorial University. I wish

to re-table the 2017 and '18 annual report from Memorial University containing

the audited financial statements.

I have

another one –

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, further tabling of

documents, Sir?

MR. DAVIS:

I wish to re-table the 2017-18 annual report for Memorial University's pension

plan containing the audited financial statements.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

I have a PMR, myself,

seconded by the Member for Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.

WHEREAS

The Premier's Task Force On Improving Educational Outcomes and Education Action

Plan both recommended developing a phased-in implementation plan for junior

kindergarten; and

WHEREAS

Ontario, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia have implemented and are in the

process of implementing province-wide junior kindergarten;

WHEREAS

play-based learning promotes children's natural sense of curiosity and discovery

through hands-on exploration of the world around them;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador taking necessary steps towards establishing a junior

kindergarten program.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and

minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS

proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the

wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS

women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low

minimum wage; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage only rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many

food items rose more than 20 per cent; and

WHEREAS

other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage

as a step towards a living wage;

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

of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum

wage to $15 by 2021 with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial

inflation.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, we know that the minimum wage today – it's April 1 – rose to

$11.40, among the lowest in Canada. What this government has decided to do is to

simply raise the minimum wage according to the rate every year of inflation.

There is no way we are going to catch up to the rest of the country.

I am not

sure why this government feels it is okay for our working people, people who

work so hard, often in the service industry, often women, often youth, deserve

any less payment for their labour than do the rest of workers in the rest of the

country. I don't understand how they can justify that.

What

happens is that they let a lot of the larger corporations off the hook, places

like Walmart, places like McDonald's, places like A&W who pay minimum wage, who

pay no benefits to their workers. Do you know who foots the bill for that, Mr.

Speaker? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador foot the bill for that. We foot

the bill for drugs, for medications, for pharmaceuticals because they don't have

health care plans. We foot the bill for subsided housing, so organizations,

businesses like Walmart, can make their huge profits where those huge profits

are sucked right out of the province.

Mr.

Speaker, it makes no sense any longer to not do better with minimum wage.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much to the hon. Member for bringing forward the petition again today.

I just

want to let the people of the province know that we have increased the minimum

wage to $11.40. It increased by 25 cents as of today. But this is a consultative

approach. It's very important that we take into account the balancing between

the business interests and the employees' interests; and, in turn, making sure

we make a decision based with the stakeholders that are at play in this

industry.

I'd like

to correct some of the inaccuracies the Member across the way brought forward.

To stand up in this House and to mention employers in this province, saying they

provide no benefits – that's not true. There are some of these employers – that

you've mentioned here today – that supply benefits to their employees. Many of

them do. I take offence to that.

Many of

the interests we have here today were based on stakeholder intervention.

Obviously, we're working at this legislation every day to look at if there are

ways to improve it.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think

it's significant that on the day that minimum wage has gone up, giving a

pittance to the workers, that I have another minimum wage petition in my hand.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and

minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS

proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the

wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS

women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low

minimum wage; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage only rose 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many food

items rose more than 20 per cent; and

WHEREAS

other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage

as a step towards a living wage;

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

of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum

wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial

inflation.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

The

petitioners have signed a petition that names things as they really are, Mr.

Speaker. When they talk about the indexing of the minimum wage to inflation, it

doesn't address the level of poverty. It does not. Because when the indexing

started, the level was so low that they're never going to get to $15 at the rate

things are going.

The fact

is the increase is not done according to the real indexing in this province. The

national average does not give us what is real in this province. This government

says they care. They've had the opportunity now since 2015 to make changes to

what was in place. They had the opportunity to bring the minimum wage up to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Just a little order, please.

It's becoming difficult to hear the Member.

Thank

you.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

having difficulty myself. I notice I've been shouting because of it.

They've

had the opportunity to bring the minimum wage up much more quickly so that by

2021 it would be $15. They chose to remain with a system that is not going to

bring people up out of the poverty level of wages that they are earning, and

this is what this government is not recognizing but the people of the province

recognize the need for that to happen.

When we

talk about the way in which food items in this province have gone up, the cost

by 20 per cent; yet, minimum wage has only gone up by 5 per cent. It doesn't

take a genius to figure out that mathematics. Any child in elementary school can

figure out that math and tell us that people are going to continue living in

poverty for many years to come.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

I have the opportunity to get up and finish what I was talking about. One of the

things we did with this process is a transparent and open process so that all

parties know exactly what they will be faced with when those increases come.

Instead of an increase coming, blind siding one party versus the other, it would

be much better to have an open and transparent – everyone knows what process is

going to be in place.

Do I

agree that we have to look at legislation all the time? Absolutely, and we're

looking at that. We're past the two year point in this review. We're in the

process of developing a plan forward on that. So we're going to have all options

on the table for that.

I would

like to highlight some of the other programs we have identified here as well as;

the Jobs NL wage subsidy program that allows for wage subsidies in two different

categories for businesses to utilize to allow employees to benefit from those

subsidizations that the provincial government is providing, whether that be a

42-week program or a 28-week program, the employers can chose with working with

the employees to allow them to develop what they're going to do from there. And

I would just like to say –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Your time has expired.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

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

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions

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

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

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

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

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

To urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which will

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

residents in long-term care and all other applicable regional health care

facilities housing persons

with dementia, Alzheimer's disease

and other cognitive debilitating conditions in order to ensure appropriate

safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene care and all other required

care. This law would include the creation of a specific job position in these

facilities for monitoring and intervention as required to ensure the safety of

patients.

Mr. Speaker, petitions today are from Centreville and Wareham. I've raised this

now – I don't know how many times – petitions almost every day the House has

been open on behalf of Advocates for Senior Citizen's Rights. As the prayer of

the petition says, the concern they have is for seniors who are in long-term

care facilities, seniors with Alzheimer's disease, dementia and so on, and the

concern is that there is not always enough staff in place to provide the

appropriate care for those seniors. That is the issue.

