PDF Version

May 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 11

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I'm

rising at this time to speak to a point of order which was raised yesterday,

just prior to the closing of the Legislature.

This

point of order under Standing Order 49 was raised by the Leader of the Official

Opposition with respect to language used in debate by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Environment.

Standing

Order 49, which was cited by the Official Leader of the Opposition, states in

part, No Member shall use offensive words against any Member of the House.

O'Brien

and Bosc discusses unparliamentary language at page 618, stating that the use

of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly

forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

Any

statements made during debate must be considered within the context of which

they are made and the manner and tone in which they are delivered. Again, as

stated in O'Brien and Bosc at page 618, the Speaker must rule on the basis of

the context in which the language was used .

The

video recording from Monday has been reviewed and I find that there has been no

direct personal attack used by the minister against another Member.

I find

that there is no point of order. This was simply a heated exchange during the

course of debate. However, I must remind all Members that during debate, all

comments must be directed to the Chair.

addition, I ask that Members be cautious in debate with respect to referring to

former members of the House by name as they are no longer in a position to

defend themselves in this Legislature.

Finally,

the Speaker of the House of Commons on December 9, 1980 the House of Commons

Debates at page 5534 stated: the characteristics of parliamentary language

are good temper and moderation .

This too

applies to Members of this hon. House during debate and I ask that all Members

keep this foremost in mind when making remarks in our Legislature.

Today, I

welcome to the Speaker's gallery Jacob Elyk from Harbour Grace, who is job

shadowing the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave. Jacob is entering his

fourth year of political science in the co-op program.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we have the Members for the Districts of Conception Bay South, St.

George's Humber, St. John's Centre, Baie Verte Green Bay, Lewisporte

Twillingate and Fogo Island Cape Freels.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on April 5, I had the pleasure of attending the CBS Lions Club 46th

Anniversary Charter Night.

Since

1971, CBS Lions Club has spearheaded numerous initiatives such as: Citizen of

the Year, our first arena, swimming pool, playgrounds, Topsail soccer field

lights and donated the first fire truck. Also, Lions awarded two sight dogs,

fundraised for a kidney transplant recipient and recently helped a young lady

obtain a prosthetic leg.

Thousands of dollars are awarded annually to organizations within and outside

the community such as the literacy program, food bank, school scholarships,

breakfast programs, Ronald McDonald House, Janeway Telethon, Cancer Society,

sight programs, diabetes programs and Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp. They also

support the initiatives of two CBS Scout troops and manage a housing complex.

Saturday, May 6, is Lions Day of Service where you will see fellow Lions

volunteering within our community. The CBS Lions Club are always welcoming new

members and this year marks the 100th anniversary for Lions International.

Where there's a need, there's a Lion.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the CBS Lions Club

for their continued dedication and hard work assisting the people of our

community.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

George's Humber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to acknowledge the late Private George Edward Brake of

the Newfoundland Regiment, 2716.

It was

100 years ago this past week, when on April 23, 1917 at Les Fosses Farm, not far

from Monchy-Le Preux, France, during what was to be the Newfoundland Regiment's

last engagement of the Battle of Arras, that Private Brake, serving with A

Company, was wounded by shell fire. Eventually evacuated to the eight casualty

clearing station at Agenz-ls-Duisans, Private Brake died on April 25, 1917 and

is buried at Duisans British Cemetery.

Private

Brake received the British War Medal and the Victory Medal, which is an

Inter-Allied War Medal. The son of Aaron and Jessie Louisa Brake of Meadows

Point, Bay of Islands, he was born September 3, 1890 and was also the foster

child of Mrs. Annie Mercer of Birchy Head, Bonne Bay. He had five siblings two

brothers who also served in World War I with the US services. The war memorial

in Curling and the one in Bonne Bay at Woody Point both honour the sacrifice of

Private Brake.

I ask

all Members to join me in acknowledging the contribution of Private Brake and

all those who serve and continue to serve.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

Mental Health Week and I am thrilled to announce that our province's Community

Coalition 4 Mental Health held an empowered and energetic Mayday town hall on

mental health and addictions last night.

Community members with lived experience with mental illness, their families,

representatives from at least a dozen NGOs, dedicated Eastern Health

professionals and front-line staff from the Department of Advanced Education and

Skills, university professors, teachers and guidance counsellors all came

together last night to analyze the recommendations offered by the newly released

report from the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Everyone

sprung into action. Words like hope and momentum and accountability were

heard again and again. Careful notes from each table were shared and submitted

and future meetings enthusiastically planned.

The

Community Coalition continues to prove that there is no limit to what can be

done when both collaboration and inclusion are prioritized. I think Geraldine

Hollett, who presented the Inclusion Choir with a Music NL Award for 10 years of

positive community empowerment only a few weeks ago, summed up what Mental

Health Week is all about: You bring light to darkness. You offer hope for a

better world for us all You inspire and continue to do so every time you

collectively open your mouths.

Bravo to

the CC4MH!

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Baie

Verte Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize Life Unlimited for Older Adults, an important

community organization in my district that is helping adults 50 years of age and

older lead happy, active and healthy lives.

Based in

Springdale, and open to residents from Springdale and surrounding communities,

the goal of Life Unlimited for Older Adults is to engage older adults in

planning and promoting social, recreational and educational activities to

encourage healthy living.

Life

Unlimited for Older Adults offers several programs and services, and their

benefits to seniors cannot be understated. One such program is Care 2 Ride, a

volunteer driver program for older adults and people with mobility issues, which

provides transportation to appointments and social events to those that

otherwise would have none.

Life

Unlimited for Older Adults also organizes socials and birthday parties, exercise

programs such as Walk the Rock, lifestyle clinics, lifelong learning

opportunities, tours and excursions, and much more.

honour of their important work and the services they provide to seniors across

my district, I ask all hon. Members to join me today in recognizing Life

Unlimited for Older Adults.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize the outstanding performances and sportsmanship

of the Lewisporte Seahawks and Twillingate-New World Island Combine Minor Hockey

Associations during this past year's provincial tournaments.

All

teams represented their communities with great pride, taking home a total of

eight silver medals. In addition, the Twillingate- New World Island Atom

Combines captured the gold in an exciting 6-5 overtime win against the Corner

Brook Royals in the championship game.

Playing for the Atom Combines include: Forrester Baggs,

Katie Baggs, Avery Blackler, Adam Bowie, Hunter Brown, Sadie Brown, Cassie Burt,

Kiera Canning, Cassidy Compton, Evan Dove, Leah Gillard, Chloe Hillier, Jake

Holwell, Patrick Ings, Carter Lambert, Kaitlyn Rogers, and Siehera Shea. Head

coach was Nathan Hull; assistant coaches Patti Hicks Brown, Lee Baggs and Jeff

Gillard. Trainer was Guy Lambert; and director, Jocelyn Lambert.

I ask all Members in this hon. House to join me in thanking

the dedicated volunteers who worked so diligently to organize these sporting

events and to congratulate the Atom Combines in capturing the provincial

championship.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

always a pleasure to rise in this hon. House and inform my fellow colleagues of

the super people in my district. Today I have a story of boys being boys.

September 5, 1996 a group of young Fogo boys were playing on Sylvester Ford's

wharf. Four-year-old Todd Freak slipped and fell into the water and started to

drift out from shore. Everyone started yelling and running for help. Adam Payne,

who was eight years old at the time, grabbed hold of a mooring line, pulled

himself out to Todd, grabbed hold of him, and pulled both of them back to shore.

As you

can imagine, people were running to help and were very surprised to see both

boys safe. A lady watching from across the harbour witnessed it all.

While

visiting in Fogo Island last week, I had the privilege to meet Adam Payne. I'm

happy to say that after 20 years, Mayor Shea, the members of the Fogo Island

Town Council and I had the opportunity to present Adam with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Award for Bravery.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking Adam Payne for this honourable act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

remind residents that forest fire season started yesterday on the Island and

will start in Labrador on May 15.

Residents planning to burn brush as part of clean-up activities should be aware

of how quickly fire can spread beyond their property.

Mr.

Speaker, last year, 91 fires were reported in this province, burning almost

11,000 hectares. Half of those fires were caused by residents. The majority

occurred during spring when many people were burning brush. Some of these fires

were preventable.

Reducing

the number of human-caused fires is an integral component of our fire prevention

program. A permit to burn is required under the

Forestry Act and can be obtained at no cost at forestry management

offices. The lighting of fires for cooking and camping does not require a

permit; however, certain regulations must be followed.

Mr.

Speaker, we ask residents to be Firesmart. May 6 is National Wildfire Community

Preparedness Day and communities are encouraged to particulate in mitigation

projects to help reduce the risk of wildfire damage to homes and neighbourhoods.

Mr.

Speaker, a toll-free number is available to report wildfires. The number is

1-866-709-FIRE (3473).

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, it's a good time

to take the opportunity, particularly this time of year when people are cleaning

up around their properties, to remind residents that brush fires can be very

dangerous and very destructive.

It's

troubling to hear that half the fires reported last year were caused by

residents, that some of them could have been prevented. It's important to raise

awareness on this issue, and every effort should be made to reduce the number of

these fires. We also encourage all residents to be fire smart.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

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

information going to residents about wildfire prevention. The minister notes

that camp fires are subject to certain regulation, but I wonder how well known

these regulations are. I urge the minister to look at the need for more public

education about that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in hon.

House today to highlight an amendment to the

schedule of the

Citizens' Representative Act . This amendment will allow the

Citizens' Representative jurisdiction over regional service boards and ensure

that residents, municipalities and businesses have a mechanism to address

concerns they may have with the boards.

