PDF Version

April 9, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 3

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Trimper)

Admit strangers, please.

Order, please!

I'd like

to welcome all the Members back to this House of Assembly, and, as you can see,

we have several guests today that I would like to introduce.

First of

all, in the Speaker's gallery, I'm very pleased to welcome Ms. Judy White. She

is the chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commissioner, and

with her is the Executive Director, Carey Majid. They are joining us this

afternoon for a Ministerial Statement.

A great

welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Fresh off a tour in this

House of Assembly, and I understand a great lunch of pizza, we are very pleased

to have joining us today in the public gallery, Ms. Nadine Ryan's grade seven

social studies class from St. Paul's Junior High.

Welcome

to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to thank and

express my appreciation to all the Members who are wearing blue ribbons today.

This is in recognition of the fight against lamellar ichthyosis, the Blue Ribbon

Campaign.

Thank

you for your co-operation.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Mount Pearl

North, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main, Cape St. Francis and Harbour

Grace - Port de Grave.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize a former resident of Mount Pearl North for her

impressive accomplishments.

remember Dr. Cheryl Laite as a young girl who would come to the farm every day

to brush my grandfather's horses. To say Dr. Laite is now a practicing

veterinarian in Ottawa is an accomplishment in itself, but she manages to juggle

this role with her position as an active firefighter in the City of Ottawa as

well.

Now, if

you're considering the time management involved with these two roles, Dr. Laite

also spends six to eight weeks a year working at a not-for-profit wildlife

conservancy in Kenya. A recent news

article highlighted Dr. Laite's care of

Sudan, the last male northern white rhino in the world. Last year, she helped

him keep comfortable in his old age. Unfortunately, Sudan died on March 19,

2018, a month after Dr. Laite had returned to Canada. However, later that year,

she returned to the conservancy to continue her service and care for the animals

there.

Mr.

Speaker, shamefully enough, the rhino is still hunted for its horns throughout

the world, something that has always troubled Dr. Laite.

I ask

all Members present to join me in recognizing and thanking Dr. Cheryl Laite on

her outstanding accomplishments and selfless dedication to preserving species at

risk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

delighted to congratulate Joseph Butler on being inducted into the Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador for his contributions to this province as a radio

pioneer and a philanthropist.

Joseph

Butler became involved with VOCM after the death of his father, Joseph L.

Butler, who worked with the radio station's founder, Walter B. Williams. Joseph

followed in his father's footsteps and expanded the radio station into rural

areas of the province, offering crucial information to those who previously did

not have access to the news.

addition to his broadcasting achievements, Joseph contributed greatly to various

charities across the province through the VOCM Cares Foundation, which has been

giving back to communities for 40 years.

In 1991,

Joseph was awarded honorary life membership in the Atlantic Association of

Broadcasters. In 1992, he was named a Paul Harris Fellow and inducted into the

Canadian Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame.

I ask

the hon. Members of this House to join with me in congratulating Joseph Butler

on receiving the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, on March 16,

2019, I had the honour of attending the St. Patrick's Day celebrations at the

Star of the Sea in Holyrood. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize

and thank the volunteer executive.

February 2, the Star marked its 117th anniversary, and has for many years been

the hub of community-based activities in the Town of Holyrood. The Star of the

Sea has always supported the good work and concerns of seniors and local

churches. It also serves as a beacon for a town that embraces such a wonderful

mixture of development with rural attraction and interests.

A very

special mention and salute to President Bryce Noble, 1st Vice-President Robert

Kieley, 2nd Vice-President Patsy Myette-Noble, Secretary Terry Smith, Treasurer

John Byrne, Public Relations Bert Murphy and Grand Marshall Ann Marie Marrie.

This

being volunteer week gives me a great opportunity to thank all the volunteers

and members who have devoted their lives to the improvement of others while

keeping our towns vibrant.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to thank the Torbay Lions Club for another successful

year. The Torbay Lions Club is just five years old and has 14 members. They have

been very active in the community and the surrounding area.

I had

the opportunity to attend their charter meeting on February 25 and was amazed

with all the community activities the group is involved in. Some of those

activities include: the Holy Trinity Elementary breakfast program; the Holy

Trinity High scholarship awards program, which they donated $1,000 to, as well

as a $1,500 donation to the Juniper Ridge Intermediate library. They took

part

in the Santa Claus parade, volunteered at The Gathering Place, contributed

donations to the food drive, provided financial help to individuals in need of

assistance with medical and sporting needs and much more.

The

Torbay Lions Club presented a donation of over 200 hats and headbands to the

Janeway hospital, made by some wonderful volunteers.

I ask

this hon. House and all its Members to join with me in thanking the Torbay Lions

Club for another hard year of work and dedication.

This

being National Volunteer Week, I would like to thank all the great volunteers in

this province.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I

would like recognize Peter Hiscock of Spaniard's Bay. To many people, Peter was

a hero. He was born in 1986 with an extremely rare genetic skin condition called

lamellar ichthyosis that would last his entire life. His skin would grow 14

times faster than average and would shed every three days. As a result of the

disease, he did not have sweat glands, which also created discomfort.

In spite

of this challenge, Peter was happy, determined and curious, like most children.

As he grew older, he made it his mission to promote awareness and education and

provide support for other people living with the rare condition.

Peter

created a Facebook page, Ichthyosis Awareness NL, where he posted documents and

videos. He also had a tremendous love for cars. He frequently attended car

shows, where he also promoted awareness. One day, Mr. Speaker, at a show, he met

a little boy who is living with the exact same condition. Peter became a strong

support for that child and his family.

Through

States and the United Kingdom who are also living with the disease.

Peter

Hiscock recently passed away at age of 33, surrounded by his family and loved

ones, but his work of creating awareness and support will live on.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to congratulate Ms. Judy White,

QC, on her recent appointment as Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Human

Rights Commission.

Established in 1971, the Human Rights Commission is

responsible for investigating written complaints of alleged violations of the

Human Rights Act, promoting the act, conducting education and research designed

to eliminate discriminatory conduct and advising and helping individuals,

groups, organizations and governments on matters related to human rights.

Ms. White is the first Indigenous woman appointed to the

role of Chair of the Human Rights Commission. Currently residing in Conne River,

Ms. White is a Mi'kmaq grandmother and member of the Flat Bay Band. I would

note, Mr. Speaker, in order to be here today, she left Conne River just after

4:30 this morning. She has a Bachelor of Laws degree from Dalhousie Law School

and specializes in Aboriginal

Law.

Ms.

White has vast board and governance experience and has served many agencies in

various capacities, including the National Centre for First Nations Governance,

the First Nations Statistical Institute, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network

and the Board of Regents of Memorial University.

Mr.

Speaker, the Human Rights Commission ensures that each and every resident of

Newfoundland and Labrador is afforded fair and equitable treatment in all

aspects of their lives. Given Ms. White's knowledge and experience, I am

confident she will contribute significantly to the commission and our great

province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy. All Members of this side of the

House join the hon. minister on congratulating Judy White, QC, on her

appointment as chair.

The

Human Rights Commission plays a critical role in our society in investigating

complaints, providing advocacy to groups and individuals on various matters

pertaining to the Human Rights Act. As the minister noted, Ms. White, QC, is the

first Indigenous woman appointed to the role of chair of the Human Rights

Commission.

Ms.

White, QC, is a Mi'kmaq member of the Flat Bay Band, with extensive experience

in Aboriginal Law. Her impressive CV includes having served as the chief

executive officer of the Assembly of First Nations, and she is currently the

assistant deputy minister of Intergovernmental and Indigenous Affairs

secretariat with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All

Members on this side of the House join with me in wishing Judy White, QC, every

success in this important work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. Our Human Rights Commission is one of the most vital tools to

ensure a fair, just and equal society for our people. It is there that our

people can be heard and seek justice. It is one of the foundations of our

society.

Judy

White, QC, an incredible Indigenous woman, who brings a wealth of experience and

knowledge and expertise, who is willing to lead our province in ensuring that

everyone has access to fairness, justice and equality, there is much to

celebrate.

Judy

White, thank you for stepping up. Brava!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize April 7 to 13 as National Volunteer Week.

This

year's theme The Volunteer Factor – Lifting Communities, highlights the

exponential impact of volunteers and how they lift their communities. Our

province's volunteers also lift our spirits and contribute to our well-being.

Here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, 46 per cent of our residents volunteer at an average

of 151 hours a year. This incredible statistic clearly shows us the true sense

of selflessness and passion shared by our province's volunteers and community

sector.

Our

communities are vibrant and stronger when volunteers get involved. Their

guidance and caring has made a difference in so many lives. To all of our

volunteers, you should be very proud of your accomplishments. Your kindness and

support continue to have a monumental impact on children, family and seniors in

every aspect of their lives.

It is

especially appropriate during National Volunteer Week that the contributions of

volunteers are both recognized and celebrated. Please accept our heartfelt

thanks to all volunteers for your ongoing efforts, work and dedication.

This

morning, I enjoyed breakfast with the Vera Perlin Society for their annual

volunteer appreciation event and I am looking forward to participating in other

events across the province throughout the week.

Mr.

Speaker, I have often said, volunteers do not get paid, not because they are

worthless, but because they're priceless.

I invite

all Members of this hon. House to please join me in congratulating our

province's volunteers for the invaluable role they play in our society.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. All my colleagues on this

side of the House certainly echo the minister's comments. We certainly want to

acknowledge the volunteers and the work that they do throughout our province.

Volunteers are an integral part of our communities and this is an excellent week

to show our appreciation for that.

I'd like

to comment on they're priceless – there's no doubt about it; they're priceless.

Actually, the stats that were presented are a little surprising because I know

and I guess everyone here in this House knows of some people that put in far

more hours than the average. This is what lifts our communities up.

It's

great to rise here today and show appreciation for our volunteers, what they do,

unselfish, charitable work that they do to keep our communities running and I

want to thank them for their generosity and for their enthusiasm in all that

they do.