Each time when I've raised it in the past, the minister will talk about the

great job that staff are doing, and nobody is disputing the fact that the people

working at these facilities aren't doing the best they can with what they have.

The issue is: Are there enough staff? And are there always enough staff?

As I've raised in the past; we've been told, within Eastern Health, of

situations where the first sick call is not replaced, as an example. I think

that was done as a punitive measure to staff in these facilities, in the sense

that if there are supposed to be four – if you call in, now you're leaving your

colleagues short. So now they're going to be upset with you, and maybe you won't

do it again. But the people who are really being penalized in those situations

are the patients.

If the patients are being penalized, if they don't have enough staff on at all

times to take care of them, we feel, and certainly the people here feel, that

it's unacceptable. They want to see legislation in place which would guarantee

certain staffing levels, to set a minimum standard and to ensure that it must be

in place at all times.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, and I will read it out for

the record.

That the

composition of the Resource Committee, the Government Services Committee and the

Social Services Committee will be as follows:

The Government Services Committee will consist of

the Members for the following districts: the Member for Torngat Mountains; the

Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for Exploits; the Member for

Ferryland; the Member for St. George's - Humber; the Member for St. John's East

- Quidi Vidi; the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, and the Member for

Terra Nova.

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

the Member for Exploit's; the Member for Bonavista; the Member for Fortune Bay -

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

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

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

The

Social Services Committee will consist of the Members for the following

districts: the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay; the Member for Cape St.

Francis; the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island; the Member for Fogo

Island - Cape Freels; the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; the Member

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

Stephenville - Port au Port; and the Member for Windsor Lake.

I would

move that resolution, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So, Mr. Speaker, today this

is basically a resolution that is put forward on behalf of one of the lesser

known committees of this House, which is the Striking Committee, which is

essentially a committee that is struck to help strike committees, to help put

committees in place. It's a Striking Committee.

Again, I

won't belabour this too long, Mr. Speaker, but these committees here – and

you'll see here there's three: Government Services, Resource, and Social

Services. They've been around for some time. Generally the term that would be

referred to by Members when we talk about these committees, we often refer to

them as Estimate Committees because that is often the time when these committees

are used or implemented.

They are

made up of committees of Members of all sides of the House and, generally, our

experience with these committees is that they will be put in place during the

budget process so they will sit when the Estimates will happen.

For

instance, just to provide an example, when the Department of Justice comes to

the House with the Estimates Committee, usually on this side of the House you

have officials from the Department of Justice and Public Safety; on this side,

you'll have Members of the Social Services Committee. In many cases, it's the

Opposition who are asking questions but you have to have a committee there to

have quorum in order to have these sessions which form part of the budget

debate, and then to vote on the line by line, the line items that go into it.

Again, a

lot of times – it's funny, I saw this debate on twitter the other day where

people talked about committees of the House and how they aren't used, et cetera.

Sometimes people talk about – and there's some truth to that; although I would

say that one of the committees that we're actually going to refer to next, the

Standing Orders Committee, has been quite busy for some time. I'll also note

that the Privileges and Elections Committee has been quite busy as well.

One of

the reasons why this, I think, especially the composition of these committees is

important is that – so we talk about what the Standing Orders Committee has

done. Again, I won't get into that much. We've talked about it on a number of

occasions in this House when we've brought forward changes but one of the things

that the Standing Orders Committee has had on their agenda for some time is to

look at the possibility of legislative committees. A legislative committee, the

mindset was that we should have legislation brought before committees to allow

for question and answer, to have witnesses, and for basically a more thorough

investigation of a piece of legislation, similar to what we see in Ottawa.

So, in

doing this – this one's a bit more substantive, and I'll talk about why it's a

bit more substantive because it's not just formulating these committees, but it

does, essentially, change in many ways how the bureaucracy operate, especially

when it comes to the formulation, the drafting and then the presentation of

bills into this House.

Going

through the last three years, basically, of talking about this, and just more

recently we've had some more substantive conversations, our Standing Orders

allow for legislative committees right now. In fact, these committees that I've

just listed can examine legislation. The process is there and it can be used;

it's just that it has not been used. For roughly just under two decades, now, it

has not been used for various reasons, but that's one of the things we've talked

about. When I was a Member of the Opposition we talked about it, since we've

been over here we've talked about it and, in fact, Members of all sides have

asked about the possibility of bringing it back, and that's what we're hoping to

do.

So, how

will we allow for this to happen? What we've decided, in consultation with House

staff, is that the procedure is there to allow this to happen, but let's try it

on a pilot basis to see, okay, how is this going to work. So, what we've in fact

identified is that we will put these committees in place – not just will they

need to be put in place and have changes to allow for new membership; in fact,

we've had new Members come to the House that need to be put on committees, we've

had changes on both sides to allow for membership of these committees for the

usual purpose which is Estimates. But now, the goal is to bring a piece of

legislation to one of these committees, depending on which department it will

come from, and that Standing Committee here, depending on which one it falls

under – so for instance, if it was a bill that came from the Natural Resources

Department, it would fall under Resource; if it's a bill from Service NL, it

will fall under Government Services. We're going to allow that process to play

out, and our goal is to allow that to happen this session of the House.

Now,

there are two ways that this can happen. One is if – normally what we do in our

Legislature is, if anybody knows the legislative process, we give notice of a

bill, and that's essentially reading out I give notice of said bill that we will

bring forward tomorrow. So then we call first reading on a second day, and only

one stage can happen per day, except for, as you move to the next stage, second

reading, which is the most substantive part of the debate where Members get an

opportunity to stand up and speak for 20 minutes. Unless you're the mover of the

bill, then you get an hour. Then we move into the Committee stage which is a

Committee of the Whole of the House where everybody can stand up, ask questions,

answer.

That's

one way in which this can be done. I have seen, albeit rarely, where we've had

opportunities for Members to ask questions, for changes to be given and I have

seen bills, on rare occasion, be modified in the House based on the debate that

comes back and forth. And, finally, there's a third reading.