Regional

service boards are independent entities established under the Regional Service

Board Act to provide waste management services. They are responsible for setting

rates for those services based on cost recovery. This amendment provides the

Citizens' Representative the authority to assist the boards in addressing

complaints or grievances from stakeholders.

Mr.

Speaker, by enabling the Citizens' Representative to become more involved in

addressing the concerns of individuals in a timely manner, we are promoting

greater accountability and transparency in the operations of the regional

service boards. This will improve satisfaction with waste management services

among residents throughout our province.

encourage anyone who has questions about this new development, or would like to

avail of the Citizens' Representative's assistance, please call the Office of

the Citizens' Representative at 1-800-559-0079, or email at

citrep@gov.nl.ca .

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I noticed this

announcement a couple of weeks ago prior to the House of Assembly closing for

Easter. To be truthful, I have more questions than comments related to the

Ministerial Statement. One question will be concerning the availability of

resources for the Citizens' Representative who will have jurisdiction now over

the regional service boards.

We know

the great work that the Citizens' Representative does on behalf of the people of

this province. I'm hopeful that government will consider the impact on the

office.

I look

forward to learning more about the amendment and its impact on residents,

businesses, municipalities and the regional service boards in the province.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I certainly support

this expansion of jurisdiction to include regional service boards. Now if a

person or a community has an issue with their board they will able to ask the

Citizens' Representative for help in resolving it, but I do urge the minister to

monitor the consequences of expanding the Citizens' Representative's mandate to

see if an increased workload in that office will require additional resources in

the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Bern Coffey, the former clerk, has referred publicly to an

arrangement he made with the Premier to continue his law practice. Now, the

Premier has referenced an arrangement for Mr. Coffey to wind down his law

practice, two very different statements.

I ask

the Premier: Which one of those statements is correct?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When Mr.

Coffey was hired, as I mentioned yesterday in many responses, the first that

there were a number of things that were done; one, he met with the Department of

Justice to get some recommendations on how the flow of material should happen.

He outlined the number of cases and there was a limited number, seven, that he

would continue on representing the individual clients, taking on no new matters,

no new files, no new clients. So it was always the view that he would transition

out of his private practice, Mr. Speaker.

When you

look at Mr. Coffey's situation as being a sole proprietor, a lawyer practising

literally by himself, it would have taken some time. So we understand that the

appropriate measures were put in place, the conflict walls, as was mentioned.

Added to

that, in the contract itself, in his employment contract, we made provision,

particularly in

section 11 that you can refer to, that if there was anything

that would have changed in terms of progress, if he felt that he was in conflict

in any matter that he would declare that conflict, as is the onus on everyone in

this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it was always the view of the former clerk

to get out of his law practice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again

today the Premier just simply has not answered the question.

I ask

the Premier this: What's your response to comments made by Democracy Watch that

your decision to hire Mr. Coffey was unethical?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Democracy Watch, I think the gentleman's name was Mr. Conacher. He's made

similar comments about decisions that you would have made, I would say, in your

former capacity here, Mr. Speaker, but he also went on to say that you would

speak to some special arrangements.

He went

on to say that what we have here is weak legislation. As a matter of fact, he

blamed it on the legislation within this current Legislature, Mr. Speaker. It's

a 25-year-old piece of legislation. He went on to say it was not illegal that

anything that would have happened, that these the conflict walls that were put

in place in this particular case around the procedures that were put there.

Mr.

Speaker, it was always Mr. Coffey's view to get out of his law practice. We just

ran out of time in the transition. As it happened, he tendered his resignation

and is very clear that this human resources issue that we dealt with yesterday,

or Sunday in this particular case he just ran out of time to transition fully

out of his private law practice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Democracy Watch didn't say it was illegal, they said it was unethical. And,

again, the Premier doesn't have an answer for that.

Yesterday, we learned that the Minister of Justice had knowledge of this matter

for some time. The Minister of Education did not know about the arrangement,

this confidential arrangement until it hit the news.

I ask

the Premier: What other ministers did you trust with this sensitive information?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

number one, Mr. Coffey is the deputy minister for the Premier, as the clerk of

Executive Council. The only minister in this particular case would have been the

Minister of Health or the Health Department, as the files were related to the

Department of Health.

There

was a conversation, that I mentioned yesterday, with the deputy minister, but

everyone in Cabinet was aware that Mr. Coffey was there. Everyone understood. We

worked with the man on a daily basis. And at any particular point in time, a

conflict of interest, the onus is always on that individual.

Mr.

Speaker, with the Nalcor file as an issue because this was raised; I heard

about it in the media. I made no secret of that. When you look at

section 11,

there were provisions there for that to occur in writing. When I asked Mr.

Coffey about that, he didn't feel he was in a conflict because he would not be

representing that client on a file which has never been served.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier says one minister knew. Are you saying the Minister of Natural Resources

wasn't aware?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Department of Natural Resources in this particular case here, the conversations

that Mr. Coffey would have had with the appropriate deputy ministers in this

case, there was no conflict, in his view, with the Department of Natural

Resources because there was nothing filed.

When I

asked him about this I mentioned this quite clearly on many, many times, what

happened with the statement of claim that I found out about in the media. Mr.

Coffey, his response to me was this: I'm not in a conflict. He didn't feel he

was in a conflict, simply because what he did was preserve the right of the

individual to actually go forward with the legal issue on a wrongful dismissal.

That has not been served with Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, based on a

conversation this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier says the Minister of Natural Resources there was no conflict. He

did nothing to ensure that the public, the government, was looked after that

there were checks and balances to ensure and protect the public and the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is outstanding, Mr. Speaker

unbelievable.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development: When

did you first know the former clerk was given permission by the Premier to

continue to practise law? I ask the Minister of Children.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'm going to answer I'm going to get up first because in the

preamble that the

former premier, now the Leader of the Opposition, in his

preamble he made

reference to which is really an unfair representation of what happened. Mr.

Speaker, as was mentioned, Mr. Coffey would have notified the appropriate

deputies. There was a list. There was no advancement on the file with Nalcor. It

didn't advance.

I made

many, many comments that that was sitting there for two years. What happened is

when the statement of claim was filed, it merely gave the client the opportunity

to pursue a wrongful dismissal case. It has not advanced; it has been filed in

the court, Mr. Speaker. It has not been served on Nalcor. That was the question

that I asked the former clerk this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

Premier confirms that the Minister of Natural Resources was not made aware of

conflict with the clerk in her own department.

Again,

I'll ask the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development: When did you

become aware that the former clerk was given permission by the Premier to

continue to act as the clerk while he was in a conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to sit in this House and allow the Member opposite to go on with

preambles

that misrepresent what happened. I just will not allow it. I will stand. I

clearly outlined if you want to go on, Mr. Speaker, if the Member opposite

wants to go on with those

preambles which don't represent what actually

happened.

There

were conflict walls that were put in place and the information that would have

come in he met with Cabinet Secretariat, outlined all the cases, met with the

Justice Department. There were provisions made in the individual's contract that

would allow in writing to me, as the Premier of the province, if indeed the

individual felt there was a conflict.

The

conflict of interest is always the responsibility of the individual. With the

Department of Health and Community Services, there was movement and he met with

the deputy minister in that particular department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

ask the minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development to tell this hon.

House when did she first find out that the Liberal clerk was given permission to

serve as clerk while in a conflict of interest.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, in

this particular case, as I've mentioned so many times, Mr. Speaker, the seven

files would have involved two departments. It would have been Health and it

would have been Natural Resources. Indeed with Natural Resources, no movement on

that file for two years. It was early April when the two-year period of

limitations had occurred.

Mr.

Coffey then, what he did on behalf of the client, he put a statement of claim,

preserving the right of the client. That has not advanced. That has not been

served on Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. That's the situation. With the Department of

Health, there was a conversation with the deputy minister at that point.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

yesterday morning's press conference, there was a question from the media asking

if Mr. Coffey was involved with a file involving C-CORE.

So I ask

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation: When were you first

told about Mr. Coffey's legal work and conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any

funding that would have been appropriated to C-CORE, we've certainly made

funding available through the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation, and the Research & Development Corporation and provided that upon

request.

When it

comes to any particular conflict of interest matter that's put forward, then if

there is a conflict of interest, the onus is on the individual to make that

declaration to the specific department.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation: When did you first

find out about the conflict of interest matters involving the clerk?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

I mentioned yesterday, the list that was supplied, there was nothing there.

There's been no Mr. Coffey in the list that was discussed with the Cabinet

Secretariat and the Justice Department. There was nothing there with C-CORE on

that list, Mr. Speaker. We never did have that conversation. So this was

something I'm not aware of. I mentioned this yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker is having some difficulty hearing the questions and answers. I ask

Members who are not identified to speak not to inject yourselves into the

questions or answers on the floor.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources when did he find out about the

clerk's conflict and was there any files in his department that may have been

restricted as a result.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. It's the responsibility of the person with the

possible conflict to make it known to the department.

Mr.

Speaker, there were no files in the former clerk's possession that had anything

to do with my department.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

three ministers who won't answer the question. So I'll ask the Minister of

Finance, when did she learn about the conflict of interest.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I became

aware of the clerk's activity in the court cases that had been reported in the

media, in the media.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

finally have a minister who will answer a very simple question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the

Premier: How can we trust that the former Liberal clerk removed himself from

sensitive files where there may have been a conflict of interest?

Does the

Premier just expect us to accept that because he told us so? How are people

supposed to trust the Premier to know that the clerk removed himself?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

when you look at the professionalism of any lawyer in the province, when you

look at the professionalism of physicians maybe not the Member opposite, I

don't know what his past practice was, but I have no reason to question the

integrity that Bern Coffey in any conflict of interest would remove himself,

just like I would have done when I was Leader of the Opposition a few years ago

in a significant debate in this House of Assembly.