Thank

you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. Volunteers indeed are priceless. Bravo to the legions of unsung

heroes who make our communities better in countless ways. Especially in these

uncertain and tough economic times, volunteers are stepping up in their

communities, making them more resilient, creating environments for sustainable

jobs, tourism and more. Volunteers are making life more bearable for the many

people struggling, for seniors, young working families, children, instilling

hope.

To all

our volunteers, thank you for your vision, your passion and compassion. Bravo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

we'll have to keep the dramatic content of Question Period high today if we're

to encourage the young observers in the galleries to come back for more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

The Code of Conduct requires

Members of the House of Assembly to respect the law – and I'm quoting – and the

institution of the Legislature and acknowledge our need to maintain the public

trust by performing our duties with accountability.

In the

face of this ethical duty, the Premier has hinted that there will be no

discussion and no questions on the budget.

How can

the Premier square this with his ethical obligation to promote accountability?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, I will guarantee you that my Code of Conduct and the transparency

to this House of Assembly will be intact. What I do, however, say is that I will

not put this House of Assembly or the people of this province in a situation

where they would go into an election without having an accountable record of the

financial affairs of this province.

Mr.

Speaker, we faced that in 2015. It was the previous Tory administration that on

September 26, when I wrote them a letter, failed to answer that letter giving us

an update or giving the people an update. Subsequent to that, I look forward to

having a discussion when I get more time with the next question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's

answer might be reassuring, except that he hasn't said that he intends to give

the House the normal 75 hours of debate and questioning.

The

Premier last week shut down the House for a week in order to shield his bogus

Accord deal from accountability in this House.

How can

the Premier deliver an $8 billion budget while shutting down Question Period,

Estimates scrutiny and legislative debate and still comply with his ethical

obligation to respect the institution of the Legislature and promote

accountability?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, once again, I'm

not going to get down into the dirt and the mudslinging that I'm seeing from the

Leader of the Opposition today.

Mr.

Speaker, just look at the individual opposite right now, as I look at him and we

look through you, and just to see the smile on his face. Well, I will tell you,

there is a concern for me for the last 3½ years from people in this province who

are still reeling from the financial situation that the Tory administration left

this province in.

I don't

find this at all funny, Mr. Speaker. This is not funny. We have taken this work

very seriously. We've put in place a plan to put this province back on track.

That plan is working, Mr. Speaker.

We will

be bringing forward a budget next Tuesday that we will put to the people of this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, this House has

reached a sorry state when the government can reproach a questioner for raising

an ethical issue and calling it: down in the mud.

The

Premier told Open Line Monday that

three of the issues arising from the scientific consultative process around

methylmercury contamination are resolved. One of these issues is the

compensation fund.

What is

the amount of the compensation fund and where will the money come from?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, once again, I

want to remind the people of this province, when we talk about the Independent

Experts Advisory Committee, the reason why, number one, that committee was

formed in the first place, this came out of concerns of methylmercury in the

Lake Melville reservoir, which is as a result of flooding at the Muskrat Falls

project.

Let's

not forget, that prior to 2010 or 2011, there was a report from the Joint Review

Panel that talked about this very issue. The work wasn't done in pre-planning

like we were told it was, Mr. Speaker, by the Tory administration who sanctioned

this project.

This,

once again, was another issue that we were left to fix. We put in place the IEAC

and those recommendations which I'll get a chance to speak to in a few minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Just as a factual issue, Mr. Speaker, it was the federal government that was

supposed to do the preparatory work on the methylmercury preparation, not the

provincial.

haven't heard an answer about the compensation fund amount or where the money is

coming from. Will the amount of the compensation fund cause the estimated cost

of the Muskrat Falls project to exceed the budgeted amount of $12.7 billion? If

not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, right now based

on the work that has been done by the CEO Stan Marshall, we've been able to put

this budget on track since June of 2017. If you remember, we saw escalating

numbers and numbers that weren't shared through the former PC administration.

They weren't shared with the public.

Once

again, I go back to September 26, two things that I asked for was a financial

update on the affairs of this province. This is back in 2015. The other thing

that I asked for, prior to the election, was an update on the Muskrat Falls

project. None of that information was provided by the PC administration at the

time. Not only did they not provide it to me, Mr. Speaker, but they didn't

provide it to the people of this province.

We,

indeed, put in place an Independent Expert Advisory Committee. They did some

work and they came back with four recommendations; three of which we have had

consensus and one of which we will be discussing with our Indigenous groups in

the next few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Again, no answer to the

question.

Mr.

Speaker, what the people of the province want is ownership of problems, not

history lessons. Will the amount of the settlement with Indigenous people –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

– and Lake Melville residents

around methylmercury cause the Muskrat Falls project to exceed budget? That's

the question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, Mr. Speaker, there's no

reason to believe it would exceed budget. But the Leader of the Opposition and

the current Leader of the PC Party just said something which I think is a little

profound, which means talking responsibility. Added to that, you should take

responsibility for the actions of your party.

I'm

asking right now, since he's made the statement to take responsibility, does the

PC Party, the Leader of the Opposition, take responsibility for the failed

Muskrat Falls project which leads to, by the way, even though your Members may

disagree with the fact that it's a fallacy that rates would not double, everyone

in this province knows as a result of this project, left unmitigated, those

rates would double – so I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Based on your first

comment, do you take responsibility for the Muskrat Falls project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We all know that I get to ask

the questions and the Premier is meant to give the answers, which seldom

happens.

However,

I'll say this, we have taken responsibility. We have taken ownership with our

plan to mitigate Muskrat rates and we haven't seen yours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Will the Premier explain to

the House why his government will not dedicate the $160 million yearly from his

agreement with the federal government to Muskrat Falls rate mitigation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it

seems to me that we have the Leader of the PC Party now that's looking for some

of that Accord money which he thought last week was fake. So here we go, Mr.

Speaker, here we go, there's a PC Leader, then, who wants to spend all the money

they can just like they did prior to 2015, making decisions which may not be

sustainable.

This is

an accountable crowd over here. We have put this province back on track, but

still he didn't answer the question about responsibility for Muskrat Falls,

which I thought was a little interesting.

I want

to remind the people of this province that the plan to mitigate rates in this

province is 17 cents. Why won't you be transparent, fix your plan, you've

double-billed $150 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the $160-million

yearly that we're told we're getting is money, but compared to the $22 billion,

which has resulted from the Premier Peckford Atlantic Accord, it is cucumbers.

The

Premier is scheduled to present –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CROSBIE:

– to the Muskrat Falls

inquiry on July 4 and 5, which we now know will be after the election. He said

yesterday that he's eager to explain his role. I understand there are a number

of dates during the last week of April and May where no public hearing is

scheduled.

Has the

Premier asked to move his date up so he can testify to the people of the

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand up and answer this question, as the inquiry, and most inquiries,

do fall under the mandate of the Department of Justice and Public Safety.

What I

would say is that we were extremely lucky to have someone of the calibre and

capability of Justice Richard LeBlanc handle the inquiry, and he has also quite

capable staff there, as we can see by the recent elevation of one of those

individuals.

What I

will say is that it's my understanding that all planning for the inquiry,

including witness testimony, is done by the commissioner and his staff, and

would be at their request.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the Minister of

Justice for that lesson in how inquiries conduct their business, but I'm sure a

request from the Premier would be treated with due deference.

The

Minister of Natural Resources is scheduled to present to Muskrat Falls inquiry

on June 13, which will likely be after the election.

Has the

minister asked to move up that date so that people can hear from her?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I will stand and

answer this question as the minister responsible for inquiries, as I just said

approximately one minute and 30 seconds ago, inquiries are led by the

commissioner, and the commissioner would set the timelines for witness

testimony. Again, all people that would be requested to stand in front of that

inquiry will do so at the timeline that is requested by the commissioner and

staff.

What I

would say is this, and this is just my personal opinion, I can guarantee you

that everybody on this side would love to get up and stand and talk about that

inquiry, but I'm not sure about the Members on the other side.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Autism Society has had its funding frozen for many years by this

government. Now, facing significant financial crisis, the society is considering

laying off staff and cutting services.

Given

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the highest rates of autism spectrum

disorder in this country, why is the minister sitting by and allowing this

uncertainty for staff and clients?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, what I can say

to this hon. House is we certainly value the work of the Autism Society in this

province, in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a government, Mr. Speaker, we provide

about $500,000 in funding. We have no intention of cutting that funding. We

continue to maintain our commitment.

Just

recently, Mr. Speaker, my department provided an extra, around $30,000 for

various smaller programs to the Autism Society.

Mr.

Speaker, we are one of several government departments that comprise an Autism

Action Council across departments and we will continue to work with them to move

forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Autism Society provides services to some 300 clients every week.

These services range from developing better social skills, finishing school, to

finding a job.

Why is

the minister not supporting them in the endeavours that they put forward?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, for the opportunity to answer this question.

Part of

my mandate letter and part of our undertaking when I took on this portfolio was

in conjunction with my colleagues across a variety of departments to develop an

Autism Action Plan. We have been actively engaged with the Autism Society of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities and a wide

range of stakeholders.

That

plan has significant fiscal challenges and, as a result of that, requests have

been submitted through the budgetary process. The budget will be delivered by my

colleague next Tuesday and I think the populous will be pleased with the results

of our hard work over the last four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, my colleagues and I on this side of the House continue to hear example

after example about individuals living with autism and an IQ of more than 70

being denied services.

When

will the minister do the right thing and ensure that these individuals are not

falling through the cracks?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue of constraints around the access to services for people on the autism

spectrum was part of the work of the Autism Action Council. That will be

referenced in any plans that we bring forward, and, as I say, that will be part

and parcel of the budget process and that's being delivered next Tuesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

not only families with autistic children that are impacted by the lack of

services arising from the IQ 70 policy, but also families with adult children.

These moms and dads are getting older and very concerned about what will happen

to their sons and daughters when they are no longer able to care for them.