I guess,

practically speaking, a bill could take four days is the normal process for how

long it will take to move through a House – that's if there is not as much in

terms of the questioning, in terms of the substantive debate. We've seen here,

even in this session, we have a number of bills that go through that are very

housekeeping in nature. It's a more perfunctory debate, not a huge

philosophical, opinion-based debate on both sides of the question and answer.

Those can go fairly quickly.

So one

thing we've talked about is the possibility for after a bill to come through,

and after it gets to second reading, to refer to the bill to the Law Clerk, to

the House, and then for that committee for which falls under whatever department

it is falls under, whatever committee, then we can debate that.

The

other option is to refer a bill prior to notice being given. There are two very

different reasons why you want to do that. Once you establish second reading of

a bill, the fact is that for all intents and purposes its substance has been

set. There can be changes, but there will be no substantial changes that will

modify the intent or purpose or the real substance of that bill; that's not

going to happen. You can allow for changes, but you wouldn't substantially

change that bill.

Whereas a bill that were to go forward prior to that, prior to

the notice being given, can possibly be allowed to change it substantially from

what its original intent was. So that's some of the things that we grapple with.

The

other thing is that when we look at debates – and I've seen this especially, I

think one of the last times that a legislative committee was allowed to look at

bill was back when companies were looking at the tobacco. It might have been the

Department of Health, I can't exactly remember, but it was dealing with tobacco

legislation, talking about recovering costs for legislation and litigation

against tobacco companies.

In that

case, what happened – generally speaking, very rarely do you see a bill come in

through one session of the House – and for purposes of this, because there are

different meetings, when I say a session, I mean a spring session or a fall

session. Very rarely do you see a bill start in one session and end up being

debated in another session and its substance has a significant period of time in

between. Now, I've seen opportunities where you can do a notice or a first

reading and then get down to the meat of the debate at another session, but very

rarely do you start a second reading or a committee stage on a bill and then

finish it during another session.

When you

put a bill to committee, the fact is that it delays that process, which leads to

the next part of my conversation here and my talking about the main purpose of

what we're hopefully going to see these committees doing is that when we look at

bills, the purpose of bills, generally, as I've ever seen in the eight years

I've been here, is that you have them entered into the House, debated in the

House and come out and then hopefully get proclaimed and then Royal Assent and

then proclamation at some point during that one session.

Not very

often do they get delayed to allow for a substantive change or for a committee

to look at them to amend them, to hear from witnesses. We haven't seen that. And

in terms of departments doing the work that leads up to that, it's funny, people

see what happens in here, people do not see what happens in allowing the bills

to come to the floor of the House, all the work that happens.

There

are departments submitting papers, they go to Cabinet secretariat and they often

come back for questions. They can go to other departments, whether it's Women's

Policy or Justice or you name it, to allow for comment and for review, and it's

going back and forth it takes some time. Then it will go to a committee, whether

it's social policy or economic. In some cases, it can go to Treasury Board. Then

it has to go to the Cabinet table. In many cases, it can go back, depending on

how substantial that bill is. This can take some time.

In many

cases, there are times when bills come forward when time is of the essence and

you want that. We've seen cases where you need to have a bill during that

session in order, for various reasons – financial reasons, time reasons, you

name it.

One time

I looked at – just in the last year when we had cannabis legislation, where we

were under the gun there because we're following the feds. Their House sits at

different times than ours, we had to look and see what the feds came up with,

and then we had to allow for ours to happen. These had to happen on a timely

basis or else we would be in, perhaps, contravention or not have legislation in

place.

But I

digress. I come back to the fact that there's a substantial process behind the

scenes to allow for these bills to come to the House. Now we're going to have a

change here where, depending on what comes out of this committee stage, that can

delay the implementation or a debate of a bill. But that's fine.

that's what we need. Some of these bills will not need committee review. When we

look at the bill I did just the last couple of weeks, the anomalies and errors

in the statute law, the commas, we talked about just, really, an almost purely

housekeeping bill where we talked about because bill A changed, we must change

bill B to reflect the changes in bill a. Those are not going to go to committee.

But when

you look at some of the bills we've dealt with here in the House where – and

again, a prime example would have been Bills 60 and 61 in this House which were

related to Muskrat Falls. Those are bills that should have gone to a committee,

and I think we all would have wanted to see that.

When I

think about Bill 29 – and I'm sure that there are bills that we've done and want

to do. For instance, there's one bill that I wanted to bring, hopefully will be

giving notice this session. The short term, the popular term, is Clare's Law.

It's the interpersonal information disclosure act and I've talked about that.

That's a good bill where everybody talks about it's a positive intent, but it

carries with it significant implications, not just in terms of access to

information and the release of information but also the practical application of

a bill where we're talking about the release of a person's information so it

allows a partner in a relationship to know their prior domestic violence

history.

Now, I

can stand up all day and talk about how great it is and how wonderful it is, and

I don't think for a second, for instance, that my colleagues on the other side

would disagree with the intent but they may have questions as to how's this

going to work. In that case, I don't think it's as much a philosophical debate

as it is a practical debate and it's a good opportunity.

There

are some bills where government wants to set their agenda and the fact is that

it's an opportunity where you just may not have an agreement but still – and

again I'll give you a prime, prime, prime example of when that should happen.

Before many of us sat in this House, I know there are at least three people who

sat in this House when Abitibi was expropriated.

I mean

that was one that was literally rushed through this House, take our word for it,

we mean well and look what happened. Now again, that's not about embarrassing

anybody. That's been done. But I'm talking about the purpose of the lack of that

sober second opportunity that look at a piece of legislation, led to serious

financial implications for the people of this province. Nobody was trying to

pull a fast one; I'm not saying that at all. I think everybody meant for the

same thing to happen. We were all looking for the best interests, but the fact

that that debate did not happen, there were not an opportunity to look at what

did this actually mean, what were we actually doing, what were the practical

consequences, led to a case where, oh, we thought we were doing this, but this

is what we actually did and this cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Maybe

those things won't be caught, but I'm saying that we're trying to get back to a

process, to take the word that I often hear some of my colleagues say,

wholesome, robust discussion. Two words that I really detest using in debate

because they're overused sometimes but that's what we're allowing.

colleague from the NDP agrees. Those are the best words I can come up with right

now to say that's what this purpose is. It's to allow for a more thorough debate

on a bill. Now, will there be hiccups with this? You better believe it. Will

there be disagreements on how it's done? Of course there will, but I think what

we're showing is a willingness to make things different, a willingness to try to

do things better.