I'm not

sure what the Member opposite is referring to. If he is saying that someone like

Bern Coffey would not remove himself, if he's questioning the integrity of the

man that has a tremendous legacy in this province, Mr. Speaker. That is what

he's questioning right now, is the integrity of the man that went through a

Cameron inquiry, made a significant impact on health care for cancer survivors

in our province.

That is

what the Member opposite is questioning right now. There is no doubt in my mind,

if there was a potential conflict of interest, Mr. Coffey would have disclosed

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

not questioning the history or integrity of the clerk; we're questioning the

judgment of the Premier on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Were you comfortable with Mr. Coffey profiting from suing Nalcor and

Western Health while he was the clerk if it was done before June 30 as you

identified yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to go back to the previous comment that was made too, of course, about sworn

oath and that when you get any time a clerk that is sworn in to that

department, Mr. Speaker, we all know what happens, no different than any premier

or a minister that would be sworn in to their office.

There's

a very high level of responsibility that occurs and comes with those sworn

oaths, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Coffey would have sworn

or would have brought any conflict of interest forward. There's absolutely no

doubt in my mind that would have happened.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at his contract, when you look at the conflict walls that

were put in place, they were there for those very reasons, to support an

individual that would come forward with any conflict of interest, like anyone

else in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Again, Mr. Speaker, no answer

to that question from the Premier.

Premier,

why was there no reference to the June 30 transition date, the one you spoke

about yesterday, in Mr. Coffey's contract that you say we should look at for the

terms of that agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From my

perspective at that particular point in time, we would have hoped that this

would have been done actually even sooner than that. So there was no reason in

my mind to actually put the transition date. The transition date for any

particular person might be different for any premier that would sit in this

case.

I guess

when we look at the number of files that he was able to actually shed from the

list that was provided to us, there was significant progress that was made, but

after the discussion on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, it was clear that those files

could not be dealt with in an appropriate fashion. So I felt it was appropriate

to put a timeline in place that they could be dealt with. Mr. Coffey could not

make that commitment. He is a very loyal individual to the clients. There was an

outstanding file that he had to deal with, Mr. Speaker. We just ran out of time

dealing with this transition period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'll try this. Premier, are there any documents, or any document whatsoever that

will establish that you had a June 30 date in place in your arrangement with the

clerk or is this something you just made up when you got caught in this conflict

of interest?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Within

the contract, the employment contract that was disclosed yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

there was no transition period that was identified there. They were pretty

obvious. He needed to get out of this. He was going to transition the former

clerk would be transiting out of this as quickly as possible. We've always said

that.

There

were no new clients, no new matters for those individual clients. There was a

limited number. Mr. Speaker, things move through the court process, through the

justice process very slowly from time to time. It was felt that after the

discussions we had on the weekend, that he just could not get to a transition

time frame that I would feel was reasonable, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Coffey did what he felt was the appropriate thing to do, and we accepted the

resignation, Mr. Speaker. His resignation was received and he is no longer the

clerk for this government.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker,

section 9(2) of the ATIPPA legislation under public interest states:

discretionary exception shall not apply where it is clearly demonstrated that

the public interest in disclosure of the information outweighs the reason for

the exception.

I ask

the Premier: Based on the current controversy and the hiring of the clerk, isn't

it in the public interest to release the legal advice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand here and speak to the Opposition's request to waive

solicitor-client privilege. I know it's not something they always grasp but,

again, there's a significant amount of jurisprudence and legal work that has

been done on the concept of solicitor-client privilege. I know they're trying to

use legislation to supersede that, but the fact is solicitor-client privilege is

something that we must stand for and I hope that they understand the importance

of it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, is the minister saying that the exception is absolute? The legislation

says you may refuse and where it's in a public interest you have the authority

to release it.

So the

question is: Why wouldn't you release it in the interest of the public to answer

some questions that we haven't received in this House from the Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The fact

is that the Opposition want to breach solicitor-client privilege. I know it's

not something again, being involved in the Justice department they feel is

important, but the fact is that it is.

The

Premier has proactively released a significant amount of information, including

the contract of the clerk which clearly lays out the stipulations that Mr.

Coffey had to abide by and the stipulations that have led to his departure, the

resignation that he filed. The fact is that information was put out there early

on to show the public all the information.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I'll

ask the minister: Are you saying there are no exemptions under the legislation

for you to consider to release the information we've asked for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying

is that I'm not going to breach solicitor-client privilege or ask anybody to

breach solicitor-client privilege for his benefit.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, so he doesn't deny the

exemption exists, but in this case he's not going to exercise it in the interest

of the public to release the information.

Mr.

Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I will, yeah. You try and

answer them. Maybe start that, try and answer them.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Speaker recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier referenced a transition time for individuals joining

government from the private sector.

I ask

the Premier: Where is the policy, and could you table a copy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the issues we have to deal with, with current legislation, is that there is no

prescribed timeline for transition. We've heard many Members in this House of

Assembly that would put in place, as an example, blind trusts that would impact

them as ministers and even former premiers. There are prescribed timelines for

that, but, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of examples where that just could not

have been met.

We talk

to individuals as they put business assets and sometimes personal assets that

they have to deal with to actually transition from private life into public

life, Mr. Speaker, and there is really no prescribed timelines. It's a situation

where it does evolve over time.

Mr.

Speaker, in this particular case, as I had mentioned yesterday so many times, is

that the reasonable amount of time frame for Mr. Coffey in our case, it just

didn't exist and we just ran out of time.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, as well, yesterday the Premier referenced a time frame was given to

anyone that comes from private life. What is the policy on that? Certainly, can

you release that? Can we see it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the Member opposite is asking questions right now and after about 12 years in

government they obviously had no policy on many things, Mr. Speaker. We've seen

that for sure with Humber Valley and many other contracts that would have been

put in place.

Mr.

Speaker, in this particular case, the case we're referring to about Mr. Coffey,

there was the transition period that I wanted Mr. Coffey to actually make a full

transition into public life. We talked about June 30, Mr. Speaker. It was very

clear, in this particular case, he was not going to be able to meet that

timeline because of the client list, that he had outstanding very limited. It

made significant process, as I've said so many times, Mr. Speaker. So the

transition didn't occur and he decided to tender his resignation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister has accused MUN of fudging its books, but national watchdogs and the

Board of Regents say MUN's reporting is sound.

I say to

the minister: Do you stand by your statement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the

administration of Memorial University of Newfoundland did report to its Senate

on Monday, April 24.

The

numbers that were supplied by me in actual fact, supplied by MUN to the

Canadian Association of University Business Officers and to Statistics Canada,

those numbers were valid. In fact, Memorial University of Newfoundland informed

its own Senate that they would have to restate their numbers. In order to

achieve the $26,000 per student, per year figure, they would have to restate

their own figures. They would have to reduce their expenditures by $55,000 and

increase their student enrollment by 1,000 students.

That's

the statement that came from MUN to its own Senate. If it would like to correct

its own statement to the public, we'd be more than happy to receive it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, since accusing

MUN of fudging the books, have you had a face-to-face meeting with the

administration to discuss these scandalous allegations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken

with the chair of the Board of Regents on several occasions and since their

allegations. In fact, what's happened in the last little while, these statements

that I've made were not new. In fact, I made them some months ago.

wasn't until there was a decision by MUN to increase revenue what this issue

is all about, Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear with each other, is that MUN has

chosen to raise, or is considering raising revenue from taxpayers or students,

one of the two, but they want to raise revenue before they look seriously at

their expenditures.

MUN had

no issue whatsoever with any statements that I was making until they found that

it contradicted their argument for raising more money from students. That's when

they brought forward a counter-argument and then they torpedoed their own

counter-argument to their own Senate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

The minister's comments have

no only damaged the reputation of the university; it's displayed a lack of

confidence in the leadership.

Is the

minister preparing to fire the executive at MUN?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, this is not

2008. In fact, while, yes, there is a disagreement that is occurring between

myself and the administration, this is one of the greatest universities anywhere

in North America and it is producing incredible results for our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BYRNE:

But, yes, there is a

disagreement. I and this Cabinet and this government think very strongly that

before raising revenue on the backs of students, the university should consider

reducing its expenditures and disclosing its expenditures for all to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Media

across Canada have reported on the Bernard Coffey resignation with headlines

such as, beyond bizarre, and Ball says he would do it all over again.

I ask

the Premier: Will government establish an ethics office to guide them on ethical

matters in the future?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I seldom

intervene during Question Period, but I remind the hon. Member that you're not

to refer to individuals by name, only by title or district.

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the things, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago in a prior question, is that

there are a number of changes that we see. And when you look at the mandate

letter for the Minister for Minister of Justice and Public Safety, our House

Leader, what we've been asked to do is modernize a number of pieces of

legislation, activities around this Legislative Assembly; many of which are

outdated.

We've

made significant changes already in the last year around the Independent

Appointments Commission, around how we handle parliamentary secretaries, the way

we sit, the sitting days within the House of Assembly, the Procurement Act that

I mentioned earlier. There are a number of pieces of legislation and a number of

things that we'd like to be able to do in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

We're

going to get on to this in our mandate, Mr. Speaker, but what I do not want to

see are Members of this side of the House support and vote for their own raises,

like the Member opposite did in the Management Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I point out to the Premier that having an ethics officer, having an

ethics office is a very common thing in this country. And if he really wanted to

show the public how serious he is, then he would set up an ethics office.