What is

the minister going to do to help these families?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As part

of broader approach to the delivery of home supports and home care, we are

moving very much towards a functional approach and an individualized approach.

So it will not matter what your diagnosis is, it will not matter what your

specific IQ may or may not be, you will get the services you need provided, if

possible at all, in your home, certainly in your own community, to match your

needs with the resources that you need. That is part and parcel of not just the

Autism Action Plan, but also the entire thrust of home support, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, both the minister's mandate letter and

The Way Forward referenced developing a provincial autism strategy

and supporting persons with autism.

Mr.

Speaker, on the eve of an election, will the minister commit to ensuring that

the services are provided for people who need to avail of these services?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, it is our aim to

always provide at every opportunity the best quality and the right care from the

right person in the right place at the right time.

The

Member opposite is just as keen as a lot of other people to hear about our

Autism Action Plan. It's coming. The budget is Tuesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, there's been a lot of families and a lot of individuals fall

through the cracks for the last four years with no strategy put in play.

While no

changes to the eligibility criteria for admission to personal care homes have

been made, the guidelines for regional health authority staff have changed.

These guidelines were distributed to assessors for personal care homes in August

and September of 2018. Since then, assessors are telling us that many seniors

who would've previously qualified for admission to personal care homes are no

longer eligible.

Once and

for all, can the minister explain this assessment process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue of eligibility for a personal care home is based on criteria that were

established by the former PC administration and dates back at least to 2011.

Those have not been changed. The RHAs have been asked to ensure that these

standards, these criteria are used uniformly in the same way. So it doesn't

matter whether you're in St. Anthony or Burgeo or Ferryland, you get the same

assessment.

If the

Member opposite is aware of some individuals who he feels have fallen through

the cracks or not been assessed appropriately, it is his job to let me know, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Well, I can reassure the

minister that in the previous administration there were a number of other

seniors who did qualify for personal care home sponsorship.

Mr.

Speaker, we are hearing that more seniors were denied in 2018 than in 2017;

fewer than nine seniors in 2017 and more than 40 seniors in 2018.

Would a

senior presented with loneliness, anxiety, fear of living alone be eligible

today for admission to a personal care home?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

I think it's important, Mr.

Speaker, to correct some of the flow of misinformation that comes from the

benches opposite. There have been no changes to the criteria. People are still

going into personal care homes with government-provided subsidy at a similar

rate – in actual fact, a slightly higher rate than they have in previous years.

There

has been no change in the criteria. Subsidies are available and, really, it's

serving no one's interest for the Members opposite to generate fear and panic

when they come up with these nebular stories about people who have fallen

through the cracks.

they've got people who they know or they feel have not been served well by the

system, it is their job as elected representatives to bring those to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

not putting fear out there; these are real people who are facing real

experiences, with family who are facing trauma around this.

Mr.

Speaker, this is not what we're hearing from families and personal care home

operators. How can the minister and this government justify the Newfoundland and

Labrador seniors who are experiencing anxiety, stress, depression and loneliness

that their needs are not great enough to warrant admission to a personal care

home?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, my department is

aware of three people who we have had names and IDs and consent supplied who

their Members felt that they were assessed inappropriately. Every one of those

three has been dealt with and has been reassessed and is where they wish to be

with government support, if that's what they wanted in the first place.

So the

Member opposite if he has knowledge of individuals and he is keeping it from me

for his own ends, he's not serving the interests of his constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

guarantee you if we had knowledge of a senior who needs to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

– avail of a service, we will

guarantee it that we'll reach out to every department necessary for them to get

that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

But I'm glad the minister

brought it up, because, Mr. Speaker, in that vein, recently a 103-year-old

senior in this province was denied access, not once, but twice to a personal

care home. The reason, no physical care need, until the MHA applied some

political pressure with the senior now looking to be put into a home, who was

previously being taken care of by an 86-year-old family member. This is

disgraceful.

Why does

it take political pressure to ensure a 103-year-old senior is getting the care

they need and deserve?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, obviously it's

not possible to speak to individual circumstances in this House. The tradition

has been on both sides of the House that we do not make reference to individual

circumstances.

What I

can say, however, is that those individuals who have a case that they have been

inaccurately assessed, those who have come to our department, we have looked

into those circumstances and they have been managed to their satisfaction, Mr.

Speaker.

Mental

health and physical health in our department are equally important, and they're

actually recognized in the old criteria as well as work we are doing in

consultation with the personal care homes about what we might do better in the

future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our

point here is that we shouldn't have to have politicians get politically

involved in these cases. Policy should reflect the proper access to proper

health care, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

In that vein, a 90-year-old

couple who have both survived cancer, with one of them also surviving a stroke,

were also denied admission. Reason again, no physical care need. And again, with

political pressure these seniors were approved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

We have many more similar

examples.

Mr.

Speaker, when will this government demonstrate a caring, responsible attitude to

our seniors and reverse the guidelines that are denying many of our vulnerable

seniors access to personal care homes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, these

guidelines, these criteria were put in place in 2011. I would draw that to the

Member opposite's attention. That was four years prior to this government taking

over the role of governing and looking after health and community services.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, we have had three cases with ID and consent that have been brought

before the department. They have been resolved to the satisfaction of the

individuals concerned and their family members.

It is

all well and good to bring up these mythical cases if there is no ID. I would

suggest the Member opposite –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAGGIE:

– is simply fear mongering

and bringing this out at a time when he thinks he can gain some electoral

advantage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part

of the Immigration Action Plan under The

Way Forward government contracted Goss Gilroy Inc. to contact and survey

expatriates. This was completed over a year ago in the spring of 2018, yet the

results have not been released.

Mr.

Speaker, will the minister explain to the House why he has not released the

report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to take the opportunity to say congratulations to the students from St. Paul's

who are here today visiting with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

The hon. Member is correct;

we have received a report from Goss Gilroy on the expat survey that we announced

last year. We're still working on that in the department. It will be coming very

soon.

The

province, as we know, has met much anecdotal information that was kicking around

this sphere. We wanted to make sure we had evidence-based reporting. The

opportunity has come that we contracted a supplier to do that and we came

forward with that information. It will be released in due course.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, Goss Gilroy has

been paid tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to complete this survey, yet

government refuses to release the findings. There have been studies done in the

past on this. The common reason expats leave and don't come back is that cost of

living, high taxes and the lack of long-term, permanent employment. Perhaps

government is being told loud and clear that these remain the reasons.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he trying to hide by continuing to hold

this report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you very much for the

question.

I'd love

to stand and talk about immigration in this House, considering the fact that the

previous administration cut the guts out of the department when they were in

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

We've stacked that department

up now. We've got first-class individuals providing services to the people of

this province and newcomers. The numbers don't lie here, Mr. Speaker. The facts

lay within the numbers. We have 1,525 individuals that are calling this province

home today; 25 per cent more than the previous year; 25 per cent more than the

year before that as well; 25 per cent year over year.

Growth

is important. We are doing things right. We are continuing to move forward on

this. We've released three additional years to the action plan (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, in 2014,

government environment officials recommended to reject Eagleridge's bid to

explore for gold in the Avalon Wilderness area. Yet, the then PC government

overrode that decision. Then the Liberal government made such a hash of it, a

Supreme Court judge ruled that the mining company could go ahead, despite the

fact that there was no rigorous environmental assessment.

Eagleridge will destroy one of the last pristine wilderness areas on the Avalon

Peninsula and there will be no getting it back.

I ask

the Premier: Is his government going to stand idly by and pretend they can do

nothing while this mining company has its way?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell the hon. Member that the environmental process was followed in this

project, and it was found to be released.

We do

have people out there, and I understand some of them were in the House there

just last week, who don't agree with our decision. Our decision is based on what

we've heard from the courts. We have followed due process and the right process

and this project is proceeding in an environmentally friendly manner.

If we

get to the point where further development is required, in the mine or

otherwise, a full environmental assessment will be done.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, it is not being

done in an environmentally friendly way, and their own government environmental

officials said there was a problem.

While

the 11-kilometre exploration road for the Eagleridge gold mining project is bad

enough, it pales in comparison to government permitting Eagleridge to do four

years of devastating exploration drilling in and around two pristine watersheds

near the Salmonier Nature Park and the Hawke Hill Ecological Reserve.

I ask

the Premier: How can he allow this irreversible, destructive process with no

environmental review?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Mr. Speaker, we have

officials within the Environment Department who are monitoring this project on a

continuous basis. We have found no deficiencies in what was approved for this

project. The project did include a road and some exploration work.

Again, I

will say, Mr. Speaker, they are following the guidelines that were released.

This project was released under several conditions, of which we are monitoring,

and we can confirm that they're being followed.

Again,

if further development is required in Eagleridge, then a full environmental

assessment will be done.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, it's too late

for the devastation that's happening right now as we speak. To date, no analysis

has been done of the economic and social benefits of the Avalon wilderness area

and watershed over the long term.

I ask

the Minister of Environment: Why does government assume the short-term

environmentally devastating and limited returns of a gold mine makes better

sense than long-term benefits of this rare, pristine wilderness area and the

Salmonier Nature Park, which is loved by all?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Mr. Speaker, again, I will

say that nothing is happening in this project that is outside of what was

approved during the process – nothing. They are following – and it's being

monitored on a continuous basis. We see no deficiencies in the project. The road

has been completed. The drilling, as approved through permits, will continue.

Again, I

will say, if any further development is required on this project – and that is

clearly stated in the conditions, and they have several conditions to follow

regarding the nature park – they have to stay within certain distance and that's

being adhered to.

Mr.