Mr.

Speaker, it's funny, because everything I just said, which is a lot of

substance, one would not ascertain that from just reading the resolution that

was entered in here, but the fact is that the Members' names that were just here

are going to be the Members that get to sit on a legislative committee at some

point – hopefully this session, hopefully on a bill we've been working on, and I

think we may have one identified – will work with the House staff, because I

think there may only be one person on our House staff that actually has some

actual practical history and experience of actually dealing with this.

So we're

going to try it here and we're going to work through it and see how it goes. I

think everybody agrees with the need to do this; now it's the figuring out the

practical implications. On that note, I look forward to our support for the

Striking Committee resolution and for these Members and I look forward to their

comments on this resolution.

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.

It's

indeed an honour and a privilege here to stand as we talk about a unique –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

– approach to debate in the

House and discussing legislation, and bringing what we feel to the House of

Assembly the best piece of legislation that represents the inclusive views of

all parties and all engaged, and hopefully there's a way to also look at how our

independent Members can be engaged in this process. I think we need to be open

for that discussion, because the structure and the compilation of the House of

Assembly is evolving on a daily basis and may change 10 times more over the next

number of years.

So, it's

important that we be cognizant and open to a more inclusive way of having open

debate, a much more efficient way of ensuring the legislation meets the needs

that it was originally established to do, and find a way that we entrust the

general public that their views are going to be heard, and that an open

discussion is put in play to make sure the legislation reflects what their

particular needs are.

To get

to that point, and as the minister so eloquently outlined, we've always had a

democratic process in play here. You know, we're not outdated here when it comes

to our structure. We may be outdated in implementing the operations of those, or

using what we had at our disposal, because we were so entrenched in traditional

ways that we've done things, and saying this has always been the compilation of

this particular process or committee, or this is the only responsibility that

they've ever taken on, or we don't want to overburden them with particular other

challenges or responsibilities, or we haven't allocated particular staffing

resources to meet the needs that they would need to actually achieve and take on

what could be outlined as additional responsibilities.

So, over

the last number of years, with the Standing Orders Committee, we've had

discussions around, how do we do three key things. How do we make it more

inclusive in the debate process that we have here to ensure the best piece of

legislation that is possible is put forward to this House to be voted on and

debated to the general public so they understand exactly what the intent of the

piece of legislation is?

The

second was, at the end of the day, to ensure that we've modernized the

operations of the House of Assembly and the debate process and using what

mechanisms we have.

The

third would be to assess our existing structure and to either change it, modify

it where necessary, to improve what we're doing; but, more importantly, and

particularly what we started to do, look at the existing structure. These are

structures that have been evolving for the last hundreds of years in democratic

parliaments, and they have been upgraded in certain areas. Some of them, when

they were established, were workable. They just haven't been implemented in the

process. Some were very useful years ago but haven't been used in a modern day.

Other ones have just gone on to the wayside and have not been taken advantage

of. Other ones need to be entrenched in a new approach.

So what

we've taken and the discussion we've had over the last number of years is about

identifying the particular better pieces of structure we have in our Legislature

in how we operate to ensure we make them more effective.

What the

minister outlined when he noted who would be Members of particular committees,

and he did outline that we have three Select Committees here which have a key

representation from the three particular parties. And we need to have a further

discussion about independent Members, what role they play in the composition,

what role they play in the debate process, because everybody is elected to this

House of Assembly, regardless of what their political stripe is or if they are

independent. They all have a role, a responsibility and a right to be part of

the debate process. So we need to work some of the nuances out around how we

make that more inclusive.

As the

committees have been announced here, they span three different particular areas

within government when it comes to programs, polices and spending. That becomes

the reality. When you talk about programs, policy and spending, you normally

think around your budget line, because your budget line is the dollars that will

dictate the programs you're going to be able to offer, the policies related to

who can access those programs, and what policies are to be implemented.

When you

look at that, the tradition has been these committees are only active outside of

the other legislative committees. That we have to have other things, like the

Standing Orders Committee, the Management Committee, and a number of other

committees that we may have there.

These

committees have traditionally been used for a short period of time, normally in

the spring of the year when the budget lines are down, and becomes a very

encompassing period of time where there's debate on particular finance related

issues to the budget, which then would, obviously, incur the programs that are

going to be implemented for that fiscal year. In some cases, even though in

debate in Estimates, policy is not supposed to be at the forefront, but most are

open to say you can't spend money and you can't develop programs if they're not

reflective of the policies that you're trying to implement.

there's been, in most cases, a fairly open dialogue between the minister and

their staff, and the Chair who will be chairing these particular meetings, and

the Opposition parties who've been asking the questions.

Just so

people are aware, the way these committees work in Estimates, there would be a

Chair who would then Chair the proceedings and give equal time back and forth to

ensure that there's continuity and there's an even flow, and that people are

given an opportunity to ask particular questions. And, in return, the minister

and their staff are given an opportunity to respond and share information that's

relevant to that particular budget line, or the particular program they're going

to be implementing, and clarify exactly how they would be implemented, the time

frames, the impacts it may have. So, the process we have there is fairly fluent.

The

issue has become in the last couple of years, is: Why couldn't that same process

– maybe modified a little different, maybe you don't need a Chair that stands in

that formal process, but you do have these committees that could take on

particular issues or pieces of legislation and have an open debate and an open

dialogue around what it is that the piece of legislation is trying to achieve.