On the

day he was hired, the former clerk sued Western Health on behalf of a client. I

ask the Minister of Health and Community Services when he was made aware of the

lawsuit and that it was the clerk who was representing the plaintiff.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Western

Health is an autonomous body constituted under the RHA Act. There were

discussions, as the Premier has mentioned, between the deputy to ensure that

there were walls to preserve any apparent conflict of interest.

I think

that answers the question.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Minister of Justice and Attorney General: After being informed by his officials,

Mr. Coffey was going to continue as a lawyer in private practice; why did he

think it was acceptable for the clerk to act as a lawyer, working contrary to

the best interests of government and the people of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly I was made aware very early on. The Department of Justice staff looked

into this and made recommendations on ways we could preserve this. What I can

say is that one thing I realize is that transitions happen. When I got elected

to this House of Assembly, it took me some time to clue up my own legal

practice. Some lawyers, including the former Member for the NDP, the former

leader, continued their legal practice throughout their entire career sitting in

this House of Assembly.

The fact

is that Mr. Coffey had a practice that he was winding down. He was in that

process. As the Premier stated, he never got through that. But again, he was

working through that, and that's the issue that we've dealt with here.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking

about the senior clerk here, and we're talking about cases against government

departments.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Why did he not refer this matter to the

Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee as created by the

Conflict of Interest Act ?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, I don't think that the Member opposite has read the

Conflict of Interest Act , because that's not actually how the

provision is written out. So the first thing I would direct her to is to read

the Conflict of Interest Act .

The fact

is that the Conflict of Interest Act

puts out a number of things here to speak to. One of them and again, there are

various members. In this case, Mr. Coffey spoke to Cabinet Secretariat, he spoke

to the Premier's office, spoke to a justice solicitor, and there were a number

of steps taken, including what were put out in the contract that Mr. Coffey

signed. The fact is unfortunately we have a situation now where Mr. Coffey has

resigned, and there we are.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre for a very quick question, no

preamble.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Justice and Attorney General: Considering the clerk's job is to

serve Cabinet, who probably knew all about this, did he think this information

should have been kept secret from his Cabinet colleagues, or was it revealed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact

is the information was not kept secret. The Member opposite likes to make very

scurrilous allegations here, but the fact is she's simply not on the right track

here.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

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 2018-19 through 2022-23.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

I hereby

table the 2016 Annual Report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the US Centre for Disease Control now estimates that autism spectrum disorder

affects one in 68 children, which represents a 30 per cent increase from the

estimate two years ago; and

WHEREAS

early diagnosis of ASD is essential because there is a critical developmental

period when early intervention is vital for future success of children with ASD;

and

WHEREAS

in other provinces an ASD diagnosis can be made by specialists certified and

trained in ADOS;

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

of Assembly to urge government to allow other specialists trained and certified

with ADOS to make the autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, once again I am happy to stand and speak to this petition which has

continued to come to my desk. It was only this morning that the president of the

Autism Society was once again in the media talking about their grave concerns,

talking about the fact that the numbers of people coming to them for services

and for programs is multiplying. How they do not have adequate resources to meet

all the needs and once again trying to get the support they need from government

to help them meet the needs of the children and adults in this province who are

on the autism spectrum.

Mr.

Speaker, this morning in Estimates I did ask the Minister of Health and

Community Services about the fact that the IQ 70, or the evaluation of children

with an IQ of 70 who are on the autism spectrum, 70 or above means they cannot

avail of services. The problem with this is that the IQ 70 marker is looking at

autism from the perspective of intelligence, and we all know that many people on

the autism spectrum are highly intelligent. Some of the basic issues with regard

to being on the autism spectrum has more to do with behaviour, with social

interaction and with ability to function in our society.

The

minister knows that, and I was glad when the minister said they are working

towards putting in place what would be needed to use the testing of

functionality as the test that would determine whether or not a child on the

spectrum would get services. But this is an urgent situation, and I really

believe government has been dragging its heels.

I've

been standing for years in this House talking about this, and certainly the

Autism Society has been talking about it for years. So we have to speed up. We

have to make things better. We have to make sure that the children in our

society are able to be in school and have their needs met. That the children in

our society get the services they need. That we

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. MICHAEL:

I can't even hear myself.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was

getting really difficult. I literally could not continue speaking. So I can

imagine what it must be like for somebody who is on the autism spectrum,

somebody who has a hard time with focusing, somebody who has a hard time with

dealing with society.

Just

imagine somebody in this room who just had to go through what happened here in

this room. It's a very difficult situation to be in, and our children need

everything that can be given them so that they can survive in our society. We

have to speed up the issues around helping them, making sure that all children

with needs have those needs met.

I do

implore the Minister of Health to take as quick action as possible to remove the

IQ 70 marker in the evaluation of the children on the autism spectrum.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 implemented a regressive

tax on books in this province; and

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in the country to have such a

tax; and

WHEREAS

the tax will undoubtedly affect literacy rates in this province as well as

negatively impact local authors and publishers;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately cancel this ill-conceived book

tax.

Mr.

Speaker, I've risen time and time again, as have my colleagues on this side of

the House sitting over here in Opposition, to oppose this tax which is really

hurting the people of our province, in particular, our students, our children

and our aspiring authors and musicians.

It's

very unfortunate to see the regression that has occurred in Newfoundland and

Labrador since Budget 2016 and it

continues to happen today. I think many of us in this province were very hopeful

that government would take measures to rectify some of the damage they caused

with Budget 2016 , but we didn't see it

happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

And so I call upon government

to consider it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time wasn't up.

MS. PERRY:

Oh.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm asking Members to lower

the volume of your conversations. I'm finding it difficult to hear the Member

recognized to speak.

The hon.

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you.

Thank

you for your protection, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes the House can get quite loud

here.

Certainly we do call upon government to look at reversing this tax in particular

and a lot of the taxes that you've brought in. You're hurting the economy,

you're hurting our students, you're hurting our authors and you're hurting our

book industry.

It's

time to start turning things around and turn this into the province that we all

know it can be. We all know that by lowering taxes you stimulate growth and you

encourage growth. It's time for government to revisit its budget and start

eliminating some of these taxes which are hurting us.

Thank

you so much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

fisheries policy regulations link harvesting quotas to vessel length for several

species; and

WHEREAS

many harvesters own fishing vessels of various sizes, but because of policy

regulations are restricted to using smaller vessels, often putting their crews

into danger;

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

of Assembly to urge government to make representation to the federal government

to encourage them to change policy, thus ensuring the safety of fish harvesters

in our province.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, as we speak this time of year, it's very important that a lot of

harvesters are out on the water and there are many issues. I spoke to harvesters

this weekend that were out. There's a lot of ice offshore and there's a lot of

and we all know what our weather is like.

With

reduction in a lot of quotas I know it has nothing to do with the size of the

vessels, but we should be encouraging the Minister of Fisheries also to talk to

the federal government about a buddy-up system, especially when it comes to the

shrimp this year where a lot of shrimp harvesters are looking at a reduction in

area 6. They're talking about half a load to go and get, and it's the

feasibility of that alone. If they were allowed to buddy up, their trip would be

a whole lot better for the harvesters because of less cost. So that's something

the minister should be looking at also.

We have

vessel size due to the crab that a certain size of vessel is used on the

inshore, a certain size of vessel is used in mid-shore and certain size of

vessel is used offshore. So if we have harvesters that are fishing three of

those different areas, they have to use three different vessels.

For the

safety of people on the water, this is a regulation that I understand why it

came in in the first place. It came in so the inshore fishery and the people

that had those licences could go catch, because the small inshore fishery boats

were what were designed to use in the inshore fishery. Now that this fishery is

in full swing, people buy these licences, the policy doesn't make sense. The

policy should be changed so that harvesters can use larger boats to fish these

inshore and mid-shore fisheries. It's all about safety and it's all about

ensuring that people get home to their families in the evening.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

government recently cut vital funding to many of the province's youth

organizations; and

WHEREAS

the cuts to grants to youth organizations will have a devastating impact on the

communities, as well as its youth and families; and

WHEREAS

many of these organizations deeply rely on what was rightly considered core

funding for these day-to-day operations;

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

of Assembly to urge government to immediately reinstate funding to the

province's youth organizations.

And as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity to present this over the last number of

months because we continue to get petitions from every sector in our province.

Particularly those who deal with youth organizations and not for profits, but

from every corner of our province, because they see the importance youth

organizations have and they see the devastating effect it's going to have with

these cuts.

People

must understand, and particularly government has to understand, it's not only

the impact of cutting the core funding here. It's the 300 other fees and taxes

they've imposed on the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that they have had

a financial impact on the financial viability of these organizations,

particularly around their expenditures.

Obviously, when you lose your revenues you have to look at your expenditure

cuts, but when you look at your expenditure cuts things like insurance has

gone up 15 per cent. When things like your additional fuel cost to heat if you

have a furnace or something has gone up. Taxes are gone up in various sectors.

All the other things that are relevant to it have an impact. If they operate a

vehicle, then obviously that has an impact on their gas costs and these types of

things.

The

other part of it is most of these organizations rely on the private sector and

particular fundraising to be a key component of how they finance themselves and

how they fund particular projects and how they ensure security and feasibility.

In this case

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

understand the importance of conducting business while in the House, but if you

can't contain your volume to a level that I can hear the Member identified to

speak, I ask Members to take their conversations outside.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

As I noted, with all the

additional costs that have been put on organizations and citizens in this

province, it's had an impact on the organizations ability to fundraise. People

don't have as much disposable income because it's now going to pay extra taxes;

if it's a levy tax, if it's a gas tax, if it's a tax on other services, if it's

indeed additional insurances, if it's all the other fees and services that we

want taken care of. If it's to deal with extra diabetic strips or the extra cost

of health medicines that would normally be covered for an ailing family member

who's in one of our health institutions.