Speaker, again, if we need to get into further development and if a gold mine

happened to result from this exploration work, a full environmental assessment

(inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The

minister's time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for Oral Questions is

over.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I was asked a question about the contingency fund. Mr. Speaker,

there's been less than $20 million of the fund utilized. It was utilized for

three purposes: emergency housing through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing,

children in care and judges' salary and benefits.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS

legislation was amended in 2012 allowing the regional service boards to charge

cabin owners for a garbage collection service; and

WHEREAS

it has been the view of a number of cabin owners that the service wasn't

required; and

WHEREAS

the Eastern Regional Service Board has implemented a cabin garbage collection

service on the Avalon that is viewed as an intimidating tax/fee collection

policy while other boards were very much more accommodating.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to re-examine the Newfoundland and Labrador Waste

Management Strategy with particular emphasis on the legislation and an

implementation plan that considers all stakeholders and takes into consideration

regional disparities.

Mr.

Speaker, this petition itself, I think we all agree in this House of Assembly

that the health and well-being of the ecosystems and the environment is

important. That's a given. We also understand that the Newfoundland and Labrador

Waste Management Strategy is necessary.

I've had

a number of discussions with cabin owners in my district, along with my

colleague from CBS, and it is evident that there is a void and some confusion

being created. Much of the confusion has been created by correspondence and

directives from the minister responsible, which basically brought a halt to some

of the collection and created uncertainty.

Cabin

owners have many questions: When will they get their refunds? What's the

definition of unserviced roads? What about those who have incurred legal fees?

What about cabin owners who want the service? How will other places be affected?

I had

the opportunity to attend the Eastern Regional Service Board's meeting this past

weekend, they have questions. How do they continue to provide the same level of

service? How do they deal with subcontracts that are in place? How do they carry

out the strategy's mandate? The decrease revenue creates concerns, and I don't

want to offend the minister opposite, this is their words not mine, they use the

term a knee-jerk reaction by the minister.

The

bottom line, everyone values our environment and we see the need for a strategy,

but we need clarity and a definitive direction on that information, and, most of

all, they want to be included in the process. All parties have a stake in this

and would like to have their opinions considered.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment, for a response please.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What an

opportunity. I met with the chair, the vice-chair and an employee of Eastern

Regional Service Board yesterday, following their meeting on Saturday of which

the Member says he attended. We have a plan in place that we are working

together.

We met

yesterday, as I said, and we decided on a plan going forward .These issues were

raised, they were raised with me yesterday. Whether it was a knee-jerk reaction

or not, I'm not going to get into that foolishness, but, anyway, going forward,

I'm not looking back I'm looking forward.

The

chair is in place, Mr. Mullowney, and the vice-chair who is Mayor Breen, Mayor

Mullowney and Mayor Breen, as I said, we have agreed that the best way forward

on this is to work together to put a plan in place. They have until June 30 to

come back to us with a plan of action, how to implement (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

If I

could have the Members attention. It has come to my attention that there is an

issue in the West Block. There is a leak and they will be closing the West Block

shortly. I would ask all Members just to confer with your staff, if there's

anything that you need from that building, you may want to obtain it now.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

No, we're going to be fine.

We'll continue.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

stand on the petition for the hospital in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JOYCE:

WHEREAS the successful

proponents for the new hospital in Corner Brook are scheduled to be announced

this spring with construction anticipated to begin in the fall, and as this is

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

local tradespeople and labourers in the area;

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

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

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

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

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

every evening.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I have names here from all over: Holyrood, there's a Glovertown

here, St. John's, Colliers, Spaniard's Bay. So this is all across the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I heard

the minister stand up yesterday and talk about the infrastructure program for

seniors, for the long-term care facility in Corner Brook and others that are

going to be – and that's great news. I'd just like for the minister, if

possible, to take it to the next step, to encourage and make sure local people

are hired on this major project in Corner Brook.

We look

forward to the project in Corner Brook. It was 2007 when it was first announced,

12 years ago. To have the construction to start and to have it announced is

going to be a great endeavour by this government that started this back in 2015

and made a commitment to have it done. And I'm proud of that, Mr. Speaker, and

I'm proud to be part of that back in Opposition and in government.

What I'd

like is to do what we can to get local people hired. This is for all western

Newfoundland, not just the Humber - Bay of Islands area. As I said before when I

spoke to several of the union halls, there are people even out as far as Baie

Verte, the Northern Peninsula, out Port au Port area, Port aux Basques area, a

lot of local people, tradespeople and labourers, would love to be able to work

in the area so they can go home to their families, so that they can spend time

at their home, and they are well-qualified, well-trained tradespeople and

labourers that can do the job.

So once

again, Mr. Speaker, I ask all ministers who have any role in this here with the

companies that are in the running for the – there are two left. I encourage them

all to ask them to hire local people, because I know last year it was supposed

to be done and it wasn't done. I just want to make sure that government is well

aware of it this year. I'd love to see it done before the election, so that they

can have great news – and I don't care if it's election bait, I don't care, as

long as we can keep those people home for fours' years, I'd be a happy man, and

I would applaud the government if that's done before the election.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, we always do what we can to

ensure that Newfoundland workers and Newfoundland companies are winning the

contracts and getting the jobs on our construction sites. We've had a very

successful infrastructure plan as a government. We continue it.

Just

this morning the Premier was at the Heavy Civil Association and announced some,

I think it was $120 million in municipal capital works this year, Mr. Speaker.

I was

very happy today actually, Mr. Speaker, because we have big-scale projects, but

I was extremely happy today to see the Winterton fire department receiving a new

fire hall. This being Volunteer Week, it's very important that we give our

volunteers and our volunteer firefighters in this case good equipment and good

buildings to work with, Mr. Speaker. So, I was very proud this morning that

under this year's municipal capital works program, the community of Winterton is

going to receive a new fire hall.

That

benefits the economy as a whole, because you have local workers, you have local

businesses supplying the materials.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

These

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

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

Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and gender identity clinic in Toronto; the

wait time for an assessment at CAMH is approximately two or more years; in

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

referral processes, in addition to increasing coverage and funding for

gender-affirming surgeries; without adequate MCP coverage these surgeries can

cost thousands of dollars; the Department of Health and Community Services is

already engaged in investigating an in-province assessment and referral process;

long wait times for gender-affirmation surgeries often contribute to prolonged

gender dysphoria and worsened mental health; among transgender youth age 14 to

25 in Canada, 65.2 per cent considered suicide and 36.1 per cent made at least

one suicide attempt in the last year according to a 2014 trans youth health

survey.

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

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

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

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

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

covered to better reflect national standards.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I spoke to this petition yesterday and I asked the Minister of Health

to respond to it. I do know that the wait times for an assessment at CAMH, in

fact, have reduced somewhat. However, again we are the only province in the

country that still requires CAMH as the sole source for assessment. Ontario

doesn't even do that.

Mr.

Speaker, it's been too long and I ask the minister to stand and respond, to let

us know precisely what it happening. How long will the trans communities and

their families and their partners have to wait before the assessments can be

done in province? We know that there are experienced health care providers with

the expertise who are qualified to do these assessments and the legislation that

allows them to do so has not come to the House, although we have been asking for

it for years.

Once

again, I ask the minister to stand and to respond to this, to tell the people of

the province exactly what he's doing and what is the time frame. Will we see

this happen before the next election? Simple question, Mr. Speaker, and it is my

hope that the Minister of Health will respond.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been

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

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

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

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

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

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

failure to ensure adequate staffing at all those facilities.

THEREFORE we

petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes the mandatory

establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term

care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing persons with

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

order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene

care and all other required care. This law would include the creation of a

specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention as

required to ensure the safety of patients.

Now, Mr. Speaker, today's

petitions – every one of them actually are residents of Centerville. We're

getting these petitions from all throughout the Island. When I presented this

petition yesterday and the minister responded, as he has on other occasions,

yesterday, basically, his response was that people in long-term care homes,

staff and so on, are offended by the fact that these petitions are being

presented. That somehow it's saying they they're not doing their job.

I want to clarify, once again,

this is not about that. This is about saying that there is not necessarily

adequate staffing on these Alzheimer and dementia units at all times. That's

what the petition is saying. It's not saying the people there are not doing job,

it's saying there are not enough of them ;

there are not always enough of them there for various reasons.

It's

also important to note, this is not my petition. This petition was developed and

circulated by advocates for senior citizens' rights. The first time it was

presented, there was over 6,500 signatures, the first batch. Since then, we've

continually been presenting them. The Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi

has numerous petitions as well from them that they want presented.

So, when

we present petitions here in the House of Assembly, it's not about us presenting

petitions. If you're saying that this is fear mongering, if you're saying it's

untrue, if you're saying it's insulting, then you're saying it to the people who

created the petitions and the people who signed these petitions.

You're

not hurting me by saying it. I don't care what you say about me, couldn't care

less, but, at the end of the day, it's the people that are bringing these

forward, who are asking Members of the Opposition to bring these forward, who

you, Sir, are insulting by saying that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reason

for the petition: The government now requires Regional Health Authorities to

strictly enforce a policy that requires all applicants being assessed to have a

physical care need to qualify for admission to a personal care home. Seniors

with issues such as anxiety, depression, fear of falling and loneliness are no

longer eligible. Many seniors who would have qualified just months ago are now

being denied access.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to revise the policy on personal care home access.

Mr.

Speaker, we've had the discussion a number of times in the House of Assembly

around policies that are relevant to taking care of our seniors and putting them

in an environment that's conducive to their needs, that addresses their

particular physical needs, but also their mental health needs around anxiety,

depression and fear, to ensure that families have less turmoil and can feel less

stress when it comes to their loved ones being taken care of.

There's

been a lot of debate around the particular policy, and we're not arguing that a

policy, if fully enforced and if taken by the pure letter of its

interpretation,

may indeed force people out of that. What we're saying is the practice – and

practice has been there – and policy for a period of time around ensuring that

it wasn't only your physical restrictions that would dictate your access to a

personal care home, and the provided services that these professionals provide

in a loving, caring, inclusive, engaging, social environment, while at the same

time, protecting our seniors because of the programs and services and the

structure of these facilities.

What

we're saying here is, that for a number of years, the process worked. There was

no reason to change it. There was no reason to fix something that wasn't broken.