Is it a brand new piece of legislation? Then, obviously, there has to be – in my

opinion – a bigger discussion with the stakeholders, those who are directly

going to be affected, and then the general population.

If it's

the modification of an existing piece of legislation, how do we get to this

point? What was the driver behind the change that was necessary? Was it

identified at the grassroots level? Was it a particular interest group that

identified a flaw? Was there a loophole that was identified because of something

that was taken advantage of or something that was discovered at the end of the

day?

Is it

just around modernizing, because other jurisdictions have taken a proactive

approach and moved things a little bit quicker and it's time that we caught up?

Is it just we're going through normal cycles where we review legislation and

say, you know what, there are particular – in some cases, they're housekeeping

changes that need to be done so that it outlines specifically what are the roles

and responsibilities of this piece of legislation. So there are a number of

things there that would drive why you would have an open debate and a

full-fledged discussion on a piece of legislation.

We did

have discussions over the last, probably the last five, six months, particularly

around are we at a good point now to take a piece of legislation and test the

process that we've already had in play for years but have very seldom done; or,

in this case, never in this normal process. We've done it with all-party

committees in another process but, obviously, it tells you about the, I guess,

at the time, the traditional way of doing things. Because to have to ask to set

up an all-party committee to address a particular issue tells us that

traditionally people never understood the legislation stands, that we have the

ability to do that.

So that

says, again, about having to educate ourselves about what's acceptable, what the

understanding would be and what the roles and responsibilities and the

flexibility in a particular committee and a particular piece of legislation that

we have here that drives the House of Assembly.

We've

gone the route, and we've done a couple over the years. We've done them on,

particularly in the fisheries. We've done it on mental health and have seen the

successes and benefits of engaging a variety of stakeholders, engaging all

parties to be fluent with the process, to ensure that if they have a mechanism

to be able to reach out to particular disenfranchised individuals who may have a

stake in this piece of legislation, or who can share valuable information to

ensure the legislation is the best it can be, then that only opens up the door

for this to be more effective. We've had that process.

Having

standing committees where you have members who come from various backgrounds,

various geographic backgrounds, their own social backgrounds, their educational

backgrounds, and their employment backgrounds to challenges in their particular

districts, but also that they represent various parties. There may be a

philosophy, there may be a standing policy within a party, or they may have

taken on a particular issue that they themselves have been fostering forward. So

they may have more information that now can be shared with the whole of the

committee as you start to review the piece of legislation that you're about to

debate.

What we

decided to do was, could we find a moderate piece of legislation. We didn't want

to go something that was housekeeping, a little too fluffy, that really wouldn't

get us into a real debate and a real understanding of how we could – I can't

even say challenge our present structure, but to better use our present

structure. Because our present structure is designed in a manner that we can,

through full inclusion, through proper representation, with the exception of

figuring out what we'd do from an independent point of view – and that's

something that we'll have that debate. One thing about it, it wasn't dismissed

that it wasn't important. It's about now figuring out how we encompass that into

the existing structure we have.

So then

we looked at do we take a very complicated piece of legislation – and probably

not a smart move, because while we're trying something new, we're not quite sure

what the particular challenges may be. Are there going to be nuances that we

didn't anticipate, which has a negative impact on the piece of legislation? And

again, we want to show that this process can work, can achieve the ultimate

goal, can get a full inclusive process here, and then could bring back a piece

of legislation that can be debated and adopted based on the merits of the

information that had been previously reviewed and put into play.

It may

mean modifying the existing piece of the legislation that was put forward for

change. It may now change 10 times over. It may revert back. But at least at

this process, you have an open ability to have a more influential exchange of

information, views, and particularly any other types of related legislation.

The one

good thing I like about this too is when you start talking of a piece of

legislation here, sometimes because it's in the quickness of the House, it's

being delivered, you don't get an opportunity to say this piece of legislation

here that's relevant to one line department, if you really dig down by changing

this, it may have an impact on another piece of legislation that's relevant to

another department, or the same department. And we don't get that ability to do

that.

I think

when we get into committee, because of the representation there, there may be

something that would trigger a particular thing if there is something that has

an influence on another piece of legislation, that would be important. We may be

able to save us future time lost and extra work, or we may be able to say, you

know what, the continuum here that would make sense, this has a relationship to

another piece of legislation, let's plan that the next piece of legislation

that's important to be changed and notify a particular department or that same

department, here is what needs to happen. For this piece of legislation to be as

effective as we want it to be, something else has to change in another piece of

existing legislation. So we have that ability to have that open dialogue and

exchange that information.

So what

we have agreed to, that we would pick a moderate piece of legislation that we

can sink our teeth into that will take us through the committee process and it

will fit under one of these existing committees, obviously, for those Members

who are put there based on their roles within government, their roles within the

Opposition, the critic's role, or their speciality, for example. It depends on

their previous background before they came into government. Or a particular

other committee they may be on here in government itself or here in the House of

Assembly.

This

will give us that opportunity to test the waters. I'm looking forward to the

piece of legislation coming down and seeing how it evolves. It's going to be a

living entity. I'm convinced it can be done. I'm convinced it can be done for a

number of reasons. We did it efficiently on the mental health committee, we did

it on the fisheries committee a number of years ago, so there's nothing stopping

us from being able to do it using the existing format we have; but, at the same

time, being cognizant that this is an open process that needs to be modified as

we identify challenges or particular add-ons that should be part of it to make

it a little bit more successful and a little bit more inclusive as we go

forward.

The

composition here is a normal, standard thing. How we use that composition, now,

is entirely up to this House of Assembly, and because the Standing Orders

Committee have adopted a process that we're going to move this to the next

level, this is going to be, I think, a landmark test to see if we can make the

Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly as we move into an

election that'll happen soon, the next sitting, the next Assembly, what that

would mean for the operations in this House, and maybe we change the whole

inclusive process, maybe we get legislation that is either changed more often

because it reflects the changing needs of society, or we get it right the first

time and we get a longer period of time with legislation that doesn't have

loopholes in it and doesn't add challenges to the general public who may have to

avail of that legislation, or to the government that has to implement and

monitor that piece of legislation.