All of

this has an impact on when people want support, youth organizations or any not

for profit in fundraising and supporting with a ticket draw, or a bid on a

product or supporting a concert of some sort, that has a major impact. That

impact has a bottom-line impact on these organizations that can't provide the

same level of service and, obviously, then that has an impact on our society.

These

organizations have leveraged sometimes 10, 20, 30 times as much money as being

invested by government. The services they provide are fiftyfold when it comes to

what it would cost the taxpayers to provide that.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to present this again and talk about the

valued work and how important it is to reinstate those funding sources.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

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

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

WHEREAS

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

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

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

and

WHEREAS

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

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

encourage reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS

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

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

a tax to read the books of our own writers;

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

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

And as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe that most people in Newfoundland and Labrador know how

important taxes are. They know they pave our roads, they know they build our

hospitals, they know they provide schools. They know they provide teachers, that

they provide nurses and doctors. They know in fact that taxes provide the

salaries of each and every one of us here in this House of Assembly and the

pensions as well.

People

know that, and people know it's important to be able to pool our resources so

that we can have schools, so we can have police, so we can have firefighters, so

we can have teachers and nurses. People know that, and for the most part people

willingly pay when they know it's a fair taxation system. We are all aware of

the power of our collectivity, whether it's paying taxes, whether we're helping

one another to build houses, whether we're helping one another by volunteer work

in our communities. So people are not stupid.

People

know the value of fair taxation. People know the value of taxation that makes

sense. People also know when taxation doesn't make sense, and for the thousands

of people who have signed this petition and who continue to sign this petition

and send it in asking us to be their voice here in the province, they know this

taxation makes no sense whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it's a tax that flies

in the face of reason. Taxing books is a bad idea. Taxing books has absolutely

no benefit to anyone in the province.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

I call from the Order Paper,

Motion 1, Budget.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I think it's

Standing Order 47 that the last business day the Member speaking I don't think

if I remember correctly adjourned debate. I think the clock at that point in

time stops and you, basically, in accordance with the Standing Order, adjourned

the House at 5:30.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

That is

generally the case. In this particular case, as we all recall yesterday, there

was quite a bit of confusion. This is a new rule that we're going by. There was

quite a bit of confusion. I'd asked whether or not we had leave to deal with a

point of order that had been raised and a counter to that point of order. In

this particular case, I'm going to allow the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Environment to conclude his speaking time.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I see why they're trying to stop me from making statements

about the hospital in Corner Brook.

Mr.

Speaker, while I was defending yesterday the hospital and the lack of work done

by the previous government, there was a tweet sent out by Sandy Collins and I

just want to read the tweet. The Eddie Joyce Side Show is on! High pitch rants

of gibberish and insults with arms swinging. He's a clown .

I just

want people to know that this Member, the former Member for Terra Nova, is a

staff member of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just

today, you cautioned Members of the House of using names of previous Members of

the House of Assembly, and the minister is now standing, in his first minute of

speaking, and he's using names of previous Members of the House of Assembly.

You've already indicated that it's inappropriate, it's not acceptable, and I

would ask you to have the Member rise and apologize for doing so.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Before I

recognize the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, earlier

today I did discourage Members from referring to former Members by name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I did

encourage Members to use caution

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Earlier

today, I did caution Members to use caution when referring to former Members of

the Legislature, as they are not in a position to defend themselves against

remarks that are made by current Members of the Legislature. I ask the hon. the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment to caution himself in his remarks.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't

use the name, but the former Member for Terra Nova, who's a staff member of the

Leader of the Opposition, got on Twitter yesterday calling a Member of the

Legislature a clown for standing up for the hospital in Corner Brook. I might

add, to let the people know, during time paid by the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, under direction by the Leader of the Opposition who allows this

from his own staff.

The

former Member for Terra Nova I don't like getting into this but, Mr. Speaker,

I'm a firm believer you have to defend yourself. I remember when the coalition

of disabilities got cut $28,000, there was a poll and we had the emails. The

poll was stacked by the Members opposite.

Do you

know one of the Members that got involved with stacking the poll with the

coalition of disabilities? It was the Member for Terra Nova the Member for

Terra Nova. And he stands up behind some Twitter account, the Member for Terra

Nova now calling a Member of the House for standing up, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member for Terra Nova, I know you stand behind your Twitter and I know you're

out there now probably tweeting. The next time you see a person with

disabilities, go up and say: I stacked the poll against you because we did

enough for you, so I can keep my $25,000-a-year job as parliamentary assistant

to the minister of Health. Let's see how much courage you've got.

So if

you want to go out on your little Twitter box and criticize me, let's talk about

how you stacked the poll of the coalition of disabilities. Let's do it. Do you

know what he'll do, Mr. Speaker? He will hide again. He will hide.

For the

Leader of the Opposition to continuously disrupt me when one of his staff and

I can only assume it's under his direction. I'll tell you why I only assume it's

under his direction, Mr. Speaker. It is because he's doing it on his time while

he's in his office and he's the boss. Then the Leader of the Opposition stands

up so proper and prim, oh, we can't do that. Yet he got his staff out making

statements like that, Mr. Speaker, after me standing up on many occasions.

Mr.

Speaker, I didn't want to attack the former Member for Terra Nova. I don't. But

I can tell you one thing; I was at a meeting, myself and the Member for

Bonavista. We were at a meeting, and guess what? It was in Bunyan's Cove. Who

was there? It was the fire chief and the mayor.

They sat

down there, the chairperson of the LSD. They sat down and were talking about a

fire truck. Mr. Speaker, we were there. He said: We were committed a fire truck.

I said: What happened? Do you know what happened? The Member for Terra Nova, the

great soul who hides behind Twitter box, who stacks the polls against people

with disabilities, do you know what he did? The chair and the fire chief, they

said: We were on the priority list, top priority list. I said: What happened?

Do you

know what the former Member for Terra Nova did, Mr. Speaker? He said; When the

boundary changed, our priority dropped; we could not get a hold of him to speak

to him. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? I said: That couldn't happen. A former Member

for Terra Nova, he would never do something like that. I came back to the

department, Mr. Speaker, I said: Guys, look, here's an accusation that was made

against the Member for Terra Nova, a good church-going man, a good man who's

always around the community and everything else.

Do you

know what I was told? I know you won't believe it either. Do you know what I was

told, Mr. Speaker? You're right; it was a priority to be approved. The minute

the boundary changed, the vote in the House of Assembly came back and said drop

it off the list.

I ask

the Member for Ferryland who was the minister at the time, how far off am I? How

far off am I? When the former Member for Terra Nova wants to go criticize me for

standing up for the people in Corner Brook about the hospital, Mr. Speaker, be

careful who you throw stones at because people may throw them back.

I never

ever wanted to bring up this kind of stuff, but I'm not letting no one in this

province to call me a clown for standing up for the long-term care facility and

for the hospital in Corner Brook and radiation in Corner Brook, and I mean

absolutely no one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

The Leader of the Opposition

has to take responsibility for this because it's your staff. It's your staff,

Mr. Speaker.

Now, I'm

just going to get back now that we know what it is truly like with the former

Member for Terra Nova and if you don't believe me, go ask the chair and ask the

fire chief and ask other people about their fire truck and ask about the

coalition of disabilities, the poll that was stacked. We all know about that.

The former Member for Terra Nova, stand up and see someone with a disability and

apologize, which you should.

Mr.

Speaker, I have two minutes left; I'm going to talk about the hospital. They

were talking about yesterday the great work the former minister of Health and

the Leader of the Opposition taking on about the hospital in Corner Brook. I am

just going to read a few stats here, Mr. Speaker. I have a minute and 50 seconds

left.

Contract

awarded for the construction of the long-term care, 2007; 2008, progress made on

the new Corner Brook hospital; 2009, Mr. Speaker, two years later, site

announced two years to announce the site. In 2010, the residents of the

Western Region will benefit from health care funding not a cent. In 2011,

funding announced on the health care facilities in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker,

four years later.

Mr.

Speaker, in 2013, the Premier announces $227 million is for the new hospital in

Corner Brook none spent. In 2014, advancing health care is key for the

long-term care residents nothing done. Western Health received $3.7 million

for the enhancement of health care services no long-term care, no facility.

In 2015

before the election, approximately $2.5 million invested to enhance care

services in Western Region nothing done with the long-term care site or the

hospital. In 2015, the provincial government plans for the extension of

long-term care beds in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, eight years later. Here's the

AN HON. MEMBER:

Are we doing it?

MR. JOYCE:

No, we're doing it. We're

getting it done. Of course we're getting it done. Of course we're going to.

Mr.

Speaker, here's a request under access to information from that government when

they made seven, eight years of announcements, the Department of Health. Listen

to this, we asked the anticipated size and scope including the cost, detailed

cost of proposed facility to the Department of Health and Community Services. Do

you know what we were told in 2013, six years later? Here's the comment back:

The Department of Health and Community Services does not have any documents

responsive to your request. There was nothing done on the hospital or the

long-term care facility in Corner Brook.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

That is why I was such a

fighter for the hospital and long-term care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

pleased to be able to stand again and speak to the budget. Right now, we are in

the section, the sub-amendment to the main motion, and I'm very happy to stand

and have more to say.

Once

again, I want to focus on what the government is trying to do with this budget.

The Minister of Finance said in her Budget Speech that government is taking an

evidence-based approach to managing the province's finance. This evidence-based

approach has become another mantra of the government, as it has been a mantra of

the Liberal government in Ottawa too, Mr. Speaker.