There was very minimal complaints when it came to access. The process was being

accessed and determined by financial assistance officers, by the assessors, by

social workers in a number of cases, to ensure that these people would have

access to a service that would be conducive to a better quality of life and a

dignity within their life.

Mr.

Speaker, we have to take into account, nobody goes and says: I want to leave my

home. We all agree with home first but anybody who makes the decision that they

want to leave and go into a personal care home does it based on a reasonable

understanding that they can get a better quality of care based on their aliment.

Their aliment, in some cases, are physical, but in a number of cases where

they're being denied, it's now based on mental health, it's based on anxiety,

depression. It's based on fear.

So, to

do justice here, and to really take care of the vulnerable sector, we need to be

able to go back to a policy that was working, Mr. Speaker. It was working and we

fixed something that didn't need to be fixed.

Mr.

Speaker, we will be speaking to this again and I appreciate your attention on

this.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think

it's important just to lay out here again in the relative calm of petitions,

there has been no change to the criteria that are currently employed. These are

the ones that have been in force since 2011. They do include provision for

consideration of mental as well as physical care needs.

We are,

as is asked for in the petition, reviewing the guidelines and the policies.

Indeed, I had a meeting this morning with the Quality Living Alliance personal

care home group that represent personal care home operators. These are at draft

stages, a lot of to and fro and very active discussions.

Just for

reference, subsidies are still being provided for those who have care needs and

are eligible. There is currently no wait time for any subsidy outside Central

Health where the wait time is currently 2.5 months, same as last year.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, I call Orders of the

Day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend the Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 3, and I further move that the

said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance

Act, Bill 3, and that the bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill entitled, “An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act,”

carried. (Bill 3)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second

time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the

Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Insurance Companies Act, Bill 6, and I further move that the said bill

be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded

that the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, Bill 6, and that the said

bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of

Service NL to introduce a bill entitled, “An Act To Amend The Insurance

Companies Act,”

carried. (Bill 6)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second

time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 6 read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper,

Order 2, second reading of Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Fogo

Island - Cape Freels, that Bill 1 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act

To Amend The Environmental Protection Act.” (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my absolute pleasure to stand in this

hon. House today to speak to Bill 1. I've been waiting a long time for this day,

since I assumed the Municipal Affairs and Environment portfolio. With this bill,

we are proposing to amend the

Environmental Protection Act so that we can begin drafting regulations to

ban the distribution of retail plastic bags.

Today, we are taking the first step in

banning the bag. We believe that a ban on these bags will protect the

environment and improve the waste management system. Every day we see another

media

article about the problem of plastic waste in our oceans, in our ponds,

turning up in seabirds, in sea life and littering the landscape. Plastic bags

are very lightweight, very thin, and we've all seen them blowing like a flag,

and wrapped around a tree in the middle of what is otherwise a green, natural

setting.

Mr. Speaker, I have to pause here and give

you a personal story. I have a tree in my front yard with two bags sitting in

it; one that's been there for six or seven years, and you still see the threads.

It's still not fully gone, parts of it are still there. I have one there that

blew in there last year and it's like brand new. If I got up and took it down, I could take it

back to Sobeys and put the groceries in it. So, Mr. Speaker, what we're saying

and what we're seeing is actually real.

roadside litter audit by the MMSB in 2016 showed that plastic bags constituted

less than 6 per cent of the waste stream. So we have to keep that in mind. It's

less than 6 per cent of the actual waste stream. But for us, the bags are a very

visible reminder that we have a problem, and we are not alone. Plastic waste is

an issue that is affecting every corner of the world.

The

Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment has continued to work on the

issue of plastic waste, including bags, with the other provinces and territories

and the federal government. I sit as the representative for this province on the

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and, together, the council has

approved, in principle, a nation-wide zero plastic strategy, as committed in the

Ocean Plastics Charter. I can assure you that Newfoundland and Labrador will be

thoroughly involved in the development of the supporting action plan and will

continue to work with the council to decrease the amount of plastic waste in our

environment.

address the broader category of packaging, we are working with the

Multi-Materials Stewardship Board toward establishing an extended producer

responsibility, otherwise known as EPR program, for the management of printed

paper and packaging as a long-term strategy. We are working toward recycling

efforts and making waste disposal easier and more efficient for people.

Just a

few months ago, we called a full review of the provincial Waste Management

Strategy to look at how we are disposing of waste across the province. Ms. Ann

Marie Hann, former clerk of the Executive Council, is currently engaged in that

review, and we anticipate it will clue up in December 2019.

Mr.

Speaker, we have all heard the calls to ban the bag from municipalities,

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and, in fact, seven municipalities

within Newfoundland and Labrador have gone ahead and put in their own municipal

ban. We've also heard from the average resident. I have personally been in

with stakeholder organizations, a public engagement process had never been

undertaken on the issue of the bag until we launched consultations from March

5-27.

Mr.

Speaker, we received the most feedback on the engageNL site that's ever been

received on the platform. Over 3,000 public submissions, including 160 written

submissions, show that 87 per cent of the respondents supported a ban of retail

plastic bags.

It is

important to recognize that the amendment of this act does not constitute an

immediate ban of the retail bag. Amending the legislation is the first step and

it allows us to facilitate a ban through the regulations. People need not worry

about being immediately impacted; it can take a few months to get used to

bringing their reusable bags when they go to the store. I might add, Mr.

Speaker, that through those consultations we have seen that many people are way

ahead of us and many people are using reusable bags as their means of grocery

shopping.

So while

it may take six to 12 months to fully implement the ban, that should not stop

anyone from beginning to reducing their use of these bags right away. Businesses

can begin looking at offering alternatives and many of them have, and residents

can start getting used to bringing useable bags along to the stores.

We have

always felt that a provincial ban of the bag was not something to be taken

lightly. Multiple departments and entities have been working on this issue for

many months. Coming to the decision to ban the bag has not been a quick process,

but we wanted to ensure due diligence was done before we move to ban any bag.

As we

have said, we are sensitive to the effects that this ban might have on

businesses and industry. We have met MNL, waste management organizations,

business stakeholders and producer representatives and we will continue to do

that as the regulations take effect. This amendment will allow us to draft

regulations that take into account what we heard in consultations about how to

do it so people and businesses will be least impacted.

drafting the regulations, officials will take into account how long businesses

and industry will need to adjust to the change, what types of alternatives

people will have available instead of the plastic retail bags, whether to

require a fee on alternatives to limit their overconsumption and required

exemptions.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill is relatively straightforward. The consultations we just

conducted demonstrate the strength of conviction from Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. They do not want plastic bags to be distributed at retail

locations. The amendment seeks to make that legislatively possible. It will

ultimately decrease plastic waste in the environment and ensure this province

remains the beautiful and unique place that it is.

I'd like

to have a few minutes to highlight some of the issues that came forward in the

consultation process. I know when we implemented this consultation, there was a

lot of kickback from many people that consultations weren't required, go ahead

and ban the bag, we're wasting time, we're wasting money, we're wasting

resources to do a consultation; but, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you we heard a

lot of information through the consultation process. I can guarantee you that

the information that we've gathered through the consultation will inform us in

developing the regulations going forward that will allow this ban to be

implemented.

everybody knows, we did the consultation from March 5 to 27 and we held public

consultations on whether a distribution ban is the best approach to reduce waste

plastic bags and the factors to consider if a ban were to be implemented.

A total

of 2,845 questionnaires where completed through the engageNL forum.

Additionally, the department received over 120 written submissions directly

through mail or email. We want to thank those people who took the time to fill

out the questionnaire, to do the survey or to send in a written submission. I

can guarantee you that the information that was provided will be used, it was

very useful and it will go a long way to help us develop those regulations in

the very near future.

Some of

the things that we received, of the 2,845 individuals who responded, for

instance, 95 per cent of them identified themselves as being a member of the

public, some were representatives of businesses or a member of an environmental

organization, community organization, industry association or business interest

group, municipal government, less than 1 per cent provincial government or

regional service board.

The

majority of the written submissions were from individuals, but submissions were

also received from Municipalities NL; the Professional Municipal Administrators;

Restaurants Canada; Restaurant Association of NL; the Council of Canadians, St.

John's chapter; the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Industry

Association; the Retail Council of Canada; the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business; World Wildlife Fund; Stewardship Association of

Municipalities; Clean St. John's, individual municipalities and individual

businesses.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that we received a lot of feedback from

a lot of organizations and individuals, and many organizations that are

certainly directly impacted by such a ban. I can honestly say that these

organizations are much in favour of a ban, but they want time to make sure that

it's implemented properly. We'll certainly take that into consideration when

we're developing our regulations.

The

majority of the respondents, 71 per cent, identify themselves as residing within

the Avalon region of the province and 63 per cent were between the ages of 19

and 50 years old, so we have all kinds of information. If you go on the engageNL

website, where the document exists, you will see where the different

representation came from.

I think

the survey showed as well that a lot of people are already engaged in this

initiative. As we know, a lot of people are concerned about the environment and

what plastic does to the environment. There were some who felt that probably we

didn't go far enough with the plastic bags, we should go to other forms of

plastic, or other plastic material, or other plastic –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Straws.

MR. LETTO:

Yes, that's it.

Right

now, Mr. Speaker, we're restricting this legislation to plastic bags. We think

that's a good first start and the reason being, I guess, because we toyed with

the idea of including other plastic issues as well, but we decided that we would

stick with this because the questionnaire and the survey was geared around the

banning of plastic bags. So, we felt that if we need to move ahead and move

further with this, that further consultations should be and would be necessary.

As I

said, we asked: What was the preferred approach to plastic retail bag use

reduction. As I said, 87 per cent agreed that we should have a provincial ban on

the distribution of plastic retail bags. So, just not to confuse people, the ban

that we're proposing is a ban on the retail use of plastic bags. That's the one

that you get if you go to pick up your groceries or other material, other

outlets that may use these.