So, I

just want to note that I'm looking forward to how this evolves, and I know us on

the Official Opposition side are looking forward to the first piece of

legislation, getting our teeth into that, working with the committee and finding

a way to ensure we get the best piece of legislation out there, and then

probably start an ongoing process that changes the normal standard of how we

operate with committees in the House of Assembly.

So, I'm

looking forward to this as we move forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Thank you.

Further

speakers?

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm glad

to have a few moments to speak to the motion that's been brought forward by the

Government House Leader. This is something that happens every year. It's an

important piece of work because it relates specifically to the Estimates process

which follows government's release of its budget. The House Leader did a good

job of explaining how the three committees, the Government Services Committee,

the Resource Committee and the Social Services Committee are what are called

Standing Committees of the House of Assembly, and that means they are committees

that are always in place. So having Members named to the committees is extremely

important because these committees can be called upon to do a variety of work.

Now, as

has been explained by the Government House Leader and by the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island, even though there's a variety of work that

these committees could do, traditionally, they've only been assigned in modern

times, or in recent years, the job of Estimates of budget. That means the

committees and the Members on the committee get the opportunity to question

departments about their budgets.

I'd like

to say that in recent times, since we've had – right now we have three

independent Members and I remember when there was just the one independent

Member at various times, especially the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands. Even

though the independent Members are not a member of the committee, they do come

to the Estimates and are given time to ask questions. I think it's important

that that be recognized. I don't think it's necessary – it would be rather

difficult, say if all of a sudden you had five independents, to have independent

Members on committees. Would you say all five would serve on every committee? So

that could become tricky. But the recognition of the right of the independent

MHA to be part of Estimates, I think, is really important and I see that as

something that we should formalize.

In other

words, it just shouldn't be will the Members of the committee permit the

independent Member present to ask questions. It should be that there is time

recognized that should be allowed for independent Members to be part of the

questioning of the department. The minister really is who they're questioning

and the minister is responsible for the answers.

What's

really interesting about Estimates, I think it's one of the most interesting

times of the year, of the legislative year, is the budget discussions and the

Estimates. Because, in actual fact, when we sit and discuss with the minister,

the minister, generally speaking, will use his or her officials who are there

with them at Estimates, and will use them to really explain what's in the budget

in this given year, for example, what happened with the budget last year. You

get to look at what was estimated for last year. You get to look at what was

really spent, if there's a big disparity between those two numbers, whether it's

spending more than expected or spending less than expected, you get an

explanation from the department, through the minister, to those questions. Very

often, very, very good information comes out; good information in the sense that

you're getting the information. You may not like the information sometimes that

you get, but it's very important.

remember one time, I won't mention departments, but a department revealing that

it had spent quite an amount of money – hundreds of thousands of dollars they

sort of had in their budget, and they used it to buy a building. That was very

interesting.

Another

time we found out, because a certain amount of money wasn't expended in an area,

that in actual fact an important service for Aboriginal women and the justice

system was gone; that something wasn't being built what should be built. So very

important information can come out during Estimates. It really is a very good

time in the legislative year, I find, as an MHA.

Putting

these Standing Committees in place is essential for the process of discussing

the budget. Of course, we have an expectation that soon there will be a budget

brought here on to the floor of the House and these Committees will begin their

work.

I'd like

to speak to the broader picture, which I think both the Government House Leader

and the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island spoke to, and that is the

fact that we can actually use the Standing Committees, these three Standing

Committees in particular and others, to be involved in the process of

discussions of suggested legislation, of bills. Using the Standing Committees to

actually have a full discussion of bills, a discussion that could involve

bringing in specialists to meet with the committee, bringing in professionals

who are involved with the issue that the bill is covering, this is something the

committee can do.

It's

very interesting, and I think the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island

made reference to this. If you take our Standing Orders book and you read our

Standing Orders on Committees, it's fascinating to see how we really do have the

structure in place. We have an excellent structure, actually, in place for using

our Standing Committees when it comes to legislation.

I'm

delighted that the minister, the Government House Leader, did talk about the

fact that there is going to be a step forward in doing that here in the House. I

think it's in this Assembly that he has it planned. As a Member of the Standing

Orders Committee, I'm quite pleased we came to a decision to move forward, that

a piece of legislation will actually be passed over to a committee to work on,

to see are there questions that need to be answered. Not doing that kind of

thing here on the floor of the House, but actually in committee. And if the

committee needs to call in witnesses, if the committee needs to speak to people

who in the past maybe people in the department have spoken to, the committee

will be able to do that.

I think

it's a step forward in terms of making the House of Assembly a more democratic

place to be, and not just here in the Legislature but also in terms of our

interaction with the community. The recognition that it's not just the

government who has responsibility for putting legislation together, it's not

just the department that has the responsibility for the legislation for that

department, but all Members of the House have responsibility, and the community

needs to be part of that; the community has ideas.

When you

use a Standing Committee to discuss a piece of legislation, it allows for the

community to be brought in and to have that discussion together with the

committee. So it would lead to a greater sense of democracy of involvement in

the development of our legislation, and that's what I'm excited about. That's

what I'm pleased about.

I'm

happy in the context of approving this year's three committees, the membership

of this year's committees, that in this context I'm able to talk about that need

for a broader democracy in how we run our Legislature itself and how we interact

with the people who vote for us and put us in this Legislature, that we're not

just here to talk to each other. Sometimes we don't do that well, but we're not

just here to talk to each other in the Legislature. We're here not just to

represent the people who elect us, but we should also be here to involve them in

the discussions we have here on the floor of the House.

Yes, I'm

pleased the motion is on the floor with regard to putting our three committees

in place. As I said, I'm very glad to have had the opportunity to speak a bit

more directly to the issue of the use of our standing committees and the fact

that we also can set up special committees as well. There've been times here in

the House when special committees have been set up to deal with an issue.