So it's

very interesting when we use this phrase because, number one, one has to ask,

well, what is the evidence we're looking at, and what is the evidence really

telling us. I suppose we all can choose different pieces of evidence to make our

case, but I want to talk to some of the evidence that I believe should have been

considered by this government in putting this budget together, and I also want

to look at some of the evidence that I think this government needs to consider

as it continues to move forward. The evidence that I want to present is evidence

that's based in the reality of our society.

Mr.

Speaker, this government has moved itself in a direction that shows that it does

not understand and fully support the public nature of government. They do not

understand the role of the public sector, that we cannot have a strong economy

without also having a strong public sector.

This

government in the past, in its last budget, certainly attacked the public

service sector and now everybody is waiting on tenterhooks to see what's going

to happen with all the negotiations that I don't even know if they are really

going on yet. I don't know if government has gone back to the table with some of

the unions; maybe they have. I'm not up on that, but I know they certainly have

not been at the table. They say they have been, but they haven't been.

The

concern is their lack of belief that a strong public sector means a strong

economy. Economists will tell us that a strong public sector is an important

economic stabilizer, especially when the private sector's going through a rough

patch. Right now, in this province, we are going through a rough patch.

When I

spoke first to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out how we are in an economic

recession in this province and that we are going to be for the foreseeable

future. So keeping a strong public sector, keeping people working, keeping

services in place so that we have a healthy population, this is all part of

stabilizing our economy and keeping it strong.

That's

evidence, and that's what I call looking at evidence and talking about changes

that one is making or directions that one wants to go in, based in evidence that

is solid. This government doesn't recognize this evidence, apparently, because

everything that they've been doing is weakening our economy. Everything they are

doing is destabilizing our economy because they have been themselves attacking

the public sector.

that's one thing, Mr. Speaker. There's other evidence that we need to look at.

When I look at the budget, especially the budget that started because it

started last year in 2016 when I look at where this government is going, I

have to ask: What are they thinking when they take away dental care from adults?

What are they thinking when they take away the ability of people to be able to

afford to even see their doctor, to go to medical appointments?

How can

they be looking at evidence when we now have taxation on middle- and low-income

people that are really affecting them negatively, that's causing greater burden

on them we have more people who are having to go to food banks. How can they

be serious about evidence-based decision making when they have nothing in this

budget substantially to deal with the homelessness in this province?

Why do I

talk about all this, Mr. Speaker? Because all of these issues that I'm talking

about are called social determinants of health. Being healthy is not just what

you eat, although what you eat is determined by your income and determined by

the society in which you are. Being healthy is not just going out for a good

walk. Being healthy is also determined by things that we are part of in our

society.

We do

know that poverty drives up health care costs and poverty is one of the key

determinants of health. Poor housing is a determinant of poor health. We have to

look at the social determinants and we have to look at them from the perspective

of that's the evidence. That's the evidence that we have to be looking at in

determining what we're delivering in our health care system, in determining what

we're delivering in our community services, in determining how we are taking

care of people.

You see,

Mr. Speaker, this is what this government has lost sight of, which I find

surprising; I find very disturbing. They've lost sight of the fact that it's the

people of the province; it's the people who have to be at the centre of decision

making. It's the people and the good of the people in our province that have to

be there, that has to be the evidence that they're looking at.

If we

find that the income of people is going down, if we find that more people are

going to food banks and if we find that we can't afford to put enough resources

or are choosing not to put not enough resources into our educational system to

make sure that it works as an inclusion system, if we're not doing that, then we

are going to be hurting our people. Our people are going to become sicker. We're

going to have greater costs and that's the evidence I can't understand that this

government is not looking at. We will have greater health costs because of the

kind of budgets they are maintaining in this province. That's the evidence that

we need to look at.

Choosing

Wisely NL is a health care advocacy group. It's led by Dr. Patrick Parfrey who

is well known in our province, well known in the academic circles, well known

nationally, and I would say he's known internationally as well. He says that

fully 20 per cent of our health care budget is being used inappropriately,

mainly through inappropriate and unnecessary testing. Now this is very

interesting and I think it's something we want evidence to look at. This is some

evidence we need to look at.

We don't

have a health care system that is completely formed around prevention, helping

people to not get sick. It's a model that isn't working. The model we are using

is not preventing. The model we are using is dealing with illness as it happens.

Now I

know there are lots of things that are going on that are good. I'm not going to

say we don't have good things in our province and in our health care system, in

our education system. That's not what I'm saying, but if we continue with a

health care system that is not founded on primary health care delivery, that

that's the basis of the model, that it's not founded on prevention and

preventive measures, but we continually are pouring so much money into dealing

with acute health care issues, putting money into more and more tests, putting

money into more and more medication that may be not necessary either, then we

are going to continue to not have the money that we need to help people not get

sick. That has to be seen as part of our health care system, and that's evidence

we need to pay attention to.

So I was

disappointed this morning in Estimates when the Minister of Health and Community

Services didn't take seriously I thought, he may disagree the report of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. They proposed a systemic

independent review of our health care system to try to make the best use of

available dollars, and we support that idea.

This

morning the minister more or less said well, there's nothing new in their

report. Well, I saw a lot of new things in their report. I saw things that we

need to sit down and pay attention to. We're not going to help our health care

system by doing patch quilt things, by taking care of an issue here or an issue

there or an issue somewhere else. What we need is a health care system, the very

foundation of which shapes the health care.

If we

have a health care system that is founded on a model of primary health care,

community-based care, then we will have a health care system that will be

preventative when it comes to keeping people healthy. We will have a health care

system that will ensure that people are healthy and will actually save money in

the long run, but it takes long-term planning. It takes looking down the road

and saying it could be 10 years before everything is where we need it to be but

if we don't start now we'll never get there. This government don't know how to

do that long-term planning.

The

long-term planning they're doing is going to be digging a hole deeper and deeper

and deeper. We will have a recession that's longer than we would ever think

could happen because they haven't got a plan to do otherwise. They think they

have it, they talk about it that way but the evidence is not there. They

themselves, last year when they brought in their budget, said that unemployment

was going to go up. That it was going to go up anyway but it was going to go up

more because of that budget.

We know

the budget is also causing a rise in our cost of living; the only two things

that are moving upward in our province right now on the economic spectrum. They

talk about evidence based. Well, Mr. Speaker, the other thing that came out this

morning in Estimates was the whole issue of P3, the private, public partnerships

that this government is starting to use and to promote and to push.

We all

know the government has made P3 the route to take with the Corner Brook hospital

and the long-term care home. We also know that we can't get all the information

about what's going to be entailed, what that's going to mean for the province.

They say they have the evidence that P3 is the way to go, but, Mr. Speaker, the

evidence, both in our country and internationally, the evidence is there showing

that P3 arrangements cost the public purse more in the long run again, in the

long run than conventional government procurement.

Again,

government is showing their inability to do the long-term planning. They're

seeing the P3 arrangements and the minister said this morning they're going to

continue pursuing P3 as they look at other infrastructure that has to be

created, that they are using the P3 as an easy fix. They see it as a way of

dealing with their problems in the present but they're not looking at the long

term. It's in the long term you find that the P3 is costing more money for the

government.

The

government again, the minister said it this morning is using the phrase

value for money. We want value for our money and P3 is the way to go because

we'll get value for our money. There's no proof of that. There is absolutely no

proof that P3s are value for money.

One

example, the private sector cannot get loans at the same interest rate as

government. They can't, so more interest will have to be paid for the loans.

It's not going to be the private sector that pays that, it's going to be us. It

will be part of the money that this government will be paying to the private

sector in the building of the infrastructure they're planning.

The

bottom line for the private sector is making a profit. That's what the private

sector is all about. They will determine in putting contracts together, any

potential for loss is not going to be carried by them. We will be years paying

out the money to the private sector and never knowing what's going to happen

down the road. All because this government is looking for a quick fit, and it's

not going to work.

The

struggle against the P3s will continue in this province. I have no doubt about

it, but this government seems unable to hear what's being said and refusing to

look at the real evidence about P3s. It's really interesting the way in which

they determine the evidence that helps them with their decision making.

you're going to look at evidence then you have to look at all the evidence, not

just cherry-pick the evidence you're looking at. They want an easy way out and

if they want to balance a budget early down the road or earlier than they think

they were going to even a year ago, then you go for the easy fix. But going for

the easy fix is not the economic, smart way to go. It really isn't. And the

proof is there for that. The evidence is there for that.

It's the

same thing with the government's decision to charge ahead with the Muskrat Falls

Project no matter what the environmental risk and no matter what the eventual

cost to ratepayers. The part of meaningful evidence-based decision making

involves making that evidence available to the public.

Unfortunately, I'm not saying I mean government has said and the current head

of Nalcor has said that the evidence was there that we couldn't stop, we

couldn't slow down and we had to keep going with Muskrat Falls. But we don't

know the full details of the documentation. We don't know the full details that

they say is the evidence that was there for them to make this decision, just

like we don't know the full details of the P3 decision-making process that's

going on.

This

government continues to make decisions which they say are for the good of the

people of the province. They continue to make decisions based on evidence that

only they are holding in their hands and they continue to make these decisions

while the evidence is there that people in this province are suffering from

their decision making. Yet the people in the province are supposed to be taken

care of.

Our

educational system in terms of what's being offered in terms of meeting the

needs of children is going backwards instead of forwards. My colleague likes to

use the phrase that it's not the way forward, it's the way backwards. And that's

what this government there's evidence there for that. If they want evidence,

look at their economic indicators that were in their book called

The Economy . Look at the indicators

and the evidence is there that we're not moving forward, we're moving backwards.

Let's

look for the real evidence. If government really had the evidence that showed

that Muskrat Falls couldn't be stopped, if they really had the evidence to show

that the P3 agreement is the best agreement, then show us the evidence so that

we can also see the evidence that they're using. Show us the evidence.