There

was a lot of concern as well from some of the respondents that, well, the

reusable bags, they had concern there was no plastic for wrapping meats or fish,

but there will be other plastic material available at the checkouts to ensure

that there is no contamination from one product to another. So that's not part

of the ban.

Again,

one of the other issues that came up and was a big concern for us was the fees,

what we would do, if we would do fees at all. While respondents were highly

supportive of a provincial ban on plastic retail bags, fewer, 66 per cent agreed

that there should be mandated fees to purchase the alternatives and limit their

overconsumption. That's the point, if we were to implement fees, that would be

the point of implementing fees would be to – it's not much point of banning one

product if we're not going to try to restrict the use of another one. We want to

make sure that one doesn't cause another problem. I think most people understood

that.

If fees

were to be implemented – and we gave the respondents, we gave the people we

surveyed some options on what they thought was a reasonable fee. The average

suggested an effective fee to pay for a paper bag to reduce the overconsumption

was 38 cents a bag and the average suggested an effective fee to pay for

reusable bag to reduce their overconsumption was $1.68.

Now, we

know that in PEI, for instance, they're bringing in the ban on July 1, and for

the first year their charge will be 25 cents per bag and I think it's a $1 for a

reusable bag. After the first year, into the second year, that goes up to 50

cents and $2, respectively. So, whether we'll follow that, these are things that

we will decide in consultation with the retail outlets and the other

organizations that I just previously mentioned.

One

thing was interesting, respondents were not in agreement on who should keep the

revenue if we were to implement a ban; 42 per cent of respondents thought that

it should be the retailers because they are the ones that have to provide the

alternatives. Actually, 32 per cent thought that it should go to government and

the remaining 26 per cent of the responses were varied. There were different

ideas, including the use of fees for developing recycling programs, initiatives

to reduce waste, initiatives to mitigate climate change and environmental

damages, to give to environmental or community charities or organizations, to

give to waste management regulators or service providers, or that the revenue

should be split between the provincial government and the retailers.

These

are all things that we have to decide as we develop these regulations. We have

started work already on developing regulations, knowing that the support is out

there to bring in a ban. One of the things we asked as well in the survey was

what would be their suggested implementation date. We have second reading here

today. Hopefully, we'll get to Committee, then to third reading and then the

bill has to be finalized, and then we'll have to develop the regulations. That's

going to take some time but not a lot of time.

Anyway,

we think that – and the respondents agreed – a period of six to 12 months would

be reasonable to have the ban in effect, that would be the drop-dead date, sort

of, of being able to purchase plastic bags at retail outlets. That will give

time for people to adjust, it would give time for the retail outlets to get rid

of their present stock and it would be time to allow them to have alternatives

in place. We looked at other jurisdictions that have implemented a ban already,

most of them go with the year. We think that may be reasonable, but it's

something that we'll certainly discuss with all the stakeholders.

Mr.

Speaker, that's where we are today. As I said, this is the first step toward the

implementation of a ban on plastic bags. I look forward to the debate that's

going to follow this. I look forward to hearing from the Opposition as well. I'm

sure they'll have questions that we can, hopefully, answer in Committee. I look

forward to being able to implement this ban as quickly as we can because the

people of the province have clearly spoken that it's something that they need.

As I said, many municipalities, and especially those on the North Coast of

Labrador, my colleague for Torngat Mountains, many of them have been doing it

for years, so this is not new.

There's

only one other province that has implemented a provincial ban. We would be the

second province to do that. I think it's very proactive and something that we

should be doing, not only because it's the right thing to do, but it's the right

thing to do for the environment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to get up and speak on Bill 1,

An Act to Amend the Environmental

Protection Act and the banning of the plastic bag, which is something that our

leader called for and I know my colleague from Mount Pearl North proposed doing

some petitions to caucus on this issue as well last year, I guess, so he took a

great interest in this bag issue.

It's one

of those issues that, for the most part, we had 80 per cent of the population in

favour of banning plastic bags, reusable bags, yet everyone was talking about

it, everyone was making the conversation, they were showing pictures; you'd see

these pictures down by Robin Hood Bay and out around in the woods; you'd hear

stories of birds choking on plastic bags; hooked in trees. It was unsightly. It

needed to be banned. Why don't we ban them? Why don't we use more creative – why

don't we stop? There were a lot of conversations and I think, for the most part,

everyone agreed with it. Like I said, when the word was out there, this was an

issue that we had 80 per cent of the population in favour.

So, we

did some news releases. Like I said, my colleague from Mount Pearl North was a

strong advocate for it and we spoke out on it. So then about a month back, I

guess, we asked questions here in this House. I asked them as critic and the

media also asked questions of the minister at the time and we were told we

needed more consultations, which is fine. I just struggle with why we needed

more consultations when the verdict was in – from what we could gather – that

people wanted action on this initiative and get the wheels in motion to bring in

this ban.

We had

the consultations for a really short period of time; it was probably a

three-week period. As the minister stated, we had 2,845 individuals respond to

engageNL. There was overwhelming response. We knew that before this consultation

would have been asked for that people wanted the bags banned.

I guess

the question then arose: Why are we having more consultations when we know what

the people want? So now we're here today and we're bringing in a piece of

legislation, we encouraged this, we're on record, we wanted this plastic bag ban

and we felt it was time for it. Our wild ocean, our fishery, a lot of things are

being affected by these unsightly – and they're unsightly, there's no doubt, but

there are a lot of other things in our environment. That's one of many things,

the reusable plastic bag, a lot of plastics are bad for our environment. This is

a step in the right direction.

We're

bringing in a piece of legislation that all we know is we're going to ban the

bag. We're going to open up the

Environmental Protection Act and we're going to insert these two clauses

with a piece of legislation that's pretty, as you can tell – it's not a lot of

detail. There's not a lot to it. But there's no regulation, there's no

information, there's no – other than the fact we're going to ban the bag; that's

all we have.

We don't

have any implementation date. It's going to take six to 12 months. Exemptions

and prohibitions of the sale and distribution of plastic retail bags, we don't

know what's exempt. I mean, I read the PEI legislation, which was copied

basically from Victoria, so I guess basically everyone is keeping consistent

with the other. Listed off some exemptions are for loose items, food safety,

medications, dry cleaning, some bulk items, to protect prepared foods, these

sorts of things. They are brought in by Cabinet after the fact.

Again,

it's fine to say you have a ban, but there are no details with this. We support

a ban. I want to make that crystal clear, because anyone who gets up on the

opposite side and will question what the Opposition supports, we support a ban

and we've called for a ban. But we also like to get details. The general public

wants details on these sorts of things. What's involved, what's exempt, what's

not exempt, who can use it, what are the rules? Some of these will be explained,

and some of them already have been explained. And we went, actually, yesterday

morning and the minister's officials provided a good briefing, and I thank them

for that. They did a very good job and we asked lots of questions and we got

some good information. Yet, we're left with a lot of unanswered questions, but

they'll all show up in the regulations.

What

will be the fines? Now, it is clearly written fines in our environmental – if

you violate the act. They're clearly written for your first offence, if you're a

corporation, second offence. First offence if you're a non-corporation,

individual. But I have some concerns with that, of course, is that when we're

talking about these reusable plastic bags, the concept is fine to ban the bag,

but what about the small retailer, the mom-and-pop shop? So are these fines

going to be applied to this mom-and-pop shop if they're caught using a plastic

bag?

Now, I

know the rules when it comes in place, they're supposed to abide by them. I hope

everyone does, and I think most people will. But you're bringing in a piece of

legislation and you're going to have right now until so – are there going to be

different fines? Now, we will get to Committee and there'll be a lot of

questions we can ask, and I will ask those questions. But there are lot of

things, how deeply it was thought out, who consulted with them. I represent CBS,

obviously, which is a farming community. I have a lot of farming kiosks on the

side of the road, farmers markets, and that's part of CBS. Anyone that's from

around this area drove through CBS when the vegetable season is alive and well,

there are a lot of people backed in, that's the vegetable markets.

They use

plastic bags. So, again, I'm not talking about phasing them out. I am in favour

of a ban, but were they consulted? So they're going to reuse these bags. So we

got a ban at the purchase, we got a ban in the stores, suppliers and retailers

are not going to be able to use these bags, but what about in our Robin Hood

Bay, in our landfill? There's no ban there, because these bags could still be in

circulation for many, many years to come.

What

about food banks? Food banks struggle to survive, because we know the recent

fire, the public outcry and public support, obviously, from our community to

bring them back. But there are a lot of smaller groups; they're not Loblaws or

they're not Sobeys, they're not these chains. They're the small operations,

they're community groups, they're flea markets and the list goes on. These bags

are very commonly used. Were they consulted with in their consultations; did

they have an input? And part two of this is going to be the fact we're going to

be charging a fee at the checkout.

So,

right now, you go into Walmart – I'll use Walmart as an example – you can go

into Dollarama, I know there's a few places around, they're charging you for the

plastic bag. It's a deterrent and I get it, and I got my own personal opinion on

that because I believe that it's either one way or the other; you don't have the

bag or you have the bag, free of charge, or you don't have the bag. This

charging a fee for a bag – anyway, that's my personal opinion; I don't get it.

But

right now, for eons and generations in Newfoundland, we went to every retailer

and we never had a fee. You went and you purchased something with no fees. They

give you a bag, paper, plastic, whatever you chose, they give you a bag with no

fee associated. Now you're going to implement a fee of – it's 30-something cents

for a paper bag, I think a dollar or something minimum charge for a reusable –

and I use reusable bags. We use plastic bags at home for various reasons, you

recycle them that way, but we use recyclable bags most times. But you're going

to bring that concept in that people are going to be charged a fee.

So the

revenue's going to go to the retailer. But right now, today, most retailers

don't get to charge for that bag. That's a part of doing business. It's

absorbed, they are charging for it, it's in what we buy off the counter, off the

shelves, it's all marked up and it's blended in to your cost of your purchase.

But now we're going to have it showing up on the cash register receipt as a fee.