For

example, some years ago – I think it was around 2006, 2005-2006 – a special

committee was set up to look at the whole issue of Newfoundland Hydro.

Privatization was the issue at that time of Newfoundland Hydro. It didn't happen

– thank goodness, I have to say, but committees were used. The auto insurance,

if I'm not mistaken, I think that was a special committee as well, which looked

at auto insurance some years ago also.

There

have been times when we've had a high use of special committees, for example.

The last 15 years, not so much so, but prior to that we had a high use of the

standing committees as well as special committees. So I'm glad to see we're

looking at moving back into that direction. I've been pleased to be on the

Standing Orders Committee where we've been having these discussions, and I'm

glad the minister brought that information to the floor of the House today.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

speakers?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. First of all, I will be,

obviously, supporting the motion. On its face, it's basically routine business

relating to the budgetary process and the setting up of committees for the

purposes of Estimates.

I, like

other Members have said – certainly, the Member who just spoke before me said –

I think that Estimates is a tremendous process. It's one of the better processes

we have, that I've experienced, at least, in my seven-plus years here in the

House of Assembly, where you really get to get down into the weeds, if you will,

of the budget and have an opportunity to be able to ask the ministers of all the

departments, with staff present, line-by-line questions about the budget. It's a

very important exercise, it can be a very educational exercise. I think it's a

very worthwhile exercise.

I would

say in my experience, though, that the process can vary from time to time,

depending on the minister. And the minister has a tremendous role to play in the

whole Estimates process. I've seen it in two different administrations where,

depending on who the minister was on any given night when Estimates were taking

place, you could have a very educational and engaging experience, or you could

have an experience where the particular minister decided that he or she didn't

want to share any information and basically just read the answer that was

provided in their little booklet to any changes in budget lines and simply say,

yeah, we spent more on furniture, next question. As opposed to – and not being

open to answering any questions beyond the actual budget line in sort of a

specific sense.

And

there have been other ministers, as I said, who have been very open to

discussing things. Not just discussing the budget line itself and the change in

the line, but the philosophy, if you will, behind why the change was made,

discuss the change in policy that led to a budget line changing, to discuss a

change, perhaps, in direction that led to budget lines changing and so on.

We've

had ministers – I give credit, one that comes to mind is the Government House

Leader. I found he was very engaging when we were doing it with the Department

of Justice in terms of answering questions, answering policy questions, giving

his views and opinions on different matters that weren't necessarily a specific

budget line. And that's what we want to see, but we've also seen other ministers

in the past who, as I said, weren't so forthcoming with information. They didn't

want to talk about policy at all and simply said, yeah, here's the variance from

this amount to this amount, next question. And that was the end of it.

That

wasn't a very good process, I would say, Mr. Speaker, and it did nothing for the

exchange of information. It did nothing in terms of the spirit of co-operation

and getting the information out there to the public. So I certainly encourage

all ministers, this time around, to be engaging. Let's all ask good questions,

get good answers, because at the end of the day, we are working for the public.

If you

talk to a lot of people out there, generally, that's one of the things you hear

from people. Why can't you all get along? Why can't you all co-operate to the

benefit of the people, instead of fighting with each other all the time and

having this adversarial approach. People want to see us all working together.

This is

one avenue, if it's done properly with the best of intentions and the spirit of

co-operation, where we actually get to share information for the benefit of

everyone in this House, and certainly the benefit of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. So I'm glad to see that process continue. Obviously, what we have

here is just the Members who have been selected to be on these committees for

the purposes of voting for Estimates.

I do

want to also acknowledge my colleagues from Conception Bay East - Bell Island,

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, and thank them for recognizing the fact that we do

have – well, now we have three independent Members in the House of Assembly, and

we were all duly elected. We all represent approximately 15,000 people or so. So

it's important that we have an opportunity to have some input.

Traditionally, I have to say, I've received great co-operation from the Official

Opposition and from the NDP caucus in providing me with leave, if I attended an

Estimates session, to be able to ask a few questions. Generally, a lot of times

you don't have a whole load of questions because, primarily, the questioning is

going back and forth between the Official Opposition and the NDP. So a lot of

the questions – if the Member asking the question on behalf of the Official

Opposition has already asked a question about a particular budget line and got

no answer, well, then there's no need for the Member for the NDP or from myself,

as an independent, to ask the same question all over again.

So a lot

of times as you're listening to the questions being asked and the answers being

given, you're making notes and you're getting those answers. In a lot of cases,

in my case, I wouldn't necessarily need to ask a lot of questions because they

were already asked and answered in a lot of cases anyway. But having that

opportunity to ask questions, to seek clarification on answers that may have

been given, I think it's important. As someone who represents a district, duly

elected, I think I should have that opportunity.

I'm glad

and I appreciate in the past being given leave to do that, but as the Member for

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi said, I think it would be a positive step if there

was some formal recognition of that in the policy to recognize that in a formal

way as opposed to, in theory, showing up and wanting to ask a couple of

questions and not receive leave. Again, that's never happened. I have no reason

to believe it would, but, still, I think having it there, that there would be

some recognition in allotting a little bit of time, a proportionate time to do

that, I think it's important. So I certainly encourage the minister and the

committee, as you're formulating this process that something be put in there to

specifically address that issue.

Now, I

also wanted to speak to what the minister spoke to when he introduced the bill,

which I didn't realize it was going there. I'm very pleased to hear it is;

albeit, it's something that I have been asking for, for the last three years. I

know the NDP in particular have been really asking for use of all-party

committees for as long as I've been in the House for sure – probably before

then, but certainly since I've been in the House – and the use of all-party

legislative committees.

So I'm

glad to see that we're finally going to make some movement in that direction;

albeit, it's too bad we're sort of on the eve of an election now when we're

doing it. It would have been nice if we had started that process, say, three

years ago, but better late than never. I will certainly support that concept.

I'm glad to see we're doing it.