One of

the things that are for sure and economists around the world will say this

that there's plenty of evidence that austerity simply doesn't work in times of

recession, yet this is what they've chosen, Mr. Speaker. Austerity is the

direction which they've gone.

I only

have a few seconds, so I want to quote the Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul

Krugman, who put it pretty succinctly, and this is a famous quote from him:

Every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer.

All of the economic research that allegedly supported the austerity push has

been discredited. It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to

get resolved this decisively. That's evidence, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the

government to look at that evidence.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to speak again now for the second time on the budget. I just want to

recap a couple of things, first of all, that I did say yesterday, just for the

record and anybody new who might be listening, at least my position on it.

First of

all, I'm going to say that I can't support the budget. I know there will be

Members that would say of course you're not. You're on the Opposition so

automatically that means you're not going to support the budget. I would say

that I don't feel that way at all. Quite frankly, I wanted to support the

budget. I was hoping I could support the budget. But given the fact that this

budget is really a continuation of the budget I couldn't support last year, how

could I possibly support it? Really nothing has changed, other than the fact

that we are going to see some reduction in the gas tax in June, but the levy,

all the issues around the levy and so on are still there.

A senior

who is struggling with increased home care, a senior who is struggling with not

having certain over-the-counter drugs covered, home care supplies covered, all

those things, a senior who is suffering like everyone else from the increased

taxes, nothing has changed for that individual as a result of this budget

compared to last year.

So, for

that reason, I can't support it. Had there had been some more significant

changes in terms of the degree of taxation and so on put upon the people, then

perhaps I could have supported it, but we haven't seen it. That's unfortunate

and, therefore, that's why I can't.

As I

said yesterday, everything in the budget is not bad. There are some good items

in the budget. There are some initiatives there that I support. I outlined them

yesterday. I think they were good and nothing has changed in that regard, so

there are some good things there. I'm not denying that and I'm glad to see some

of the initiatives that have been taken.

As I

said yesterday, I think the approach of zero-based budgeting is a good approach

to take. It makes total sense to me that, year over year, you should have to

justify the expenditures as opposed to simply saying because we did it last year

or the year before, we're going to spend the same this year. Making it so that

department heads and so on have to justify their spending year over year, to me,

is a positive thing and, as I said yesterday, I do support that.

Now,

there are a couple of things. First of all, my colleague just spoke to the issue

of P3s. While my colleague has said a number of things I have agreed with, in

terms of the P3s I'm really not sure what the issue is, to be honest with you. I

do understand concerns around P3s if we were going to be privatizing the

services themselves. In other words, taking health care, as an example, removing

public employees and privatizing it, I understand why some of my colleagues

would have a concern with that. I would have a concern with that; I would not

support that.

But in

terms of constructing the infrastructure, which is what's being proposed here

simply constructing that infrastructure, if there is a value-for-money

assessment done and it makes sense and it allows us to move forward because we

don't have the cash, it still allows us to own the facility and to pay it out

over time granted, we may have to pay more. It's no different than not being

able to pay for a house, cash down; you get a mortgage, you end up paying more.

We all know that. But if it allows us to get what we need and what the people

desperately need, and it makes sense and the cost is not outrageous, then as far

as brick and mortar goes, personally I don't have a problem with it. I don't see

anything wrong with that. That's how I see it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LANE:

But if we were talking about

privatizing the services, that's another discussion altogether, and I would

definitely agree as it relates to what my colleagues here have said, that I

would not support that.

I want

to put it on the record as I said yesterday, Madam Speaker, I'll put out the

good, the bad, how I feel about things, and I'm not taking one side or the

other; I'm just looking at these issues from how I see them and how I believe my

constituents see them. Knowing that no matter what you say or what position you

take, it's inevitable that everyone's not going to agree with you, whatever

position that is.

I think

one of the things that I would have liked to have seen more of in the budget is

some more initiatives in terms of economic development and how we're going to

grow the economy. We realize that for a long time we've been dependent on oil

and gas, and we still are. Quite frankly, the only reason why we're in a better

position financially this year versus last year is because the price of oil went

up beyond what it was forecasted and the production numbers went up. That was

really it.

Yes,

there was some I'm not saying there wasn't a few savings here and there with

zero-based budgeting. Obviously, we know there were services, as I outlined

earlier, that were cut and tax increases that I think we went too far with. For

me, it's not about people paying a greater share. It's the degree to which they

did it. Beyond that, it was really our fortunes in terms of oil and gas that

really improved our situation.

We are

still very dependent on oil and gas. That's a reality. Do we need to diversify

the economy? Absolutely! We need to lower our dependency on oil and gas

revenues. I think everybody realizes that. Now, is there a magic bullet that

will just automatically do that? No, there's not. It is something that's going

to take time. It's government's job to create an atmosphere, if you will, to

foster economic growth and development. That's government's role. I'm glad to

see we have seen some moves here; I don't think we've seen enough moves.

Quite

frankly, a year or two ago you will recall the LEAP program, the Liberal

Economic Action Plan. At that point in time there was a group that went out all

over the province and met with all these business leaders and captains of

industry as they were called and so on. They had all of these great ideas,

supposed to garner all these great ideas to diversify the economy. I haven't

seen a whole lot.

I would

love for the government to bring forward a document that says this is exactly

here is a document. Here's our LEAP document if you will. I've never seen a LEAP

document and say here's what we heard, here's what we're doing, here's the

results. I haven't seen it. I'd like to see that. We haven't yet, but we'll wait

and see.

There

are some things that have been done, some initiatives that I would agree with. I

think the fact that we're going to take more agricultural land and we're going

to develop that for farming, I think that was a good move. I would support that

for sure. I'm sure the people that are involved in farming; they feel it's a

good idea. I think there's a lot of opportunity there for sure and that's

certainly something I support.

I think

freeing open more Crown land for municipalities so they can grow their towns and

their communities; I think that was also a good initiative. Hopefully we will

see something come from that.

I think

we have opportunity, as we all realize, I think, in the aquaculture industry.

There's no doubt, that's an opportunity to grow the economy in a lot of areas, a

lot of rural areas, create jobs and so on. Although I would just caution that as

it relates to aquaculture, Madam Speaker, that it's important that as we're

doing it, as we're allowing these projects to go forward, that we do them

properly. That we make sure all of the proper due diligence is done in terms of

the environmental legislation and so on.

That's

why I was really surprised, and a little disappointed quite frankly, that we

moved forward with the Grieg proposal without going through the full

environmental assessment. I want to see these things happening if it makes sense

and it's not going to harm our environment. Like I said, it's going to create a

lot of jobs, a lot of wealth and we would all support that, but we do need to

make sure, like I said, that we're doing the due diligence.

Depending on who you listen to, you will get different perspectives in terms of

whether this is okay for the environment or whether it's not. There are two

opposing sides, obviously. While we want the jobs, without a doubt, we can't

just say because there are jobs, the heck with the environment. We cannot do

that. We need to make sure we do our due diligence. So if there's an

environmental process, we should take that process to the nth degree to ensure

it's done properly.

actually met

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

I actually met with people

from the aquaculture industry to try to get a feel for that and, quite frankly,

I was surprised to learn I was told by those people that they were surprised.

On the Grieg project they were surprised that they didn't go all the way with

the full environmental assessment. They were confident that had that been done

it still would have shown that the project is a good project and no concerns. So

they could not understand why you just simply wouldn't do it for the record, do

all the due diligence, get it out there on the books that everything has been

done and it's safe for the environment and so on. They were surprised that

wasn't done.

As I

said, I'm glad to see that

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

I'm glad to see these types

of initiatives, but, as I said, let's do the due diligence. That's all I'm

saying.

It's

amazing to me, Madam Speaker, that here I am actually supporting initiatives

that are going forward and I'm still getting heckled for supporting it. It's

mind blowing to me. I'm supporting it. I'm supporting the aquaculture project. I

am supporting it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

The Member for Placentia

West, he will have his chance

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

This is

the third time the Speaker has asked for co-operation of Members of the House.

If I speak any more I will names specific Members.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you for the protection

from the Member for Placentia West. I'll name him.

Aquaculture, there's an opportunity. Certainly, the fishery I think the

fishery is something that over the years I don't think we've paid enough

attention to it. We should have paid attention to it. I really think we need to

put more focus on the fishery. It's important that we all work together to try

to resolve some of the issues.

I did

write the Premier and suggested perhaps an all-party committee to look at some

of the issues. I would still maintain that that's something that should be done

so that we could talk to stakeholders and come up with a united front on some of

the important issues facing the fishery to advocate together, jointly to Ottawa

on. I still maintain that as well.

Madam

Speaker, as far as the Crown lands and the agricultural projects and so on go,

as I said, I think that was a good move. I think one of the issues that I've

heard in the past when it comes to raising our own beef and things like that,

that the issue we've had, while that's not growing is because of inspection

processes and the availability of federal inspection for meat and beef and so

on. That's something I think that should be looked into for sure.

course, one of the biggest opportunities we have in the province for growth is

tourism. I'm glad to see that we're continuing to go down that road to try to

promote tourism. When I was out and about last summer, up around the Northern

Peninsula area and Central Newfoundland and so on, there's no doubt, there's an

awful lot there to offer, but there were three things that I noted, at least,

from a tourist point of view, that we really need to be working on.

One was

the roads. Now, we all know there are issues all throughout the province with

roads. We know that apparently we have a new system in place now that's supposed

to take the politics out of pavement or so on, whatever the terminology is. It's

a matrix and so on. Madam Speaker, part of that matrix, if it's not there, needs

to be tourism.