Like, I

have concerns with that and I think a lot of people would have some concerns

with that concept because we are banning the bags, which again is good, but

we're going to replace it with a fee, a fee for paper bags. I don't really know

how that's going to fly in the general public, but I guess that will remain to

be seen.

I want

to go back, I think there are a couple of points in this legislation because

there's not a whole lot in the bill, other than we're opening up the

Environmental Protection Act ,

but the issues that are concerning to me are: What exemptions are we going

to have? What will be the exemptions?

When I

looked at PEI, they have some clearly wrote out. What is the implementation

date? When are we starting this? What are you going to constitute as a bag? What

is going to be exempt? What is going to be not exempt? What sizes? All sorts of

questions.

What's

going to be the cost to store owners? What are you going to do in place of it?

What about these famers markets? Everyone has to be creative, I get it, but

there are a lot of unanswered questions.

One of

the things that I suppose occurs to me is, I can't help but feel, even though we

supported this ban, I can't help but feel this is a rush to get something done,

check the box.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

I guess that answers my

question, Mr. Speaker, I guess I just hit the nail on the head. That's exactly

why it's being done.

Three

weeks ago in this House I stood in my place and I asked the Minister of

Environment about the plastic bag ban and he weaved and he dodged and he weaved

and he dodged. He never gave a clear answer, other than consultations. He went

out and he faced the media and he told them: I love consultations, I believe in

consultations. Much to the chagrin of a lot of the media people because they're

like: Why? What are you consulting for again? Now, I just asked the question

about checking the box and through their laughter and the heckling I guess I got

my answer. That's exactly what it is, Mr. Speaker.

You can

say when you go to the polls next week or the week after, whenever we're going

to do this, we know it's close: We brought in the plastic bag ban. Okay, so what

are your details? Show us some details. We don't have any of that done. We got

the ban in, we'll figure that out later. We got the ban done. When is it going

to be implemented? We don't know, we got the ban done.

That's

what you're faced with. What's exempt? No idea. What's the date? No idea. What

about the fees? No idea. Who did you consult with? We don't care, we already

done that. We got the ban in. There's no meat on the bones, Mr. Speaker.

Regulations are fine. This is regulated. Even the implementation date is

regulated.

Now,

I've seen legislation come through this House in the last four years, and we get

the guts of the legislation and some regulation will come at a later date. We'll

ask questions in Committee and, for the most part, we'll have our questions and

concerns, but we'll get to the point of, okay, we'll find a happy medium. There

are some details that will be worked out later. We'll ask enough questions.

We're satisfied most times, probably not all, but most times.

This is

one of those ones, as much as we support this ban, we have a lot of questions. I

think it's our role as an Opposition in this House, and we all stand in our

place, even though we support a ban, we're not doing our job to get up and

applaud the government. This is wonderful. We think this ban is great. Sit down

again and vote in favour of it.

It's our

job in this House, especially on this side of the House, to bring out the

concerns because the concerns I'm raising are probably no different than what

the general public would be asking if they sat down, went through the same

briefings and read the same material as I read, that we've read. These are just

common sense questions, Mr. Speaker. These are concerns everyone has.

There

are a lot of what-abouts, what-ifs, when, how, why, where and how much? We don't

know anything. All we know is it's going to be implemented, it's going to be put

into subsection 111(1) of the

Environmental Protection Act , it's going to be amended and it's going to be

adding: “prohibiting the sale and distribution of plastic retail bags” – this is

the bill now – “and respecting exceptions to the prohibition of the sale and

distribution of plastic retails bags.”

Those

are the exemptions, that's one part of it that we don't have a clue what's being

exempt other than you can read, I guess, there maybe some tips here. I know in

our briefing yesterday officials referenced some of these exemptions that's

already in the PEI legislation. Will there be more? Will there be less? Will

there be any? Cabinet will decide. The public will be told after the fact.

Are we

doing any more consultations? Highly unlikely because they've done all that, but

did they consult, did they reach out to some of these other groups, some of

those communities groups to offer some alternatives?

My point

of the fees is people are going to tie it back to the community groups. Right

now, when you go to the supermarket and you get your plastic bag, you bring home

your groceries, you throw them in the cupboard, whatever you're doing with these

bags. You can bring them down to the farmer. I've given them to farmers because

I have farmers all around me. I live on a road where it's all agriculture where

I live. I give them to farmers. You can give them to the local flea markets or

community groups, you can give them to the food bank.

Now,

when they're going to be recycled and taken out of supply, eventually, we're

going to be replaced with these paper bags that we're going to have to pay for.

So, is that going to be an added cost to those people, especially if you look at

a food bank and small community groups because no longer are you going to be

recycling and giving them away, because most of these paper bags it would

probably be hard to reuse them anyway.

So, I'm

a bit at a loss, and most of them are biodegradable, they'll be probably burnt

in fires for the most part, unlike plastic, and they're less hazardous to our

landfills.

When I

say about the fee, what about those groups? That may seem small to some and it

may seem a minor issue to a lot, but if you live in my district, I'm sure many

other districts, and probably your own, Mr. Speaker, that means something to a

lot of those groups. That's when I come back sometimes, that's the little

issues, that's what matters.

When I

go out, when you walk around probably in the near future, we'll all be out

beating on doors and talking to individuals, those are the types of questions

you get. It's very seldom you ever get the high-level conversations. They're few

and far between.

I always

say it, and my colleagues can agree with this one, my favourite words amongst my

crowd are: the bread and butter issues. It's what matters to people. These are

the sorts of things that matter. You don't have to be an environmentalist. You

could probably be the worst environmentalist ever, but you can't deny that

plastic bags are bad for the environment. I totally get that, and I've always

been against – I've always supported a ban, but the public deserves better, the

general public deserves to know a lot more answers than what they're getting in

this piece of legislation. It's a pretty vague piece of legislation and to say

that it's a check-in-the-box exercise, that's an understatement. That's exactly

what it was.

Now,

things changed in a three-week period, from I need consultations, to I love

consultations, to there's your legislation. I think everyone was like, really,

where's this coming from? But when I got the legislation, I realized what was

going on. I realized we have an election in the near future and it must be

already in the red book that we ban the bags because that's the only reason I

could see.

Forget

me, forget the Opposition –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

You can forget me and forget

the Opposition piece of this, Mr. Speaker, the general public deserves – the

general public are the ones here, they're the ones who put all of these people

in this House. They deserve answers.

I rose

to ask the questions, to debate legislation, debate these bills, to highlight

the flaws or the weakness or the shortcomings. That's all we're doing. We

support a ban. I hear some heckling and all that. We were calling out for this

ban before the government opposite were willing to do anything about it. They

consulted and they consulted and they consulted. We were the ones asking for

that.

The

minister loves consulting. They like developing plans and they like getting

studies done. That's what a lot of these Members opposite do.

A few

weeks down the road there's going to be another consultation, it's going to be

called a general election and everyone is going to get to consult then, Mr.

Speaker. That will be the true consultation. That's the true consultation.

That's when people get out and show their real feelings.

We'll

wait and the jury will decide. The jury's out on this one, Mr. Speaker. I just

want to caution the government that it's fine to bring in legislation – it's

fine to bring in any piece of legislation you please. This is not a bad piece of

legislation, technically, when you look at banning of plastic bags. But when you

have nothing more than two lines and one little explanatory note, and all the

while all these groups have been out there and you had over 3,000 submissions,

people wanted this bag ban – and we know there is more to it. This is PEI's

legislation. We know there is a lot more to this bill than what we're seeing

here. None of this is here. All this here is regulations. We're going to get

them by and by, down the road.

Again,

we don't know the date. No one knows the date. Think about that. You're bringing

in a ban, but you don't know when you're going to do it.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

And no details.

MR. PETTEN:

And no details, exactly. They

come in the regulations, but we don't know when that's coming because we don't

know when it's going to be implemented. We don't know what it's going to cost to

consumers. We don't know what it's going to cost store owners. We don't know

what impact it's going to have. We don't know how it's going to affect the

landfills. We don't know. But do you know what? We're banning the bag because

it's in the red book; it's called check the box – exactly what's going on.

They can

laugh, they can do whatever on the other side, Mr. Speaker, but that's the

statement that I'll stand by because that's exactly what this is. We're up here

debating a piece of legislation that, technically, other than I saw the

opportunity to get up and do some exploratory conversation on the flaws, one

minute you can get up and talk about this piece of legislation because there's

nothing to it.

Yeah,

we're banning the bag. That's it.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

When?

MR. PETTEN:

We don't know. The retailers

are saying: How much is this going to cost us? We don't know. What's going to be

acceptable and what's not in the size of the bag? We don't know. What exemption?

No idea. Will this be exempt? We don't know, but we're banning the bag. Well,

that's good to know.

You can

go on with this forever, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going wrap up and I'm just going

remind the government that before they get – I can go a long while yet,

Minister. Lots of time on the clock, Minister. I can go for a long time. Trust

me, I can go for another 40 minutes, no problem, but I have other colleagues of

mine who have been supporting this legislation who want to speak on it.

I have

lots of questions for Committee too, but be fair to the people of this province

and tell them, you're bringing in this legislation, be more respectful. Because

do you know what? People are not blind, people understand. We have a very smart

population in Newfoundland and Labrador and they see through this foolishness.

Yes, they'd like a ban, but they'd also, like me and everyone over here, we'd

like details.

Thanks

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Fogo

Island - Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure

to stand today and speak on Bill 1. Although I just listened to the Member for

CBS and I'm not so sure if he's in favour of banning the bag or beat the bag to

death. I'm not so sure –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG:

– where he's going to go with the bag.

I could

picture him as the Littlest Hobo with the stick on his back and the little bag,

going picking up bags.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, that was all

over the globe. Pardon the pun, but that was certainly all over the globe. He

must have been up all night practising that speech. And he's right, it is not a

lot in the bill because we have to start somewhere. We need legislation and the

legislation says “prohibiting the sale and distribution of plastic retail bags.”