I would

once again say that in the same way that independent Members attend the

Estimates process, I would ask the committee for consideration to put some sort

of a similar process in place for the legislative review as well and, at the

very least, if Members who are on these committees are going to receive

notification that there's going to be a meeting to discuss whatever, then at

least copy the independent Members on that. To let the independent Members know

there is a going to be a review of a piece of legislation, provide the

independent Member with that legislation so that Member can either attend the

meeting – not saying to vote on it, but at least attend that meeting as he or

she would do in Estimates and have the ability to provide a little bit of input

and feedback.

doesn't mean they're voting on it, because I understand the challenges around

that and the numbers game and so on, but at least the opportunity to attend, to

give some feedback if he or she wishes to, or if the Member is not available to

go to that meeting or whatever, at least be notified of the bills so that the

Member could submit a written submission or an email or something to the

committee saying I understand you're going to be meeting on this bill and this

is a point here that I think you should consider. That information would

actually be provided to the committee, documented in the committee minutes and

so on, that a Member had a bit of input or a concern or a question or whatever

and some feedback into that process.

Again,

if we're going to be truly democratic, than I think that's really what we need

to do. So I encourage the Government House Leader, the committee and so on, as

you discuss these matters to – again, just to repeat and to clarify (

a) for the

Estimates process to basically recognize formally what we've been doing

informally in terms of giving independent Members an opportunity to attend and

participate; also, to recognize formally a process whereby if you're going to be

reviewing the legislation, likewise, independent Members would be made aware of

the fact that this is happening, when it's happening, and given the opportunity

to either, (a), attend, or, (b), make a submission in writing through a letter,

an email or something to have feedback and input into that particular piece of

legislation. I think that would make for a much better process. It would be much

more democratic, and at the end of the day what we're looking to do is we're

looking to bring forth the best possible legislation.

As the

minister indicated himself when he spoke originally to this, we have seen bills

where things have happened that perhaps had it gone through this process, they

wouldn't have happened. I think that it's a very valuable exercise for sure, and

the more we can do to work together, be more inclusive of all Members, more

input, it's good for democracy, it's good for legislation and, ultimately, it's

good for the people who all elected us to be here.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to the motion?

Is the

House ready for the question on Motion 1?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from

the Order Paper, Motion 2, and I'll read it as follows:

THAT

Standing Order 63(2) be amended by deleting the words “new session” and

inserting instead the words “General Assembly;” and

THAT

this amendment have effect from the beginning of the 49th General Assembly.

I would

move that, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a chance to speak very briefly to another amendment being

brought to this House from the Standing Orders Committee, which we have talked

about on a number of occasions. So the funny thing is, reading this one, if you

were just to read it itself, it doesn't look like much. You're taking “new

session,” scratching it out and inserting the words “General Assembly” and it

will start from the 49th General Assembly.

So I'm

going to try to give some context as to what exactly that means, what will

happen and when it will happen. So I hold here in my hand, Mr. Speaker, and I'm

not using a prop, but the reality is that this is the Standing Orders of this

House. When you look at Standing Order 63 that deals with Private Members' Day,

the layman's, or my version, if I were to explain to somebody that is not

familiar with the House, Standing Order 63 is the rule of the House that deals

with the day, every week when the House is open, whereby a private Member is

able to enter a resolution into this House to be debated by all sides.

Now,

some caveats to that, obviously, is that it is not binding. So again, it's not

like in Ottawa where – and again, this is a conversation we've had many times.

But the reality is that it's not binding, and they're not actually, as we see in

Ottawa where we've seen the backbenchers, as they're referred to, or private

Members actually bring forward bills that are debated and passed. And I give a

prime example of one: It was done by former MP Scott Andrews, and I can't tell

you what the name – it was C whatever; I can't remember the number – but it came

from –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Zachary's Bill.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Zachary's Bill.

And

that's a case where legislation was actually made in the House, brought forward

by a private Member, a Member who is not a Member of Cabinet. It was again

something that saw debate, saw questioning, saw Committee.

What

we're saying here, okay, so that's today and everybody sees it, the Member

stands up, reads it in and we figure out who's going to debate it. This week it

would've been, say, government, for example; next week is Opposition. Generally,

since I've been in here, which is going on just about eight years, you see it,

it starts every year, at the start of a new session, or the start of a General

Assembly, it starts off government one week, then Opposition, then government,

then Opposition, it goes to the NDP, the Third Party, comes back, and it goes

back and forth like that.

What

we've changed here, so the Standing Order 63(2) says: “At the beginning of a new

session the Speaker shall follow the custom of recognizing a Private Member's

motion from the Opposition side of the House on the first Private Members' Day.”

The Opposition can start off. So what we're doing is we're taking out, at the

beginning of a new session, we're scratching out new session. At the beginning

of a new General Assembly, so when the House is first convened, after an

election, and right now we're in the 48th General Assembly, so after there is a

general election and people come back to this House representing their

districts, it will be the 49th General Assembly. So this resolution is to amend

this Standing Order starting the next session.

What are

the practical effects of this wording change? The practical effect is that, in

reality, the House at any time – we know it has 40 Members. It previously had

48. At times before that, it had 52. But right now we have 40, and the reality

is that during this time, we see private Members' resolutions from government

Members, from Members of the Official Opposition and Members of the Third Party.

The

composition changes all the time. Government numbers go up, government numbers

go down. Official Opposition numbers go up and go down, the same with the Third

Party. In particular sessions, sometimes there are zero independent Members.

Sometimes, as there are now, there are three – probably one of the greatest

numbers of independent Members that I've seen.

The

reality is that the Standing Order, as applied now, in reality when the fact is

that the order is basically at the beginning of any new session, so when the

House comes back after – so not every four years but basically when the House

reopens again. So, we close down the House, there are spring sessions and fall

sessions, the actual reality is that independent Members often do not get an

opportunity to raise a private Member's resolution. It just doesn't happen and

it's a number's game. They just don't get that opportunity, once you go back and

forth. In order for them to get that opportunity, the session would have to go

on for an extended period of time.

One of

the things that's been brought up and that we've agreed to is that this Member –

all 40 of us represent our districts and