I will

just use an example. We have Elliston the Root Cellar Capital of the World is

it, or is it just North America or whatever it is. Anyway, it's on the Bonavista

Peninsula; a beautiful spot. The Sealers Memorial is down there and so on, but

the road to go down there is absolutely brutal, to say the least. The road is

brutal.

If we're

going to have an area like that, that's going to offer that experience for

tourists and so on, then it is important that the road getting down to that

particular site is in good condition and that has to be part of

MR. JOYCE:

That's on the list this year.

MR. LANE:

The minister is saying it's

on the list. Good, glad to hear it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that

road is on the list excellent.

MR. JOYCE:

This year.

MR. LANE:

This year good, perfect.

I guess

my point is part of this matrix for roads and stuff like that has to take into

consideration tourist opportunities and so on, because people have to be able to

get there and get there safely.

The

second thing I noticed when I was around was signage. Signage to get to the

various tourist sites is not always great. Sometimes there might be a sign when

you actually get right down next to it, but there might be a bunch of roads

for example, you could see a sign on the highway or off the highway saying

certain tourist attraction, turn right. But you go down right and there could be

two or three turns, lefts and rights and everything else, to get to the actual

site and when you get down there, you can't find it because of very poor

direction. So another thing I think we really need to look is the signage.

Not from

our perspective. It's fine for us to say, well, we're from Newfoundland, we know

where these places are, but you have to put yourself in the mind of a tourist

who has never been here, has no clue where these places, these sites, are and to

look at it from their perspective.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

A lot of them, I am told by

the Member, that were there are blown down, so they need to be maintained.

That's obviously an important piece as well.

Someone

really needs to look at the signage to our main tourist sites from a tourist's

eyes, who doesn't know where they're going to, and ask themselves if I didn't

that fork that says go left or go right, or whatever, well then if I'm a

tourist, how am I going to know. I think we need to do that.

The

other thing I noted was the maintenance of the actual tourist sites themselves.

There are some really high-quality tourist destinations here in Newfoundland and

Labrador and there are a lot of them that are kept up very well. But there are

also a number of tourist sites, if you will, off the beaten path, that are in

terrible condition. I found a number of those when I was going down different

areas where you might see a sign or something and it said there was a sign or

whatever to a certain location. When you get down there, when you get down to

that site, you would note that perhaps the area not just the road but the area

itself, that the storyboards or whatever that were there were all marked up or

torn down; or there was a walking trail or a little bridge there that was all

beaten down; if there was a pull-in area with playground equipment, it was all

rusty, falling down and so on.

Now, I'm

not saying that we can maintain every single site in the province. Perhaps what

we need to do is take an inventory and say what sites are the major sites that

we can afford to maintain and make sure that those sites are in the best

possible condition. If we have other small areas here and there that are not

being used and are falling apart, then simply take down the sign altogether and

don't use it, but don't have a tourist drive for a half hour down through some

road to get down to something and it's all falling apart. There should be an

inventory done of that, and I think that would be another thing to improve from

a tourist point of view.

Madam

Speaker, I'm pretty much out of time. Those were just some of my thoughts. I

have 14 seconds left, so I'll say the other impediment to tourism is the ferry

system and the cost of the ferry system. I think that's something as well that

we need to all be lobbying to get those rates down so we can get people here to

our beautiful province.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to get up and speak on the budget. This is my first time rising on any

part to speak on this year's budget, so that's always a pleasure.

I guess

there are a lot of things I could discuss on the budget. It's almost like one of

them things, where do you start. The most telling thing about this budget when

it was first brought down we haven't had a lot of time in the House to debate

it since it was brought in, but a lot of people I spoke to, people were

expecting the worst and the worst never came. Everyone was expecting a really

harsh budget and, in actual fact, they never got what they expected.

essence, that cushioned the blow

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

Members for their co-operation, to keep the volume down.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Basically expectations were high on a harsh budget. When it was delivered,

people were generally pleased that it wasn't what they anticipated.

Strategy-wise, I guess that worked for the public backlash that you saw last

year, you never got it this year.

As the

days went on and, like I said, we weren't here in the House, as you start asking

questions and people were talking to it, the thing that came to mind to most

people, a lot of people I spoke to, was this is the same budget that was

delivered last year, with the exception of the reduction in the gas tax. Really,

you had a continuation of the 2016 budget.

As time

goes on and you talk to people, the more and more you talk about it, that's

become the story. It is like fair enough, it wasn't what we anticipated; yet,

it's still the same budget. So it's still not a good thing with the reduction

we have 300 new taxes implemented last year, fees and taxes, and this year we

have a reduction one of those 300. So 299 are still there and one is reduced.

Really, 300 of them are still there, with a reduction in one.

There's

no doubt, from the public perspective, it wasn't what they anticipated but it is

still not a good thing. Madam Speaker, I suppose I'll reference my own district.

CBS is the second largest municipality in the province. I know that a lot of

people sometimes don't realize that fact when they look at the two other cities

around us well, three, counting Lab City. CBS is a town, but it is the second

largest municipality in the province.

For

years, it was the fastest growing community in Atlantic Canada. I spend a lot of

time in my district obviously, I live there, but I do spend a lot of time out

around. I know a lot of the people. I converse with a lot from all different

walks of life. Everyone is telling me what they anticipated last year, this year

is coming home to roost, is that the economy is slowing down.

I have a

lot of contractors with the housing boom that was on the go, a lot of

contractors now are starting to find the pinch. Some never made it through last

year. A lot more this year are not sure if they're going to make it through this

construction season. No doubt, a lot of it is cyclical with the boom, but a lot

of it a direct result of the budgetary measures that's affecting each and every

one of us. If you're building a home or if you're out buying a vehicle, any big

purchases, there are a lot of people rethinking what they're doing financially,

based on the added costs in the budget.

I'll

throw one extra one out there too, and I guess a lot of people it's probably a

timely thing to bring up. The deadline for taxes was April 30. I've talked to

ever so many people and they said, they heard about the levy. We talked about

the levy for hours on end and around the clock, as we all remember, but this

year when they started doing their income tax they actually seen the effect of

the levy. Whether they did their own taxes, whether they went to H&R Block,

whether they went to an accounting firm, there's that separate form and it jumps

right out at you. It's the line item for that levy.

It seems

to me that, again, you say a lot of things and it doesn't resonate with people

until it actually comes to the actual they see it firsthand and they actually

go: Oh my God, this is what they've been talking about for the last year.

I guess

in comparison to it, it was a budgetary item but it makes when I thought about

that, the only comparison I could make was snow clearing, the 24-hour snow

clearing issue. I brought that up last spring in the House. At the time there

were some questions about it, debate back and forth and it stopped, but, as we

all know, when the snow started falling in December I was the critic and I was

promoting it but the public were promoting it just as much as me. The issue was:

Oh my God, this is what he mentioned eight months ago.

Well,

the levy question is one I found interesting because in my other life I am an

accountant, my background, so I do that on the side and I saw it firsthand. When

I saw it I went I seen it and I said it hurts when you're doing it and you can

see it actually on paper, but then when I went around and I went to Tim Hortons

and I went to various other places, and you run into this person and that

person, they're meeting a deadline and they actually say that's a topic they

say: I didn't realize that. I would have got a refund only for the levy.

So this

budget, again, no doubt, the way it was delivered and the people's expectations

were where they are, but the actual fact of the matter is it was just a

continuation of last year's budget. Most of the public are aware of that now. I

guess they've complained, they've cried out to the hills in the last year. So

that's why he's not hearing a lot about it now, but most of the public are well

aware of what they're facing and what they have in store for the next year.

On that

note, Madam Speaker, there are a few issues; there are a few areas I'd like to

go, but I'd just like to, while I got this opportunity, before I go back into

direct budget stuff, about my district. I know yesterday I heard Members getting

up, several Members getting up and thanking the volunteers for last week being

volunteer appreciation week.

In my

own District of Conception Bay South, we hosted the 2016 Summer Games last year.

I wanted to give a shout out to the volunteers from my own district. We had

upwards of 600 volunteers step up to the plate and made the 2016 Summer Games

the success they were.

Without

volunteers, as anyone can attest to with those sorts of events, they would not

be possible. Those events would not happen. I just wanted to be on record as

giving them a big thank you on behalf of our district. Because what they've done

and the work they've done, each and every one of them, not only what they do in

other walks, all our community organizations, but for everyone to come together

for those games it was great to see. I commend each and every one of them.

Madam

Speaker, another budget item and we hear about it, it was a news item two

weeks ago it's the Adult Dental care program. I know my colleague, the critic

for Health, has brought it up on the floor many times and it's been talked

about, but that's a tough budget item to that's a tough issue to deal with.

Because on one end of it your policy and the budget don't allow for it, the

program is no longer there. On the other side of it you have some seniors that

are struggling just to survive. They don't have that extra money to be able to

get this work done. It's not cosmetic. Most of it is very essential.

It was

two weeks back we saw it was a lady who was brought it was in a local paper.

She actually protested out on the parking lot. I was quite familiar with that

lady personally. She lives in a neighbouring district, but me and my colleague

for Topsail Paradise, both of us had dealings back and forth with her. That's

quite a sad story. She's eating pured food, losing weight. She's in dire need

of this surgery which costs $20,000 out of her pocket. She can't afford it.

That was

one of the casualties of the 2016 budget. Again, I understand you find savings

but some of those savings you have to a lot of it doesn't make sense

unfortunately. Then you see people like that, our seniors, some of our most

vulnerable people who are in need of this service and the money is not

available. I think that's a continuation. There's no change. That was 2016. Here

we are in 2017 and those same issues are with us. That lady was only the

poster child for that issue was the bigger issue. I have had other people in my

district come to me about that same program cut, same similar issues, and

they're being deni