Now,

from that the Member opposite went to nan-and-pop stores, to the farmers'

markets, went all up and down the coast. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you ever

drove through Central Newfoundland, you'll go up on a place Joey's Lookout, and

in Joey's Lookout there's a farmer there every year in season. I'm yet to see a

reusable bag. I'm yet to see one with a major distributor wrote on the side of

it, whether it be a grocery retailer or anybody else. He uses bags that are of

the quality to put the vegetables in, every time I've been there.

And yes,

Mr. Speaker, everybody who knows me, when this was introduced over in our

department I was probably the one who went wait, I am the bayman of baymen. I

got a use for each one of those bags. I've never thrown a bag in the garbage

until there's nothing left to the bag. And that's no kidding, Mr. Speaker. But

also, I live on an island and I walk around the shoreline every single year.

Around the shoreline it is littered with plastic bags. Now, not only plastic

bags but there are plastic bags everywhere. And I'll put it to anybody who's

ever been out in the ocean as a fisherman or a recreational boat user and got

one of those plastic bags wrapped around the tail of their motor, you just lost

yourself $10,000 for what was – as one of the stores sells it – a 5-cent plastic

bag.

So, the

marine species we worry about. I joked and said on our coast we don't see a lot

of whales come ashore filled with plastic bags. We have 500,000 people, Mr.

Speaker. There're all not going out to the shoreline and tossing a bag

overboard. But in parts of the world the bags are everywhere. If we do our part,

if we are the first ones – and if you can convince someone like me that banning

the bags is great thing – you won't convince everybody, Mr. Speaker; it's not

possible.

AN HON. MEMBER:

You are a believer.

MR. BRAGG:

I've gone to the other side

on the plastic bags. I actually now, if I go into the nan-and-pop store, if I

have an item that doesn't need a bag, I don't ask for a bag. I don't need

another bag generated to go into the landfill, because ultimately that's where

most go. And to be fair, if we look at our roadsides now, it's not all plastic

bags, but the plastic bags are the most obvious one. The minister had one in his

tree for five or six years. My wife would've killed me if it was in the tree for

five or six years. But the minister got a good wife.

So the

bags, the Member opposite can complicate it to death, he can throw all the

scenarios at it. Everybody that I talk to, everybody – because I ask, as the

minister would know, I'll go to the grocery store and I'll do my own mental

survey of how many people use the reusable bag. I'll do it in the corner store

at home; I'll do it at the gas station and just see how many people. More often

than not now you'll see people with reusable bags. I'm a bit of a germophobe. My

concern with the reusable bags is getting people to wash out their reusable bag,

because after a while it's going to get grubby like anything else. So yes, it's

something we have to educate ourselves to.

Only a

couple of nights ago my aunt was up to my place – she's in her early 70s – and

she said, I'm not going to buy bags yet, I'm going to make my own out of jeans

and I'm going to make them nice and strong. People will make the initiative to

do a lot of things. Initially when we take care of the plastic bag – and no, you

can't do it today and take them out tomorrow. We all know that that can't be

done. It's going to take a transition time, because people have to adapt.

Everybody that you talk to – and as the Member opposite called it, his

bread-and-butter issue. That's not a big bread-and-butter issue, because most

households that you'll go to will find a way. They'll do something else. You'll

get away from using that bag. You'll use other things; you'll reuse it. I joked

and said I would use a milk carton, just because I could store it in the trunk

of the car a lot easier. But there will be people come up with some pretty

ingenious other ideas, whether it be a basket or whatever the case might be, Mr.

Speaker.

But the will is there. And the consultations were done. The

Member opposite said what did we ask people for, why are we rushing it, and then

why do it so fast. So he was on opposite ends of the spectrum of where he wanted

us to be. But when 2,845 people actually do a questionnaire – there were, I

think, a couple of hundred more, Minister, that did emails and phone-ins ?

You have 70 per cent of the people, almost 80 per cent of the people, support

it. That's a great majority. You're never going to do anything to get 100 per

cent of the people to support it, but 100 per cent of the people realize by

throwing plastic bags out through, I don't know, if you're out in his boat or in

the wilderness or wherever, anywhere besides in a wastebasket is wrong,

everybody knows that.

Mr.

Speaker, you can't convince everybody. I drive four hours every week home and

four hours back to here. Each one of those trips, I don't see as many plastic

bags on the road, but I see coffee cups on the road, I see wrappers from other

things on the road. We just need to educate the people; you're stopping for gas,

take your things out of your cupholder, put them in a trash bin. You don't need

to throw things out the window.

So, the

plastic bag, to me, is a great way to start. It's the most visible thing. It's

everywhere. There are other things, I'm sure, as time goes, and you may say the

devil's in the detail, but if you just look at it this way: If you can take

those plastic bags out of the waste stream, out of the ocean, off the sides of

the road, anywhere in our environment, you're not doing a bad thing. You're

certainly doing something for this province.

Here we

are, we're at the eastern most tip, PEI has already implemented it and bringing

it in. If we could be, us and PEI, the ones to sweep right across the country

with a plastic bag ban, for the retail plastic bag ban, what a great thing, what

a great way to go down in history, to say we were a part of taking care of the

plastic bags.

Again,

when it came back, some of the many uses was for your boots, to put in your

boot. Now, that sounds to most people: What? Who would put a plastic bag in

their boot?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. BRAGG:

Exactly. Anybody who has ever

put their foot in a puddle of water, needed a plastic bag thereafter.

Mr.

Speaker, let me tell you a little story. When we used to go out at the seal

fishery, my brother and I would always put plastic bags in our boots. We didn't

do it because we thought our feet were going to get wet because we were in the

boat, but if we ever fell overboard the plastic bag helped them big green boots

slip off nice and easy. So it was a safety feature for us many years ago, Mr.

Speaker.

So,

don't tell me about the many uses of plastic bags because I could tell you some

now that you would really go: Wow. Whether that means now I'm going to have to

use bread bags or not, I'm not sure, but the plastic bag use will certainly – in

a years time, there will be people who'll have plastic bags in their garage and

in their shed. There won't be many under the kitchen sink like most people now.

Under the kitchen sink, you open up the door, you don't know where the soap suds

is, Mr. Speaker, because the bags are coming out at you. Right?

There

are people with four-inch sewer pipes with little holes poked in them, Mr.

Speaker, made all the little craft and artsy little things out of them. Granted,

that won't be there anymore, but just think about it, Mr. Speaker, that bag will

be out of us.

Everything takes generations to grow out of. If you go back two years ago – and

I'll go back to throwing things out the window. Years ago you were afraid to

drive down the highway, you were dodging back and forth because you didn't know

what was coming out the window at you.

Although

you see it now, if you look at the volume of traffic, Mr. Speaker, you probably

got less than 1 per cent of the population now that actually would roll down

their window and throw out something.

AN HON. MEMBER:

You only have to look in the

back seat of my car.

MR. BRAGG:

The minister opposite is

telling me about the back seat of his car, and I can vouch for that, Mr.

Speaker, because I was in it today. I had to go to the dry cleaners afterwards.

That man throws away nothing; absolutely.

I've

often heard it said a clean car is a sign of a sick mind. He's got a great mind,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, back to the bags. The banning of the bags is a great thing. I'll say as

I did in the beginning, if you can convince me, the banning of the bags with the

multiple uses that I've had for these bags over the years is a great thing, you

won't get 100 per cent, but if you don't do 90 per cent I'll be so surprised.

Yes,

you're going to have a few people that are going to be naysayers but you're

going to get that regardless. I think our move to bring in this legislation to

ban the bags, the retail plastic bags, the shopping ones, the little ones that

sometimes you get your groceries in, sometimes you don't, when they're gone,

when you get them out of your house or out of your sheds and wherever else you

might have them and you move on to your reusable bags, I think, Mr. Speaker,

we'll have a much safer, cleaner environment for the birds and for the fish.

Again,

like I said, anybody who's had an outboard motor and wrapped a bag around it,

they know the cost of that bag for that time and a danger to somebody's life.

So, if we can clean up our oceans, our environment, our ponds, lakes and streams

by banning this bag, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind going on the record by saying I

support banning this bag 100 per cent and bar none. I know I'll take some heat

for that because I know there are lots of people like me, but I think it's the

best for this environment and the best for this province. Mr. Speaker, I would

hope that we would get unanimous support for this Bill 1.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm very

happy, as well, to stand and to speak to Bill 1, the first bill in this new

session, this sitting,

An Act to Amend the Environmental Protection Act. As my

colleagues on this side of the House have said, there are some details that we

do not know, when this will be in effect. We don't know about fees and how much.

However, Mr. Speaker, in principle, I fully support this bill.

I think

it's really interesting to note that we've already seen in our province the

banning of plastic bags, of retail bags in Nain, Rigolet, Hopedale, Makkovik,

Twillingate and Fogo Island. How fabulous is that, they have been leaders. They

have led us in this initiative.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. ROGERS:

What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. ROGERS:

Small Point-Adam's Cove and

Broad Cove all just banned plastic bags as well, and this is at the point of

sales, so retail bags.

Mr.

Speaker, my partner and I – I just want to disclose this – own two stores

downtown on Water Street, called The Travel Bug and the other one called The

Bee's Knees. The Bee's Knees is a store that we did out of social activism

because it's a store that retails ethical products, recyclables, recycled,

upcycled. We do not use plastic bags, we use paper bags when necessary, but also

use the Boomerang Bags. I don't know if people have heard about Boomerang Bags

but Boomerang Bags is a project that was started by a few people here in St.

John's. It comes from Australia. People get together, they get recycled fabric

and they make bags, they sew bags together.

They

distribute them to stores all over downtown. So when you buy something at a

store and they have a Boomerang Bag, they give you the bag, you put your stuff

in that bag and then the hope is that you will either return that bag to the

store where you bought things or you'll return to another store who also is part

of the Boomerang Bag movement.

It's

recycling material, it's a community initiative. Kids are involv